Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[shira]

I definitely have mixed feelings on this. Back in 1977, Polanski made a plea-bargain deal, but after the agreed-to 42-day jail sentence and mental evaluation was complete, the judge in the case decided he wanted to change the sentence and have Polanski serve a longer term. Also, the victim and Polanski settled a civil suit years ago, and the victim now says she doesn't want Polanski prosecuted.

Still, he broke the law and a typical sentence for sex with a 13-year-old would probably be much longer than 42 days. On the other hand, it's hard to see what point putting Polanski in jail would serve. At the very least, if the sentencing judge wanted to retract his sentence, then Polanski should be able to retract his guilty plea. And with the victim refusing to testify, I'm not sure what sort of case the prosecution would have.

I don't believe anyone should be above the law. But in light of the circumstances, and considering that the value to society of having Polanski continue to be free to make great films that enlighten and inspire us seems much greater than any benefit in jailing him for what might well be the rest of his life, I think some sort of rational compromise is in order.

AP story

 

[Ihey8neocons]

What appeals to me about Polanski is the perverted use his films make of conventional Christian beliefs and it?s mockery of religious persons and practices. True genious.

Surely we can overlook some indescretions. Don't we all have urges?

 

[Ihey8neocons]

n/m

 

[yllus]

I'm not quite sure a bunch of Hollywood films are worth letting someone who raped a 13 year old using pressure, alcohol and Quaaludes go.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: shira

I don't believe anyone should be above the law. But in light of the circumstances, and considering that the value to society of having Polanski continue to be free to make great films that enlighten and inspire us seems much greater than any benefit in jailing him for what might well be the rest of his life, I think some sort of rational compromise is in order.

That's a ridiculous reason for a compromise.

The scope of this case has expanded with Polanski characterizing the typical European attitude of Americans being sub-human. There is more than just incarcerating Polanski. A signal telling Europeans that non-Europeans are human too is a great deterrence for the world. I imagine the European-crazed sex trade in Eastern Asia would be potentially smashed with an attitude change.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hopefully they execute him there.

 

[Moonbeam]

I lean toward the notion that protecting 13 year old girls from men of great power who rely on their position as a potential shield of bad conduct, is worth any loss we will face from the loss of future films. In fact the person I have just discussed this with said, they can give him a camera and let him make films in prison.

 

[alchemize]

Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

 

[OCGuy]

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice. The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead. We have captured a different person. What is the rational of punishing him? The only one I can find is the notion that a society must make it known that they will stop punish even the well placed if they harm others. I don't believe that punishment it totally effective in stopping criminal acts, but I don't think it is totally without effect either. Let folk fear doing evil over doing it, I would say. Better still is that they be self governed by their own virtue, however.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So I was reading this story on the SFGATE website. What really got me was that there are people defending this guy along with arguing that he should be let go!!! :Q

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...ational/i025401D84.DTL

Its astonishing at the amount of people out of touch with reality in the Bay Area.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice.

The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead.

We have captured a different person.

What is the rational of punishing him?

Do you hijack your account?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This is not about the victim (who he paid off and whom probably gave up on him ever being caught) as so much about this animal serving the sentence he was supposed to serve before he fled.

Being a rich white guy with the means and social clout to flee the country for the past 25+ years after raping a young girl is not an excuse to allow a child rapist to go unpunished once he is apprehended.

Then again he is a darling of the liberal Hollywood left crowd so now I am realizing why there is so much support for this guy amongst liberals.

If he had been a catholic priest you'd probably see these same supporters foaming at the mouth and demonizing the entire Christian religion.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize
Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice. The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead. We have captured a different person. What is the rational of punishing him? The only one I can find is the notion that a society must make it known that they will stop punish even the well placed if they harm others. I don't believe that punishment it totally effective in stopping criminal acts, but I don't think it is totally without effect either. Let folk fear doing evil over doing it, I would say. Better still is that they be self governed by their own virtue, however.

1) Don't try to equate this to "underage lovers". He gave her champagn and ludes, fucked her, then ass-raped her, despite her protestations, and hasn't served his sentence because he RAN AWAY LIKE A COWARD.
2) Yes, when the beaten wife doesn't want her husband prosecuted either, then there is no victim, right?


Ducati makes a good point - I don't see hollywood and the lefties forgiving all the ass-raping priests from 40 years ago...

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize
Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice. The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead. We have captured a different person. What is the rational of punishing him? The only one I can find is the notion that a society must make it known that they will stop punish even the well placed if they harm others. I don't believe that punishment it totally effective in stopping criminal acts, but I don't think it is totally without effect either. Let folk fear doing evil over doing it, I would say. Better still is that they be self governed by their own virtue, however.

1) Don't try to equate this to "underage lovers". He gave her champagn and ludes, fucked her, then ass-raped her, despite her protestations, and hasn't served his sentence.
2) Yes, when the beaten wife doesn't want her husband prosecuted either, then there is no victim, right?

While I think that Roman P. did a horrible thing and deserves to serve time I feel very bad that the media and prosecutors have effectively been ruining this girls life.

 

[Phokus]

<Lois> Stewie! What are you doing?!?

<Stewie with shifty eyes> We're playing house!

<Lois> But why is that little boy tied up?

<Stewie> ... it's Roman Polanski's house

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice.

The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead.

We have captured a different person.

What is the rational of punishing him?

Do you hijack your account?

