October 02, 2009 06:00 AM
A word to the Polanski apologists
I wasn't going to comment on this story for obvious reasons, but since all these Polanski apologists are surfacing everywhere I just wanted to say: He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then skipped town. Sorry, there's no excusing that, ever.
And I agree with what Duncan says.
And as usual, Glenn Greenwald catches and exposes the Washington Post editors for being hypocrites on this whole issue, because their columnists defend him as badly as some of those from the creative world do.
go to prison.
End of story.
Karma has finally caught up to Roman Polanski. It's about time. His apologists make me ill.
Laws apply to everyone, including the rich and powerful.
Polanski gets no sympathy from me.
It's because he's a creative genius! So he raped a kid...he's a creative genius! Did you see Rosamary's Baby? It's great cinema, come on!
/snark/
china town was his good one, and it was about a guy raping his daughter. it's all sick. we can do with out kid raping for any so called reason.
China Town was a classic.
Sorry.
because the victim now doesn't want the issue continued. And as someone who has lived on the lam for awhile, part of me can understand the "Fuck the cops, come and find me" attitude.
But now that you're caught, time to man up and do the time. That said, the 30-year sentence does seem harsh to me. He should do some time, but I don't think he should die in jail.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
... you haven't spent the last 30 years boppin' around Europe and living in luxury, either.
The poor man had to live in France all these years, isn't that punishment enough?
Kidding aside, while I sympathize with what he went through as a boy and I greatly admire his work as an auteur... however, he committed a crime as a man and that man is the one that should be punished.
"Which of my cellves
will be remember'd"
— Jim Morrison
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
But that doesn't excuse what he did eight years later.
BTW, none of the Manson disciples should EVER get out. Period.
Maybe if he wouldn't have evaded the law in the first place, he might not be facing the very likely scenario of having to die in jail. Given his actions I think the 30 year sentence probably too generous because this girl he raped probably has not had a peaceful night's rest knowing that he was out on the streets all these years.
Because of all of these apologists looking at this whole chain of events based on who he is rather than what he has done, Polanski must get the most severe sentence the law permits for the crimes he committed. The 13 year old girl he drugged and raped, just had her wounds ripped open again. It is understandable she doesn't want the issue continued because SHE is the one who is forced to relive the whole ordeal. Child rape is not only a crime against her but against the innocence of all children.
behind her, because he has denied her justice for so many years. He was willing to sign a plea deal, but too much of a coward to follow through on his word.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
The woman he raped as a 13 yr old, (and whose mother brokered the deal), doesn't want to go through this again. What about her rights?
Last night they showed her picture on tv, (and why was that necessary?). I wondered how she must feel knowing that if she turns on the news, this is what she might see.
For the media, this is entertainment - or filler.
Polanski lives in his own hell, and there is no public evidence that he has been a serial pedophile since then, and this took place immediately after the horrendous murder of his 8 mth pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, and their baby, by the Manson family.
This one is a tough one for me, glad I'm not the judge, you know?
or something?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I do think there was some sort of settlement made to the girl, but I'm not even certain of that, or anything about it.
I just think it must suck for her to have to relive this yet again.
Kinski was 15 when Polanski banged her. How about Drew Barrymore? 14 maybe?
No pedophilia here. Let's move on.
Frank Zappa - Make A Jazz Noise Here
she said not out of concern for the victim but out of concern for Roman Polanski. She wants it to end likely for deep personal reasons plus the media attention, they want it to end so that he never pays for his crime.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Excuse: "It happened 30 years ago."
So? Phillip Garrido is currently being held on charges that he abducted and raped Jaycee Lee Dugard, holding Dugard captive for 18 years. Should he be cut some slack for his crimes?
I would imagine that it doesn't matter if Samantha Geimer (Polanski's victim) doesn't want to press charges. She was a minor at the time, and charges would be issued by the state acting on her behalf.
Lastly, Polanski has shown no sign of remorse, made no efforts towards atonement (a cash settlement paid to Geimer isn't atonement, it's bribery), nor rehabilitation. He has led his life with an eye to avoiding being in a position where he could be arrested and extradited, so certainly HE believes his past actions are suspect.
hasn't he suffered long enough? I mean, he couldn't even go on holiday in the United States. That isn't punishment enough? He had to live in Europe? With those, gasp, progressives!
