Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[johnny karate]

I'm giving serious consideration to boycotting the work of every single person that signed the petition in support of Polanski. Luckily, the wide variety of product offered by the entertainment industry makes it so as a consumer I have ample choice other than that made by child rapist sympathizers.

Anyone aware of any such ongoing campaign or petition?

 

[Pardalis]

I will still go see the next Scorsese movie, no matter what he says or who he supports, and Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby are still in my top ten favorite movies.

No need to confuse these people's work and their opinions, no need to boycott them.

 

[DropGems]

I haven't said much since I started this thread but I agree with those who say he should pay for his crime. He was stupid enough to continually go to a country with US extradition and he got caught so he should face the consequences. The Hollywood "he's brilliant" defense is hilarious. Woody Allen (one of my fav directors btw) publically supporting him is a nice touch though. Boycotting his flicks is pointless. Cul-De-Sac is his best movie imo but there's several others that I rank very highly. I also love "The Ninth Gate" despite the haters in this thread.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out now that France is dropping much of their Polanski support.

 

[johnny karate]

I will still go see the next Scorsese movie, no matter what he says or who he supports, and Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby are still in my top ten favorite movies.

No need to confuse these people's work and their opinions, no need to boycott them.

It certainly wouldn't be an easy decision, and truth be told, the idea is being fueled by fresh outrage. Over time, I might back off it a bit.

But I think this argument of separating the art from the artist is a bit of a cop out, especially when considering the commerce-driven film industry. Wagner was an anti-Semite and Picasso was a son of bitch, but time and the nature of their work make it so I don't have to hand them my money to appreciate their art. There is a much more direct, and financially-based, relationship between the audience and a filmmaker.

The bottom line is, regardless of their artistic merit, movies are ultimately a product, and as a consumer, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to choose not to purchase a product made by someone who I find morally reprehensible.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm giving serious consideration to boycotting the work of every single person that signed the petition in support of Polanski. Luckily, the wide variety of product offered by the entertainment industry makes it so as a consumer I have ample choice other than that made by child rapist sympathizers.

Anyone aware of any such ongoing campaign or petition?

While you do have Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen supporting Ponanski, there have been at least a few celebreties that have been a bit more, well, rational:

From: http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/b146736_kirstie_alley_on_roman_polanski_dont.html
Kirstie Alley on Roman Polanski: Don't Celebrate or Defend Him, Hollywood!
...
we are NOT in the barter business of trading BRILLIANT movies in exchange for heinous crimes against children..NOT the point. NOT HOLLYWOOD


From: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009308.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
But not everyone is backing Polanski. The Directors Guild of America has so far declined to comment on Polanski's arrest. And Luc Besson, who considers Polanski a friend, said the director should return to the U.S. and pay the penalty for his crime.

Something else of interest: One of the claims people make to defend Ponanski is the suggestion that one of the prosecutors (Wells) 'instructed' the judge on what to do. (This was based on the "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" documentary.) However, it turns out that Wells actually lied during the documentary.

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/full/
...Polanski’s grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that “I lied” in the movie about advising the judge, and that “it never happened,” which could undermine the director’s case for dismissal.

Wells’ excuse for lying in the movie? “The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”

 

[Pardalis]

Great, the only rational voice in hollywood is a Scientologist...

Anyone else please?

 

[madurobob]

It certainly wouldn't be an easy decision, and truth be told, the idea is being fueled by fresh outrage. Over time, I might back off it a bit.

But I think this argument of separating the art from the artist is a bit of a cop out, especially when considering the commerce-driven film industry. Wagner was an anti-Semite and Picasso was a son of bitch, but time and the nature of their work make it so I don't have to hand them my money to appreciate their art. There is a much more direct, and financially-based, relationship between the audience and a filmmaker.

The bottom line is, regardless of their artistic merit, movies are ultimately a product, and as a consumer, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to choose not to purchase a product made by someone who I find morally reprehensible.

That's perfectly sensible. While its easy enough to separate art from artiste, approving of one and not the other, that becomes a bit more difficult when you have to pay the artist to experience the art. I, for one, would forgo the art if I had a real problem with the artist.

I also have no doubt there are several lists of "rapist apologists in Hollywood" being compiled right now by the usual liberal Hollywood bashing suspects. This time they may have a point.

