Roman Polanski just might get what's been coming to him!

104 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:31

Michelle

I cheered when I heard this on the morning news yesterday, but forgot to post it on babble.

Quote:

Details of attempts to arrest Roman Polanski half a dozen times around the world since 1978 have emerged today as his lawyers filed a request for his immediate release on bail from a Swiss cell.

Authorities in Britain, Canada, France, Israel and Thailand had been asked to detain the film-maker over the years before he was held at Zurich airport on Saturday, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office said.

The release of a list of extradition attempts came in response to claims that the LA authorities had not bothered to pursue Mr Polanski after he fled the US in 1978 to escape sentencing for having unlawful sexual intercourse with an under-age girl.

Also: I feel for the victim, who doesn't want this dredged up anymore. But rich rapist fuckwads shouldn't get away with rape just because people like their movies. He shouldn't get any different treatment than if he was a non-famous fugitive rapist.

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:39

Ghislaine

Some of the reaction to this has been truly nauseating. Whoopi Goldberg said he was not guilty of [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg] rape-rape [/url]

- whatever she means by that!

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:43

Snert

I'm grateful for the handy list of rapist-apologists who I no longer have to give a rat's ass about. And what a shocker that Woody Allen would insist on Polanski's immediate release! When gross old men don't get to have sexy times with young girls, what's the world coming to?

I might feel differently, had Polanski ever shown any remorse (instead, he blamed the whole thing on uptight North American attitudes) or had he at least had the decency to disappear into the gutter.

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:46

kropotkin1951

I used to like Whoopi but enough of that shit. She clearly means that having sex with minors is okay. She should keep her ill informed obnoxious believes to herself. I will never go to another of her movies unless she comes to her senses.

Tue, 2009-09-29 13:50

Snert

Not just sex with minors. Forced sex with minors.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:04

500_Apples

I can't believe the public defense this man is getting.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:19

G. Muffin

Ghislaine wrote:
Some of the reaction to this has been truly nauseating. Whoopi Goldberg said he was not guilty of [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg] rape-rape [/url]

- whatever she means by that!

I am saddened by this. I used to think Whoopi Goldberg was pretty cool. Does she understand this wasn't only sex with an underage girl? Polanski drugged and raped this girl. There's really nothing else to say.

I wonder if this is going to be a new kind of defence. Sure, your honour, I stuck a gun at the guy's head and took his wallet but it wasn't a robbery-robbery.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:24

Ghislaine

The Globe had a huge page of "celebrity reaction" and male and female they all supported Polanski. They even showed buttons that have been made up to support him.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:25

Sineed

How about this, though? "Woman in case against Roman Polanski seeks dismissal:"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/12/polanski.case/index.html

Quote:
In her declaration, Samantha Geimer said, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.

"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Geimer, who has spoken publicly about the case before, including a 2003 appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," added, "I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child."

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:27

#10

500_Apples

This is a criminal trial, not a civil trial.

The greater picture needs to be kept in mind, what message would it send if Polanski was allowed to go free because somehow the victim decided she doesn't want him prosecuted?

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:30

#11

Sineed

Victim: courts did more harm than Polanski

Quote:
She said she was happy when he left the country because his departure eased the intense public scrutiny.

"Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl," she wrote in her Los Angeles Times piece. "And honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison."

She continued,"People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since."

She concluded: "The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 happens to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity."

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:31

#12

Michelle

Well, as I was saying in the opening post, I completely understand the reaction of the victim. It would be pretty hard to withstand an entire lifetime of people debating whether or not you were raped (especially when a bunch of international celebrities stand behind your rapist and make stupid distinctions between "rape-rape" or whatever), and the kind of publicity that comes from being a celebrity in your own right simply based on the fact that some rapist chose you to victimize when you were a kid.

I'm not going to say that it's not about the victim, because it is to some degree. But it's not ONLY about the victim. It's also about society and what we deem acceptable in our society. This can't be judged acceptable behaviour, because that also makes it acceptable to do it to any other child, not just Samantha Geimer.

