Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[LostAngeles]

I find child molestation to be so abhorrent as to not want to agree with Kevin but intellectual honesty dictates that I must. Not completely but I agree with some of his points. It's not black and white. As for me, I'm happy to put a bright line in the sand and prosecute based on that line. I would rather err on the side of safety for children but I will accept Kevin's contention here.

I'm not to going argue about childhood sexuality. I will argue about childhood sexuality and adults getting involved in it though.

 

[skeptifem]

That sort of unwarranted projection encapsulates the inherent problem with discussing such an issue as in a global forum. Most of the industrialised West has ages of consent lower than 18, and consequently people's attitudes vary. In most countries it is recognised that in the case of someone being a few years below the AoC, while consent may not be legally binding, it is a factor to be taken into consideration, so the question of whether or not consent was actually given is a valid one. Example:

Rapist spared jail as judge agrees girl, 10, looked older /quote]

oh my, if only I had realized that some dudes don't care enough to ensure that they aren't raping a child. How could I possibly think that it's their fault that they didn't make sure that they were comitting rape? I mean, it wasn't polanski's fault that he didn't know that no actually means no, or that knowing a girl is underage and pronging her anyway is a crime, or that giving someone drugs before insisting on pronging them could have an effect on their judgement. It is clearly up to the 13 year old girls of the world to defend themselves against rape, because god knows than at adult dude isn't responsible for making sure his behavior isn't rape. He should just assume that any woman within his grasp is in a constant state of consent that she has to leave evidence of revoking before it is taken seriously. I just feel SO FRIGGIN SILLY, reading about how some rapist got out of jail because his victim looked old to the judge. Hey, you know what else got rapists out of jail time? Their victims being 'too ugly' to rape by a judge's inspection. or a rape victim wearing the wrong clothes, or being too much of a skank before someone raped her. I am very seriously not impressed at all with the case you linked to, and I really do not think it is ok to have sex with someone when the effort isn't made to ensure that the activity isn't rape. And seriously, is that ten year old girl less raped because that guy didn't know how old she was? does she not know she was raped because the guy didn't know he was raping her (assuming he is telling the truth...)? obviously she still has to live with the consequences of what happened, and his intent or knowledge don't really do anything to change it. "I didn't know I was that drunk" isn't an excuse for killing someone else in a DUI accident, and ignorance is pretty much never an excuse in court. She isn't less raped, and meaning to rape someone or not doesn't change what happened. if intent was what the law was about then no one would try to prove damages until the defendant admitted guilt, I am sure you can see the problem with this absolutely silly line of reasoning you are trying to feed me.

As far as cultural differences go- I would not show up in france with a gun and complain when I got charged for having one. Again, ignorance is so not an excuse for breaking the law.

Too many people here have operated from the simplistic viewpoint that underage = no consent = "rape" thus de facto discounting Polanski's claim that the girl did actually consent.

if you aren't drawing the line with age at a certain point you are wrong. If you take some time to actually look into child molestation, you will find that the majority of children (including the very, very young) freeze up and comply because their attackers have power over them. it seems to be the normal thing to do, to comply, to consent. Some end up enjoying the encounters sexually, but it really doesn't make them not abuse. the emotional problems involved are still there. it is obvious where the responsibility lies in a situation like this, it is with the person who knows better, the adult. if in doubt, do not prong. Only a sick careless human being would weigh possibly getting some sex consentually with no risk against ****ing up another human being permanently. It just isn't a priority for anyone with an ounce of morality in them to have sex over the enormous consequences of their assumptions being incorrect.

I don't think anyone here has claimed either that what Polanski did was not or should not be a crime, or that he should not be punished for it, so you using terms like "apologists" is uncalled for and intellectually dishonest.

yeah but like, some dude got off because his victim looked too old, so shouldn't i rethink my position on dudes trying to prong young girls? I don't know what else to call a response like this, or many others in this thread.

I am not being dishonest at all. There is a persistant attempt to downgrade this situation to less than really really really serious, and the arguments made make a point for that way more than any half hearted disclaimers ever do. You can say you arent' saying it's ok all you want, but thats exactly what your arguments drive at. I am not going to take the short, socially approved statements as proof over the long thought out not so kosher ones. I don't know how I can be expected to.

 

[Information Analyst]

You feel the statute is somehow open to interpretation? Please expound.

In terms of the sentence being within a range rather than a single set duration. Clearly the judge would have discretion in sentencing terms depending on the circumstances of each individual case.

 

[Information Analyst]

Maybe I should have considered the possibility that a bug in the forum software is causing posts to bleed over from unrelated thread, rather than assume you're unable to follow a conversation.

