Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[jimbob]

I know that. I am just saying that, even if she had given her consent, it wouldn't have been informed consent.

I posted that because of the suggestion made by others that she might have consented.

Oh, I agree, but in arguing about this case there isn't even the fig-leaf of uninformed consent.

If she had said yes, it would have (rightly) been statutory rape.

If she had been 23, it would still have been rape.

If she had been 23 and still said yes, given that she had been plied with drink and drugs, there could still be a case for something akin to date-rape.

ETA:

The disparity in age and power mean that this is clear cut, unlike say a situation where the girl is 13 and her boyfriend is no more than a couple of years older. Where although there might still be a legal case, and which is not ideal, both parties could think there was consent.

 

[Checkmite]

Making your child rape victim have to sue to try and collect the settlement you agreed to pay after fleeing criminal responsibility.

Now there's class.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/ap_on_en_mo/us_polanski_settlement_7

Lovely.

I suppose the suit filed in 1993 will somehow prove to some that the girl's original rape complaint in the 70's was driven by greed.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is often true in these situations. There are additional facts that must be considered though -- information that is available to us now, after the fact.

• We know he plead guilty to unlawful sex (aka rape)
• We know it's typical that plea bargains are for lesser charges than the crime(s) committed
• We know he settled a lawsuit with the victim
• Polanski doesn't deny boozing/drugging the girl; he doesn't rebut her at all so far as I know
• Her word gains credence by the fact that she sticks to her story yet she's not trying to profit; not grinding an axe

Would I convict him of greater charges based on this? No. Is it enough to form an operating assumption? I think so.

Let me ask: if she had been 18 at the time, would you, given the information you have now, as part of the jury, vote guilty or not guilty on the charge of rape?

Personally, I would like to hear what doubt you have that could be considered reasonable? I haven't seen any provided yet. No, Kevin Lowe's argument that her testimony is not reliable because Polanski has not confirmed it is not reasonable reason for doubt at all (the claim boils down to: "the defendent has not admitted guilt, so we can't know for sure that the accuser is telling the truth." (if it happened as she described, there is no question at all that it was rape). If that is the standard, then no defendent could ever be convicted. "How do we know, Mr Lowe, that your house was burglarized by this man? He has never admitted that he did it. Thus, he is acquitted on the grounds that you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt")

So what are the reasons to doubt her description of the events?

 

[applecorped]

She enjoyed the movie Lolita?

 

[RandFan]

Let me ask: if she had been 18 at the time, would you, given the information you have now, as part of the jury, vote guilty or not guilty on the charge of rape?

Age aside for the moment, IMO: Polanski crossed a clear line of impropriety and illegality. I find little in the way of mitigating circumstance.

Given the age, I do think that the notion of consent should be legally unobtainable from a thirteen year old.

Personally, I would like to hear what doubt you have that could be considered reasonable? I haven't seen any provided yet. No, Kevin Lowe's argument that her testimony is not reliable because Polanski has not confirmed it is not reasonable reason for doubt at all (the claim boils down to: "the defendent has not admitted guilt, so we can't know for sure that the accuser is telling the truth." (if it happened as she described, there is no question at all that it was rape). If that is the standard, then no defendent could ever be convicted. "How do we know, Mr Lowe, that your house was burglarized by this man? He has never admitted that he did it. Thus, he is acquitted on the grounds that you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt")

So what are the reasons to doubt her description of the events?

I'm with Kevin, matters of law (from a legal perspective) require a trier of fact to look at all evidence without presupposition.

This does not mean that you can't form an opinion but it does mean that from a legal perspective Polanski (setting aside his plea for the sake of argument) is innocent.

 

[varwoche]

There are additional facts that must be considered though -- information that is available to us now, after the fact.

• We know he plead guilty to unlawful sex (aka rape)
• We know it's typical that plea bargains are for lesser charges than the crime(s) committed
• We know he settled a lawsuit with the victim
• Polanski doesn't deny boozing/drugging the girl; he doesn't rebut her at all so far as I know
• Her word gains credence by the fact that she sticks to her story yet she's not trying to profit; not grinding an axe

Would I convict him of greater charges based on this? No. Is it enough to form an operating assumption? I think so.

Filling out this list:

• Polanski is proven to have lied (at every point, until cornered by evidence)
• Her story was supported by the evidence
• If she was lying, she could have painted herself in a better light

It's a straightforward he said/she said scenario.

He: Proven rapist/liar
She: Version of events supported by evidence as to the facts that are proven

To call this a straight forward he said/she said -- implying a tossup -- is absurd, especially when combined with all the pseudo skeptical preaching.

