Roman Polanski

[El Presidente]

This has been bugging me for days so I would like some clarification.

Polanski bangs a 13 year old 30 years ago. He takes off before sentencing.

No dispute of the crime, the victim now wants conviction dropped (I don't blame her...who wants to relive it again) however is this any different to a priest molesting a 13 year old back in the 70's?

Why the moral outcry in support of Polansky from the Artistic world and politicial sychopants? Is this not a clear cut case?

Someone explain this to me?

[Warren]

Well my guess would be tradition.

We have been crucifying religious leaders for thousands of years and we just have a better handle on it. I mean who doesn't know what to wear to a good old priest burning.

Sorry Mate I promised to be good but I just can't help myself.

[Kangaroo495]

No dispute of the crime, the victim now wants conviction dropped (I don't blame her...who wants to relive it again) however is this any different to a priest molesting a 13 year old back in the 70's?

As I understand, there would be no great need to relive it (other than the media attention) as he was already found guilty (or at least he pleaded guilty). Therefore, he should be sent back and locked up to do the time he was supposed to do. Plus added time for fleeing the country.

Also don't understand why people are sticking up for him. Because he's a talented director? In my mind a pedophile's a pedophile - no such thing as a talented pedophile.

[shrink]

Rather than serve a jail term, Polanski should be fined 80% of his fortune to support programs to prevent and treat child sexual abuse. Oh, and he should be forced to watch "Borat" over and over until he vomits.

[Tampa1257]

I agree Whole Heartedly with this: "a pedophile's a pedophile - no such thing as a talented pedophile."

May he rot in jail.

Let me ask you, If it had been YOUR daughter how would you feel?

[jquest63]

This has been bugging me for days so I would like some clarification.

Polanski bangs a 13 year old 30 years ago. He takes off before sentencing.

No dispute of the crime, the victim now wants conviction dropped (I don't blame her...who wants to relive it again) however is this any different to a priest molesting a 13 year old back in the 70's?

Why the moral outcry in support of Polansky from the Artistic world and politicial sychopants? Is this not a clear cut case?

Someone explain this to me?

Agreed, it's no different than a criminal priest. Just more evidence of how amoral and self important the Hollywood community is. Well, at least the worlds little boys don't have to worry about the King of Pop anymore.

[n2advnture]

Hang him!

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

Polanski was initially 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. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

[Ryan]

No dispute of the crime, the victim now wants conviction dropped (I don't blame her...who wants to relive it again) however is this any different to a priest molesting a 13 year old back in the 70's?

I'm not going to try to defend Polanski. However there is a difference between this and abuse by priests or those in positions of trust similar to a priest's (teachers etc.)

The Polanski rape happened during the second photo shoot. During the first photo shoot, Polanski asked the girl the change in from of him and yet her mother allowed her back. That her mother allowed her 13 year old daughter to do a photo shoot at all for french Vogue without even a chaperone raises other questions.

Of course there is still no excusing his rape of a child.

Priests on the other hand have (had anyway) access to children all the time. Altar boys, reform schools etc. Parents willingly and innocently left their children in the care of priests.

They always held a position of trust in the community. Even when they were known to abuse that trust they could threaten the family, passively and actively, enough to keep quiet.

Priests also had their bishops to get them out of any "trouble" they got into in their parish. Nothing a quiet spell in Africa, South America or even another parish can't solve. Plus the belief that canon law holds sway over civil law. It goes on.

There are plenty of good priests I'm sure. However, every single bishop over a certain age, at least in this country, knows of priests who have raped children and have not gone to the authorities.

I don't mean to ramble, Roman Polanski raped a child and fled, I don't dispute that.

With priests however, it's a far worse moral crime if not legal. It goes against everything he promised to his community and the trust they (usually) innocently placed in him, with full knowledge of protection from his organisation.

I'm still shocked that every bishop in this country has not been brought in for questioning.

[Rogers72]

I've read alot of this crap about it "being a different time then..." and "that's just Hollywood in the 60's and 70's..." and "the judge was trying to make an unfair example of him...". It's no different there now. They're all a bunch of loons who think they are above the law. Lock him up and let him rot.