Nope, I say he has to pay but for different reasons.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Several issues come to mind about the case:

1.) He confessed and is guilty (of oral, vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old when he was 45 or so after he got her drunk and gave her sedatives)
2.) He ran (a whole nother matter)

I tend to be fairly liberal about sexual behaviors, but she was freaking 13 and he was fully aware of it, there may have been grass on the playing field, but it was just recently planted. Regardless, he admitted guilt some time ago, and the issue isn't the act any longer, it's the flight from sentencing.

The DA has 60 days to ask for extradition from Switzerland, and I suspect they will do so. This is the 3rd time the LA DA has tried to have him arrested, Polanski heard about the previous 2 attempts and didn't follow through with his travel plans that would put him at risk. He was safe in France, as France refuses to extradite most French citizens for all but the most heinous of crimes.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: DucatiMonster696


So I was reading this story on the SFGATE website. What really got me was that there are people defending this guy along with arguing that he should be let go!!! :Q

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...ational/i025401D84.DTL

Its astonishing at the amount of people out of touch with reality in the Bay Area.

The Libs ruined the Bay Area, as well as the rest of the California, setting the entire USA up for moral fiber decline.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Several issues come to mind about the case:

1.) He confessed and is guilty (of oral, vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old when he was 45 or so after he got her drunk and gave her sedatives)
2.) He ran (a whole nother matter)

1) How did you come up with sexual act beyond oral? While that is far wrong enough in itself, I've never seen the claim of the second two made before here, and in searching around I have yet to come across anything to substantiate your claims of vaginal and anal sex.
2) He agreed to a plea bargain and fulfilled agreement, only running after the judge went back on it.
3) The victim formally requested the case be dismissed, but her wishes are being ignored.

So, while I have no interest in defending anyone who has ever committed an act of pedophilia, I'm at a loss as to how going after Polanski over his decades old crime is anything but a waste of our tax dollars.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize


1) Don't try to equate this to "underage lovers". He gave her champagn and ludes, fucked her, then ass-raped her, despite her protestations, and hasn't served his sentence because he RAN AWAY LIKE A COWARD.
2) Yes, when the beaten wife doesn't want her husband prosecuted either, then there is no victim, right?


Ducati makes a good point - I don't see hollywood and the lefties forgiving all the ass-raping priests from 40 years ago...

1. Not trying to equate them, only pointing out to you that your law is the law argument will put you on the side that treatd underage lovers exactly like you want to treat Polanski. The law is the law so the two have to be treated equally.

2. Law looks more just to me when there is a victim seeking redress then when there is not. It still must seek redress, however, for the reasons you stated.

3. Swift justice is better than justice delayed. One virtue of justice delayed is that perhaps it discomforts those yet to be tried.

Again, why this piece of shit thought it was a good idea to rape that young girl is any bodies guess, beyond the obvious hate it shows for another human being. I don't think as a society we can except him for it because he is artistic, famous, and much time has passed. Those things just make the application of justice less clear cut, in my opinion. I still think it was right, in the long run, to grab him if they could. Just my opinion is all.

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: CanOWormsThe scope of this case has expanded with Polanski characterizing the typical European attitude of Americans being sub-human.

Lol, wtf?

There's no such "typical" attitude. In fact I've never heard any european expressing such sentiments at all, and I've lived in Europe all my life. Individual americans surely, just like individual europeans, asians and so on and so forth, yes, sure. SOME might be characterized as sub-human (inhuman perhaps a more descriptive term), but not in general. Never.

There is more than just incarcerating Polanski. A signal telling Europeans that non-Europeans are human too is a great deterrence for the world.

It's not "europeans'" fault Polanski has been walking free for the last three-ish decades, so don't try to smear a whole continent over this matter. It's because Polanski deliberately avoided travelling to countries with extradition treaties with the U.S.

The U.S. doesn't extradite its citizens to simply any country that asks them to either, I might add.

I imagine the European-crazed sex trade in Eastern Asia would be potentially smashed with an attitude change.

Lol, wtf?

That's pretty funny considering:
A - people from the US also travel to asia to enjoy themselves physically, and
B - there are legal brothels in places like nevada etc - no need to even leave the U.S. Pot - meet kettle much?

...So what you're on about I really don't know, because you're too confused to make any damn sense. Again, don't smear an entire continent because of your own ridiculous notions regarding sex...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Again, why this piece of shit thought it was a good idea to rape that young girl...

From what I know of Polanski, I'm guessing he was so drugged out he could barely even comprehend the fact that she was a human, let alone be cognitive of the fact that she was far too young for him to be doing anything of the sort with her.

Also, from what I understand he only went so far as to assault her orally, which while a flagrant act of pedophilia, does not legally constitute "rape".

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

1) How did you come up with sexual act beyond oral? While that is far wrong enough in itself,

Polanski's confession-it's part of the record.

2) He agreed to a plea bargain and fulfilled agreement, only running after the judge went back on it.

Agreed, and the courts will deal with that, they've already admitted to it.

3) The victim formally requested the case be dismissed, but her wishes are being ignored.

The victim's wishes are irrelevant to the facts of the case, her wishes are a mitigating factor in sentencing etc, and may be taken under advisement.

Also, Polanski's flight is another matter entirely.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
That's a ridiculous reason for a compromise.

The scope of this case has expanded with Polanski characterizing the typical European attitude of Americans being sub-human. There is more than just incarcerating Polanski. A signal telling Europeans that non-Europeans are human too is a great deterrence for the world. I imagine the European-crazed sex trade in Eastern Asia would be potentially smashed with an attitude change.

Really thats the reason? To make sure Europeans know we are human too? lol.