Roman Polanski

Status
Not open for further replies.
I supported him back when I thought it was a statutory rape charge. Then I read what happened, and the girl's testimony, and I fully admit that I was wrong, and that he should be brought to justice.

It could be that the majority of people supporting him simply don't know the facts.
This is the same thing Oprah is saying.

Paraphrased,

"A 40 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is ok. It's not like it was a real rape, and so I support the man."

I just don't get it.

Where do you, or anyone else, get the idea that even statutory rape of a minor is OK?

Why does everyone have this impression that a 13 year old girl can make valid sexual decisions regarding significantly older men?

Are you all in favor of NAMBLA too?

She was a child. Even if she had consented, though I truly don't believe a 13 year girl is fully capable of the maturity required to accept such a responsibility for her own actions, but even if she had consented why is it ok? Why is it right to let him go?

-Adam
 
If she had consented, it would be statutory rape and I'd be more squeamish about the whole thing but I wouldn't be picking up a torch and pitchfork. She didn't consent, period. That's rape-rape.

It doesn't even matter if she had sex with her boyfriend before she went there. It's still rape-rape.
 
I've really wanted to comment in here for a while, but I don't know what to say. Are people really defending Polanski? He admitted his guilt.

He raped a 13 year old child. He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.He raped a 13 year old child.

Don't cover up what happened because he is god damned famous. He raped a child. Living in a mansion in France is not a punishment.
 
I supported him back when I thought it was a statutory rape charge. Then I read what happened, and the girl's testimony, and I fully admit that I was wrong, and that he should be brought to justice.

It could be that the majority of people supporting him simply don't know the facts.
This is the same thing Oprah is saying.

Paraphrased,

"A 40 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is ok. It's not like it was a real rape, and so I support the man."

I just don't get it.

Where do you, or anyone else, get the idea that even statutory rape of a minor is OK?

Why does everyone have this impression that a 13 year old girl can make valid sexual decisions regarding significantly older men?

Are you all in favor of NAMBLA too?

She was a child. Even if she had consented, though I truly don't believe a 13 year girl is fully capable of the maturity required to accept such a responsibility for her own actions, but even if she had consented why is it ok? Why is it right to let him go?

-Adam[/QUOTE]

Where do you get the idea that I think statutory rape is ok? Placing a crime lower on the heirarchy of heinous is not the same as saying "Well, that's just fine."
 
Having had a 14 year old gf when I was 22, I personally don't put much weight in "statutory rape" when both people are reasonably young. Much older than that, and the divide between the two generations becomes too big to comfortably cross and it becomes a matter of pure lust and on that basis alone, I don't believe it's right (unless the two people really DO love each other and manage to bridge that gap). If it's a case of sex and nothing else, I'm against it in any case. Heck, I don't even believe in one night stands let alone having a minor involved. I DO believe in love, however, and think people don't choose who they love and from the age 14+ onwards, some teenagers are well capable of having a close relationship. My gf was very mature for her age and a heck more mature than most other girls I knew my own age which says it all. I've never regretted it and neither has she - in fact, she recently told me that what we had back then changed her for the better.

Anyway, what Polanski did was NOT statutory rape, I just wanted to get the above off my chest since the discussion was revolving around that topic as well. What he did was wrong. What the girl's parents did was wrong. The industry is full of hidden shameful secrets and if they were to lift the lid, I think you might be surprised how many worse skeletons than this would fall out of the closets all over Hollywood. Too many parents are over-eager to get their children to become successful - many many models have sex with managers, designers, etc. at the age of 14-15 to get a job, to climb the ladder. It's an open secret of the industry that this happens everywhere. I've personally talked to East European girls who admitted that sex was a "must" for them to even be taken seriously as a model. So let's not pretend Polanski is the only bad apple.
 
I supported him back when I thought it was a statutory rape charge. Then I read what happened, and the girl's testimony, and I fully admit that I was wrong, and that he should be brought to justice.

