Might as Well Get to the Polanski Thing

[Mollyarabella]

I think if you are ambivalent about an issue, but feel nonetheless that an article about it is necessary or desirable under those circumstances, it's probably best for both the readership and the discourse of the issue itself, if someone else writes about it. Wait two weeks and then dish on everyone who cared enough to respond to the issue in a timely and considered fashion, and you leave this site open to cries of "me too-ism" and, well, replies such as mine, which is as much a non reply as this is a non article on the issue.

 

[TechNoFear]

I think Polanski should be held accountable under the law and be subject to the same due process as any one else (irregardless of his other accomplishments).

I also think Orlando Bosch should be held accountable for his terrorist attacks (and not protected by the US).

The US should at least try to adhere to the same standards it demands of the rest of the world.

 

[mattag08]

He's a man, and he committed a crime. He should be punished like anyone else would be. It is absurd to say that because he made some films that won acclaim (from within the academies own little circle jerk of power) that he should receive lighter or less sentencing. It is also silly to use his case as a chance to alter jurisprudence in your favor by getting a harsher sentence imposed because his case is high profile.

Treat him like anyone else. Because if YOU were the defendant, no one would give a fuck about you and you'd be in jail so fast it would make your head spin. Do you think your life is worth less than his? I sure don't and I think it's good to remember that.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Let's be fair. The man was prosecuted and found guilty of a crime - that he confessed to the crime is just icing on the cake. For reasons that are ultimately irrelevent, Polanski then fled the country and avoided incarceration for more than three decades and now is in a position to finally, and at long last, be held accountable for the crime that he admitted being guilty of.

The one interesting thing about this entire case is, generally rape cases of any kind rely on the supposition of long term harm (emotional, social) versus the short term (physical). It isn't often that a case of this nature has the opportunity to see, in actuality, the effects the crime has had upon the victim.

In this case, we see that the victim no longer appears to publicly hold any ill will towards Polanski, or at least holds so little that she doesn't want to be involved in any new proceedings. So what, if anything, does this change? The crime was still committed, the charges were pressed and there is no statute of limitations pertaining to the act. As far as I can tell, there is effectively no difference. The minimum sentence for rape in a case like this will span longer than Polanski is likely to remain alive, and a lenient sentence is all that should be offered per the letter of the law.

I suspect the only way Polanski ends up escaping jail for the remainder of his years is if he receives a pardon. However, neither the governor of the state (a republican) nor the president are likely to offer such a measure. In the first case, he would be acting contrary to what can be surmised as his constituients wishes. In the case of the latter, I think we can agree that he already catches enough flak for a whole host of nonsense that he probably isn't eager to throw a can of gas onto the fire.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

So you see nothing wrong in a 50-year old guy seducing (more like - brainwashing) a 7-year old to give him oral sex? This is so sick, I had troubles writing that. Fact is - kids before 15-16 know nothing about sex, sex education and so on. It can only end badly.

Yet in spite of this "fact", you'll find that the relatively late age of consent (16 - 18 in the US with 18 being favored in almost all states) is a recent trend. As far as people were concerned a few generations ago, the moment you're capable of concieving and bearing a child you're perfectly capable of having sex. Depending upon when the individual hits puberty, this would often take place well before the age of 16.

This leads me to believe that it is entirely possible that many of our knee jerk reactions in a case like this is simply a matter of cultural conditioning and probably doesn't have as much basis in truth as we'd like to believe.

I find it hard to believe people can so easily overlook a child sex crime and being a fugitive from justice just because you're famous.

The worse comments are the "She was asking for it/Said it was ok" ones. Ugh.

There is a distinct difference between what most people consider rape (forced sexual intercourse) and the incident that allegedly happened in this case. In this instance, the minor consented to sex. The counter argument is, that said minor cannot possibly consent to sex. The logic is, they cannot possibly negotiate (I can't think of a better word) the act on fair terms because of vastly diffrent life experiencse; moreover, the child may not properly understand the gravity of the situation. The difference is clear enough that they are completely seperate crimes in most states.

 

[sallene]

I find it hard to believe people can so easily overlook a child sex crime and being a fugitive from justice just because you're famous.

The worse comments are the "She was asking for it/Said it was ok" ones. Ugh.

There is a distinct difference between what most people consider rape (forced sexual intercourse) and the incident that allegedly happened in this case. In this instance, the minor consented to sex. The counter argument is, that said minor cannot possibly consent to sex. The logic is, they cannot possibly negotiate (I can't think of a better word) the act on fair terms because of vastly diffrent life experiencse; moreover, the child may not properly understand the gravity of the situation. The difference is clear enough that they are completely seperate crimes in most states.

Ummm, no?