 

[Vortigern99]

What are we to make of the victim's opinion that "Polanski has paid for his crimes" and that the US should pardon him? Is this a mitigating factor at all, if not legally, then at least in terms of public opinion?

What of the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, which is a preference for pubescent youths rather than pre-pubescent children? Excoriating Polanski for pedophilia ignores that there are physiological, psychological, medical and legal distinctions between pre- and post-pubescent minors, and between the crimes of pedophilia and hebephilia. Aren't these mitigating factors as well?

What, too, of the facts that in 1976 Polanski served 40+ days of incarceration for the charges, that he has been banished from the global center of his profession for 30+ years (which surely counts as some degree pf punishment), and that the presiding judge in 1976 was demonstrably guilty of numerous acts of judicial misconduct?

He's already suffered punishment, has small chance of recidivism at 76 years of age, and the victim has called for his pardon. Taken altogether, and weighed against the seriousness of the crime itself (drug-influenced rape of a pubescent minor) I for one am inclined to let Polanski go free.

 

[WildCat]

What, too, of the facts that in 1976 Polanski served 40+ days of incarceration for the charges,

He can have that deducted from his sentence.

that he has been banished from the global center of his profession for 30+ years (which surely counts as some degree pf punishment),

Nope, he ran away. He certainly wasn't banished. In fact, they'd like him to return.

and that the presiding judge in 1976 was demonstrably guilty of numerous acts of judicial misconduct?

Evidence?

He's already suffered punishment,

Nope, he ran away from his punishment.

 

[dudalb]

What of the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, which is a preference for pubescent youths rather than pre-pubescent children? Excoriating Polanski for pedophilia ignores that there are physiological, psychological, medical and legal distinctions between pre- and post-pubescent minors, and between the crimes of pedophilia and hebephilia. Aren't these mitigating factors as well?

No. I am a little tired of people bringing up psychological theories to try to get people off the hook.
The thing is I can probably find must as many reputable psychologists who will say the above theory is totally wrong. Sounds like excuse making to me.

 

[dudalb]

He can have that deducted from his sentence.


Nope, he ran away. He certainly wasn't banished. In fact, they'd like him to return.


Evidence?


Nope, he ran away from his punishment.

The "Evidence" is probably that documentary about the Polanski case which is, frankly, hopelessly biased in favor of Polanski.

 

[Ziggurat]

What are we to make of the victim's opinion that "Polanski has paid for his crimes" and that the US should pardon him?

Nothing. Why should we? Should we permit rapists to escape justice if only they can successfully bribe their victims? No. A crime was committed. The state needs justice, even if the victim claims she doesn't.

What of the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia

What of it? The crime was rape, the distinction you make is irrelevant to the crime.

What, too, of the facts that in 1976 Polanski served 40+ days of incarceration for the charges

When he receives his sentence, that can be included as time served. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

that he has been banished from the global center of his profession for 30+ years

He was not banished. He fled justice. That was his choice, an illegal choice, and the consequences for that choice are entirely upon his head.

and that the presiding judge in 1976 was demonstrably guilty of numerous acts of judicial misconduct?

That's what the appeals process is for.

He's already suffered punishment

No, he has not.

 

[Segnosaur]

What are we to make of the victim's opinion that "Polanski has paid for his crimes" and that the US should pardon him? Is this a mitigating factor at all, if not legally, then at least in terms of public opinion?

It shouldn't really be important.

If we base the decision to pardon people based on what the victims want, then we run the risk of having situations where a victim can be unduely influenced by money (thus giving wealthy people MORE of an advantage than they already have), threats/fear, or general insecurity. Rape is wrong, regardless of who the victim was, if they are mentally able to handle it or not, or whether the perp is rich enough to bribe the victim.

What of the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, which is a preference for pubescent youths rather than pre-pubescent children? Excoriating Polanski for pedophilia ignores that there are physiological, psychological, medical and legal distinctions between pre- and post-pubescent minors, and between the crimes of pedophilia and hebephilia. Aren't these mitigating factors as well?

Nope, not at all. Even if there is a difference between pre- and post-pubescent minors, the important distinction is that there are also differences between post-pubescent minors and fully grown adults, both in bilology, life experiences, etc.

