Roman Polanski

[PigFish]

Sometimes it is easy when only the written word is used to make mistakes, misread, misjudge and go nuclear. We are not children here but we do all have egos, tempers and feelings. When you interact with enough 'people' you are going to get your toes stepped on now and again.

I remember one of those gun threads not long ago. My friend Rob here said something that really pissed me off, I mean really offended me! I still love the guy and I know what he wrote really had nothing to do with offending me, he was just expressing opinion. I am sure I have said some things that have pissed him off as well; that is the nature of debate. Realizing and excepting imperfection; expressing some tolerance are primary rules to getting along in any society, inclusive of this one.

I am not here to turn anyone on or off. My opinion of this place is that it is largely self policing. Turn yourself on and off, as I do when the topic gets out of focus. We all do it.

My last thought is about the quality of people here; rednecks and all. As one of them (member, rednecks) I don't mind anyone having a differing viewpoint. It takes all kinds a critters to make a good stew and the same goes for good conversation. Cool down, retract some comments if necessary and move on. Hell, most people round here won't hold it against you if you don't retract the comments! It is just that kinda' place.

About the people who support Mr. Polanski. It is a good thing that they were not the same people making decisions in the forties, the ones to pursue or dismiss charges against NAZI war criminals... the ones who put Mr. Polanski's parents in a concentration camp and killed his mother. Perhaps those good, forgiving people would forgive Hitler and his staff today! I wonder if Mr. Polanski forgives Charles Manson? Forgiveness is a wonderful thing but so is justice! Justice helps prevent the need for victims to forgive the same perpetrator for making the same mistakes and committing the same crimes against numerous people, time and time again. The civil society balances freedom, just laws and penalties for those who break the law. And that is all I have to say on the matter. -the Pig

[Colt45]

I'm not so good at just letting things go sometimes.

That's because you're a redneck.

Thoughtful as usual, Tig. We're all free to express our opinions here - responsibly. But when any of us feels so strongly the need to be "right"

or to have our voice heard that we resort to what at best I can only refer to as childish tactics, here there will always be a problem.

I think our forum hosts have made that clear. Crystal.

Without really referring to the topic at hand, or any members' posts, I try and stand back some, and not jump in with the pitch forks

and torches mentality. I can understand that point of view. And it's true that the forum will continue on whether any of us stay or go - but

when I give it some real thought, I think it's possible that on the rare occasions when a member does decide to leave, that we might just lose

a little bit of the color and flavor that has made and makes FOH what it is.

P.S. who's the wanker that started this thread, anyway?

[tigger]

That's because you're a redneck.

Touché, Raul.

As seems often to be the case, when we disagree, we really don't, much.

Just about anyone's decision to leave is unfortunate in its way, both for their loss, and what FOH might miss out on for not having them here.

I just think that the whole is much greater than some of its parts in this case.

Get it? I should have written "the sum" and not "some." I slay myself sumtimes.

To sum it all up, a pearl that was passed on to me some time in the hazy past:

Would you rather be right, or happy?

[MontrealRon]

Sometimes it is easy when only the written word is used to make mistakes, misread, misjudge and go nuclear. We are not children here but we do all have egos, tempers and feelings. When you interact with enough 'people' you are going to get your toes stepped on now and again.

I remember one of those gun threads not long ago. My friend Rob here said something that really pissed me off, I mean really offended me! I still love the guy and I know what he wrote really had nothing to do with offending me, he was just expressing opinion. I am sure I have said some things that have pissed him off as well; that is the nature of debate. Realizing and excepting imperfection; expressing some tolerance are primary rules to getting along in any society, inclusive of this one.

I am not here to turn anyone on or off. My opinion of this place is that it is largely self policing. Turn yourself on and off, as I do when the topic gets out of focus. We all do it.

My last thought is about the quality of people here; rednecks and all. As one of them (member, rednecks) I don't mind anyone having a differing viewpoint. It takes all kinds a critters to make a good stew and the same goes for good conversation. Cool down, retract some comments if necessary and move on. Hell, most people round here won't hold it against you if you don't retract the comments! It is just that kinda' place.