I dare say, time has been served.
"hasn't he suffered long enough?"
Nope.
it was a joke.
An obese right-wing radio "personality?"
So he didn't rape her?
He just happened to have sex with a child of thirteen.
SEX with an eighth grader.
Sex with someone of an age to be selling Girl Scout Cookies.
SEX with a CHILD. That is just wrong.
not good. at all.
.......and YES they are elitist, are way off base on this one. I wonder how many of them have a 13 year old daughter?
I'm still trying to figure out why he's even a respected filmmaker. Rosemary's Baby is one notable film. The rest are garbage.
His incarceration is well deserved and I for one will not miss his unbearable cinematic masturbation.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
"Chinatown" was pure cinematic gold.
I'm still in awe over that film.
(I didn't care much for "Rosemary's Baby", so to each their own, eh?)
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
I forgot about Chinatown, that was a good one alright.
Interesting it dealt with the long delayed results of incest.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
He made a few good films at the beginning: Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby. But for the last 25 years its been stinkers: Frantic?! Pirates?! 9th Gate?! The Pianist was solid, but not exactly visionary...
Is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Sometimes it serves as a bedtime story that watch as I fall asleep at night.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
OK, then. Frantic really, really sucked.
Like Michele Philips?
He should have been put in jail decades ago.
The way some people in Hollyweird are acting makes ya wonder.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
made me wonder about them too....
they're all attempting to make it sound like she consented, and it's not a big deal...
Sorry...but it IS a big deal, and even if she DID consent, it's STILL RAPE!
It's good thing I'm not in charge of sentencing for pedophiles...they'd wish they'd never been born...
I have no sympathy AT ALL for monsters that abuse kids.
In Spain, the age of consent is 13. Does that mean Spain is a nation of monstrous pedophiles? Or maybe, just maybe, what you perceive as an absolute is not necessarily so. Age of consent laws differ all over the place, in the world today, in history, in America, even, where some states say 16 and others say 18. So, to act as though "statutory rape" is some great indisputable moral wrong is an ignorant and faulty position that completely ignores the reality and disparity of human cultures.
....and we don't live in Spain.
Never said we did. I'm disputing the notion that all people who have sex with persons under-the-age-of-consent are monsters that deserve to be punished so harshly they'll wish they'd never been born. That seems to be an almost distinctly American point of view.
13 is too young and it is in most countries. You are casting a big blanket. And I would not trust you with my kids. Just sayin'......
Europeans....then, in this case, I'm FUCKIN PROUD to be a backward American!
Doesn't even matter how old she was. She said no.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
men marry ten year old girls and have sex with them.
So, as men of the world(nudge-nudge) we can do what we will because there are some laws that are just sooo stodgy in America.
And he drugged her, which makes it clear that it was not consentual, which makes it rape regardless of age.
http://the-billablog.blogspot.com/
He never plead guilty to drugging the victim. The charge was never proven in court. Being charged with a crime is not proof of guilt.
He confessed to giving her drugs. Fact.
that's proof of guilt right there.
No, it's not. Try again.
it may not be in technical, legal terms...but call me crazy, if one goes and rapes a 13 y/o kid, get's caught, then flees the country...guilty.
And yes, if Spanish men are goin around having sex with 13 year old kids, they ARE monstrous pedophiles.
I don't care what the law is over there...13 is too damn young!
I agree.
Check out the law in Colorado -
12-13 year olds are legal to marry. Google it.
So if 13 yos make monsters - we have some here too! Just a little more American hypocrisy.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
That's insane!
that's one thing this nation could use a lot less of.
Native Americans were being slaughteredthe West was being settled, marrying age was very young in many states/territories, to encourage rapid settlement. Not sure how many states still have these laws on the books.American hypocrisy? Say it ain't so...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I'm sure that not all Spanish men are doing that. I'm also sure that some Spaniards think we're all a bunch of hillbilly, bible-thumping, shoeless, young earth, Jesus-on-a-dinosaur, prudish rubes, too. And I doubt any Spaniard is interested in your opinion of their laws. You certainly have the right to feel the way you feel, and say what you want to say, but it might also come back at you, too.
are having sex with 13 y/o kids.
And In alot of instances they'd be right to think that about us.
But 13 is too young.
And just how will it come back to me?
I stand behind what I say, unless proven wrong, then I freely admit my mistake and apologize.
