Roman Polanski - Yay or Nay
 

Curious to know everyone's thoughts on Roman Polanski getting busted by the Swiss and now being held - presumably to be returned to the United States to face charges stemming from him having sex with a 13 year old girl 30 years ago.

It would appear that the US has been after Polanski for many years and has never forgotten about him. The Justice Department learned he would be travelling to Switzerland and set it up with the Swiss to bust him upon his arrival in Zurich (where he was scheduled to receive an award).

It's an interesting scenario and begs the question should they throw the book at Polanski, or let it go.

The problem for Polanski may end up being the fact that he ran off rather than face justice. (See Martha Stewart for example who was busted not so much for insider trading as she was for lying about it.)

Anyway, the long arm of US justice has finally caught up with Polanski.

Originally my opinion to just let it go, however, I have now changed my mind after seeing both photos of the girl in question from 30 years ago and reading the transcripts from young girl's testimony to the Grand Jury 30 years ago.

The Smoking Gun - Polanski The Predator

When you read this, it is shocking and it is clear that not only was it sex with a minor but also that he co-erced (raped) the girl and fed her booze and sleeping pills so as to have his way with her. He may be a brilliant director, but he's also a pedophile.

You be the judge.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c5.../samantha1.jpg

fry his ass.

he ran to France because of their limited extradition policy with the US. He admitted it, and while the judge was corrupt in his case, he should face the problem and have his ass handed to him in prison.

+1

He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

I don't care that the movies he directed were good, he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

+2

I concur with the folks above me. I am just a bit taken aback at how many child-rape apologists there are when it comes to this guy.

I don't really know much about this, but I thought I heard that the girl later recanted her testimony. Anything on that?

the girl didn't recant anything. She only asked that the case be dropped because bringing it up in a constant fashion brings too much pain to her and her family. She's ashamed and just wants it to go away.

Ah. Well then Polanski should suffer a punishment of her choosing.

You know that punishment for felony criminality is not handed down by the victim. Civil society demands punishment based on law, as drugging a child in order to anal rape her is an affront to civilization as a whole.

I'm of the opinion that no one is above justice. Serve it to him--even if he's 100 and dying.

I'll try to play devil's advocate.. That kid was busy early on. Had alcohol before, had sex twice, been under the influence of Quaaludes all before the age of 13... Maybe she made that shit up and now regrets it but can't recant her story without facing purgery charges.

Not necessarily, I mean sure she was underage but pedophile assumes he had a preference of underage versus a crime of opportunity.

Honestly, I think it's been a long time coming. Even if she says she forgives him, I still think she'll feel better knowing he's getting what he truly deserves. If he had just faced his punishment head on he could have been out of prison and actually lived out his last days at home free to go where he wanted. He's spent his life restricted from going places and now he's going to have serve the same sentence and likely die in prison. He made many wrong choices and instead of owning up to them he tried to avoid them but they caught up to him and he's worse off now that he was before. He deserves what he gets.

I don't know enough about this to make a judgment but it sounds like he should stand trial and be judged accordingly.

If he's found guilty he should do the time.

He already plead guilty...

Wiki link here

He bolted from the states to avoid doing the time for his crime.

IMO, screw him, he drugged and raped a 13 yr old girl. Lock him up.

The reason Polanski ran was because despite the plea bargain that would have spared him any prison time, he was going to be sent back to jail until such time as the judge in the case decided on the validity of the plea bargain. It wasn't so much flouting US law as it was a reaction to the judge's decision. I don't like plea bargains, but once one's made, it pretty well has to be honoured or you'll never get another one from anyone.

Now... that being said, the idiot DA that would have brokered or accepted a plea bargain of that nature should have been strung up by the short hairs.

It doesn't matter that Polanski's wife (Sharon Tate) claimed the girl looked like she could have been 25... she wasn't. And she wasn't a willing participant. Polanski should be crucified. My fear is that since he's not in the US yet, and that France will be able to pressure the Swiss into releasing him back into France.

they should throw the asshole in a cell with jerry lee lewis. i'm sure they'd have plenty to talk about....

See, in doing a little reading on the net about Polanski, it is AMAZING what you can find out.

He is definitely a Pedophile because he also dated a then 15 year old Nastassja Kinski.

Nastassja Kinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The 13 year old was right after Kinski.

You can BET that there are other young girls as well.