It could be that the majority of people supporting him simply don't know the facts.
This is the same thing Oprah is saying.

Paraphrased,

"A 40 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl is ok. It's not like it was a real rape, and so I support the man."

I just don't get it.

Where do you, or anyone else, get the idea that even statutory rape of a minor is OK?

Why does everyone have this impression that a 13 year old girl can make valid sexual decisions regarding significantly older men?

Are you all in favor of NAMBLA too?

She was a child. Even if she had consented, though I truly don't believe a 13 year girl is fully capable of the maturity required to accept such a responsibility for her own actions, but even if she had consented why is it ok? Why is it right to let him go?

-Adam[/quote]

Where do you get the idea that I think statutory rape is ok? Placing a crime lower on the heirarchy of heinous is not the same as saying "Well, that's just fine."[/QUOTE]

I got the idea from this sentence:

I supported him back when I thought it was a statutory rape charge.
Can't be much more clear than that. You support statutory rapists. Awesome.

-Adam
 
So let's not pretend Polanski is the only bad apple.
No one is saying that. The problem is, that's not the issue at all. The issue is they finally got him.

So what do they do with him?

It has nothing to do with who else may have done what.
 
Having had a 14 year old gf when I was 22, I personally don't put much weight in "statutory rape" when both people are reasonably young. Much older than that, and the divide between the two generations becomes too big to comfortably cross and it becomes a matter of pure lust and on that basis alone, I don't believe it's right (unless the two people really DO love each other and manage to bridge that gap). If it's a case of sex and nothing else, I'm against it in any case. Heck, I don't even believe in one night stands let alone having a minor involved. I DO believe in love, however, and think people don't choose who they love and from the age 14+ onwards, some teenagers are well capable of having a close relationship. My gf was very mature for her age and a heck more mature than most other girls I knew my own age which says it all. I've never regretted it and neither has she - in fact, she recently told me that what we had back then changed her for the better.

Anyway, what Polanski did was NOT statutory rape, I just wanted to get the above off my chest since the discussion was revolving around that topic as well. What he did was wrong. What the girl's parents did was wrong. The industry is full of hidden shameful secrets and if they were to lift the lid, I think you might be surprised how many worse skeletons than this would fall out of the closets all over Hollywood. Too many parents are over-eager to get their children to become successful - many many models have sex with managers, designers, etc. at the age of 14-15 to get a job, to climb the ladder. It's an open secret of the industry that this happens everywhere. I've personally talked to East European girls who admitted that sex was a "must" for them to even be taken seriously as a model. So let's not pretend Polanski is the only bad apple.
Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
 
Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
Hence my
Anyway, what Polanski did was NOT statutory rape
Better read a post first before replying.

And Espy: when you consider this case is 30+ years old and they all act as if he's the biggest villain, I think it's fair to consider the fact that there's far worse people out there who get away with far worse things and that instead of paying so much attention to this old case, maybe they should take a closer look at what is going on *right now*.
 
maybe they should take a closer look at what is going on *right now*.
It has nothing to do with who else may have done what.
^^^

Yes, I had my virginity taken away from me at 17 by "statutory rape." Yes, the guy was 19 and it was 100% consensual. Just because people laugh off statutory rape in situations like these doesn't mean the statute doesn't exist for a reason, and that reason is Roman fucking Polanski in case he further had the gall to claim it was consensual.
 
T

Twitch

No, Icarus, I don't give a flying fuck how many rape cases they're prosecuting right now. Unless every lawyer in the country is tied up on serial rapists I think we can spare something to bring a man to justice even though he got away with it for thirty years.
 
I got the idea from this sentence:

I supported him back when I thought it was a statutory rape charge.
Can't be much more clear than that. You support statutory rapists. Awesome.