Where the feds had to go and get all those girls and and young women?
The consummated their marriage on an alter being surrounded by the other elders who just happened to be men. Some of the girls were around 13 I believe.
It was a Mormon compound or some such shit.
Those people are freaks.
And lets not forget the back woods of the deep south.
Some of those guys marry their cousins. And worse.
I'm talkin the real hillbilly group hugs.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
There's special place in hell for people like that.
That was here in Texas.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin,
Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
still don't make it right.
It just means times change, because even back then it was illegal to marry a sibling or parent.
Some of y'all are sounding as authoritarian as thumpers
You betcher...(wink).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
this is a subject I feel very strongly about. and I feel there is little or no gray area.
If someone messes with a kid, they go to prison.
But it has nothing to do with social class, since the comment I was referring to was calling them hillbillies.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
But us. Sorry for the confusion. When we (you, me, anyone) criticize another country's morals or laws, it can come right back at us. I should have phrased that as "us" or "one", so as not to suggest that some Spanish guy is actually gonna personally send you youtube link of himself "smoldering" or something. I just meant we subject ourselves to the same kind of scrutiny that we scrutinize others with, that's all.
But I will never change my belief that 13 is too young.
. . . you have changed your mind since you were 13, eh? I know I sure thought I was ready. But wishing didn't help convince precociously buxom Amy make my pubescent dreams come true. :(
Of course, I'm old now. And I agree 13 is too young.
at 13 I still thought girls had cooties.
13 is the age of consent, but the other party can't be more than 2 years older than the 13 year old.
I think 13 is the age of consent in Vatican City.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And no, making that argument does not make me a pedophile who you can't trust around your kids, though I'm sure others will say so.
I think you are an idiot.
That means a lot to me. Really, it does.
Been a memeber for just over an hour?
Is this what rw trolls are comin in here to defend nowadays?
Child rape?
Wow...
Not at all. I love the blog. I've been coming here for years, check it every day. I'm as liberal as they come and I don't really care to comment on most postings here because I rarely disagree so strongly. But I'm involved with another Polanski discussion on a different board, so I decided to jump into this one as well.
I don't really think I'm being a troll, and to call me that dilutes any generally accepted definition of a troll. And I'm certainly not expressing a typically right-wing viewpoint, unless I missed something and right-wingers are not as rabid in their beliefs about sex anymore.
I'm comfortable with you disagreeing with me, though.
you decide to register and comment on this particular topic.
Interesting.
You may not be a troll...but this is how trolls act more often than not.
And as for how rw'ers view things, when it's one of theirs, they will take any POV that benefits themselves, their party, and their corporate overlords...not necessarily in that order.
Oh their still rabid about it alright...when it doesn't involve them.
I can't comment on this topic anymore today.
It's too painful.
I registered to comment because I'm getting similarly upset about this topic and I was surprised to see one of my favorite political blogs make a post that runs so contrary to how I perceive the case and acted as if there were no other valid opinions. I know you think me monstrous for having this viewpoint, but I guarantee you I'm a very nice man.
And if I were a right-winger, I'm sure I'd be more than happy to viciously attack a convicted Hollywood rapist.
think about what type of person you are.
I just think that, in a case like this...that there's not much, if any, gray areas.
He raped a 13 y/o girl, fled the country.
And has been caught after 30 years of being a fugitive from justice.
He deserves to rot in prison.
And yes, I'm sure you would.
But what I meant was, that goopers protect their own as long as it's advantageous to them and their prospective interests.
In my gentle opinion, this is a case for the courts and it really doesn't matter what anyone says or does regarding it.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
We need to stop using the word "rape" so casually. Polanski is a creep, no doubt. But a rapist? Hardly.
Same for "date rape". Consensual sex that is merely inappropriate or regretted afterwards should not be called "rape".
I know a woman who was ACTUALLY raped. A horrible, violent act that has scarred her physically and emotionally for life. She, like many other unfortunate victims, was brutally attacked and beaten into submission for sex by a human animal who clearly should not roam free in society.
I think to apply the word "rape" to consensual, albeit, illegal sexual encounters is an insult to all women who have been traumatized by violent, forced sex. If what Roman Polanski did was "rape", then what should I call what happened to my friend?
They are NOT the same thing, and I wish we would stop pretending that they were.