I think Roman Polanski has some sort of mental illness after discovering the manson's murdered his pregnant wife. I know that is not an excuse for what he did and probably should go to prison just like every person who decides to have sex with an underage person and then flee's from the United States before getting a sentence.

well, I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised the folks of TFP are by and large well-informed on the story behind this arrest and are aligning themselves in this way. there have historically been a lot of mistaken assumptions made about this case.
apologists for this man make me sick.

I can't help but think that he should be glad he stood trial already; if this case were to be prosecuted today, I doubt he would get off with a plea bargain for unlawful sex with a minor.

I think the Swiss authorities did the right thing in light of their extradition treaty with the United States, and I'm glad our authorities have never lost sight of this case. Polanski has been a fugitive for too long; he needs to serve his time.

yeah see the problem here is kinda obvious, yes?

fact is that this is pretty embarrassing all the way around. if you think about polanski through contemporary standards--like what animates the posts above---you cannot think about him as a film director.
if you think about him as a film director, you cannot think about him as a fugitive.
if you know that he was living in the house he has owned in switzerland for the past 25-odd years all summer...you kinda have to wonder what the point of waiting until the festival was to arrest him.

there is something very very odd about all this.


anyway, this article repeats the division pretty well through a recap of the split reactions about the arrest:

Should Roman Polanski be above the law? | Film | The Guardian

the piece starts off in one direction then goes in another. it's interesting.

Good recap of the situation in this article:

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child - Broadsheet - Salon.com

Fry his ass. I always was under the assumption that the sex had being consensual, but after finding out he boozed and drugged her, I don't care if he's the fucking Jesus of directors, he is a rapist and must be judged accordingly.

Yes, that is indeed a very interesting angle.

What changed?

I have to wonder if the Swiss aren't getting something out of this? (Like supposedly the British did by releasing the dying (but not quite dead yet) Pan Am bomber).

Did the American gov't offer something up in return for nabbing Polanski this time?

If the American Gov't did offer something up, you can bet that they won't be going easy on his ass despite it being 30 years later.

By Reece aka cybermike:He is a pedophile, with a history of sex with underage girls. It is documented. This girl was not his first, nor his last.


Above, Aladdin Sane says : Civil society demands punishment based on law, as drugging a child in order to anal rape her an affront to civilization as a whole. I appreciate this, as it is how I feel. Actually, I feel more than affronted. I feel protective.

Thanks to those of you who stand up for the girls! They will be better women for it.

Given that the judge was admittedly biased, given time already served, and given the victim's desire to see this over with, I doubt Polanski will serve much if any time in jail.

I don't think waht he did was in any way correct, I'm just saying those are the facts and if you think he's going to the pen, you're wrong.

I dunno highthief, with the amount of exposure this is getting the DA is going to be under huge amounts of pressure to not only get a conviction on the rape charge, but also the fugitive charge. The victim may want this to be over with but we'll see a whole new trial and conviction I think.

:lol: good lord

I am completely able to separate Roman Polanski's personal life from his achievements as a film director. I can easily sit and enjoy his films (well, some of them...not that Johnny Depp fiasco) without even thinking about him and what he did. That's because they are inconsequential to each other.

Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969. She couldn't have claimed anything about the 1977 child rape case.

Go here to read the girl's Grand Jury testimony: Polanski The Pervert - June 10, 2008. Polanski drugged and raped the little girl. She told him "No" but he did it anyway. He's a real hero.

I'd fuck him...


Oh wait... what?

They will get him on his fleeing justice as opposed to the rape. Just like they got OJ, or Martha Stewart, they'll get Polanski. All you'll hear is, "it's not about the rape, it's about him fleeing"

They'll give him 10 years.

As far as I'm concerned, too bad, so sad for Roman Polanski the pedophile. He's not above the law simply because he makes movies.

More fame for the famous.

Like mixedm I feel the same about Polanski. i am able to differentiate his work from his personal life, and I like his work. His vampire film is memorable.

The problem I see with this whole thing is: Will justice really be served so many years later, and who will it be serving? If he is still pedophiling around, well then of course. But if not, perhaps we should look to those who are.

Yep, fry his ass about sums it up

his actions, if the girl's account is true, are despicable.

Still, if anything he should be retried. I have a real problem with using a fake deal to get a confession and then incarcerating him for avoiding the outcome of that fake deal.