About the people who support Mr. Polanski. It is a good thing that they were not the same people making decisions in the forties, the ones to pursue or dismiss charges against NAZI war criminals... the ones who put Mr. Polanski's parents in a concentration camp and killed his mother. Perhaps those good, forgiving people would forgive Hitler and his staff today! I wonder if Mr. Polanski forgives Charles Manson? Forgiveness is a wonderful thing but so is justice! Justice helps prevent the need for victims to forgive the same perpetrator for making the same mistakes and committing the same crimes against numerous people, time and time again. The civil society balances freedom, just laws and penalties for those who break the law. And that is all I have to say on the matter. -the Pig

Excellent, well thought out summation, Piggy.

After having read all the previous posts,

I am stunned by the emotions this issue has raised.

No doubt many of us are fathers, with daughters, as I am.

The response of "Kill the monster!" is natural, pure, animal instinct.

It is a protective instinct, and, due to its animal nature, is morally neutral.

Surely, many of us could imagine our own daughters being so hurt,

and reacted accordingly.

There are times in life when philosophies and subtilties do not apply.

This reaction, unfortunately, is easily confused with the ignorance and violence

of the so-called "redneck".

Tom raised some good points, even if his own feelings were running on overdrive.

The circumstances of the recent arrest, politically speaking, are more than suspicious.

Perhaps Polanski, back then, did have a legitimate fear of betrayal of the plea bargain,

and fled in panic.

We can well imagine how someone with his background

could come to have a fear of government and authority.

We can also imagine how someone who was forced to become a self-supporting adult

at the age of twelve, in the hell of wartime Europe,

with his family murdered,

might develop certain psychological/sexual problems later in life,

including perhaps a sexual attraction to females of the same age group

that he was in when becoming funtionally independant.

Surely, the brutal murder of his wife did not help his mental stability either.

While none of this justifies his actions, it surely should be taken into consideration

in determining the appropriate punishment for his crime.

In light of all this, my feeling is that the original spirit of the plea bargain should be respected,

and that some small sentence and/or substantial community service be imposed.

And what about the girl's mother, who practically offered up her daughter on a silver platter?

No charges, no moral sanction?

Where is the justice here?

[rallones]

Perhaps Polanski, back then, did have a legitimate fear of betrayal of the plea bargain, and fled in panic.

I think it's worth remembering that a plea bargain has to be approved by the court -- it doesn't automatically get accepted by the judge. If the judge has their own independent reservations about the sufficiency of the plea, they can reject it.

I'm not opining about what might have caused the judge to reject the plea. But the fact that the plea was rejected does not, in and of itself, justify the pleader taking flight.

[Warren]

I think it's worth remembering that a plea bargain has to be approved by the court -- it doesn't automatically get accepted by the judge. If the judge has their own independent reservations about the sufficiency of the plea, they can reject it.

I'm not opining about what might have caused the judge to reject the plea. But the fact that the plea was rejected does not, in and of itself, justify the pleader taking flight.

Plea bargaining is just a dirty little trick played on the good people that cheats them of true justice.

Often it's because the system that is going to try the case just wants it to go away.

We have a certain US citizen in our jails at the moment. A piece of crap by the name of Gabe Watson.

He is clearly and I mean clearly guilty of murdering his wife while on their honeymoon here in Australia.

The man is a certified rescue diver and yet he failed to save his wife in shallow water.

The case was going to be an expensive one with the need to fly in witnesses from all over the globe.

Our weak spined system and lets not exclude our poor excuse for a state government did a deal with him that if he plead to a lesser charge he would get a light sentenceIn my opinion he got no sentence at all.

I am almost embarrassed to say I'm Australian when I think how our government cheated the family of his wife out of justice.

We gave that worm 12 months .

What does that say for the value of an innocent life lost.

As in the case of Polanski I believe that at the time the US system didn't want to handle the case so another innocent was cheated of justice.

How can good triumph over evil when it seems that the rights of the evil are held in higher esteem.