She was drugged. That's not consensual, it's just a little less bloody than what happened to your friend.
You need to read the court transcripts. She was not "drugged", which would imply she was unaware. She shared a quaalude with Polanski, even identifying the tablet for him because she had taken them before from her mother's stash.
Lets be clear. I'm not defending Polanski. I couldn't care less what happens to him. But calling him a rapist is dishonest. He had consensual sex with a person not deemed old enough in this part of the world. If that's a crime, then so be it. He broke the law and should be held accountable.
But, again, to call that "rape" is a disservice to all women who have been violently forced to have sex.
It is NOT the same crime.
It's a power game. It's about one person's power over another.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
"Drugged" means "drugged insensate" as opposed to a reduced capacity to make decisions?
If there's anyone doing a disservice to your friend, it's you, by offering a justification for someone else's equally reprehensible treatment of an underage girl.
I'm startin to get fuckin pissed. So I will remove myself from this thread before I start goin off.
I sense your frustration and anger. And you're justified to feel the way you do. But this is an open forum of sorts. And the guy is within his rights to his opinion as well.
I can see you're still dealing with the anger over what happened to your sisters. I feel for ya LnM. I really do.
Not one, but both of them. Me? I probably would have lost it and went and done something stupid.
I was reading a story about a 12 year old girl who died in child birth. Yemen. Some countries have different moral values. I found this story to be especially heinous.
This is no way is supposed to be related to this story or your own position/situation. I'm sorry about what happened to your sisters LnM.
Something happened to my wife before I met her.
I know . She's given me subtle hints.
When she's ready to talk about it, I'll be right here for her. That's all I can do.
Don't let this thing fuck you up LnM. There are somethings that we can't control. This kinda thing is all too common.
Just think of the ones who don't report it. The numbers must be staggering.
You have a nice day LnM. Give it a shot.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I know he's within his rights...I'm just of a single mind regarding this issue.
Yes I am...I didn't find out until years later what had happened to my older sister...and my little sister didn't tell me until 6 months later...and, yes, if I ever find those two...well...I'll just say this...they'll never find all the parts.
I'm tryin not to, but a flood of memories are comin back...I gotta go.
For a minute there I thought I'd have to tell everyone about all those life sized posters of Lush and Michelle Bachman,The library of Coulter's books. Again.
And the new life sized poster of Sarah Palin you
ordered when you bought all 300 books of hers.
I hope you got them autographed. Cause I want one.:)
Hey, do you still have that Michelle Malkin blow up doll?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
my dog....soiled it.
Beside, stupid thing kept leaking hot air from the ears.
I agree with you; if something happened to my younger sister, I'd probably not be here typing at my computer, unless my prison had internet.
Sorry about what happened to your sisters, LNM, and to your wife muddy.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Statutory Rape? Does that work better for you danivers? In prison, men who have committed sexual acts with minors are considered the worse offenders in prison.
If juries were made up only of prison inmates, I imagine that we'd see more differences that just that in the outcomes of criminal cases.
used in this thread by various commentators.
I would like to point out that in the transcript of the victim's testimony, she repeatedly said 'NO' to all sexual advances made by Polanski, the utterance of which he ignored while continuing forward with his actions.
Please don't use 'consensual' to describe the situation. It doesn't apply at all.
She said no every time he escalated his assault.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
You are 100% right on this. Too many people believe the 30 year old tabloid sensationalist version of this story and too few bothered to check ANY facts. Thank you for stating the facts.
How can it not be rape? She was drugged and taken advantage of by a man that was 31 years older than she was. No way could she have possibly consented.
If a young girl is co-erced into sex with an older male relative, is it not rape? If a husband forces his wife or a guy forces his girlfriend, is it not rape? So what if she doesn't have 7 shades of shit beat out of her.
You are an insult to women who have been raped violently or otherwise.
Oh and fuck you regarding "date rape."
exactly
there aren't "degrees of rape".
If a woman says no, it's rape.
If a woman is drugged, she cannot consent, and it's rape.
If a woman is not of an age to consent, then it's rape.
I have to wonder about some of these people that are willing to make these "degrees of rape" though. What, it's only rape if it's some guy jumping out of the bushes and beating you nearly to death first? Is THAT the dividing line? Good thing the law says otherwise. I wonder if some of these people that are willing to only say that rape is the above-mentioned violent act aren't maybe covering for the fact that they've taken part in behaviour that might be considered rape and so have to stretch the boundaries for what rape really is?