You're right of course. Serves me right for going from memory. I believe that there was a woman at his house that night who defended Polanski on the grounds he didn't know how old the girl was, and that her appearance was certainly "mature". I'm not sure if it was his wife at the time (if he had one), or simply a houseguest. Someone else may know for sure.

defended his rape?

i dont care how old the person is, you dont get 'em loopy and stick it in their pooper.

Why was she alone with Polanski? Don't mothers usually stand by when their young daughters are trying to become famous. Did she just drop her off at this house to be alone with a 44 yr old stranger and agree to pick her up later? I can't find these details anywhere so maybe somone else knows.

From what I've heard, her mother allowed her to go with him because she was trying to get her daughter into films. Whether she suspected or not? I imagine she's the only one who knows that.

I've been doing some reading about this. This is in no way meant to excuse Polanski's actions, I should be clear. Despicably enough, these facts were brought out in deposition and aired at the indictment hearing, a classic case of blaming the victim... But the fact of the matter is, the 13 year old victim wasn't a virgin, was a fairly regular user of alcohol and other substances, and the term "pimped her out" has been used to describe her mom's behavior toward her. Point being, it's not like her family could necessarily be relied upon to ensure her well-being.

If you put yourself in her mom's shoes, you know, it becomes easier to see how this could happen. Your daughter is going to be a star! I mean, you drop her off at Jack Nicholson's house, for god's sake. To do her second photo shoot with Roman Polanski, who just made the smash hit Chinatown. This is all GOOD news! And in a simpler, less suspicious time, I'd also note. It's hard to blame anybody but Polanski for what happened next.

It didn't happen at his house. It was at Jack Nicholson's house but he wasn't home. His wife at the time, Anjelica Huston was there. And she defended him saying that girl didn't look her age. And that Roman was a good guy.

How would anyone act if it was their next door neighbor who pled guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, then fled the country for 25 years?

Who cares about his fame.

Half of Hollywood and most of Europe, from the things I'm seeing. Pity. I used to like Msr. Sarkozy.

It's just like the people who get picked up by Nazi hunters these days. You don't commit a serious crime and get away with it just because it happened a long time ago. He was a rapist in 1977, he's a rapist now, and justice was never served because he got away.

I'm not going to say I don't approve of Polanski getting a little justice-- although there appear to have been enough improprieties with his first trial/plea agreement that I am inclined to think a new one is in order-- I have no qualms about putting someone away, whether they happen to be talented and/or famous or not.

However, I do have to question: this seems to be an awful lot of trouble to capture one aged criminal, whose crimes involved the misuse of sex and drugs nearly forty years ago, at a time when half the world was misusing drugs and engaging in sexual improprieties of one kind or another. Maybe if there were some evidence that his apparent taste for underaged girls had survived the 20th Century, or even the Seventies.... I mean, if it were just a matter of the local sherriff snagging some geezer out of the park in Fresno and plopping him on the bus from the local clink to send him down to LA with the rest of the trash, I wouldn't think twice about it. But an organized manhunt involving DOJ and Interpol? How much paperwork does this generate? How many agents are involved? How much bureaucracy? How many of my tax dollars are going toward nabbing one old criminal in Europe, who doesn't appear to have done anything illegal there in thirty-odd years, and hauling his aged ass home to go through all the legal bullshit here, where there is at least some chance he'll end up with a few months in the LA jail plus a zillion hours of community service that he can do from behind a camera?

Sure, what he did was bad. No question. But it was also forty years ago, and there seem to be bigger fish to fry. That's just MHO.

(And, BTW, I think there's a big diff between hunting Nazis, who absolutely did contribute to the deaths of many, and hunting this guy, who may or may not have had non-consensual sex with one girl. Like I said, perfectly willing to believe that he did, and that if he did, it was bad. But there is some element of doubt, and in any case, it can't be compared to mass murder.)

