PDA

View Full Version : Roman Polanski


Totenkopf
09-30-2009, 06:31 PM
Any thoughts on this scumbag.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-polanski/story?id=8705958

This article raises a fair issue:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/father-polanski-would-go-to-jail-says-jesuit.html

Astor
09-30-2009, 06:43 PM
I think the film world's rallying round him is ridiculous. He may be a gifted film-maker, but he is also a fugitive from justice.

It shouldn't matter now whether or not the victim has dropped the charges - if he was innocent, I don't think he would have fled the United States for France.

Even if he is innocent, he should at least be taken to the US to face Justice.

Darth Avlectus
10-01-2009, 03:56 AM
Fleeing the US is a clear and obvious sign of guilt. At least we're trying to bring him to justice now. I would agree, if he is innocent then he should come to USA to face the accusations.

Frankly, those guilty of this kind of thing are scum. Scum who get no compassion from me. I don't care who he is, where he's from, or what he does nor how gifted he is. That kind of crime is abhorrent. The fact he is a coward only makes it more heinous.

cire992
10-01-2009, 04:45 AM
the victim has dropped the charges.

he should at least be taken to the US to face Justice.

Who cares? The loser fled the country, he's not a threat to anyone in American jurisdiction anymore, and the victim dropped the charges anyway. Trying to get him now is just revenge. Bring him back, hold an expensive investigation, an expensive trial and stuff him into and expensive, overcrowded jail. Great idea...

Totenkopf
10-01-2009, 05:12 AM
Yeah, paying for one's crimes is such an antiquated cliche' :rolleyes:

Ten-96
10-01-2009, 06:06 AM
Who cares? The loser fled the country, he's not a threat to anyone in American jurisdiction anymore, and the victim dropped the charges anyway. Trying to get him now is just revenge. Bring him back, hold an expensive investigation, an expensive trial and stuff him into and expensive, overcrowded jail. Great idea...

It makes no difference that Polanski isn't a threat. Nor does it make a difference that the victim forgave him. The victim cannot drop the charges in a rape case. It's not revenge at all. Polanski fled from justice after admitting his guilt in raping a 13 year old child. Would you be so willing to let him go if that was your child?

Tommycat
10-01-2009, 06:47 AM
Of course he's still a threat. Allowing him to go free means more than just his case. There are others being chased just as vigorously. Just because he isn't in the states doesn't mean he's not a threat. He needs to face the charges. Accept them. Quite frankly I want the list of everyone who supports releasing him. I'll add them to my list of people whom I will never again watch one of their movies... Though Woody Allen is already on that list. And Whoopi is as well, but that's because most of her movies.... um... suck...

If it was a frat boy, CEO, guy down the street, or(as that third article notes) priest, there wouldn't be this level of protection. But no, He's one of Hollywood's "Elite" so he deserves to be free to rape a 13 year old and keep making movies. He had sex with her WITHOUT her consent, even if she HAD been old enough, it would still have been rape. But rather than face charges, he got to keep making movies, and even won an academy award. This child raping SOB got an award. If he was a catholic Priest and got away with this, would they be so willing to just give him a pass?

Bimmerman
10-01-2009, 11:04 AM
First off, I think what he is accused of doing is reprehensible. If he did do it, which by all accounts he did, then he should face justice.

However, isn't there a statute of limitations on rape or sex offense? I know there isn't on murder, but if there weren't a statute of limitations than why aren't the vast majority of so-accused Catholic priests in jail or standing trial?

Totenkopf
10-01-2009, 04:23 PM
First off, I think what he is accused of doing is reprehensible. If he did do it, which by all accounts he did, then he should face justice.

However, isn't there a statute of limitations on rape or sex offense? I know there isn't on murder, but if there weren't a statute of limitations than why aren't the vast majority of so-accused Catholic priests in jail or standing trial?

Well, if the preponderance of evidence and admission of guilt are there for those priests......lock em up and melt the key in front of them. :devsmoke:

cire992
10-01-2009, 05:39 PM
It makes no difference that Polanski isn't a threat. Nor does it make a difference that the victim forgave him. The victim cannot drop the charges in a rape case. It's not revenge at all. Polanski fled from justice after admitting his guilt in raping a 13 year old child. Would you be so willing to let him go if that was your child?