[anacostiakat]

Well here are a couple of thoughts. My undertanding is that the victim of this crime was offered and accepted a monetary sum ( I believe in the past). So she has that incentive as well for not wanting to revisit this.

He was in and out of that country countless times and actually owns a vacation place there. So I question what is driving this.

As for him being guilty? He is and I find no excuse or rationalization for him getting off as acceptable.

The uproar from the artistic community was to be expected.

[tigger]

My understanding is that the bulk of the outcry is from a bunch of self-important film industry people who think that arresting felons as they go to film festivals will somehow strangle artistic expression.

They can all get stuffed.

The arts are very important in reflecting and defining culture. They entertain us, move us, and cause us to ponder.

But they shouldn't trump justice.

I feel horrible for the now grown woman who is being forced back into the spotlight by this, but that's on the criminal who drugged and raped a young teenager and didn't have the stones to take his punishment, not on the authorities.

And I tend not to like the authorities.

[joeypots]

One take on this is that when it happened it would never have been prosecuted if Polanski had not been famous. The authorities saw an opportunity to get notoriety by prosecuting a famous man and went for it with a zeal that was entirely out of proportion to the crime, given the standards of the day. I'm just putting up the argument. As for the victim's desire to avoid notoriety, why did she appear on Larry King last week?

[chrisguinther]

He committed a crime, and he needs to be punished. If he had done this last week to a 13-year-old the public would be demanding his head on a stick. There's no difference between now and back then.

[strayvector]

Woody Allen leads the supporters for freeing him...one pedophile defending another...mmm...OK...oh yeah, and the French wants him released because he's a great artist.

There's a reason they call it statutory rape. She was 13 for goodness sakes. He knew he was wrong. He knew he was taking advantage of her. He admitted quilt and then ran off. All those supporters are pissing me the hell off. How do you rationalize your support for someone who invites a 13 year old over, plies her with drugs and alcohol, and then proceeds to rape her? Lock the bastard up.

[Ryan]

, and the French wants him released because he's a great artist.

Well to be fair, he is a french citizen.

[CigarLouie]

I am a police detective, and deal with these crimes all the time (no throwing stones at me for enjoying Cuban cigars ), that being said, my understanding of this case is that his attorney, the victim, and the District Attorney already signed a plea deal and the judge signed off on the plea deal. The day before sentencing the judge had been swayed by alot of public pressure to rescind the deal and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison. I have to say that I get upset when I work on a case where a child was molested and nothing is done, but I kind of feel in this case that the outcome was already agreed upon and the judge tried to "screw" him at the last minute, without his knowledge. Also, there were other factors, alledgedly the mother purported her daughter to be 17, not 13, etc... That is not a defense. I do wonder why he is being arrested by the Swiss now, after all this time though. He does need some punishment, but 50 years was kinda extreme after a deal had been reached already. I mean, people kill people and don't get 10 years, much less 50. Just my 2 cents.

BTW, I am just interested in cuban cigars and do not have any Bolivar Petite Coronas, or any other cuban cigar in my possession, nor do I smoke them.

[ksblazer]

A agree the Hollywood loons have a really screwed perception of scociety. Polansky is a freakin pedophile and should pay the price for his actions. I don't care if it was 30+yrs ago or not.

Also why did everyone one in Hollywood and the media make Micheal Jackson out to be such a great person when he died. He was a piece of crap pedophile as well. And the Hollywood/media overlooked that like it never happened.

To me it seems that in the Hollywood/media types are willing to forgive people of these crimes. Just because they are "so talented and great entertainers" it really disgusts me.

[brooklyn]

Return,face sentencing,accept your punishment.

Power and abuse must not be tolerated simply because the abuser is a talented fellow.

Same thing would apply to all who brought about the financial crisis,broke public trust,or simply screwed up. MOney and power must not be a get out of jail card.

As for all the bishops and cardinals who protected priests and belittled the victims, no statute of limitations: pay the piper for not protecting the innocent.

[tigger]

Well to be fair, he is a french citizen.

So we'll call him un cochon instead of a pig.

I'm no naif. I know that governments strive to protect their citizens, even when they (the citizens) are heinously wrong.

French conduct in this case is no better to me than in cases where US soldiers commit violent crimes abroad and get brought back here for trial.