No "may or may not" to it. He did it, he copped to it, and then he bugged out because he knew he was in for a taste of his own medicine. As others have noted, this was not his first underage "girlfriend," and the victim's testimony makes clear that this was Rape and Forcible Sodomy, pure and simple, with no room for misinterpretation. She said "no," repeatedly, he kept going (repeatedly), and progressed from cunnilingus to vaginal to anal intercourse, each time over the victim's objections. Pedophiles, pederasts and rapists are notoriously recidivistic; if he did it twice (and he did), that just means those are the only two who either told somebody or were believed. I've never heard of a sexual predator (and that's what we're discussing here; a predator who drugs barely-pubescent girls and then assrapes them) who stopped with two victims and then said to himself "Allright, enough of that, now let's move on to normal sex with adults." Nobody believed it from Erroll Flynn, nobody believed it from any of the dozens of paedophile Priests and other Clergy that've come to light over the years, and I for sure don't believe it from a serial pederast like Roman Polanski.

Doesn't matter, IMO. The judge is on tape (he was on 20/20 or some such show) and admitted he came down hard on Polanksi not for judicial reasons but to appear popular to the people. Tons of people have been let off on escaping justice when it's many years down the road.

If I could find a bookie to place the bet with, I'd wager he doesn't see the inside of a jail cell for more than a couple of days.

Of course he won't, he's a wealthy, famous, jet-setting member of the Hollywood elite with significant portions of his cadre, including heads of state, lining up to defend him. The fact that he's a self-confessed rapist will have nothing to do with it.

At this point, NOT punishing him because so much water under the bridge is tantamount to rewarding him for being a successful fugitive. I predict that the rape charges will be more or less dropped (that is what the victim has asked for, anyway, so a judge would be wise to be sensitive to that) but that the flight and avoiding arrest charges will result a the book being thrown at him.

Remember that Al Capone was sent up for tax evasion....

Sounds like a plan to me.

Close to my point.

This guy has his own thread here only because he's a celebrity. What about the other trillions of adult children who were molested / raped / abused by an elder? Too late for them to press charges.

one of my girlfriends good buddies was raped and murdered. she was 14. they found the guy and matched the DNA...he got 3 years in prison, he had the money.

if doing something that horrible only gets you three years if you're wealthy, im sure he'll just get a small slap on the wrist.

Add my name to the Fry His Ass list.

13? No excuses. Send him to PMITA prison.

Well damn, hasn't he suffered enough? I mean he's had to stay out of the US for over 30 years!!!! That's tantamount to being in Hell, right?

absolutely disgusting! we have people in prison for longer terms because they had *gasp* drugs on them, yet someone rapes and murders someone and they get 3 years. Placico Burress gets 2 years in prison for carrying a gun in a nightclub and Chris Brown gets probation for beating the shit out of a woman. Man our justice system rocks! :rolleyes:

Why are people still discussing whether or not he gets convicted? He plead guilty which is the same result as being convicted. Only thing left is the sentencing, he didn't like the way the judge was leaning and fled. Now maybe the judge was a publicity whore, don't know. But you drug and rape a 13yrs child you don't get to pick your judge.

I could see a new charge of fugitive flight... but I doubt it. My guess is he's going to spend a few weeks in Swiss custody, work out a deal that allows the LA DA to save face and be returned to the US where he'll a slap on the wrist. Good news for him is Hollywood will welcome him back, probably to a heroes welcome. Who cares if he like to fucks little girls? He makes good movies! Yeah!

I still say he's going to get time. BBC is reporting that the US has been after him for a while and he was red listed on Interpol. This is too high profile for them to simply broker some weak deal and allow it to go soft. A judge may be sympathetic towards the victim's wishes, but seeing as how Polanski already settled with the victim for an undisclosed amount after a civil trial, there's no reason why a new criminal trial shouldn't be held on both the rape and the fugitive charge.

Some say it should be easy to find a man who is shooting a film..that I agree with, but perhaps there was some underlying red tape that caused it to be a problem.

Historically, the Swiss keep suspects that are on extradition notice in custody, so I think Polanski's lawyers will not be successful in getting him out of Swiss jail. The LA DA has a ton of heat on this case and would more than likely lose an election if this failed.