[Ken Gargett]

when i saw a post on polanski, i couldn't even be bothered reading it. what a mistake. can't believe i missed all the fun.

it was only when i saw that gibbering boring moron whoopi 'centre of attention' goldberg banging on about it that i thought i'd have a squizz.

i am stunned.

first up

" 1. Opt out. Withdraw my membership from FOH and forfeit my option to buy cigars online with Cigar-Czar.

2. Remain a member and therefore support the opinions of the moderators and membership."

i find this really bizarre. do you seriously think everybody on this forum agrees with everything posted? did you not see the posts back near the election? rob and i have all sorts of disagreements (i still maintain hayne should not be playing this weekend) but we don't bail out of the forum if we can't agree. i completely disagree with much you have said in this thread but doesn't mean i would expect you or anyone to bail out. still, your choice.

2nd, to the gentleman who said (and this was not you tom, i think), "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."

are you kidding? i have no problem with any and every priest who has so appallingly abused their position in regard to children being sent straight to hell immediately but to suggest it is far worse in some way lessens a different form of abuse of children. they should all be treated as seriously as each other. i do not support the death penalty with one exception. anyone who molests a child. i have absolutely no problem with the death penalty for that. and i realise that others on this forum will disagree but don't feel the need to leave the forum.

next, "why did she appear on Larry King last week?"

who knows. who cares. it is irrelevant. she was 13. may be she is still just a bit screwed up for the experience. i can't imagine that something as traumatic as that ever fully goes away. yet apparently, if enough time has passed, why not let the criminal off because he has had the inconvenience with having it hanging over his head.

as for this -

"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."

what a load of crap. people who oppose molestation of children are rednecks and wankers? right back at you. she's forgiven him. so what.

"a sexual episode"? abusing children is a 'sexual episode'? i strongly suspect that the vast majority of forum members have not had such a 'sexual episode', at least i hope not. and if you have, then i hope you end up in jail as well. it is very hard to read your comments to tigger and not see them as more than tacit support for this act. i would hope i am wrong.

"I thought this was a cool forum, and have been an occasional contributor, and always true gentleman respectful of everyone's opinion without reverting to insults."

do you read what you have written or perhaps rednecks and wankers are terms of endearment?

finally whoopi!

this was on the courier mail's website this morning.

"WHOOPI Goldberg has defended disgraced film director Roman Polanski who was recently arrested over his statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago.The View host, who claims that Polanski's offence "wasn't rape rape", said on the talkshow: "All I'm trying to get you to understand is when we're talking about what someone did and what they were charged with.

We have to say what it was he did, not what we think he did." Polanski was charged with drugging and raping the girl in 1978 and, after admitting the lesser charge of sex with a minor, he fled to France.

He was finally arrested earlier this week in Switzerland."

why does anyone give this woman oxygen (and yes, i appreciate the irony that i am doing just that by posting this but i really want to know)? she blathers on about anything and everything utterly convinced she has something importrant to say and absoultely desparate to be in the spotlight. she is a vacuous stupid disgrace. and shame america, for not dumping her years ago.

every woman who has ever suffered rape must be feeling so good about themselves now.

she's the other exception i'd make to the death penalty.

[Chaki]

-I don't hate France, or the French. I do believe that French Government protection of a fugitive felon is unjust and indefensible. I also compared that protection to my own country's unjust protection of some of our own citizens. So much for jingoism.

Just a footnote to the post:

Countries (France, US, UK, Australia...etc) are right to defend their own citizens from extradition by a third country when they fear they might be subject to unfair treatment or judgement. For instance, a US citizen steals a car in, say, Saudi Arabia and escapes to Italy. Given that the punishment in Italy or the US is time in jail but in Saudi Arabia it is cutting the right hand, wouldn't one want the US to try and prevent Italy from extraditing the said US citizen to Saudi Arabia?

In Japan, under the Statute of Forces Agreement (SOFA -"under the sofa", I find it funny) US servicemen accused of a crime are kept in US custody until they are sent to a Japanese court for judgement. It is well known that the Japanese police put suspects under extremely harsh pressure to extract a confession. Although technically not an extradition, you get the idea. I don't think it is unjust protection.