-Adam
Where's the eyeroll emoticon? Ah, here it is: :rolleyes:

I know you aren't this dumb, so I'm a little dissappointed that you've chosen to take this role in debate. I supported the idea that the manhunt that had sprung up around him was overdrawn and pointless. And just for Shakey's sake, I'll go ahead and repeat that I've since realized I was wrong, now that I know the full details of what happened.

Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
I think this might have been mentioned once or twice already.
 
I'm just gonna jump in here. Defending Polanski in any form is tantamount to defending rape. That's how I see it. It may be short-sighted, but that sick sack of suck performed a sex act with a minor against her will. No punishment would be too harsh, IMO.

So what he's old and sorry. So what it happened a long time ago. So what someone forgave him.

Statutory or not. It was wrong and punishment has been a long time coming.
 
Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
Hence my
Anyway, what Polanski did was NOT statutory rape
Better read a post first before replying.

And Espy: when you consider this case is 30+ years old and they all act as if he's the biggest villain, I think it's fair to consider the fact that there's far worse people out there who get away with far worse things and that instead of paying so much attention to this old case, maybe they should take a closer look at what is going on *right now*.[/QUOTE]
I read what you said. Just trying to bring back to focus what is happening right now.
 
And just for Shakey's sake, I'll go ahead and repeat that I've since realized I was wrong, now that I know the full details of what happened.
You don't have to call me out, I never called you out.

Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
I think this might have been mentioned once or twice already.[/quote]
That's fine, but I don't think everyone really get that.
 
M

makare

It doesn't seem that statutory rape is the core issue here. The girl's age is just an aggravating factor of the classic rape committed. She did not consent, and in fact, could not consent due to the drugs.

If you say too much time has passed and it is too late to punish him justly, you are saying that he deserves to get away with rape. That's all there is too it.
 
And just for Shakey's sake, I'll go ahead and repeat that I've since realized I was wrong, now that I know the full details of what happened.
You don't have to call me out, I never called you out.

Just to clear it up. He didn't have consensual sex with a 13 year old. HE DRUGGED AND RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD.
I think this might have been mentioned once or twice already.[/quote]
That's fine, but I don't think everyone really get that.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, wasn't calling you out. You're stating the fact that a lot of people missed, myself included, when first hearing this story, and there ain't nothing wrong with that. I was just making it clear where I stand, so you wouldn't have to waste a round preachin' to the choir.
 
C

crono1224

There is a statue of limitations but since he fled from prosecution or what ever i doubt it matters.

But generally i don't see how he can be absolved he fled from prosecution/punishment, what would be said now if say Madoff fled the country, or any other person who has committed such an act. The fact I don't even think is if he was mentally ill at the time he committed it or if his works of art free him(though they shouldn't no matter). But that he didn't fight it he fled.

Atleast one way of looking at it.
 
Oh no, wasn't calling you out. You're stating the fact that a lot of people missed, myself included, when first hearing this story, and there ain't nothing wrong with that. I was just making it clear where I stand, so you wouldn't have to waste a round preachin' to the choir.
Cool. It just frustrates me to no end that this will end with the typical ending. No real discussion as to what he did, because he is a good guy who made pretty movies. Meanwhile all those people who weren't really "rape-raped" will fucking hesitate because of this.
 
No, Icarus, I don't give a flying fuck how many rape cases they're prosecuting right now. Unless every lawyer in the country is tied up on serial rapists I think we can spare something to bring a man to justice even though he got away with it for thirty years.
I'm talking about in terms of media attention - it's often via the media that such cases come to light in the first place.

---------- Post added at 05:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 AM ----------

^^^

Yes, I had my virginity taken away from me at 17 by "statutory rape." Yes, the guy was 19 and it was 100% consensual. Just because people laugh off statutory rape in situations like these doesn't mean the statute doesn't exist for a reason, and that reason is Roman fucking Polanski in case he further had the gall to claim it was consensual.
If anything this shows the law is hopelessly out of date and needs a great deal of refinement. When a 19 year old can "rape" a 17 year old when it's consensual, the law is a joke, full stop. Refining it will make the law stronger and it will stop some ridiculous cases from going to court between a teenage boy and girlfriend. Not to mention that states among each other can't even come to an agreement when it's rape and when it's not. In Europe, many countries already have a new law which makes exceptions based on age differences and rightfully so.
 