The minor was given alchohol and drugs and then sodomized.

Edit - Also the young girl in question did ask polanski to stop and he didnt. If that doesnt constitute rape then I am sure there are plenty of poeple convicted and serving time in jail that will be happy to hear it.


Soooo, exactly what is your name and where do you live so I can pass this information on to Chris Hansen just in case any kids in your neck of the woods start waking up out of a stupor with sore asses.

Im sure everything will be A-OK if you simply explained the drugged kiddies consented to you forcing your penis into their anus.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I find it hard to believe people can so easily overlook a child sex crime and being a fugitive from justice just because you're famous.

The worse comments are the "She was asking for it/Said it was ok" ones. Ugh.

There is a distinct difference between what most people consider rape (forced sexual intercourse) and the incident that allegedly happened in this case. In this instance, the minor consented to sex. The counter argument is, that said minor cannot possibly consent to sex. The logic is, they cannot possibly negotiate (I can't think of a better word) the act on fair terms because of vastly diffrent life experiencse; moreover, the child may not properly understand the gravity of the situation. The difference is clear enough that they are completely seperate crimes in most states.

Ummm, no?

The minor was given alchohol and drugs and then sodomized.

Edit - Also the young girl in question did ask polanski to stop and he didnt. If that doesnt constitute rape then I am sure there are plenty of poeple convicted and serving time in jail that will be happy to hear it.


Soooo, exactly what is your name and where do you live so I can pass this information on to Chris Hansen just in case any kids in your neck of the woods start waking up out of a stupor with sore asses.

Im sure everything will be A-OK if you simply explained the drugged kiddies consented to you forcing your penis into their anus.

Excellent dodging of the actual point and constructing a strawman. I never once said or implied that it was okay - I stated that rape of this sort is categorized and treated as different from the more usual forced sexual intercourse style. I'm fairly certain this point is above argument since it is a matter of easily verified fact that most states classify statuatory rape and regular rape as seperate crimes.

And, just to turn you little table around for a moment - thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people are convinced to have sex of some sort while drunk each and every day. If you're saying this is more illegal because the minor was drunk I think you are generally mistaken (Polanski would have committed two seperate crimes, not worsen a single crime). Intoxication is a known tactic for attempting to convince someone that having sex is a grand idea. My larger point was the argument against underaged sexual relations lies largely in the fact that there is a perception that may in fact be entirely accurate that a minor is not in a position to make the correct judgements regarding the situation. Does a minor who has never been drunk before really understand the judgement imparing effects enough to take the risk? Can the minor forsee where the would be rapist is trying to lead the evening before hormones and other physiological effects make logical thought all the more difficult? The answer in most of these cases is likely no - the minor is completely disarmed in such a situation. A woman of my age is not readily manipulated (generally) by charms and gimmicks - they have developed defenses against such things. Children do not have the benefit of such things and as such having one give consent is akin to entering an unfavorable treaty in a war when the other side has all the weapons and manpower.

 

[mrverbal]

She was given alcohol and other drugs. And then raped in the butt. It's not a statutory rape, it's a rape rape. (Also, whoopie goldberg is an idiot of the first order).

 

[axia777]

It almost immediately stops being about the actual people or the actual case and instead becomes about using them to fight "culture war" skirmishes by-proxy - especially when the criminal is famous and the crime is sexual.

I and lots of other people don't care if he is famous other than he is going to get a different treatment than if he was just a normal guy. The rich usually do. If he was a normal guy he would have been serving his prison time for a long time now.

At worst, his family and colleagues have offered that, to them, his friendship and contributions to art and culture mitigate the deeds of his past to varying degrees.

ROFL!!!!! I love how these people say making movies justifies drugged rape. The logic defies all reality.

If there must be a battleground for such things... Why this man? Why this case?

Again, people are sick and tired of fools like Polanski getting a double standard treatment. He committed a serious crime. It all ready went to court. He just needs to be sentenced and sent to prison.

Seriously, I believe he should be let go. There should be a law that if the "victim" forgives their "attacker" then they should be let go. He didn't ruin her life, the courts are now, however. She wants it forgotten. Forget it.

He broke other laws when he jumped bail and fled the country. Besides, the fact that it has all ready gone to court mitigates the statute of limitations for rape. That is why they can still bring him in and should do so. No rapist should get off for any reason.

Ok here's a question

Why is pedophilia immoral, illegal?

Basic law making suggests that anything that causes harm to the fabric of society is immoral and therefore illegal, given a multiracial, multicultural, multireligious civilization.

So how does pedophilia cause harm to society? What if both parties are willing? And more importantly how is the age of a child determined? How is a child different from an adult?