EU countries could refuse an extradition request from the US as well if the convicted criminal might be subject in the US to a sentence that does not exist under their own laws (death penalty for example). All this to say that the French Government's position is not unjust or indefensible.

In the Polanski case, given that he already had one plea bargain later upturned, there is ground to believe that he would be unfairly treated -at least from the French Government's perspective. Of course, I am not commenting on the merits of the case itself, only on the procedure.

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[rallones]

In the Polanski case, given that he already had one plea bargain later upturned, there is ground to believe that he would be unfairly treated -at least from the French Government's perspective. Of course, I am not commenting on the merits of the case itself, only on the procedure.

Having a judge reject a plea agreement is not "unfair." The defense and the prosecutor have much stronger incentives to disregard the integrity of the judicial system than the judge.

[Chaki]

Having a judge reject a plea agreement is not "unfair." The defense and the prosecutor have much stronger incentives to disregard the integrity of the judicial system than the judge.

Agreed - but I am looking at it from the French perspective. There is no such thing as plea bargaining in the French legal system. Prosecutor and judge are part of the same "team". So it would seem strange -to a French person- that one would upturn what the other already accepted. It might look like a trick to cheat the accused person.

[Colt45]

Touché, Raul.

As seems often to be the case, when we disagree, we really don't, much.

No real disagreement at all - just a thought

i thought i'd have a squizz.

I squizz, therefore I am.

[rallones]

Agreed - but I am looking at it from the French perspective. There is no such thing as plea bargaining in the French legal system. Prosecutor and judge are part of the same "team". So it would seem strange -to a French person- that one would upturn what the other already accepted. It might look like a trick to cheat the accused person.

I can see how it would seem unfair from that perspective -- wouldn't inspire much confidence in the system.

[Ken Gargett]

just one, possibly, final point.

where the hell did the concept of artists/celebrities being above the law come from?

[PigFish]

just one, possibly, final point.

where the hell did the concept of artists/celebrities being above the law come from?

... the screenwriters guild of course! -LOL

[strayvector]

when i saw a post on polanski, i couldn't even be bothered reading it. what a mistake. can't believe i missed all the fun.

it was only when i saw that gibbering boring moron whoopi 'centre of attention' goldberg banging on about it that i thought i'd have a squizz.

i am stunned.

first up

" 1. Opt out. Withdraw my membership from FOH and forfeit my option to buy cigars online with Cigar-Czar.

2. Remain a member and therefore support the opinions of the moderators and membership."

i find this really bizarre. do you seriously think everybody on this forum agrees with everything posted? did you not see the posts back near the election? rob and i have all sorts of disagreements (i still maintain hayne should not be playing this weekend) but we don't bail out of the forum if we can't agree. i completely disagree with much you have said in this thread but doesn't mean i would expect you or anyone to bail out. still, your choice.

2nd, to the gentleman who said (and this was not you tom, i think), "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."

are you kidding? i have no problem with any and every priest who has so appallingly abused their position in regard to children being sent straight to hell immediately but to suggest it is far worse in some way lessens a different form of abuse of children. they should all be treated as seriously as each other. i do not support the death penalty with one exception. anyone who molests a child. i have absolutely no problem with the death penalty for that. and i realise that others on this forum will disagree but don't feel the need to leave the forum.

next, "why did she appear on Larry King last week?"

who knows. who cares. it is irrelevant. she was 13. may be she is still just a bit screwed up for the experience. i can't imagine that something as traumatic as that ever fully goes away. yet apparently, if enough time has passed, why not let the criminal off because he has had the inconvenience with having it hanging over his head.

as for this -

"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."

what a load of crap. people who oppose molestation of children are rednecks and wankers? right back at you. she's forgiven him. so what.

"a sexual episode"? abusing children is a 'sexual episode'? i strongly suspect that the vast majority of forum members have not had such a 'sexual episode', at least i hope not. and if you have, then i hope you end up in jail as well. it is very hard to read your comments to tigger and not see them as more than tacit support for this act. i would hope i am wrong.

"I thought this was a cool forum, and have been an occasional contributor, and always true gentleman respectful of everyone's opinion without reverting to insults."

do you read what you have written or perhaps rednecks and wankers are terms of endearment?

finally whoopi!

this was on the courier mail's website this morning.