C

crono1224

^^^

Yes, I had my virginity taken away from me at 17 by "statutory rape." Yes, the guy was 19 and it was 100% consensual. Just because people laugh off statutory rape in situations like these doesn't mean the statute doesn't exist for a reason, and that reason is Roman fucking Polanski in case he further had the gall to claim it was consensual.
If anything this shows the law is hopelessly out of date and needs a great deal of refinement. When a 19 year old can "rape" a 17 year old when it's consensual, the law is a joke, full stop. Refining it will make the law stronger and it will stop some ridiculous cases from going to court between a teenage boy and girlfriend. Not to mention that states among each other can't even come to an agreement when it's rape and when it's not. In Europe, many countries already have a new law which makes exceptions based on age differences and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

The thoughts were that <18 or 16-17 depending on states can't LEGALLY CONSENT to those acts. Whether or not this is out of touch is the same problem with drinking and voting and what ever else i guess?

Especially since i think that some its janky enough if you are 1 day before birthday and they are 1 day after it, it could be statutory rape, though i doubt it would be punished/prosecuted.
 
I supported the idea that the manhunt that had sprung up around him was overdrawn and pointless.
Let me rephrase that for you:

I supported the idea that the manhunt that had sprung up around a person who committed statutory rape of a child and then fled the country before sentencing after pleading guilty was overdrawn and pointless.
I'm sorry that we disagree, but even if you were correct earlier and it was statutory rape, I still don't believe it's right to 'support' him in ANY way, shape, or form.

If it's overdrawn it's because the man himself was making it hard to catch him, and the media is making a circus out of it because he's a celebrity.

Statutory rape is worth prosecuting, even if it takes years to catch the person who commits it.

You are taking the same stance as Whoopi - if it's not rape-rape, then hey, you know, give the guy a break. I support him and not the state.

Sorry if I offend, but your argument utterly ridiculous. "Supporting" a rapist is supporting a rapist.

-Adam
 
If anything this shows the law is hopelessly out of date and needs a great deal of refinement.
Yes, but that wasn't exactly my point. I'm saying the "statutory" part of it is clouding the point for some. What he did was rape-rape-rape-rape-rape-rape-rape-rape or however many goddamn times it'll take before everyone (and believe me, I am not just talking about this thread) quits with the justifications and caveats just because the issue of "statutory rape" has problems.
 
H

Heavan

I can see defense of Polanski on a law standpoint. He did something wrong, and cooperated fully with the police up to a certain point. He went to prison for a certain amount of time, had mental evaluations, all that. A plea bargain was drawn up saying that the amount of time he'd spent in prison for the evaluation was to be his sentence, and that was it. The prosecution, defense, judge, victim, and Polanski all agreed on this. But then right before his last court hearing the judge of the case went to the media and said he was going to go back on the deal and go much harsher, just because he chose to. That... isn't how the law is supposed to work. Then, in response to hearing this, Polanski fled to France.

Whether or not you agree with the sentence for the crime (60 some days in prison for rape? Even I don't agree with it) is irrelevant. While he was wrong to do what he did and then run, this could have all been over a long time ago if some moron judge didn't decide he wanted publicity.
 
judge of the case went to the media and said he was going to go back on the deal and go much harsher, just because he chose to. That... isn't how the law is supposed to work.
First, What do you mean "Just because he chose to" ? Are you saying he had no legal reason to reject the plea bargain?

In a felony case, the judge has EVERY right to reject a plea bargain and either force the defense and prosecution to work on a new plea bargain or go to trial.

In my mugging case the judge was telling the defendant that if he didn't give him very specific details proving he was one of the attackers, then the judge wasn't going to accept his guilty plea and they would have had to go to trial.