Even if the judge was considered corrupt in the first trial, the simple fact is that a judge does *not* have to honor a plea bargain set up by defense and prosecution. If a judge rejects the deal, a new plea may be entered or a trial will be held. Polanski knew he was fucked after the first deal was rejected, ran to France because they don't work with the US on extradition and now he needs to face the music. With all due respect to the victim ( previous sexual and drug history is irrelevant in a case like this), she needs to making sure this man pays in more than cash.

i agree with tully as to what's likely to happen.
and alot of this follows from the way in which the arrest was done.
i think everyone involved is looking for a way out.
this isn't about "justice" really. this is about saving face.

other folk have mentioned this, but you have to be dreaming if you imagine the american justice system applies the same standards to everyone. by way of law, it imposes the same constraints on everyone---but because of the nature of the process (trial etc) and because of the class system, at the level of outcomes conditioned by those constraints, it's nothing like equitable. never has been. never will be.

this in general.


secondly, insofar as the media-event dimension of this is concerned, it matters a whole lot that this is roman polanski. and it is this fact that sets up the problems which follow, and which will continue to follow, from the way this arrest was made. like i said earlier, given that polanski's owned a house in switzerland for 25 years and was living there the whole of this past summer, an arrest on the d.l. could have been made at any point. you want to treat polanski as a criminal, then arrest him at his house. you want to fuck things up, do what the swiss police did. because it explicitly invokes polanski's work, drags it into play, makes of it an Issue. it makes of the situation an embarrassment. an international embarrassment no less.

think about the reactions from french political quarters. you have the argument out there that puritan america with its distorted sense of "justice" is arresting one of the most important film directors of the past 40 years, who's 78 years old, and doing it in a climate in the context of which the entire notion of statutory rape has been refigured on a cultural level. like it or not, the crime is different--fundamentally different--now than it was in the early 1970s. the reactions here are anachronistic, and cannot be otherwise.

this is not to justify anything, either. it is simply to say that the is in all probability no way polanski could get anything like a fair trial in the united states were this charge at play, and he can afford lawyers who will make sure that this is the central argument, and that the la district attorney's office would loose in court. i have little doubt about this. the flight charge would be the one to maybe stick. but even then, because of the way the arrest happened, and because of how that arrest allowed this whole situation to be framed, that's not gonna happen either.

and so it doesn't matter what you or i think about it. the theater of which this is part is playing by different rules. it's just the way things are.

folk don't like the idea that this is the case, but that doesn't matter: it is the case.
like the wu tang once put it: cash rules everything around me.
we're free like that.
you want to adjust your image of the united states around this, do what Real Americans do: go out and buy something.

I don't care if she was 13, 30, or 130. He drugged her and raped her repeatedly over her stated objections. Orally, vaginally, and anally. In any civilised country, the US and France included, this is rape, pure and simple, and doing it will get you sent to prison for a long time with nobody feeling terribly bad about it...if you're lucky. Leave the age of the victim out of it for a second, and consider the fact that he just plain RAPED her.

Anachronistic reactions my hairy ass.

is this statutory rape? I don't think it is.

personally, I would feel much differently about it if it were...it just doesn't fit that description.

was he originally charged with statutory rape? if he was then that's a major fuckup by the prosecutor.

this is no where near statutory rape.. it's rape 1.

http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_...1090/jesus.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_md61S_gChL...urbanbomb1.gif

If its good enough for Jesus and the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon Him.....

the conviction was for a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. statutory rape.
the reason he fled was that because he was afraid the sentencing would reflect something closer to rape 1.


i was looking this up for the detail and ran across a transcript of the victim's grand jury testimony.
maybe it's interesting.
maybe it's lurid.
either way.

The Smoking Gun: Archive

Technically it is... she was under the legal age (I think someone said it was 16 in California at the time). But you're right, that doesn't matter. The sick bastard violently raped her, over her protests, against her wishes. The inclusion of statutory rape as an included charge would be just to make sure you got him if he managed to raise doubts about the other issues.

What really sickens me right now is the outcry by filmmakers and French politicians and other supporters to let him go because so much time has passed and he has suffered enough already because of the public ridicule and disdain over this. BULLSHIT!! The man is an animal and it is unbelievable they would try to excuse his criminal assault on a child because he is a) old; b) talented; c) a lot of time has passed.

This smacks to me of the Middle Age custom of the Catholic Church selling indulgences to wealthy nobles to excuse sins, often (usually?) in advance. That was wrong. This is wrong. You can't just get away with it because you're better than someone else, especially your victim.

(please note, I use the example of indulgences not as a condemnation of the Catholic Church, but as an example of how easily people are willing to pervert justice on the some utterly indefensible, unconnected logic)

I'm not sure about LA, but here, you can be charged with Rape 1 (forcible, etc) in lieu of Statutory even if the victim is under legal age of consent. The Rape 1 charge carries a class A felony while Statutory carries a class B felony.