What, too, of the facts that in 1976 Polanski served 40+ days of incarceration for the charges...,

Well, there are 2 possibilities...

If Polanski was going to (or does) get sentenced to a long prision term, then 40+ days is pretty minor compared the the rest of the sentence.

If Ponanski gets sentenced to a very short sentence, then he really doesn't end up spending much time in jail at all (heck, he might even get sentenced to 'time serve'.)

... that he has been banished from the global center of his profession for 30+ years (which surely counts as some degree pf punishment),

Many individuals in the enterainment industry do not live or work in the hollywood area. And while I'm sure he would have liked to have had the opportunity to travel to the U.S., Polanski still was able to find work after he fled. This is a guy that has multiple houses in Europe, who has probably earned millions of dollars in the past couple of decades. If that's punishment, then where do I apply for my own 'punishment'?

and that the presiding judge in 1976 was demonstrably guilty of numerous acts of judicial misconduct?

First of all, I believe the most serious act of misconduct was ex parte communications with one of the prosecutors. However, as I have already pointed out, the prosecutor that initially made that claim has since RENOUNCED some of his statements.

Secondly, even if there were acts of misconduct, we won't know, because we never actually got to the sentencing. And even if there WERE sentencing problems, the time to handle that is through the appeals process.

He's already suffered punishment, has small chance of recidivism at 76 years of age...

So? We continue to prosecute nazi war criminals even though there's little risk of them starting up the holocaust again. (Not that I'm trying to belittle the holocaust. Genocide is a more serious crime, but rape of a child shouldn't be taken lightly either.

 

[Segnosaur]

The "Evidence" is probably that documentary about the Polanski case which is, frankly, hopelessly biased in favor of Polanski.

Not only biased, but based on incorrect information.

As I've aready posted:

Polanski’s grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that “I lied” in the movie about advising the judge, and that “it never happened,” which could undermine the director’s case for dismissal. Wells’ excuse for lying in the movie? “The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/full/

 

[Skeptic Guy]

(SNIP) Taken altogether, and weighed against the seriousness of the crime itself (drug-influenced rape of a pubescent minor) I for one am inclined to let Polanski go free.

Am I to understand that you consider 'drug-influenced rape of a pubescent minor' no significant enough for punishment?

And what punishment has he suffered to date? He's been able to continue his career as a major director and, in fact, has won an Oscar for one of his films. Too bad he is a wanted criminal or he might have been able to pick it up.

 

[Vortigern99]

He can have that deducted from his sentence.

Nope, he ran away. He certainly wasn't banished. In fact, they'd like him to return.

Evidence?

Nope, he ran away from his punishment.

Fair enough on the sentence deduction. I expect the current prosecution will take it into account, for whatever it's worth.

When I use the word "banish" it's due to a lack of linguistic specificity on my part. Is "voluntary exile owing to fear of unjust prosecution" a better way of phrasing it?

Polanski fled the US in part because the presiding judge reneged on a legally binding promise that was contingent on Polanski's guilty plea. In short, Polanski believed he was being deprived of due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Whether he was or not, I cannot presume to adjudge, but my point is the case is far more complicated than "Polanski raped a child and then fled the country", which is a black-and-white reducto ad aburdium.

The evidence, as dudalb notes, is in the recent documentary, and you can find discussion and explanation of it all over the Net. I don't pretend to know all the facts, nor do I know the extent to which these assertions regarding judicial corruption are valid. I'm willing to read and consider all opposing viewpoints. But if the allegations against the presiding judge are legitimate, it complicates the case, and IMO favors Polanski's flight and self-imposed exile from the US.

No. I am a little tired of people bringing up psychological theories to try to get people off the hook.
The thing is I can probably find must as many reputable psychologists who will say the above theory is totally wrong. Sounds like excuse making to me.

The "Evidence" is probably that documentary about the Polanski case which is, frankly, hopelessly biased in favor of Polanski.

Please don't get angry and moral high-horse-y with me. I have an opinion that is based on my own life experiences and education, and I am open to changing that opinion if I see the moral/ethical/legal superiority of your position.