Either you have a poor understanding of the legal system, or you know something about the case that we don't know. Please enlighten me.

Otherwise, yes - that is how the law is supposed to work. The judge determines whether the guilty plea is legal, valid, and reasonable for the crime charged. I suspect that the Judge agreed with you - 60 days was not enough and the plea needed to be reworked. If the defendant at ANY time disagrees with the judge then he gets a trial by jury of his peers.

By leaving, Polanski not only rejected the plea bargain, he also rejected the opportunity to craft a new one if rejected by the judge, and he SOUNDLY REJECTED trial by jury of his peers.

I'd say the system was, and is, working exactly as intended.

-Adam
 
C

Chazwozel

It doesn't seem that statutory rape is the core issue here. The girl's age is just an aggravating factor of the classic rape committed. She did not consent, and in fact, could not consent due to the drugs.

If you say too much time has passed and it is too late to punish him justly, you are saying that he deserves to get away with rape. That's all there is too it.
What is locking him away for 10 + years in federal prison going to accomplish exactly? (aside from further wasting tax dollars).

The thing is I don't think he got away with rape at all. Look at all the media scrutiny, he's had to live in exile from the U.S. for 30 years, he payed a settlement to the victim. Over these 30 years I think he's paid for his crime. Putting him away in prison isn't going to magically make what he did go away and make him a non-rapist.
 
There is a statue of limitations but since he fled from prosecution or what ever i doubt it matters.
Yeah, most statutes of limitations 'pause' the clock if you flee.

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to prevent someone from waiting 10 years to call rape (or theft, or whatever) on someone vindictively. If a crime happens, you need to report it when it happens, not years down the road when the suspect pisses you off again. It also keeps the government from dredging up old charges to throw at you whenever it's convenient.

Now, if you report it (as she did), and the suspect flees, well, that's not the state's (or the victim's) fault that the charges weren't able to be heard in court. So, the statute of limitations don't count for that entire time that the suspect is outside the arm of the law.

So, I think Roman Polanski needs to have his day in court.

That said, until he's judged guilty, he is an innocent man. The tar-and-feathers witch-hunt attitude some display here frightens me a little bit. Regardless of Samantha Geimer's deposition, we've heard one side of the story. We know that he attempted to make a plea bargain, and fled justice when he feared that the plea bargain would not be accepted as negotiated. But I don't think it's really fair to string the guy up until his day in court when all of the information from both sides can be heard, weighed, and decided on by a jury (or judge, if the jury option is waived).
 
M

makare

It doesn't seem that statutory rape is the core issue here. The girl's age is just an aggravating factor of the classic rape committed. She did not consent, and in fact, could not consent due to the drugs.

If you say too much time has passed and it is too late to punish him justly, you are saying that he deserves to get away with rape. That's all there is too it.
What is locking him away for 10 + years in federal prison going to accomplish exactly? (aside from further wasting tax dollars).

The thing is I don't think he got away with rape at all. Look at all the media scrutiny, he's had to live in exile from the U.S. for 30 years, he payed a settlement to the victim. Over these 30 years I think he's paid for his crime. Putting him away in prison isn't going to magically make what he did go away and make him a non-rapist.[/QUOTE]


Should we just do away with the criminal justice system and simply export people to France as punishment? Personally living in France would be punishment for me but most people, I think, might like it.

And what it accomplishes is it tells Polanksi and the rest of the world that a crime of a rape does not just disappear over time.
 

Dave

Staff member
If you're 22 and have a 14 year old girlfriend you are fucking sick in the head. Had you come around last year when my daughter was 14 I would have beat the living shit out of your perverted ass and had you thrown in jail.
 
C

Chazwozel

If you're 22 and have a 14 year old girlfriend you are fucking sick in the head. Had you come around last year when my daughter was 14 I would have beat the living shit out of your perverted ass and had you thrown in jail.
Well that came out of left field...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top