I am a police detective, and deal with these crimes all the time (no throwing stones at me for enjoying Cuban cigars )

As long as you're fighting crimes that actually hurt people, and not made up offenses that enforce infringements on people's personal lives, you could be typing while you're toking from a five foot ****** as you and your three wives and their other husbands clean and oil your howitzer and you'd be ok in my book.

I'll say this. 13 or 17 or 40, getting a woman loaded on Quaaludes and having sex with her against her will is entirely repugnant. That she actually was 13 just makes it worse.

I'm really not familiar enough with the case, or California law now, or in the 70's to speak on this, but it seems to me that if he was being screwed as badly as we're being led by some to believe, that he would have had some judicial recourse - rescinding his plea, or the appellate process - to protect him from unfair and deceitful proceedings.

I hope you think fond happy thoughts about a Bolivar today, and enjoy those thoughts immensely!

[tigger]

If I knew this forum was so full of rednecks, I would be less willing to share my cigar experiences.

1. It's not about guilt -- it's about the right to extradite.

2. The woman who is now 45, has forgiven him.

3. If anyone in this forum does NOT have a sexual episode he is ashamed of, then he can fire the first bullet.

What a bunch of self-righteous wankers.

Wow...

[Colt45]

What a bunch of self-righteous wankers.

And the head wanker started the thread!

[tigger]

I tried to leave it at wow, but I can't (or won't, which is more likely).

tw, were your first and last sentences in that post not inflammatory, insulting, nasty, and entirely counter to what our gracious hosts are trying to build here, I would respect your opinions as your own, and not bother to respond.

But they are, so here goes:

1. I fail to see how a discussion of right to extradite can be divorced from the gravity of the crime for which the defendant is charged.

2. We have a societal compact, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps a victim's forgiveness should be a factor in the sentencing of a criminal, but if we're going to remain a society, and reap the benefits of doing so, then when we violate the compact, we answer for it.

3. More than one. But none of them predatory. None of them drugging someone to make her more compliant. None of them against anyone's will. Rape isn't a sexual episode. It's a violent crime. I honestly don't understand how you equate them. It's akin to saying someone who has borrowed something from someone in the past shouldn't speak out against theft.

Your arrogance and divisiveness confound me. Perhaps this is a sore subject for you for personal reasons unknown to the rest of us. Perhaps you're having a difficult day.

Whatever the cause, I hope that you're able to relax, enjoy a cigar, and share the experience with us. That is, after all, the primary reason for our all meeting here.

[perfectform]

It is a cut-and-dried case. In fact, I would blame the Polanski lawyers for his arrest. They tried to have the conviction thrown out because of lack of action by the prosecution for so many years. Hence, the arrest.

He absolutely should be extradited, and forced to serve his sentence plus additional time for absconding. There should be no skirting the law in cases of rape, child or other-wise. There are good laws and bad laws. All of you defending Polanski are basically saying the laws in place to prosecute child rape are bad. Shame on you.

[Rogers72]

I guess I am a self-righteous redneck wanker b/c I think what this scum did was much worse than a mere "sexual episode" that he should be "ashamed of". I think that anyone over the age of 18 who drugs a 13 year old and rapes her should be given the death sentence. I have a 2 year old daughter. I pray that she never runs into anyone like this scum or the people that defend him.

[SethG]

I think the issue had to be the Sharon Tate murder at the time. Basically the guy seemed confused.

The model issue is a very strange one, models often undress completely in about anyone's company because photo shoots require it. Many times it's an underage girl. Wasn't the girl in American Beauty 17 at the time? Watch a bravo show or something with the project runway girls running around naked all the time....

The facts are extremely basic. She was a model, she was 13 but probably looked a little older and was somewhat uncomfortable undressing etc... but rode it out. On the second night he gave her a quaalude and screwed her in every which way possible in Jack Nicholson's hot tub. This probably happens all the time but for her to go back and say something right away made it pretty clear that this was pretty awful to her.

If you don't throw the book at this guy, then how do you justify convicting anyone in their 30's of giving a girl drugs and screwing her when she's 13? I just don't get it.

Who cares about all the ambiguities like "she already got paid and now wants it over", he was convicted and simply fled sentencing. He should come back and get the average to low sentence for the crime. Which is probably the rest of his life in prison.