Polanski raped a 13 year old child. There really is no apology for that. And yes, it's rape. Full stop.
this was in fact rape, an act of pedophilia.
Stop trying to make it sound like it wasn't what it was, ok?
It may not have been violent, but I bet the victim is STILL traumatized by it...and any who defend polanski should fucking be ashamed of themselves.
This was not an act of pedophilia. Pedophiles are sexually aroused by prepubescent children. The victim may have been 13, but she wasn't prepubescent. From the pictures I've seen of her, she was quite well developed for her age.
It doesn't excuse what Polanski did, but be accurate. It doesn't make him a pedophile.
one was drugged, the other forced.
There is no difference in the damage done to their mental state!
You are an asshole danivers!
And yes, the circumstances of the rape DO make a difference.
Not to take anything away from your friend's experience, but what Polanski did is still rape in a legal and technical sense.
Polanski claims it was consensual; the facts are that he plied a minor with alcohol and drugs THEN had sex with her. A minor cannot LEGALLY have 'consensual' sex anymore than they can enter into a binding contract.
If I rob your house but don't brutally beat or shoot you - is it still a burglary?
(Rape is still rape no matter how brutal it is, just as a burglary is still a burglary no matter how it is committed).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
If you rob my house it's called a burglary. If you beat or shoot me it's called assault or murder.
You see? Different words to describe different things.
That's my whole point. Thanks for helping to make it.
And please, feel free to call me every nasty name in the book for simply wishing we had different words to describe different sexual crimes. I'm such an asshole!
You people are all right. There is no difference whatsoever in beating a girl half to death so she can't fight against forced sex, and "statutory" rape. There are exactly the same thing, right?
What kind of drugs are YOU PEOPLE on?
is not a drug.
An adult holds power over a youth.
"If you force a woman to have sex, it's rape. If you beat or shoot her, it's called assault or murder.
"You see? Different words to describe different things."
You're predicating rape on the violence; the rest of us are predicating rape on the forcible act (as in without consent, or in the case of a minor, a victim under the age of consent).
Furthermore, I don't know how it works in your state/jurisdiction, but it's also common to see multiple charges, such as a charge of rape, accompanied by a charge of assault. So, clearly, the authorities also do not define rape as requiring violence - because that would put a bunch of rapists back on the street, simply because they didn't beat their victims bloody ... as you insist must be the key component for 'rape.'
they're both still rape, it's just that one rape comes with assault as well. Your wish to tone down the crime of rape to suit your own sensibilities makes you no different than the rest of the Polanski apologists who seem to think that raping little girls is just ducky.
Age of Consent laws exist specifically because in our society someone under the age of consent is not considered mature enough mentally and emotionally to make that consensual decision.
That teens seem to be maturing physically earlier and earlier, yet are mentally immature well into their twenties (or later) is a sad state indeed. Not sure what to do about it, but all issues are not covered by a magical 18-year-old cutoff anymore.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I agree with you in spirit, but we're not talking about two thirteen-year-olds screwing. That is traditionally treated differently.
Just because he didn't hold her down and shove himself inside her it's not rape? Pure bullshit. She was 13 and she was raped. Remind me to not let you around my kids.
says it's rape - it's rape.
Rape is rape is rape.
Your post implies that it is only rape if it is "[a] brutal, violent act," where the victim is "scarred ... physically and emotionally for life." If you were not "beaten into submission," you were not raped.
If this is not what you meant, then you need to clarify and possibly apologize for your grossly misleading statements.
Furthermore, date rape is not simply sex the woman regrets having. And yet, your post also implied this. Date rape occurs when someone on a date is raped by their date. It is rape, not regrettable sex.
You can rape someone without having to use force, without beating them. If someone is drunk and the person having sex with them is sober, it's rape. Why? Because they were being taken advantage of in their inebriated state, when they weren't capable of making rational decisions. Similarly, when an adult as sex with a child, it's rape because there exists a power imbalance between the two individuals. A child is not equal with an adult, emotionally or mentally (let alone physically).
Finally, there is a different term when someone has sex with a minor (who is older than a child): "statutory rape". Whether or not it's 'as bad' as other forms of rape is up to the beholder, but the distinction is made.