 

[Skeptic]

Look, if someone defends Polanski by claiming that he is innocent -- that he was railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor, say -- that's one thing. I think the evidence is clear that he isn't innocent, but it at least isn't an inconsistent position.

But what annoys me is that it is the same people, the Hollywood folks, who sign up for every "end rape" / "take back the night" / "Republicans want women back in the kitchen" (etc.) gala, suddenly think rape -- and a sodomizing rape of a 13-year-old, at that -- isn't that bad, as long as it's someone like them who does it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Age aside for the moment, IMO: Polanski crossed a clear line of impropriety and illegality. I find little in the way of mitigating circumstance.

Given the age, I do think that the notion of consent should be legally unobtainable from a thirteen year old.

Can you actually answer the question please?

"If she had been 18 at the time, would you, given the information you have now, as part of a jury, vote guilty or not guilty on the charge of rape?"

If you would vote not guilty, then what would be your reasonable doubt?

I'm with Kevin, matters of law (from a legal perspective) require a trier of fact to look at all evidence without presupposition.t.

What presupposition?

I'm asking that if you were on a jury, and heard the evidence that you have heard, how would you vote? I am asking you to be a "trier of fact" based on the current information.

Among the evidence we have are testimonies
1) her grand jury testimony describing what she alleges to have happen
2) his admission that he had sex with her

Shoot, take out the 2nd, and leave it at that. We can add a couple of other pieces of information

2a) Her mother confirms that she dropped her off at the house
2b) a doctor confirms that she had, indeed, had sex

Again, assume she is 18, so take out the issue of whether she is able to consent. Say she is. However, her testimony is that she didn't, and he forced herself upon her. He does not testify.

If you vote to acquit, what is your basis for reasonable doubt?

Kevin Lowe thinks that the fact that he didn't admit to doing it is reasonable grounds to doubt her story. However, as I pointed out, if that is the case, then there is no way anyone could ever get convicted without an admission from the perp. That is not a reasonable standard in any way.

 

[pgwenthold]

Filling out this list:

• Polanski is proven to have lied (at every point, until cornered by evidence)
• Her story was supported by the evidence
• If she was lying, she could have painted herself in a better light

He: Proven rapist/liar
She: Version of events supported by evidence as to the facts that are proven

To call this a straight forward he said/she said -- implying a tossup -- is absurd, especially when combined with all the pseudo skeptical preaching.

Moreover, as I have pointed out a couple of times, he hasn't even denied doing it! True, he hasn't admitted it, but that it not the same as denying it.

A he said/she said scenerio would be something like:

She: I said no, but he forced himself on me
He: She never said no

That is not the case here. Here it is

She: I said no, but he forced himself on me
He: I had sex with her

This is what I am trying to get with my other posts. Where has he ever disputed her account? If he doesn't dispute her account, why should there be any reason to question it?

 

[RandFan]

To call this a straight forward he said/she said -- implying a tossup -- is absurd, especially when combined with all the pseudo skeptical preaching.

I've not read all of the posts in this thread. I would not at this moment consider this a he said she said case given what is in the public domain at the moment.

 

[RandFan]

Can you actually answer the question please?

I came into this discussion without reading all of the posts and with my own presuppositions. When the Larry Craig affair surfaced I defended him at that time (from a legal perspective) all the while admitting that based on the evidence thus far it seemed to me that he was guilty. I would say the same of Polanski.

I would like to think that if there was for some reason a new trial that I could set aside my assumptions and bias and consider all evidence and give Polanski a chance to respond to the evidence. Not all things are as they seem.

That said, if my position is not clear, knowing what I know now and assuming no exculpating evidence were presented I would vote to convict.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ysidro]

I would like to think that if there was for some reason a new trial that I could set aside my assumptions and bias and consider all evidence and give Polanski a chance to respond to the evidence. Not all things are as they seem.

No, but as far as I know he didn't even have a FIRST trial. There wouldn't be a now trial. Just THE trial. He agreed to plea bargain with the prosecutor but the judge never passed sentence. Am I wrong?

I just want him to have his day in court. If a judge has a good reason to let it go, then so be it. I'll read the decisions with interest and maybe even disagree but I won't go around calling for Polanski's blood. Heck, not doing that either.

Let him have his day in court that he ran from 31 years ago.

 

[Belz...]

This is getting boring now, not least because I've already made it very plain that not only do I think Polanski should be punished for what he did, but also quantified that punishment, which turns out to be the maximum he could get for what he pleaded guilty to. That so many posters keep ignoring that says more about their opinions than mine. I'll leave them to their reassuringly black-and-white view of the world.

Translation: "uh oh, I don't like the taste of my own foot in my mouth. Better go, now."

 

[Belz...]

Bottom line: I say he should get four years.