I'd like to see him charged with a Class A felony.

you know, I really don't care what 'he gets'
now that it's happened, I'm just glad that the case is going to come to some sort of conclusion
and i really don't give a hoot at how put out he or anyone else is about how it happened.
when I was really poor and struggling in the late '90s, I would hate it when the power company came and shut my power off on Friday mornings because that meant I would have to hurry and muster up the cash before 2pm or else we would be without power over the weekend.
now, that's not really a just comparison of events, no, but it illustrates the ways in which 'regular folks' have to deal with the fucked up ways shit goes down sometimes and they're ain't nobody gonna start petitions or cry for your just treatment in public about it.
the man has had a beautiful and properous life but he did this thing. and sometimes you can't just walk away. that's life.

gucci: double jeopardy. it's out of the question.

oh I know. just wishful thinking.

A sentence that see's him facing at least 10 years of grey days would be appropriate

Being talented does not excuse such a revoting criminal act. Any nation which has sheltered this sex offender from justice should be ashamed.

What's the deciding factor for me is that t was wrong for him to flee, regardless of how guilty he was.

Roach I'm honestly shocked by your lack of interest in this.

You pointed out there was not a trial in which the average person would enjoy because of his wealth/fame. He drugged and raped a girl against her wishes, and he only got sex with a minor. That's like someone shooting a guy in the face and getting off with disturbing the peace.

He got this because of his wealth and fame... NOTHING ELSE. You should be up in arms over the binary legal system this is showing, but instead you're in his corner.

I've been thinking about this for a while since the news hit that he'd been arrested, and I think the importance that the particular arrest of this particular child rapist has to do with factors that I've not seen discussed yet in this thread, or in any other discussion of it for that matter. I think the ultimate problem for Mr. Polanski, and the reason that it has so much perceived spotlight is largely the fault of Mr. Polanski himself. I've not read the original court documents in detail, but from what I can gather he admitted that he had sex with the 13 year old girl, was given a plea bargain by the DA, which he then feared would not be honored by the judge in the case. He was released and allowed to travel to Europe, and then refused to return to the sentencing. If this is correct, then it seems to me that the people involved in the case must have had a reasonable expectation that he might not return, but that's not the central point, in my eyes. Given the nature of the crime, and the fact that his pregnant wife had been brutally slain by Charles Manson's cohorts, I would imagine that there was a certain amount of melodrama associated with the original case which led to the strange way that it played out. 44 year old successful Hollywood darling, at Jack Nicholson's house, who apparently raped a 13 year old girl who was known to have engaged in some previous high-risk behavior. Media focus on the case, careers of the judge and DA in question...and Polanski slipped away.

There are no doubt countless other pedofiles, pedarasts, rapists, muderers..etc...who have skipped town and made it to countries without strong extradition policies with the U.S. I think if Polanski had moved to France, or even Switzerland...and kept a low profile, this wouldn't be happening right now. He might show up on a "Where are they now?" program every so often, and be the subject of cultural myth. However, Polanski decided to continue keeping himself in the limelight. He continued to make movies, and public appearances. He kept himself relevant, and he kept the fact that he'd alluded the American court system and had flown out country after a controversial case relevant.

Therefore, I think that his behavior could easily be interpreted as flaunting his freedom from American justice, and this behavior gives a strong sense of entitlement and being above the law. It's not so much the particulars of this case, but what Polanski came to represent. After so much public attention on his work, and the awards for "The Pianist" which he famously chose not to receive in person, I think it was inevitable that the U.S. justice system would make it a point to pick him up. And apparently they did. There is an apparent lack of real remorse, and a sense conveyed that he believes himself to be outside the jurisdiction of justice for his crime...and I think this is what is really fueling the desire to bring him back. The efforts to keep him out of U.S. jurisdiction because he's a famous and successful entertainment icon only make this perception worse. It seems to say that he should be less accountable for his crimes because he's done some nice film work, and this notion above all else is what may end up bringing him down. If he'd just kept a low profile in France, I doubt any of us would be reading about this in the news.

I can't really say I have a problem with that. If you get away with it, don't throw it in people's faces. They will come to resent you.

seaver--i actually am interested in this, but as a Problem created by the swiss police that is big enough that i wouldn't be surprised to see what i outline above happening.
if i wasn't interested in the situation, i'd probably be calling for him to simply be put away.
you know.