I don't feel that I fall into your category of "people bringing up psychological theories to try to get people off the hook". The distinction between pre- and post-pubescence is medical and biological; it is not a "theory" in the sense of a hypothesis or unsubstantiated guess, nor is it a psychological condition that is in any way arguable or contestable.

I cannot imagine that you need me to explain the distinction in any detail. But let me ask you: What psychologist, of any degree of reputability, would contradict the known and studied phenomenon of human sexual maturity and pubescence? I don't see where you're headed with such a foolish and demonstrably false claim.

Or have I musunderstood you when you said "I can probably find must as many reputable psychologists who will say the above theory is totally wrong."? What "theory" are you talking about?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Great, the only rational voice in hollywood is a Scientologist...

Anyone else please?

I just thought the same thing.

And Whoopi Goldberg, with her asanine comments on The View that it wasn't 'rape-rape', it was only 'rape' really was over the top. She then tried to defend herself in saying that was he pled to was not rape. However, she ignors the testimony and the fact that it was a plea bargain that he was only allowed because he was a person of note.

 

[WildCat]

The evidence, as dudalb notes, is in the recent documentary, and you can find discussion and explanation of it all over the Net. I don't pretend to know all the facts, nor do I know the extent to which these assertions regarding judicial corruption are valid. I'm willing to read and consider all opposing viewpoints. But if the allegations against the presiding judge are legitimate, it complicates the case, and IMO favors Polanski's flight and self-imposed exile from the US.

Since I don't want to look "all over the net" for this, and you brought it up, could you provide some evidence for your claim?

 

[Segnosaur]

Polanski fled the US in part because the presiding judge reneged on a legally binding promise that was contingent on Polanski's guilty plea.

Actually, no.

First of all, we never got to the sentencing portion, so we don't know exactly WHAT the judge was going to sentence Polanski to. He could have end up in jail for years, or he could have ended up with time served... at this point, we don't know.

Secondly, whenever you have a plea bargin, there are NO guarantees about what the final sentence will be.

In short, Polanski believed he was being deprived of due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

What POLANSKI believes is irrelevant. It is up to the courts and the entire judicial system to decide if and when a person's constitional rights are being protected.

Whether he was or not, I cannot presume to adjudge, but my point is the case is far more complicated than "Polanski raped a child and then fled the country", which is a black-and-white reducto ad aburdium.

Well, it is a pretty accurate statement... he DID rape a child (13 years old is considered a child in the jurisdiction), and he did flee the country. Yeah, it leaves out a lot of details, but it turns out many of those details are pretty irrelevant.

The evidence, as dudalb notes, is in the recent documentary, and you can find discussion and explanation of it all over the Net.

I've already pointed out THREE TIMES in this thread... that documentary is based, at least in part, on incorrect facts. One of the people interviewed in the documentary has since admitted that his statements were lies.

I'm willing to read and consider all opposing viewpoints. But if the allegations against the presiding judge are legitimate, it complicates the case, and IMO favors Polanski's flight and self-imposed exile from the US.

The allegations of misconduct did not involve the verdict, but only the sentence, and if there are problems with the case, they should be handled through the appeals process.

I don't feel that I fall into your category of "people bringing up psychological theories to try to get people off the hook". The distinction between pre- and post-pubescence is medical and biological;

And, as I've stated, there is also a difference between post-pubescence and full-fledged adulthood. It is THOSE differences that need to be addressed, not the differences between pre- and post-pubescence.

 

[Pardalis]

What of the distinction between pedophilia and hebephilia, which is a preference for pubescent youths rather than pre-pubescent children?

the distinction doesn't matter here, unwanted sex is rape.

That he has been banished from the global center of his profession for 30+ years (which surely counts as some degree pf punishment)

He couldn't make movies in Hollywood, but he sure was able to work and make movies during that time, he even won an Oscar. He couldn't work in Hollywood, so Hollywood came to him.

Besides, not being able to make movies in Hollywood is not really a punishment. Directors have alot more freedom outside the system.

He's already suffered punishment

No.

has small chance of recidivism at 76 years of age, and the victim has called for his pardon.

Doesn't matter, he fled justice. This is a crime in and of itself. Letting him go free would give a bad message that it's OK to leave the country when one is being prosecuted for a crime.