That said, I feel pretty bad for her. She's been revictimized her whole life. No wonder she wants no more of it. And you know who's responsible for that? Polanski. Add another moral crime to his tally.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:32

#13

Michelle

P.S. I had no idea that Whoopi Goldberg was such a dumbass. How disappointing. I thought she was a feminist.

Tue, 2009-09-29 14:45

#14

G. Muffin

500_Apples wrote:
This is a criminal trial, not a civil trial.

The greater picture needs to be kept in mind, what message would it send if Polanski was allowed to go free because somehow the victim decided she doesn't want him prosecuted?

I thought he had already been prosecuted. What's left is the sentencing phase.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:05

#15

Ghislaine

Michelle wrote:

P.S. I had no idea that Whoopi Goldberg was such a dumbass. How disappointing. I thought she was a feminist.

Boycotting the stimulating discussions of the View will excruciating

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:07

#16

Michelle

Yeah, actually, I thought that too. Although I heard his lawyer on the news yesterday talking about how it was "so long ago" so why doesn't everyone just forget about it and let the poor guy live the rest of his life of luxury (like he has been since the day he became a fugitive).

Great idea! Isn't that in the law somewhere - if you flee while on bail before your sentencing and stay away long enough, it becomes all-y all-y in-come-free?

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:17

#17

Merowe

Ah, the distinctive smell of North American morality, wafted across the Atlantic by the MSM.

Yes, obviously, coercing a 13 year old Vogue model into sexual relations is a criminal business but after 32 years can we not respect the victim's wishes and let the matter lie? She's moved on and continuing to drag her through this sordid shit must be incredibly traumatic and actually destructive for her present life. It gives pause to consider the coldness of the state agents here, that they could proceed despite her objections.

Polanski, a gifted director of international stature has been forced to spend most of his professional career exiled from the center of his profession, has had his personal reputation irreparably destroyed and has most recently suffered the ignominy of being arrested at an awards ceremony held for his benefit, in what must have been a calculated public spectacle - and incidentally, the Ritual Humiliation of a Prominent Jew, a subplot I'm not going near.

Childhood in the Krakow ghetto, parents lost in the deathcamps, wife murdered by psychopathic killers....eh, maybe he doesn't give a shit what happens next. Maybe he really is a perv, and then we can all feel good about putting him in jail.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:19

#18

remind

LOL@ Ghislaine

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:21

#19

Michelle

However great his talent, Polanski is still guilty

Quote:

This morning, we watched a commentator on TeleMatin, the French equivalent of the Today Show. He banged his fist on the table repeatedly while shouting that the arrest of Polanski was: "Scandalous! Shocking! An outrage!" Polanski, he declared, is a victim of a great international police-state machine that has been in motion for years, relentlessly grinding through a misguided quest for justice. Though the commentator didn't mention Jean Valjean — chased by the obsessed policeman of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables — or, say, Kenneth Starr, he seemed to think that Polanski was being hounded out of some punitive psychosis rather than in response to any crime committed. The man is a world-renowned artist, he cried, respected and productive for over 30 years! He banged the table again.

It's been a long-held belief that artists dwell in a different moral universe than the rest of us. By no means is this any legal defense, but it manages to surface as a qualifying factor. The misogyny, alcoholism, sexual predilections, drug abuse and recklessness of many of the world's greatest artists are part of their great mythology. Their deviant activities do not stop us from worshipping their paintings, words and music. Sometimes, we even celebrate it.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:22

#20

G. Muffin

Merowe, are you for real?

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:23

#21

Michelle

Hey Merowe, most of the mainstream media is giving glowing accounts of Hollywood celebrities coming together (along with European celebrities in your neck of the woods) in defence of Polanski, and coming up with age-old excuses for rape like that it wasn't REAL rape (or, "rape-rape").

If it's "North American morality" to believe it's wrong for an adult (or anyone) to drug and rape a 13 year-old, then yeah, I'm guilty. And proud of it.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:23

#22

remind

thwurpppppppppppppp@merowe

This is what people get for following the cause celebrity, and the whole "Hollywood royalty", and "rock royalty" meme.