Bull****, if this guy's half a world away and it was my child, I'd be taking care of my kid, not fuming over the media circus. He's in France now, right? He's their problem now, don't bring that guy back here, in chains or not!

Totenkopf
10-01-2009, 05:46 PM
He's in Switzerland. Who's fuming over a media circus? Gadflies like much of Hollywood and the other lightweights (including govts) defending RP notwithstanding, he's a fugitive from American justice, so French opinions about Polanski are irrelevant. Frankly, the weasel should take it like a man. If we're willing to waste >$1million dollars everytime a guilty schmuck like Abu Mumia Jamal wants to fight the death penalty, what's the big deal about taking RP into custody. Perhaps he should've raped the child in VT/NH (forget exactly which), they've been pretty lenient up there on child molesters.

cire992
10-01-2009, 05:54 PM
^ It comes down to what Law and Justice exists for. You try to protect your society by getting rid of the people who aren't playing by the rules. Well, we got rid of him just by threatening justice, didn't cost the taxpayers a dime. There's no way he'll ever be able to get back to the States, so society is safe from him. It's like he's been banished from the country.

Totenkopf
10-01-2009, 06:41 PM
Well, if it's that easy, maybe we should just banish all people from the country who are currently rotting in jail. Think of all the money you could save by just banishing criminals from America in perpetuity. Temporary bump in unemployment, what with all the prison personel, but I suupose we could find something else constructive for them to do. ;)

Jae Onasi
10-01-2009, 06:47 PM
First off, I think what he is accused of doing is reprehensible. If he did do it, which by all accounts he did, then he should face justice.

Actually, he pled guilty in a plea deal to reduce the sentence, and was found guilty already. He ran just before the sentencing. He needs to be locked up. How many other girls has he molested after drugging them?

HdVaderII
10-01-2009, 07:27 PM
My question is why are they nabbing him now instead of years ago? It's not exactly like he's been in hiding all this time! He's been directly in the public eye. He won an oscar for christ's sake! The real question is why hasn't this happened sooner?

Jae Onasi
10-01-2009, 07:41 PM
My question is why are they nabbing him now instead of years ago? It's not exactly like he's been in hiding all this time! He's been directly in the public eye. He won an oscar for christ's sake! The real question is why hasn't this happened sooner?He was hiding in other countries--my guess is the US had to wait til he was in a country that would extradite him to the US.

cire992
10-01-2009, 09:56 PM
Well, if it's that easy, maybe we should just banish all people from the country who are currently rotting in jail. Think of all the money you could save by just banishing criminals from America in perpetuity. Temporary bump in unemployment, what with all the prison personel, but I suupose we could find something else constructive for them to do. ;)

Well, now, too much of anything is a bad thing. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll have a stroke or something. When was the last time Mother Nature did us a favor?

Jae Onasi
10-01-2009, 10:04 PM
Frankly, the weasel should take it like a man.
Well, now, he's in trouble for taking it like a 13 year old boy back in the 70's, so why would we expect him to take it like a man?

There's no way he'll ever be able to get back to the States, so society is safe from him.What about the 13 year old girls who are living in the countries he's hiding out in? We just write them off because they aren't American girls?

jrrtoken
10-01-2009, 10:27 PM
Realistically, I don't see the need for the massive uproar over it. He's already plead guilty to his crimes, and conversely, Geimer has already stated several times that she's forgiven him. Additionally, if it's taken the U.S. this long for the arrest and extradition of him, then why bother the extra imprisonment? He may have fled from justice, but that doesn't warrant more charges based on original charges, especially if her's already plead guilty. I also wouldn't consider him to be a bona-fide active sexual deviant, particularly his past trauma at hand, with the gruesome murder of his wife and future child and all causing intense psychological decay.

House arrest for the original charges would be fair at least, as well as additional probationary and low-security internment for the fleeing of justice charges.

cire992
10-01-2009, 10:27 PM
What about the 13 year old girls who are living in the countries he's hiding out in? We just write them off because they aren't American girls?

Yeah. The Swiss government will protect their children. They have to, because Switzerland isn't in US Jurisdiction, it's in Europe.

House arrest for the original charges would be fair at least, as well as additional probationary and low-security internment for the fleeing of justice charges.