Apparently an alarming number of people think it's "having consensual sex" when someone is shoving their penis into a girl who keeps saying, "no."
Don't give us any of this "it wasn't rape-rape" bullshit. She kept telling him no, but he proceeded to rape and sodomize her after having drugged her. It was rape!
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Also, I'm glad you came forward on this because some hollywood elites are trying to make it look like the left has a fixed position on this man.
Thank you for going against the grain on this one.
that he needs to go to jail. I read some of her testimony and it is harrowing. I have a neice that has just turned 14, and she is just naive little girl who has pictures of the Jonas Brothers on her myspace and Facebook. She is a child,and the thought of Polanski preying on a girl a year younger is despicable.
His childhood and his pregnant wife being murdered have nothing to do with his crime. Hollywood is very wrong on this one.
Polanski was never convicted of drugging and raping. He pled to unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under the age of 18. He was never convicted of the crimes that everyone likes to cite in relation to this case.
He fled because the judge (in the opinion of both the prosecution and the defense as well as the lawyer for the victim) was acting improperly. Polanski did serve time, and likely would not have served much more than two additional months had he stuck around and had the judge kept his word.
... prior to a verdict? Time served becomes irrelevant, and the facts of HOW that intercourse took place do not change with the expression of 'unlawful sexual intercourse' or 'rape.'
Polanski's behavior - three decades of evading law enforcement and situations where he could be extradited, shows an understanding that he is guilty of the crime he was charged with.
He was charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor, all of which he initially plead not guilty to.
In the plea bargain, those charges were dropped and he plead guilty only to sex with a minor. So, yes, those particular details of the case against him are irrelevant and have never been admitted to or proven in court. I'm sorry, but being charged with a crime in America is not yet proof of guilt.
... and you flee the country to avoid prosecution on those charges, plea bargain or no, you're a fugitive under the law and can be arrested and brought back for trial.
Since the trial never concluded, Polanski can't even argue double jeopardy.
....for raping a 13 year old girl.
There are avenues you can pursue if you feel that your case has been unfair in some fashion, including an impartial or unstable judge. To flee from justice is not an accepted avenue.
I haven't read anything on this lately, he should be sent back and face the law. At which point he'll probably be let go anyway. The facts are that the prosecutor, judge and defense all agreed on a penalty after a lengthy psych evaluation. I think it was no jail time though. After the agreement was made and before it could be followed through the judge who was a media whore changed his mind. The prosecutor and the defense have each said since the judge was nuts. I frankly don't care either way but it is a joke, the whole case. If I had made a deal and were willing to follow through with it and then had it all blown up by the judge who supervised the deal i'd consider making a run for it too. I guarantee a deal will be made and he'll go free. I don't agree with it either, but don't be surprised.
Of course, he's been caught in the 21st century. Here and now, that means if you're wealthy, powerful or famous, you don't get punished. Just ensure your victims are powerless, and it doesn't even matter if it's on live TV. Anytime someone says something bad about you, hundreds of politicians and talking heads will leap to your aid, and the law will do absolutely nothing.
Just remember, confine your list of victims to: Poor people, brown people, and people in other countries.
"He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then skipped town."
That's all there really is to know about this awful event and there is no statute of limitations on statutory rape, at least in civilized America.
He deserves all that he gets, hopefully in this/his lifetime.
There is no statute of limitations on any crime after you are already convicted. He now also faces possible charges of flight ot avoid prosecution, another major felony.
.
I've never even cared for any of this little shmuck's crappy movies, but that's just beside the point. Personal opinion and all that.
Actually, the verdict is all there is to know. That and the fact that he's been a fugitive from justice. Anything else is emotional response, and is immaterial. I'm not saying that your emotions don't matter to you. They just have no place in justice. Also, I'm one of those kinds of people who finds that appeals to emotion diminishes an argument.
Also, implying that the rest of the world is uncivilized because they have different legal and moral standards is a double edged sword, and should be wielded carefully.
Statute of limitations is not relevant here. He's been tried and convicted. Statute of limitations only relates to the time between commission of a crime and indictment for the crime, not time since conviction.
This is an odd one.
I love his Repulsion, MacBeth, Rosemary's Baby, and Dance of the Vampires.
The girl was at an adult party, where drinking was going on, and reportedly didn't look her age.