They stand together to protect their "class rights".

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:33

#23

Merowe

er, I was thinking along altogether more mundane lines, around the practical issue as raised above that it is a matter of sentencing and not the guilt or the nature of the crime. In that respect he has already served in practical terms a degree of punishment which needs be weighed in the sentencing; I suppose that is what the rock royalty are on about, anyway.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:36

#24

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

[url=http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142939/it%27s_still_rape%3A_a_much_ne...'s Still Rape: A Much Needed Dose Of Sanity On Roman Polanski[/url]

Quote:

Because seriously, the message I'm hearing is, if you have enough money and celebrity friends, if you're talented enough, if you're charming enough, everyone thinks that you should just be left alone to rape underage girls and how dare anyone call you on it or even suggest that you have to stand trial like anyone else. And the same news media that pruriently reports the horrible details of similar crimes done by non-famous people will back you up on it.

This, my friends, is what a rape culture looks like.

Tue, 2009-09-29 15:51

#25

Michelle

I see your point, Merowe, even though I don't agree with it - I don't think he's really been punished much at all. These kinds of discussions do get polarized, but you played a part in that with such accusatory phrases as:

Quote:

the distinctive smell of North American morality

and

Quote:

the Ritual Humiliation of a Prominent Jew, a subplot I'm not going near

That basically labels those of us who are happy to see this guy caught as people who are motivated by the desire to ritually humiliate a prominent Jew, out of a sense of misplaced morality.

That kind of gets people's backs up, you know? Makes people defensive.

Tue, 2009-09-29 16:35

#26

Snert

Quote:
In that respect he has already served in practical terms a degree of punishment which needs be weighed in the sentencing

I confess: I also drugged and raped a child. Lots of children in fact. And I'll do it again, unless you punish me like Polanski has been punished!

When do I get punished at a chalet in Gstaad?? I promise not to go to the U.S.... I'm OK with that. No Hollywood for me! Oh well. Can my French mansion please be in the south? Thx.

Tue, 2009-09-29 16:47

#27

Michelle

Don't you mean, "I'll do it again IF you punish me like Polanski has been punished"? ;)

Tue, 2009-09-29 17:02

#28

remind

In actual fact, merowe's post is bothering me more as time goes on, and I can't believe it is being allowed to stand, with out much strionger criticism, on several points.

I may be back later to do so, but for now I am just too pissed.

Tue, 2009-09-29 17:04

#29

kropotkin1951

The French are strangely moral. Somehow it is immoral for a thirteen year old girl to wear a headscarf but okay to rape her. How fucked is that moral compass.

No one knows what he will be sentenced to when he is returned to the US. He might only get a slap on the wrist so saying he has already served his time by living in luxury in the south of France is a tad premature. I hope this young woman got a good out of court settlement to ease her pain but it is not her place to determine what his criminal sentence should be. It is the girls who are thirteen now that require that Polanski to be sentenced not his victim. Allowing him to avoid the sentence for raping a girl says that rape is an insignificant crime.

Tue, 2009-09-29 17:34

#30

500_Apples

Merowe wrote:
Ah, the distinctive smell of North American morality, wafted across the Atlantic by the MSM.

Yes, obviously, coercing a 13 year old Vogue model into sexual relations is a criminal business but after 32 years can we not respect the victim's wishes and let the matter lie? She's moved on and continuing to drag her through this sordid shit must be incredibly traumatic and actually destructive for her present life. It gives pause to consider the coldness of the state agents here, that they could proceed despite her objections.

Polanski, a gifted director of international stature has been forced to spend most of his professional career exiled from the center of his profession, has had his personal reputation irreparably destroyed and has most recently suffered the ignominy of being arrested at an awards ceremony held for his benefit, in what must have been a calculated public spectacle - and incidentally, the Ritual Humiliation of a Prominent Jew, a subplot I'm not going near.