Right. Get him away from any potential victims. That's the idea. There is no payback involved here, just solutions.

Darth Avlectus
10-01-2009, 10:53 PM
Forgive my tongue but at least castrate the bastard .......and have him publicly humiliated by it. I think sex offenders ought to face something like that. OR if they have cancer let them rot and die.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-01-2009, 11:49 PM
Bull****, if this guy's half a world away and it was my child, I'd be taking care of my kid, not fuming over the media circus. He's in France now, right? He's their problem now, don't bring that guy back here, in chains or not!

you are mad, sir, the victim having to live through the whole thing all over again be damned, i want that scoundrel raped back like hammurabi intended

Totenkopf
10-02-2009, 12:15 AM
Well, now, he's in trouble for taking it like a 13 year old boy back in the 70's, so why would we expect him to take it like a man?

I don't expect him to do anything other than what he's already done. Just saying how he should take it......not how he's likely to take it. Besides, the average 13 yr old probably wasn't using quayludes to "seduce" anyone. If they were anything like Bill Maher, they were probably doing intense self-study in autoerotica with Playboy or somesuch. :devsmoke:

cire992
10-02-2009, 12:21 AM
you are mad, sir

I should probably put this in my sig as some sort of disclaimer. :p
Honestly, though, there's no love lost on this guy. I'd break his jaw if I ever met him. I just want him gone, in jail, in Switzerland, wherever. Gone.

Bimmerman
10-02-2009, 04:47 AM
Actually, he pled guilty in a plea deal to reduce the sentence, and was found guilty already. He ran just before the sentencing. He needs to be locked up. How many other girls has he molested after drugging them?

Huh, I must have had my facts wrong. I thought he was simply accused of it and needed to stand trial, not that he actually was found guilty/plead guilty. In that case, yes, lock the bastard up.

Q
10-02-2009, 04:52 AM
Yeah, my facts were a bit rusty on the facts in this case as well. I didn't know that he had already plead guilty and then skipped out on his sentencing.
you are mad, sir, the victim having to live through the whole thing all over again be damned, i want that scoundrel raped back like hammurabi intended
You raise a very good point here. Justice can be a double-edged sword.

Totenkopf
10-02-2009, 04:55 AM
Well, since he plead guilty to a lesser charge and then skipped town, it may not be necessary to retry him (2x jeapordy probably if they did). Just hit him w/a nice stiff sentence for being a fugitive.

Q
10-02-2009, 07:34 AM
Yeah, this is more about the long arm of the law finally catching up with someone than it is about revenge.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-02-2009, 01:12 PM
Well, since he plead guilty to a lesser charge and then skipped town, it may not be necessary to retry him (2x jeapordy probably if they did). Just hit him w/a nice stiff sentence for being a fugitive.

yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself

Totenkopf
10-02-2009, 01:46 PM
The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate.

cire992
10-02-2009, 05:12 PM
The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate.

Wouldn't mind except that the media practically runs this country.

(I suck, it took me three tries to not misspell 'practically')

Totenkopf
10-02-2009, 11:12 PM
I agree that they like to think they do. The Fourth Estate is rather taken w/itself.

Jae Onasi
10-02-2009, 11:34 PM
yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself

That's a media problem--they're the ones she should be railing against. The state has already decided Polanski needs to pay for his crimes. There are no free passes for molesting 13 year old girls.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-02-2009, 11:42 PM
ah yes you are of course right one has nothing to do with the other

Darth Avlectus
10-03-2009, 01:00 AM
Huh, I must have had my facts wrong. I thought he was simply accused of it and needed to stand trial, not that he actually was found guilty/plead guilty. In that case, yes, lock the bastard up.

Ah, what a little clarification won't do to persuade or dissuade.

yeah but my point still stands since blowhard media goons need meat for the grinder and have chosen to get all hot and bothered about him again and she won't be able to turn on a tv without hearing about it and is probably getting hounded for interviews. if justice means sacrificing a victim's emotional and mental well-being with a media circus justice can go **** itself

I understand freedom of speech and info. Still, I've seen cases where their conniption bitch-fits were stopped immediately b/c the authorities basically poisoned the well enough to make them stfu.