Just asking this question to prevent populism (which seems to be the de facto tool of the ignorant opinions floating around).

If you have a opinion on something and you don't know why or how, you're not really contributing to the human race.

I see you are obviously not a parent. When you do become a parent it will all become apparent to you.

 

[ccesarano]

The thing that needs to be done is look at this from a very simple perspective, as you would a child.

Did he commit a crime? Did he then flee the country to escape the consequences of said crime? Then the guy is technically double-guilty. If he weren't Roman Polanski, there would be little to no controversy here.

However, people's minds are being clouded because this is a film director and thus a Hollywood matter we're talking about. He isn't being treated as any other man, be it from people that want him to convict him or forgive him.

It's well and good that the man was forgiven by the girl, and I'm glad that her life hasn't been so negatively affected that she was unable to do such a thing. But, the man is guilty of doing wrong. As with a child, people that do wrong should face consequences.

Is it sad? Of course. True the man has a family and he's pretty old and he has done good things, but people need to stop imagining every person in prison was some thug asshole psycho who lives to do wrong. It's about people that lost control of themselves, and thus should face consequences for that choice. One might view his fleeing America a consequence, but I hardly would since he's enjoyed a celebrity life and loving family still.

In the end, he's just another man no matter what status society has given him. He should be tried as any other man.

 

[sallene]

Excellent dodging of the actual point and constructing a strawman. I never once said or implied that it was okay - I stated that rape of this sort is categorized and treated as different from the more usual forced sexual intercourse style. I'm fairly certain this point is above argument since it is a matter of easily verified fact that most states classify statuatory rape and regular rape as seperate crimes.

So your argument is that drugged rape isnt "real" rape. Is it like pretend rape? Just because a person does not fight back while drugged or drunk(especially children and young teens) does not mean the rape wasnt "forced". You must be a mental case or pretty ignorant to think such a thing. Also, when was the last time you saw a 13 year old girl beat a grown mans ass? Exactly. Your qualifiers for what constitutes "forced" is as idiotic as all the other crap your spewing.

And, just to turn you little table around for a moment - thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people are convinced to have sex of some sort while drunk each and every day.

Yes, but they are usually of the same age grouping whether it is college or highschool and some of the times its a simple live and learn lesson, but when it is a grown man over 30 drugging a 13 year old girl who has yet to formulate the mentality and even physicality of her sexuallity then it is rape plain and simple. Also some of the other times you mention where one person is intoxicated are rape too if they are passed out or are too inpaired to give consent. That is for the protection of the victim. Though to me you seem the type of person to coddle the rapist while blaming the victim because they obviously "wanted it".

If you're saying this is more illegal because the minor was drunk I think you are generally mistaken (Polanski would have committed two seperate crimes, not worsen a single crime). Intoxication is a known tactic for attempting to convince someone that having sex is a grand idea.

Really? Really? I never said it was more illegal but it is illegal, not only for someone to provide and give drugs/alchohol to a minor but then while they were in an impaired state to force themselves upon them while they do ask for the person to stop. If you have trouble seeing how that could be illegal agian I ask that you give up your location so I can warn any relatives I may have in that area to watch their kids closer around your house.

My larger point was the argument against underaged sexual relations

We are not talkign about a gym teacher who got caught boinking one of his or her students. We are talking about a man who raped an impaired 13yr old girl. If rape is what you define as normal sexual relations seek help.

there is a perception that may in fact be entirely accurate that a minor is not in a position to make the correct judgements regarding the situation.

Hence why it is illegal for grownups to have sex with young children, because children that young do not have the ability to make those types of decisions.

Does a minor who has never been drunk before really understand the judgement imparing effects enough to take the risk?

If you need to even ask that question I would ask you to never had kids for any of your future spawns sake.

Can the minor forsee where the would be rapist is trying to lead the evening before hormones and other physiological effects make logical thought all the more difficult?

Thats your problem, you are thinking that a young teen/preteen would have the ability to think logically about any situation. Children that age are maleable and that is the time where they learn much of their social and mental development. While they may know right from wrong it is proven that they often do not have the ability to make such a decision in a stressful sitation or where there is an adult(an authority figure) present they usually default to the adults direction.

The answer in most of these cases is likely no - the minor is completely disarmed in such a situation. A woman of my age is not readily manipulated (generally) by charms and gimmicks - they have developed defenses against such things.

And yet you say all that but still spout off with a "blame the victim" mentallity that is still affecting sexual assault and molestation cases even today. Many of the victims of such crimes are still reluctant to come forward because their attackers are usually treated like the victims.

Children do not have the benefit of such things and as such having one give consent is akin to entering an unfavorable treaty in a war when the other side has all the weapons and manpower.