I heard a very interesting comparison today....

Say Polanski was a Catholic priest instead of a famous movie Director.

Would that change things for those who are protesting his capture?

If you can't say you'd let the priest off the hook (Woody Allen, Martin Scorcesse, Whoopi Goldberg), then how is it that you can find it in you to let Polanski off the hook?

BTW, here's what Whoopi had to say.


:rolleyes:

It wasn't "rape - rape"

I guess that's worse than just rape. But not as bad as rape-rape-rape.

I don't see Whoopi as an apologist at all. I think she, like many, just doesn't see this issue in stark black and white. There are shades of grey in most things. And those shades, in this case, are further muddied by time. As usual, we get passionate (almost to the point of getting out the mad villager torches and pitchforks) with out taking a pause. My instinct in these sorts of things is to back off and try to be as dispassionate as possible. I never want to find myself at the heart of mob... or mob-think.

Yeah, but.....

In some things in life, there are lines which is black on one side and white on the other. In this case, it's a pretty easy to define line. Age. It's easily quantified.

It is illegal to have sex with a person under the age of 16, or 14, or 18. (Especially if you're a 44 year old man. It might be shades of grey if he was 16 and she was 13, but 44 and 13 - that's black and white.)

I'm not one clamouring for Polanski to be castrated, or fried, however, he needs to face the music on this one.

I read yesterday that even the French have backed off calling for his release. Now that's interesting.

French government drops support for Polanski - Yahoo! News

if the actual issue at play in this thread keeps moving off what it actually is--a flight from justice---and back onto the action for which polanski was already convicted, then it's pretty clear that there's not much black-and-white about the situation, isn't it?

personally, i dont doubt that what happened happened, and dont doubt that the conviction was correct in that plea-bargain kinda way--and i also dont doubt that had the same thing happened in 2009, it would have been defined differently. but the fact is, like it or not, it didn't happen in 2009 and the issue now is not really what people in 2009 think of what happened in 1972, but rather that he was arrested in a fucked-up manner for a flight from justice warrant. *that's* the center of this empirically.

the other center is the complexity of the situation created by the arrest itself. what i suspect you're seeing from sarkosy's administration follows from not inconsiderable pressure from the united states to back down. because unless the resistance to this calms, anything that happens---anything at all, no matter which way things turn out---will be a debacle.

i find all of this surreal.

Whoopi Goldberg is a frikkin' IDIOT. "It wasn't RAPE-rape..."

OF COURSE IT WAS, YOU SMEG-HEAD!

Sometimes an issue either IS black or IS white, PERIOD. You can't be "half pregnant" or "half raped."

Edited: I mistakenly compared Ms. Goldberg to a particularly lovely and useful portion of the feminine anatomy, one of which I'm quite fond. My apologies. I did not mean to so crudely insult the vaginas of the world.

No, technically it isn't. Statutory rape and rape I or raping someone after drugging them are completely different offensives. The fact she was under age doesn't automatically make it statutory rape.

QFT.

but he was convicted of statutory rape.

right. he was *convicted* of statutory. so now he needs to serve his time and serve time on the flight charge.

Pedophiles are rarely, if every, rehabilitated. While I might personally believe he should never see the light of day again, that probably will not be the case. I think he will get more years for fleeing. But I definitely think he will serve some time. No way would we go to such lengths to get him into custody if were weren't planning on throwing the book at him.

Word on the street: If Roman's next movie wins six or more Oscars, Hollywood plans to let him fuck a ten-year-old.

too soon??

well, the trick is that there wasn't much of anything in terms of lengths gone to in order to find polanski. there was no investigation it seems--there was a purely administrative transfer of information from one bureaucratic level to another. no manpower was devoted to finding him. that's what i think is the underlying problem here: he's been a high-profile figutive from the united states for 25 years or so, has made alot of films, has been easy to locate--but no-one's tried within the judicial apparatus. as i understand it, the last time he was almost nabbed was at another very public festival in israel where he had gone to accept an award.

so it's obvious that the reason he was arrested was that the police in switzerland found out about the publicity. maybe they have a news-scanning software that looks for names of folk with interpol warrants out for them. maybe running that software is all investigation of these things amounts to.