I share your hatred for the media. I should know b/c I almost made the mistake of going into media direction. I didn't like the way it smelled in a certain sense.

The media are insatiable arseholes. What else is new... It's not sufficient reason to let him skate.

Wouldn't mind except that the media practically runs this country.

(I suck, it took me three tries to not misspell 'practically')

I agree that they like to think they do. The Fourth Estate is rather taken w/itself.

It's demeaning, really. This is a nation that is fed off of sensationalism. Bang for buck is in the entertainment or amusement aspects of even serious business like this. At some point all the news outlets just need to stfu and let things run their course in dignity. The legal team should figure out how best to expedite this process. Less time, less opportunity to report on it.

Totenkopf
10-06-2009, 05:28 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091006/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_polanski

Jae Onasi
10-06-2009, 08:13 PM
One of the lawyers, Herve Temime, added that Polanski did not pose a flight risk.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, the irony.

vanir
10-16-2009, 04:10 AM
If it was a frat boy, CEO, guy down the street, or(as that third article notes) priest, there wouldn't be this level of protection.

But so long as they were married, in many nations it was also a legitimate act of consent. In some countries the age of general consent (outside marriage) itself is simply younger.
Opinions will vary on the age of consent, nature would have us believe it is simply at sexual maturity regardless of what anyone feels about it, generally about 13yrs. The lowest strict age of consent in a democratic environment, without any restriction, that I'm aware of however is 16 (Japan). In several Muslim nations however girls may become married at 13 (more strictly, "upon womanhood" or sexual maturity on a case by case basis), of course this supposes that sexual intercourse will be practised.

So the paedophile concern, which is sexual acts with children, when levelled against sexually mature, but underage individuals is really one of culture shock.
Perhaps it is more reasonable that the age of unrestricted sexual consent is 18. Perhaps 45 is better. Perhaps 15. It is an argument. Medically it is not damaging or abusive if those involved are sexually mature, which has little to do with one specific age.
Our reasons for the 18 limit for unrestricted consent are cultural, though today one presumes this is due to psychological maturity, historically it is largely one particular religious imposition, where other cultures have different ones and equal rights to them.

Personally I have my own suspicions that the girl was already sexually active with her boyfriend (conservatives would be shocked by anonymous state surveys, a local one taken by the Aust.Bureau of Statistics for example suggested some 30-50% of public schoolgirls aged 13-15 were no longer virgins with higher figures for those who would describe themselves as sexually active but still virgins, I see little reason for extreme variation in the US), perhaps this came up in conversation and formed a part of Roman's reasoning at the time. It is irrelevant however if her claim that it was nonconsentual is true. In any case she describes date rape even where no resistance was given, again if her claim is true. Then it is a legitimate case of rape, statutory charges aside.

So on this basis, the circumstances of rape as claimed by the victim which are of concern. But it is her perogative to withdraw testimony and thus he could not effectively be prosecuted, without her testimony there is no evidence in the court transcript.
And again the statutory charge where the "victim" is sexually mature and consenting, is one of culture and regional law only. It has no bearing outside the United States and is not any measure of humanity or human morality, it is an opinion.
Indeed one I happen to agree with for the most part, but not necessarily always and not necessarily everywhere.
The outrage deserved of paedophilia is strictly the act of intercourse with sexually undeveloped persons, which is medically unsound. If the argument is nonconsentual sexual exposure then we are discussing sexual assault, nonconsentual intercourse then rape, but paedophilia is sex with children, it is does not describe consentual sex with sexually mature, but underage individuals, that is statutory rape, and like it or not that is a crime of circumstance and cultural imposition (for right or wrong).

<snipped>

Even our conservative underage sex laws recognise that underage girls are probably having sex anyway, so it's okay if they're both underage, or within two years of each other's age, etc. varies by state/region. And like I said in some countries the blanket age of consent is just plain younger. Meanwhile in other cultures the conservatism is much higher, and sexual contact at 18 and 20 is an offence, or outside of marriage at all, or in public in any way or with any show of affection at all.
This part is all culture, circumstantial at best and can have no dominion over human morality, which would be a case by case basis, with all the facts present and in play.