Childhood in the Krakow ghetto, parents lost in the deathcamps, wife murdered by psychopathic killers....eh, maybe he doesn't give a shit what happens next. Maybe he really is a perv, and then we can all feel good about putting him in jail.

The anti-semitism canard, such as that thrown at people who believe in palestinian human rights, how fitting.

This is a really disturbing insight into rape culture. It's known that he's guilty, yet there's no shortage of legions willing to defend him... because they think he's awesome.

Which disciplines would be awesome enough for you aside from Hollywood director? What about high school teacher? Catholic priest? Investment banker? Professional athlete? Welfare recipient?

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:20

#31

Sven

Merowe wrote:

Polanski...has had his personal reputation irreparably destroyed...

By whom?

Answer: Polanski.

And that is supposed to be an argument in favor of dropping the matter?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:22

#32

Chester Drawers

He's a a convicted pediphile who fled before sentencing and as such has not completed his sentence. As far as I'm concerned, his penalty should be what ever the prison term would have been 30 years ago plus his penalty for being at large should be equivalent to his period at large.

As for these so called artists of modern culture showing their immoral belief that artistist expression overshadows wrong doings makes me wanna puke. Just like the outpouring of grief and praise for Michael Jackson who bought his may out of "minor" trouble. They have no clue of the damage they are doing by standing behind these types of individuals. Protecting their own.

Scum the lot of them

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:28

#33

pookie

Sven wrote:

Merowe wrote:

Polanski...has had his personal reputation irreparably destroyed...

By whom?

Answer: Polanski.

And that is supposed to be an argument in favor of dropping the matter?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

In fact, the damage to his reputation was so severe he was about to get a lifetime achievement award!

Yep, that's one debt to society....."check".

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:29

#34

Sven

Michelle wrote:

I'm not going to say that it's not about the victim, because it is to some degree. But it's not ONLY about the victim. It's also about society and what we deem acceptable in our society. This can't be judged acceptable behaviour, because that also makes it acceptable to do it to any other child, not just Samantha Geimer.

Besides, in this case, the victim may have very little to do with any reinstituted proceedings against Polanski. Her testimony and participation in the proceedings would be needed if the court was at the stage of determining whether or not Polanski was guilty. But, here, there is no question of his guilt (he pled guilty and did so with the advice of competent counsel). So, the only question remaining for the court to determine is: What is the term of his sentence? And that phase of the proceedings does not require the victim's involvement in the matter at all.

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:32

#35

Sven

pookie wrote:

In fact, the damage to his reputation was so severe he was about to get a lifetime achievement award!

True enough.

Unbelievable.

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:51

#36

Stargazer

Polanski should serve a jail sentence for his crimes. There is no doubt. However, it is a little sad here to see the wishes of the victm take a back seat. Not all of us want to see our perps severly penalized. Some of us realize that rehabilitation is better than a long jail term. The Polanski case may be a little different, I'm not sure. One can pretty much safely assume that there were probably many underage girls before this one. Not just used by Polanski, but by a number of powerful Hollywood types.

And does anyone really truly believe that the justice system will all the sudden "work" for victims because Polanski goes to jail? Really?

Tue, 2009-09-29 18:56

#37

Sven

Stargazer wrote:

And does anyone really truly believe that the justice system will all the sudden "work" for victims because Polanski goes to jail? Really?

No. But, if he isn't punished, it'll just be another sign that the system doesn't work.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:03

#38

jonathanjohanson

This thread is ridiculous. That girl's butthole healed up decades ago.

jokes! progressives have no sense of humour.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:05

#39

jonathanjohanson

And god speed to all those who are boycotting whoopi movies, but i think people have been doing that for awhile now. and it has nothing to do with her political views.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:06

#40

Sineed

The victim is the same age as me, and I can't imagine what it would be like for something to happen to me when I was 13, and seeing my name in the papers 31 years later as my claim to fame.