It is elemental that the potential bias of a witness be factored in. It is also elemental that when a witness testifies contrary to bias, that it should be given more weight.

("More weight" doesn't translate to "rule out all else", which should be obvious to anyone who isn't playing infantile parsing games.)

I got your point, I just don't agree with it to the degree that you seemed to be suggesting. You didn't say the "vested interest" statement should be treated with caution, you said "more weight" should be given to the conflicting statement.

Huston said that the girl could have been as old as 25. (I've never seen a 13 year old who could pass as 25. You?) This impresses me as a biased observation coming from a friend of Polanski.

My wife and I go clubbing a lot, and know that a fair few of the "regulars" on the scene - which in the UK is almost always strictly 18-and-over - who are underage, but get away with it because they look older. Even so, I was surprised to discover in conversation with one of them recently that she's actually only 15. It's a rare night when we don't notice someone trying to hit on her, but I daresay most of those same guys would run a mile if they knew she was that young. On the other hand, other people we know are well over 18, but constantly get IDed because they look a lot younger. Even so, it's interesting that this recent study showed that people's ability to judge age isn't affected by drinking alcohol, but that even when sober they overestimate by an average of 3.5 years already. Looking at the photos of the girl at the time and taking into account contemporary styling, she could be anything upto 19, but an outlier you could have someone in their 20s who looked like that. The housekeeper, of course, also thought she was older than she was. Huston may have overegged her statement, but that still doesn't mean that they thought she was as young as she actually was.

Huston also said the girl looked sullen when she emerged from the room where she was abused. Because this statement doesn't favor Polanski, I'm less concerned about bias.

Although to play absolute devil's advocate, she could also be expected to look "sullen" if she had been willingly have sex with him when Huston interupted them and cut it short, or indeed if it hadn't been an enjoyable as expected. I don't necessarily think that either of those applied, but you can't claim one comment about mood from a third party as concrete proof of any one scenario.

This is so elemental that I'm surprised you're taking issue. But what is truly inane is to extrapolate this into something akin to conspiracy theory. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

Granted, it may be an extreme comparison, but the suggestion of an automatic shift in the weight of evidence did strike me as being dangerously similar to the conspiracy theorist default that all "official" versions must be false.

 

[Information Analyst]

That man has to now register as a sex offender so he didn't get off and the case is not relevant because Polanski knew she was 13.

It's relevant because it illustrates that even if not legally valid, consent on the part of an underage person is a factor. If one accepted that it is a factor, the question of whether there was actually consent becomes a valid one. Too many people have tried to suggest that because consent would not have been legally valid, it doesn't matter whether the girl did or did not give it, as Polanski claims she did.

 

[Information Analyst]

Cool, so you'll address what Kevin refused to, that is the issue of maturity, power, and reasons for the cultural difference and shift?

Well, it's an interesting question. Is it the case that the countries with lower ages of consent think their young people are more mature than those with higher ones think their are, or is it that the latter they are more at risk from predatory elders than the former do. That fact is, though, that whatever local conditions are will colour people's view on cases such as this, even if they actually occur elsewhere. It's hardly my favourite topic of conversation, but I've found in the past that most Brits are as surprised that the AoC in many US states is 18 as they are that in most of the rest of Europe it's 14 or 15 (extreme eyebrow raising is reserved for Spain at 13). In the case of America, of course, it raises the interesting problem that you could have a legally married British couple who - if one or both of them was aged 16 of 17 - would have to be very careful about what they did whilst holidaying in certain US states.

 

[Information Analyst]

oh my, if only I had realized that some dudes don't care enough to ensure that they aren't raping a child. How could I possibly think that it's their fault that they didn't make sure that they were comitting rape? I mean, it wasn't polanski's fault that he didn't know that no actually means no, or that knowing a girl is underage and pronging her anyway is a crime, or that giving someone drugs before insisting on pronging them could have an effect on their judgement. It is clearly up to the 13 year old girls of the world to defend themselves against rape, because god knows than at adult dude isn't responsible for making sure his behavior isn't rape. He should just assume that any woman within his grasp is in a constant state of consent that she has to leave evidence of revoking before it is taken seriously. I just feel SO FRIGGIN SILLY, reading about how some rapist got out of jail because his victim looked old to the judge. Hey, you know what else got rapists out of jail time? Their victims being 'too ugly' to rape by a judge's inspection. or a rape victim wearing the wrong clothes, or being too much of a skank before someone raped her. I am very seriously not impressed at all with the case you linked to, and I really do not think it is ok to have sex with someone when the effort isn't made to ensure that the activity isn't rape. And seriously, is that ten year old girl less raped because that guy didn't know how old she was? does she not know she was raped because the guy didn't know he was raping her (assuming he is telling the truth...)? obviously she still has to live with the consequences of what happened, and his intent or knowledge don't really do anything to change it. "I didn't know I was that drunk" isn't an excuse for killing someone else in a DUI accident, and ignorance is pretty much never an excuse in court. She isn't less raped, and meaning to rape someone or not doesn't change what happened. if intent was what the law was about then no one would try to prove damages until the defendant admitted guilt, I am sure you can see the problem with this absolutely silly line of reasoning you are trying to feed me.