"WHOOPI Goldberg has defended disgraced film director Roman Polanski who was recently arrested over his statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl 30 years ago.The View host, who claims that Polanski's offence "wasn't rape rape", said on the talkshow: "All I'm trying to get you to understand is when we're talking about what someone did and what they were charged with.

We have to say what it was he did, not what we think he did." Polanski was charged with drugging and raping the girl in 1978 and, after admitting the lesser charge of sex with a minor, he fled to France.

He was finally arrested earlier this week in Switzerland."

why does anyone give this woman oxygen (and yes, i appreciate the irony that i am doing just that by posting this but i really want to know)? she blathers on about anything and everything utterly convinced she has something importrant to say and absoultely desparate to be in the spotlight. she is a vacuous stupid disgrace. and shame america, for not dumping her years ago.

every woman who has ever suffered rape must be feeling so good about themselves now.

she's the other exception i'd make to the death penalty.

You know, Ken...it kills me that you and I usually share the same opinions (and although there are other teams I like better, I even share your admiration of Wenger and the Gunners).

[Jimmy2]

WoW this is great entertament !! He did the crime let him pay the price !!! And F Hollywood and all their money paying off people to get away with breaking the law!! I mean come on this guy could have had any girl and he RAPES a 13 year old !! LOSER!! You going to see alot of the Liberals sticking up for this low life and Woppie is the first in line..Get the popcorn this is going to be a great show..LOL

I never thought someone could shake up this place more than me I must admit Tom you are way out of line.

[Ken Gargett]

You know, Ken...it kills me that you and I usually share the same opinions (and although there are other teams I like better, I even share your admiration of Wenger and the Gunners).

just sticking up for the occasionally silent majority!

[Ryan]

2nd, to the gentleman who said (and this was not you tom, i think), "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."

are you kidding? i have no problem with any and every priest who has so appallingly abused their position in regard to children being sent straight to hell immediately but to suggest it is far worse in some way lessens a different form of abuse of children. they should all be treated as seriously as each other.

That's me Ken.

I agree with you, "they should all be treated as seriously as each other". Rape of a child is what it is, no matter who commits the crime.

The difference, I think, lies in the level of trust that priests (and other members of religious organisations) have held.

Families would happily leave their children in the care of priests, whether in school or in the sacristy, with complete belief that their child was safe.

Children who did tell their parents of abuse were either not believed or if the parents took it to the police they were not taken seriously.

Parents who went to the priest or bishop were intimidated enough to keep quiet.

In the very worst cases of serial abuse, the priest was simply moved to another parish to take up where he left off.

I'm not guessing any of this, all of this has been revealed with multiple instances of each.

Priests knew they would get away with it, there was no risk.

The legal crime of rape isn't any different, as I said.

However, when committed by a priest, there is a long list of other wrongdoings added to it.

You asked why celebrities think they are above the law.

Priests not only thought they were above the law, they were instilled with this belief as part of their training. They were trained, in no uncertain terms, they they could not give information to civil authorites if that information might harm the church.

This is Canon Law, and until very recently, every priest was required by the church to adhere to it, officially creating an institution of committers, accomplices and accessories.

Roman Polanski was arrested and tried in the 1970s for rape of a child.

How many (of the thousands of) priests were arrested, who were committing thoses crimes in the 70s?

That's the dfference.

Sorry for the ramble and the threadjack, I'm just sometimes shocked that the Catholic church is even allowed to operate in this country.

[Ken Gargett]

That's me Ken.

I agree with you, "they should all be treated as seriously as each other". Rape of a child is what it is, no matter who commits the crime.

The difference, I think, lies in the level of trust that priests (and other members of religious organisations) have held.

Families would happily leave their children in the care of priests, whether in school or in the sacristy, with complete belief that their child was safe.

Children who did tell their parents of abuse were either not believed or if the parents took it to the police they were not taken seriously.

Parents who went to the priest or bishop were intimidated enough to keep quiet.

In the very worst cases of serial abuse, the priest was simply moved to another parish to take up where he left off.