This sort of media circus may discourage victims from coming forward.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:06

#41

Stockholm

I thought we were supposed to be against mandatory minimum sentences and all this rightwing get tough on crime stuff. Thought we were supposed to only concern oursleves with rehabilitation and with ensuring that some does not re-offend? Why the double standard?

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:08

#42

Unionist

Well, so far, I like Stargazer's comment, and Stockholm's (whether he means it or not).

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:21

#43

Stockholm

BTW: Not that I want to get into a sordid re-telling of this tale, but is what Polanski did considered "rape" by virtue of the age of the girl and that it was what we call "statutory rape"? or is he supposed to have actually attacked her and used physical force? I vaguely remember this case when I was a teenager and i thought that it all came out because the girl's mother evesdropped on her telling a friend that she had sex with Polanski and the mother called the police or something like that.

Anyways, I'm not trying to make any particular point, i just wanted to know what supposedly happened.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:22

#44

KeyStone

Generally, I side against the US.
And in a case like this, I have to wonder how much of this is about justice, and how much about this is about the USA getting the last word over a fugitive from justice.

Despite that, I have to go against my instincts and support this action. Some crimes, such as rape and murder shouldn't have a statute of limitations.

For those distinguishing between statutory rape and 'rape-rape', I think that when a thirteen year old girl, is given alcohol and drugs, and says 'no', it's clearly on the side of rape-rape, any way that you slice it.

Also, it's all very well and good that Polanski paid the girl what is likely a considerable sum, for her cooperation, but he is still guilty of rape, and must still be punished, regardless of her wishes. You can not do a horrendous crime (such as rape) to someone, and then simply buy your way out. The media could however, leave her name out of this. Then again, her name should never have been released given that she was a minor at the time this happened.

Tue, 2009-09-29 19:58

#45

Tommy_Paine

There's no deffending what Polanski did.

I am shocked anyone would deffend this snivelling little slimy coward.

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:01

#46

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

Stockholm wrote:
BTW: Not that I want to get into a sordid re-telling of this tale, but is what Polanski did considered "rape" by virtue of the age of the girl and that it was what we call "statutory rape"? or is he supposed to have actually attacked her and used physical force?

Stockholm (and others): Read the link that I posted above.

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:04

#47

Polunatic2

While Wikipedia is not the definitive source of all that is true - it sheds some light on why he fled after a plea bargain to a lesser charge. From the Wiki account, it was not consensual. Polanski was going to be deported after serving his time so it looks like he figured he had little to lose by fleeing before sentencing.

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:25

#48

distinctlystupid

What the hell is wrong with the French anyways? Everything as usual.

Child rapists should be made to pay for their crimes even if it's a million years later. of course the French have no concept of morality. Of course the French would defend a worm like Polanski. They're moral retards.

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:39

#49

Sven

Stockholm wrote:

...or is he supposed to have actually attacked her and used physical force?

A person doesn't need to "attack" a women and "use physical force" before the crime of rape occurs. It's enough if the woman (girl, in this case), said, "No".

_______________________________________

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:45

#50

al-Qa'bong

distinctlystupid wrote:

What the hell is wrong with the French anyways? Everything as usual.

Child rapists should be made to pay for their crimes even if it's a million years later. of course the French have no concept of morality. Of course the French would defend a worm like Polanski. They're moral retards.

Shoot; them French don't even have a word for retard.

Sacre bleu, as a citizen of the République should I take offence?

Tue, 2009-09-29 20:57

#51

distinctlystupid

al-Qa'bong wrote:

distinctlystupid wrote:

What the hell is wrong with the French anyways? Everything as usual.

Child rapists should be made to pay for their crimes even if it's a million years later. of course the French have no concept of morality. Of course the French would defend a worm like Polanski. They're moral retards.

Shoot; them French don't even have a word for retard.

Sacre bleu, as a citizen of the République should I take offence?

Mais oui or maybe mais non. Morality is always quite a shade of grey with you french types ain't it. Yeah sex with a child is just full of moral ambiguities ain't it? Only the French ... mon Dieu!

!God is Great! ... !Dieu est Incroyable!

Pages

Topic locked