WHen you calm down, perhaps you should read it again, as you seem to have missed the bit that said, "He said there was no doubt the girl consented to sex..." Personally I think that anyone who's about to get off with someone they think is 16 (the age of consent in the UK) should be a bit more certain of the fact, but then people generally don't demand ID of people they meet that often. Judging from how you specified your outrage, though, presumably you have no issue with older women sleeping with underage boys, because obviously it's just evil men who are the issue here....

 

[PingOfPong]

Legal contract, vote, military , are not comparable with sex

A single act of sex can have lifelong consequences. Just like any of those other examples. If you put an adult on one side of the equation then I have an expectation that the adult should know better. An adult should be cognizant of what the consequences could be while children often aren't. That gives adults a responsibility to the children whom adults will always have power over.

 

[skeptifem]

WHen you calm down, perhaps you should read it again, as you seem to have missed the bit that said, "He said there was no doubt the girl consented to sex..." Personally I think that anyone who's about to get off with someone they think is 16 (the age of consent in the UK) should be a bit more certain of the fact, but then people generally don't demand ID of people they meet that often. Judging from how you specified your outrage, though, presumably you have no issue with older women sleeping with underage boys, because obviously it's just evil men who are the issue here....

hahaha. Yeah, sure. "When I calm down", because clearly, I failed to present an argument against your point of view.

How is the 10 year old girl less raped? Oh yeah, SHE ISNT. If law was a matter of intent no one would get convicted. You feeling bad for some dude who didn't ensure the non rape status of his pronging activity doesn't convince me a whole lot that a ten year old girl wasn't raped, it just convinces me that you think the intent of the rapist is more important than the rapedness of the ten year old girl. Do you think the charge of manslaughter should dissapear, or what? Because that is murder without the malice (intent) of killing, but its still a crime, because intent doesn't make someone less dead. Do you not understand my argument here, or are you too dishonest to actually address it?

 

[jimbob]

Getting back to the case in hand:

There was a gross disparity in power between Polanski and the victim. (Not alleged victim, because she did initially complain and Polanski initially admitted this before plea-bargaining was being considered).


Polanski forced himself on someone who wasn't willing, that would be sexual assault at the least if the girl had been above the age of consent.

She had also been plied with drugs and alcohol, which AFIK is typical in date rape.

She was a also a child.

This wiki article is a summary of various European laws about the age of consent

I have highlighted Switzerland, because it (and several other states including the UK) recognise that there is a disparity in power and influence if the two actors are grossly different in age, or in positions of authority:

Switzerland

The age of consent in Switzerland is 16, as specified by the Swiss Federal Criminal Code, Article 187(1). However, there exists a close in age exception if the difference between the ages of the participants is three years or less {Art 187(2)}.

England and Wales

The age of consent in England and Wales is 16, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 {§44(1)}. However it is illegal for a person to engage in sexual activity with an individual under the age of 18 if they are in a position of trust in relation to that individual (teacher, warder, care giver, guardian, etc)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Getting back to the case in hand:

There was a gross disparity in power between Polanski and the victim. (Not alleged victim, because she did initially complain and Polanski initially admitted this before plea-bargaining was being considered).

I did bow out of this thread, but this sounds like relevant information about the case I have not seen. Can you please link us to whichever site has the details of this? I won't return to comment on it here but I would very much like to read it.

 

[jimbob]

I did bow out of this thread, but this sounds like relevant information about the case I have not seen. Can you please link us to whichever site has the details of this? I won't return to comment on it here but I would very much like to read it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

ETA: This was too weeks after the incident, and she had obviously complained *by* then

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

ETA: This was too weeks after the incident, and she had obviously complained *by* then

Is it possible you linked to the wrong document by mistake? That's just the transcript of the girl's statement.

 

[varwoche]

ETA: This was too weeks after the incident, and she had obviously complained *by* then

According to the cop who went to question Polanski the day after, he admitted to it from the get-go. This was in the documentary as I recollect.

 

[varwoche]

I find child molestation to be so abhorrent as to not want to agree with Kevin but intellectual honesty dictates that I must. Not completely but I agree with some of his points. It's not black and white. As for me, I'm happy to put a bright line in the sand and prosecute based on that line. I would rather err on the side of safety for children but I will accept Kevin's contention here.