I would think the statue of limitation would've passed, however, he was found guilty in 1977 and was awaiting sentencing so maybe the SOL no longer applies. He was a fugitive, so they could've been renewing that charge.
There was also the tragedy of his pregnant wife's murder by the Manson gang.
Additionally, as a former child inmate of Kraków Ghetto, his father surviving Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and his mother dying in Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, one could see a legitimate fear of imprisonment.
I've been wanting him to remake A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court that would be faithful to the book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktUaMPEcSII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkyuw3zJH_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irIPrZ4ulPQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Handwaving.
So I should jump on every bandwagon that passes along and not take the long view of the situation for fear that someone might use an ill defined buzzword?
That's what's called Argumentum ad Populum.
Additionally, all these factors in his biography (but not the movies), will probably be raised in his sentencing.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... would have to prove he suffers a debilitating and irrational fear of imprisonment as a result of his personal/family history.
Regardless, the proper action is to stand trial. An attorney could have filed a motion for dismissal on grounds of judicial bias.
he raped a child, he should be in prison.
his past as a child can not excuse his actions as an adult.
His first film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_in_the_Water_(film)
Had this been shifted in a different direction I wonder what would have happened? What if it had been Angelica Huston (who was there at Nicholson's home when the rape occurred) having sex with a thirteen year old boy? Even with some champagne thrown in, most would say that was "a rite of passage" for the kid. It would be bragging rights for him that he got to screw Jack Nicholson's girlfriend.
But when you throw the Quaalude in....that's were it would become something beyond "rites of passage".
The fact that he took advantage of a teenage girl, that she was allowed to drink alcohol and that he had the fore thought to slip her a piece of Quaalude in her drink in order to have sex with her...perhaps while she was asleep, that is VERY perverted.
If there had been a trial and had I been a juror, if the facts came out as above, I would have wanted him found guilty and thrown in prison. Not for thirty years (no matter the celebrity), but for maybe two-three years. That would be plenty of time for him to think about how stupidly and "above it all" he had acted.
Harm was done. Even if the woman now says she wishes it would all go away. I understand that.
But in this day and age when women are being slipped "Roofies" at parties and being raped only to wake up 24 hours later in a strange hotel, I think ANY time is the right time to show society that this behavior will not be tolerated.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
?
I only mentioned it to ysbaddaden because he listed Polanski's films and I wondered if he had seen his first film (which was nominated for an Academy Award for "Best Foreign Film".
Was that the so?
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
It wasn't directed at your post. Look at the progression. If I had replied to you my post would have been further right, like this one.
I haven't seen it, but heard of it, and want to see it along with The Tenant.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
based on your wide array of links you post to various genre and subjects.
I prefer to movies in their entirity on at least a full TV screen, if not a movie screen.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
An adult is an authority figure to a child. Even if he hadn't used drugs(how frakkin' pitiful is that?) he was socially in a position of "power over" the girl.
Using that authority in such a way is wrong.
Just as it is wrong when a teacher, policeman, politician or a priest exercises their authority over children in similar ways.
there isn't this level of passion over all the brutal violent child rapes that took place in Iraq and Afghanistan that were authorized under the Bush torture regime. But not surprising I guess since those didn't involve any 'celebrities'.
GI Joe is not a celebrity
Now with Kung-Fu grip action?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
was doing "interrogation" at Abu Ghraib?
sorry, wrong thread
So when is rash limpballs gonna stand trial for diddling young boys in the Dominican Republic?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That makes me curious what Limbaugh has to say about this. Certainly he has chimed in.
Not only did he drug and rape a 13 year old, he admitted under oath that he did so when he plead guilty. The argument about protecting the victim, a potentially legitimate though lesser concern, does not work since he has already been tried, convicted, and sentenced. Other than a possible appeal (which would seem to have no basis), it is over and done with except for Polanski doing his time.
It's coming back to me now. the CA state officials reccomended the sentence that the judge, prosecuor and defense agreed to and then the judge decided to make a big splash on tv and change the sentence.
ACtually, the agreement was non-binding (read the plea transcript at smokinggun). After the 42 day psychiatric evaluation deemed Polanski *not* to be a habitual sex offender the Polanski teamed feared the Judge might impose a harsher sentence. It was because of that fear that Polanski (unfortunately) decided to jump bail.
Comments are closed on this entry