Meh. I think he should get a bit more, especially because he fled. Someone needs to set an exemple. Plus we need to explain to the "elite" that they are not immune to justice.

Thoughtcrime

Nope. Statement of fact. If you don't like the reaction of people to what you do, don't do it.

 

[Belz...]

I'm getting the feeling that what we're seeing in this thread is parallel to little kids wanting to imitate the big kids. We've got posters who've read a few impassioned articles emphasising the serious nature of what Polanski was accused of, and bashing the stupid pro-Polanski arguments that have come from Hollywood celebrities, and they want to get in on the fun. (I've got nothing against bashing such stupid arguments - low hanging fruit tastes good every now and then). So they run to the JREF forums to shout "Polanski's a rapist!" because that's what they've been reading and they want to have fun bashing stupid pro-Polanski arguments.

It might also have something to do with the fact that some people here are trying to make the crime appear less serious than it really is, and someone needs to speak out against that.

The teensy problem, which has been brought up repeatedly and ignored repeatedly, is that this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and Polanski has never been convicted of anything other than unlawful sex

Also known as "rape".

As such if you're claiming that you know Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of then you're just wrong

He's not guilty of fleeing justice ?

Sure if the girl's statement is completely accurate, or even mostly accurate with some important bits left out, Polanski is scum and he belongs behind bars. However you currently don't know that her statement is true.

Kevin, honestly I wonder if you're been deceptive, here. Polanski has ADMITTED to having sex with a minor. What ELSE is there to say ?

It's much more fun to assume Polanski is guilty of everything he's been accused of

Especially when the accused pleads guilty, eh ?

 

[varwoche]

Let me ask: if she had been 18 at the time, would you, given the information you have now, as part of the jury, vote guilty or not guilty on the charge of rape?

While I give more credence to her than him, I'm not sure I'd be able to cross the reasonable doubt threshhold. It's s tough call.

Personally, I would like to hear what doubt you have that could be considered reasonable?

I can't point to a specific. My doubt is inherent given two people in a closed room.

I haven't seen any provided yet. No, Kevin Lowe's argument that her testimony is not reliable because Polanski has not confirmed it is not reasonable reason for doubt at all (the claim boils down to: "the defendent has not admitted guilt, so we can't know for sure that the accuser is telling the truth." (if it happened as she described, there is no question at all that it was rape).

Totally agreed.

I watched the documentary today. (available online for netflix subscribers) She comes across as quite credible. He doesn't. I realize that my impressions don't count for much here on a skeptical forum, but as a juror this is part of the equation.

(He also lies flat out "I'm innocent" so it's not just a matter of impressions.)

If that is the standard, then no defendent could ever be convicted.

Yes, that's the dilemna.

She: I said no, but he forced himself on me
He: I had sex with her

This is what I am trying to get with my other posts. Where has he ever disputed her account? If he doesn't dispute her account, why should there be any reason to question it?

I think he's on record saying it was consentual. Then again, he's also on record proclaiming outright innocence, until her stained underwear emerged as evidence.

 

[Belz...]

This, by the way, is a case in point. The poster made nothing like the claim that "Polanski shouldn't have gotten in trouble at all." The only point the poster was making was that just because we know Polanski to be guilty of unlawful sex with a minor DOES NOT MEAN that every single claim made by the girl in her grand jury testimony is thereby rendered holy writ, unshakable and unquestionable.

Well, then. It's a good thing that no one is saying that, isn't it ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But what annoys me is that it is the same people, the Hollywood folks, who sign up for every "end rape" / "take back the night" / "Republicans want women back in the kitchen" (etc.) gala, suddenly think rape…isn't that bad, as long as it's someone like them who does it.

It occurs to me that this paragraph could be about Bill Clinton almost as easily as it could be about Roman Polanski.

 

[Belz...]

I came into this discussion without reading all of the posts and with my own presuppositions. When the Larry Craig affair surfaced I defended him at that time (from a legal perspective) all the while admitting that based on the evidence thus far it seemed to me that he was guilty. I would say the same of Polanski.

I would like to think that if there was for some reason a new trial that I could set aside my assumptions and bias and consider all evidence and give Polanski a chance to respond to the evidence. Not all things are as they seem.

That said, if my position is not clear, knowing what I know now and assuming no exculpating evidence were presented I would vote to convict.

I hope that helps.

Damn you, Randfan!! Damn you and your convincing level-headedness!!

 

[varwoche]

It occurs to me that this paragraph could be about Bill Clinton almost as easily as it could be about Roman Polanski.

In respect to the thread I'm not going to rebut this inanity in detail, other than to say that your inablity to distinguish fact from allegation, adult from child, does not speak well for your thinking process.