Randfan, one needs an M.O. degree Master of the Obvious to concur with those statements, especially given that psychological harm is part of the equation. Of course it's complex.

Except for the "and neither are the conclusions of that research" part, which is disingenuous.

 

[varwoche]

I got your point

Which makes your reference to CTists even goofier.

Although to play absolute devil's advocate, she could also be expected to look "sullen" if she had been willingly have sex with him when Huston interupted them and cut it short

Another reason she could have looked sullen is because a person loaded on booze+quaaludes isn't apt to be very perky.

That said, I don't consider Huston's "sullen" observation to be highly significant. I'm using it to make a point about witness bias.

Granted, it may be an extreme comparison...

This would have been a good place to stop.

... but the suggestion of an automatic shift in the weight of evidence did strike me as being dangerously similar to the conspiracy theorist default that all "official" versions must be false.

Except I didn't post anything remotely like this.

How about responding to my actual words, and not some self-serving rorschach version?

 

[jimbob]

Is it possible you linked to the wrong document by mistake? That's just the transcript of the girl's statement.

No, that is all I found with a 2-minute google...

Within 2-weeks, she was saying that it was unwanted, I do not know how early she was saying this.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, that is all I found with a 2-minute google...

Within 2-weeks, she was saying that it was unwanted, I do not know how early she was saying this.

Sorry, you said "she did initially complain and Polanski initially admitted this". (Bolding mine) I was after a source for Polanski initially admitting that she did not consent to sex with him, which I thought you were implying existed.

 

[Information Analyst]

hahaha. Yeah, sure. "When I calm down", because clearly, I failed to present an argument against your point of view.

How is the 10 year old girl less raped? Oh yeah, SHE ISNT. If law was a matter of intent no one would get convicted. You feeling bad for some dude who didn't ensure the non rape status of his pronging activity doesn't convince me a whole lot that a ten year old girl wasn't raped, it just convinces me that you think the intent of the rapist is more important than the rapedness of the ten year old girl. Do you think the charge of manslaughter should dissapear, or what? Because that is murder without the malice (intent) of killing, but its still a crime, because intent doesn't make someone less dead. Do you not understand my argument here, or are you too dishonest to actually address it?

It's clear to me that you are continuing to see things - and this example case in particular - through dogma-tinted spectacles. Here are a couple more reports of the same case: The Mirror and BBC News. The reality of this case is that the girl approached the man in question, went willingly to his flat, and agreed to have sex with him. When he asked her how old she was, she said, "does it matter?" You may not like it, but it is accepted in this case that the man genuinely thought her to be over 16, not least because she presented as such. Use of the term "rape" in the case is a technical one based on her age - he didn't drag her in of the street, slap her around, and then force himself on her. The fact that you continue to project what you think my opinions are is again self-evident, not least because I clearly said that anyone in such a situation with someone they think is over 16 (again, the age of consent where this incident took place) should be more certain, but people generally don't because lying/devious sexually precocious children - although they have, do, and will always exist - are the exception rather than the norm, and wouldn't generally expect it to be likely. Young people lie about their age all the time, whether it's to buy alcohol, get into certain venues, or even to see certain films. In some respects they need to protected from themselves, but to pretend that they should be entirely absolved of any blame whatsoever for such lies and their consequences is, frankly, naive.

 

[LostAngeles]

Well, it's an interesting question. Is it the case that the countries with lower ages of consent think their young people are more mature than those with higher ones think their are, or is it that the latter they are more at risk from predatory elders than the former do. That fact is, though, that whatever local conditions are will colour people's view on cases such as this, even if they actually occur elsewhere. It's hardly my favourite topic of conversation, but I've found in the past that most Brits are as surprised that the AoC in many US states is 18 as they are that in most of the rest of Europe it's 14 or 15 (extreme eyebrow raising is reserved for Spain at 13). In the case of America, of course, it raises the interesting problem that you could have a legally married British couple who - if one or both of them was aged 16 of 17 - would have to be very careful about what they did whilst holidaying in certain US states.

Actually, in the U.S. there's often an allowance if the pair are within a certain age difference so the pair would be fine. The AoC here is often lower depending on who the other partner is.

But that was not what I was asking Kevin. Kevin insists, as do you, that adult-child sex is potentially all right. What I want to know is how this can be when the child's brain is still immature, there's an issue of the adult having power of the child, and in the argument that 12 year olds used to get married, there's been a cultural shift in the view of women as property ending such practices.

But since Kevin de-flounced, maybe I'm not on ignore and he can answer...

Although any Polanksi defender should be answering this.