And if this was a case where it was a teacher having sex with a student you would be correct, but this is about the fact polanksi forced himself on an impaired 13yr old and proceed to rape and sodomize her.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I ain't gonna enter the quote fest as we're already at a page per post, but here's my view.

He committed the crime, he should be tried, it's that simple. Otherwise do we let off war criminals because they've not tortured anyone for a while? (Only using that analogy as it seems to be the only other crime with surfaces maybe decades later, not for Godwin's Law value)

Now, onto whether the crime is always a crime, I think I'd be open to discussion on that one.
I'm still undecided on this, I feel the current '16' limit in the UK for sexual consent is probably about right, as of course there's girls of 13 who are mature enough to make those decisions, there's always going to be a few who are not ready after 16, I feel it's about the right place to draw a line, as one has to be drawn.

To me tho, there should at least be different crimes for rape, and when a girl gives consent but is too young, especially when the lines are blurry in terms of her maturity and looks.

I've seen girls under 16 who could pass for 20 easily, and I doubt 'carding' them counts as romantic.

Also, its just a fact of life that the moment puberty hits, humans start fucking, we just need to keep it socially unpopular and illegal to lower the amount of teens with kids, I know it doesn't fix the problem, but I think it would be a lot worse without the rule there.

 

[oathblade]

Two comments Id like to add,

You can tell huge amount about a society by what they think about. Apparently we think about adults having sex with kids. To the point there isn't a week without a newspaper story about it happening or some politico trying to appease the mob by making a law about it.

We have reverted to the scarlet letter. You are forced to be branded for life for a single crime. We don't punish you for a few days, or a few years, but rather we torment you for life. Im not comfortable torturing anyone like that. If their that terrible kill them, or correct them and let them renter society.

 

[Krunkcity3000]

The man is guilty. He did the Crime now do the Time. It doesnt matter what the victim wants now. He was found guilty and fled the country. How do you defend that?

Let's say you caught your 13 yr old daughter having sex with her 40 yr old teacher. She doesnt want to press charges, It doesnt matter he broke the law. He gets convicted and flees the country now he's in deeper trouble.

So yes, Polanski deserves to be punished and it should/maybe will be more severe than if he served his original sentence without fleeing.

 

[Krunkcity3000]

Polanski never served his time. That's why he is being hounded. If he had served his time 30 yrs ago and then was released, went to Europe and made his movies then this wouldnt be an issue right now.

 

[beddo]

Seriously, I believe he should be let go. There should be a law that if the "victim" forgives their "attacker" then they should be let go. He didn't ruin her life, the courts are now, however. She wants it forgotten. Forget it.

The justice system is bigger than any one case. We cannot stop prosecutions based on the feelings of the victim. A crime was committed and needs to be answered for. The law has to apply as a deterrent and to show that no matter how long it takes, justice will be done.

There's also the time since the event to consider. While the victim claims to have forgiven him she may not have. The victimay just feel pressured or bullied. Perhaps she just wants to forget it and be left alone. This hasn't happened because Panski couldn't be a
man and stand up and accept his punishment for his actions at the time.

You aren't exempt from the law because you're famous or because the crime happened a
long time ago. For justice to be done and to keep confidence in the legal system, this case needs to come before a court and be concluded.

 

[tkioz]

A lot of people fail to understand something very simple about why we send people to jail, there are a number of reasons, and punishment is very low on the list.

Reason one is deterrence, if you show what happens to a person when they break the agreed upon social convention (i.e you don't drug 13 year olds and sodomise them), there is a reason executions were public back in history, it wasn't just to give the pleebs something to feel righteous about (though that was part of it).

Reason two is containment, frankly there are a lot of people in this world that need to be locked up for the safety of others. Now I don't see that this applies here given how I understand the facts of the case (though it should be noted that sex offenders rarely only commit one crime, as a general rule, not making a comment about this case)

Reason three is rehabilitation, this mainly comes into play in the lower end of the criminal scale (i.e stealing a car). I don't think it applies here

Reason four is punishment, closely linked with number one.

For reasons one and four he should be put in jail. If he is let off it sends a bad signal, one that "oh it's okay to do this if you're also rich and skilled". People also need to consider that fleeing from justice is a serious offence and shows disdain for the legal system and needs to be stamped on hard.

If the original case was tainted, yes he should be given a retrial, but if convicted again he should be given his original sentence plus the mandatory sentence for fleeing from justice. This is coming to come across as very harsh, but the wishes of the victim aren't all that important in the legal system, sure we feel bad for them, however, how many rape victims are happy that the guy who ruined their lives got 10 years? most of them want his junk on a rusty pike.

So while I feel for his victim, the legal system is there to protect the entirety of society.