As far as I'm aware Roman Polanski has never otherwise been accused of sexual misconduct by any other persons anywhere, so at least the argument of preventing his serial compulsions is quite misplaced, as if the prosecution of this case had anything to do with genuine altruism.

jonathan7
10-16-2009, 07:00 AM
But so long as they were married, in many nations it was also a legitimate act of consent. In some countries the age of general consent (outside marriage) itself is simply younger.
Opinions will vary on the age of consent, nature would have us believe it is simply at sexual maturity regardless of what anyone feels about it, generally about 13yrs. The lowest strict age of consent in a democratic environment, without any restriction, that I'm aware of however is 16 (Japan). In several Muslim nations however girls may become married at 13 (more strictly, "upon womanhood" or sexual maturity on a case by case basis), of course this supposes that sexual intercourse will be practised.

The national age of consent is 13 in Japan, but depending on jurisdiction it can be 18 years of age, which is dependant on the province. Furthermore, given your examples from Muslim nations I presume you would be delighted that Mohammed married a girl aged 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Personally I find that shocking, but perhaps I should get with the times...

<snipped for brevity, the pseudo-scientific poo>

I frankly sir, find your entire post both offensive and amoral. Rape is rape, regardless of if someone is sexually active; those guilty of this heinous crime should be charged and locked up. Rape ruins lives, the psychological effects are devastating, and even if someone isn't going to do it again, they should still be punished for their horrific act on another individual. Furthermore if someone is physically ready for sex, does not mean they are ready for the emotional aspects that come along together with it.

Totenkopf
10-16-2009, 07:37 AM
As far as I'm aware Roman Polanski has never otherwise been accused of sexual misconduct by any other persons anywhere, so at least the argument of preventing his serial compulsions is quite misplaced, as if the prosecution of this case had anything to do with genuine altruism.

Frankly, the guy already copped to a reduced charge and was slated for sentencing. He clearly worried that he'd lose on the original offense and agreed to a plea bargain. Guilt not contested. Second, it doesn't matter that he may never have raped someone again since then. If you murdered someone 30 years ago, skipped bail and lived a "virtuous life" after that till caught again, should you not still be punished for the original crime? Polanski is an amoral scumbag that should have done the time 30 years ago. The "artistic community" being what it is, it likely wouldn't have hurt his reputation. Afterall, it's been widely know since then that he couldn't set foot in America b/c of his crime, but was still held in high esteem by that group.

Jae Onasi
10-16-2009, 10:23 AM
The reason the age of consent is set at a certain age involves a number of things. First, it involves physical maturity. If you have relations with a girl who is too young, you can damage her internal organs. Second, boys and girls need to be a certain age in order to have enough brain development to have the mental capacity to make appropriate choices about sex. I would contend that 13 is too young, and Japan is not protecting its females appropriately, but that's something the Japanese would need to address.

mimartin
10-16-2009, 11:16 AM
Debating the age of consent is ridiculous as it completely has no bearing on this case. The only age of consent law that has any relevance in this case is the California law in 1977. If Polanski wanted to debate the age of consent, he should have done so in 1977, instead he pled guilty.

Even if you could explain away the act itself, it is impossible to explain away the fact that he fled the United States to avoid sentencing, which is also against the law.

Tommycat
10-22-2009, 08:29 PM
I honestly don't think the age of consent should be debated by people who have not raised a child to adulthood. Not because I don't think they can understand it, but because they haven't gained the perspective. My Ex's daughter is a very smart girl. But smart does not mean that she is mature. Children at those ages do not always make informed decisions. Hormones at that age are going to cause them to make very BAD decisions. Not saying adults are all that much better, but mental development are still taking place at those ages. They're still more worried about popularity than the risks of disease or having to raise a child. Their bodies are also physically developing.

Just because another country thinks its ok to damage children like that does not mean it is ok for the child. Other cultures sew women up and cut off parts of the genetalia. It doesn't mean that it isn't damaging or unhealthy to them.

But all of this aside. He is GUILTY of a crime. TWO crimes now. He pled guilty to the lesser of the crimes comitted by him with the child. So establishing guilt is not necessary. He IS CONVICTED of statuatory rape. He has yet to serve his sentence. He then comitted another crime by fleeing the country to avoid that sentence.

Point Man
11-06-2009, 08:34 PM
If it had been my daughter, The Pianist would never have been made.