and maybe that's the issue--someone like polanski reveals the fact of the matter, that it is entirely possible to go underground and stay there, that it's entirely possible to live quite publicly for a long time and not be noticed by law enforcement--but the mythology about law enforcement requires that you believe the contrary. you need to believe that the Law is Drawn to the Guilty. you need to believe that the Law Protects you--because if that's the case, then the state by extension protects you and the political order for which it operates, of which it is an expression--that protects you (and not simply itself)....

that's another reason this bit of theater is interesting.
ideological drama. gots to love it.

but again, this is really not about what polanski may or may not have done in 1972 before he split the united states. it's about the fact that he split the united states rather than serving a sentence.

It really is amazing how they are trying to protect the guy. You'd maybe expect the likes of NAMBLA, the Thailandian tourist industry or perhaps some prominent politicians from the east coast to have his back but this is ridiculous. Full frontal lobotomy for Mr. Polanski and all his fellow child rapists.

that's great thinking there powerclown--so if anyone turns their attention to any other aspect of the case, they're defending the guy. so yours is the only possible position of Righteousness.
great stuff. it's happened alot in this thread. as usual, i think it's funny.

Call me a simpleton, but its the only aspect of this sordid affair that interests me. Talking about the actual crime itself. I don't know why you are being so paranoid -- you have at it any way you want.

He was allowed to plead to a lesser charge, yes. Happens all the time. Did then and does now. Doesn't make it right.

Personally I care what happens in this case. I care because I see letting those with money, power and influence get off easy (or, at times, completely) as a disgrace to the system, a disgrace to justice itself. I'm not interested in cutting his nuts off or having him "fry" for his actions. I want him sentenced based on the sentencing guides from when he plead guilty and charged for flight and sentenced accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do I think any of that's going to happen? No. I think he'll be back finishing post production on his latest film within a few months, possibly weeks. I hope I'm wrong.

I understand Polanski paid her off as the result of a civil suit. I wonder if he wishes he had paid before the charges were brought like Michael Jackson.

The plea bargain would have resulted in no jail time beyond the mental evaluation Polanski already completed back then. I've got no issue standing by that original deal. If it was fine with the victim then and now, I see no reason to beat the dead horse.

But he needs to get the maximum for obstructing justice. I think that's 10 years in California (although I could have that mixed up with the Federal penalty and I can't find a clear answer).

quoted as a near perfect expression of my own opinion on the matter.
thanks, Tully.

when I say fry the mother fucker...I'm on the fence on whether someone like this deserves to even live or if it would be more poetic to have him in prison for life so he can get a taste of his own medicine.

The wishes of the victim are not relevant in this case.

First, Polanski committed a crime against the judicial system by fleeing, an offense that must be corrected regardless of the underlying case, and for which Polanski must pay some price. Otherwise, bail means nothing, especially to the rich.

Second, the state assumes the role of complainant in criminal cases at trial for a reason. As part of the social contract, we agree to forgo personal and/or clan blood atonement for crimes against us in place of a rational adjudication of crimes, which is not the universal condition, as we discovered somewhat belatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to support the rule of law rather than vendettas, then we need to pursue Polanski and everyone else who runs out on sentencing after a conviction.

Aladdin, I see these as two completely separate that should have separate punishments. For the crime with a single victim, I think that her wishes then and now are paramount. If that was fine then, fine now and there was never really a push by her for real jail time (if there was, I'm unaware of it), then I see no reason why the State shouldn't stand by their original agreement with Polanski.

Obstruction of justice is a completely different matter, and I think that we basically agree there. I'm all for the maximum punishment for that separate crime. Perhaps I just see this situation in an odd and unusual light, but it seems to me that the OofJ crime needs a separate crime and punishment without the possibility of bail (which is standard in these cases, as I understand it).

First, Polanski committed the crime against the girl. That's separate than the one that he committed against the state when he fled. Does that make sense to anyone else or are these crazy pills on my desk?

Lofty words. I wonder if you'd feel the same if the perpetrator was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin.

That's pretty much what I think would be justice. Honor the original terms of the plea bargain (absurdly generous though it clearly was), and come down hard on the flight and obstruction. He does time served from way back when on the sex with a minor charge, and whatever is the appropriate sentence for somebody who ran away and thumbed their nose at lawful society for thirty-odd years.