I'm not guessing any of this, all of this has been revealed with multiple instances of each.

Priests knew they would get away with it, there was no risk.

The legal crime of rape isn't any different, as I said.

However, when committed by a priest, there is a long list of other wrongdoings added to it.

You asked why celebrities think they are above the law.

Priests not only thought they were above the law, they were instilled with this belief as part of their training. They were trained, in no uncertain terms, they they could not give information to civil authorites if that information might harm the church.

This is Canon Law, and until very recently, every priest was required by the church to adhere to it, officially creating an institution of committers, accomplices and accessories.

Roman Polanski was arrested and tried in the 1970s for rape of a child.

How many (of the thousands of) priests were arrested, who were committing thoses crimes in the 70s?

That's the dfference.

Sorry for the ramble and the threadjack, I'm just sometimes shocked that the Catholic church is even allowed to operate in this country.

i do understand what you are getting at.

the whole lot of them should have been locked up for life at the least. shooting too good for them.

the church, and i know this is touchy, in my opinion, acted unbelievably disgracefully and have now a reputation no better than that of politicians.

and it is a sad day when one has utter contempt for both.

and yes, i know that there are good priests (and supposedly tho i am yet to find one, good politicians) but where were all these good priests when this was happening? condemned as accomplicesby their silence. .

[MontrealRon]

and yes, i know that there are good priests (and supposedly tho i am yet to find one, good politicians)

Good priests, maybe...

Good politicians - sorry Ken, this is a contradiction in terms.

Power inevitably corrupts, and power attracts those who are already corrupt.

Politics is a game for psychopaths.

That's why I would never, ever, vote for someone who had the least possibility of actually winning.

If I did, than every stupid, evil thing they did would be MY FAULT!

[thechenman]

I can see how it would seem unfair from that perspective -- wouldn't inspire much confidence in the system.

The law is the law, and while laws are made to be interpreted, not followed to the letter, the judicial system still has the responsiblity of upholding what is deemed to be the direct interpretation of the law despite public opinion, or and plea bargains or agreements made by the plaintiff or the defendent. While I know what I am citing here is far from rape, it is still a hot topic right now. Just look at what has happened regarding the deal signed by Bank of American and the Securities and Exchange Commission over BofA's mishandling of the Merrill Lynch acquisition. While the SEC (a government agency) and BofA came to a monetary settlement in this case...the judge threw it out, as while both parties may have come to an agreement, it did not live up to the true spirit of the law. He deemed the financial settlement was insufficient when weighed against the actions of company management. People get screwed over all the time...maybe it was Polanski's time. Like BAC, you can't just throw money at the problem to make it go away, the ultimate penalty paid for the crime, must be commesurate with the damage inflicted by said crime.

[Evo03]

The law is the law, and while laws are made to be interpreted, not followed to the letter, the judicial system still has the responsiblity of upholding what is deemed to be the direct interpretation of the law despite public opinion, or and plea bargains or agreements made by the plaintiff or the defendent.

I agree. ASFAIK if someone has a plea agreement with the prosecution, and the judge rejects it, the person's guilty plea does not stand. It's not as if the judge can reject the plea agreement sentence, and keep the guilty plea in place. So he would have to stand trial. And if convicted, the judge would decide the sentence. So Polanski must not have liked his odds in a trial. But I don't see anything unfair about it.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone else can confirm if this is correct.

[scinmyheart]

CigarLouie took the words right out of mouth as I see it

"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"

[jawofboston]

It's amazing what people can find to disagree about. You can argue about many of the details of extradition treaties etc but it just blows me away that there are differences of opinion re: the basic idea that raping children is a crime.

I remain quietly confident that if it had been my child, God forbid, extradition would be irrelevant. He would already be dead.

In fact, I think Mr. Polanski may have a difficult time with some of the fathers currently serving time in America's criminal justice system.

[Mojo Risin]

El sleez bag o rama. Polanski should be sent to a hard labor camp. What he did is despicable. I will never to see another movie involving Scorsce, Weinstein or any of the other Hollyweirdo supporters of this monster ever again.