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

I'm very saddened by the number of atrists (many that I really like) that have come forward to say that Polanski should be exonerated.

Just to respond to some points:

- Polanski drugged and then had non-consensual sex with this girl. If she was 45 it still would have been rape. Not statutory rape. For more details follow any of the links.

- The stories that Stockholm heard were all too prevalent because then - as now - Polanski and his lawyers engaged in a prolonged and intense smear campaign of the girl who was drugged and raped. Thankfully, we've made some progress since then- thanks largely to women who relentless fought the evil stereotypes about rape. At the time, though, it was a good way to beat a rape charge, If you want to make your skin crawl watch Polanski in this video (at 2:19)

- Shouldn't we just move on since the victim says she wants the charges dropped? First, I don't think we should presume to know what this woman thinks. She frequested the charges be dropped over a year ago (not because she forgives the guy but becauce she's tired of the publicity). Secondly, she has made a point of not speaking out since Polanski's arrest. Who knows what she thinks now? I wonder if the people who say we must respect the victim's wishes will feel the same if she decides this guy should be punished for drugging and raping her? Finally, our justice system is pretty clear. A crime is a crime against society - not an individual. She may have settled her issues in her civil case but that's not justice. If it was every rich murder suspect would be able to simply buy their way out of jail.

- Is he a threat now? Shouldn't we have mercy? I don't think expecting a rapist to serve a minimal sentence - the same sentence that anyone who wasn't able to flee to a villa in France would face - is that extreme. Moreover, the message that a number of Hollywood celebrities seem to embrace is that making great movies and evading the law for a few years makes drugging and raping children okay. I think it's very dangerous to send that message. Finally, while still wanted for rape charges he's had at least one public affair with a teenage girl. He has shown absolutely no regret or reptentence for drugging and raping this girl. He should be convicted and sentenced. Period.

the issue here is statutory rape and its consequences;

 funny how quickly celebrities raise one of their own into a Special Category -- an artiste !!

the gossip columnist at The Gazette in Montreal used to cite the "Special Persons Act" as the obscure legislation justifying why celebrity  wrong-doers get light sentences for charges -- drunk driving, domestic violence, petty theft, even assault (hello, Naomi!) -- when Regular People do not get a second look

the irony hit  a peak this a.m. when I heard that Woody Allen had endorsed clemency for Polanski -- the same Woody Allen who seduced  his de facto step-daughter, starting a dalliance when she was still in her mid-teens....

for everyone else, morally troubling;
but if you had a hit movie (a best-seller, Emmy, Pulitzer etc.) back in the 1970s, all is forgiven

I assumed he meant Naomi Campbell - who alledgedly assaulted her housekeeper, but I am not sure.

.

"Artistes" are above and beyond the laws of mere mortals. Anyone who dares question this is an "anti-artiste" an "artise-basher"!

I feel so sorry for French and Polish children with the adults there who support Polanski just cause he's an "artiste".

Woody Allen supporting Polanski says it all though.

Just because a wife beater beats his wife black and blue and the woman turns around and forgives him doesn't make it right and doesn't make the wife beater above the law either. Who knows if the victim was paid off handsomely to "forget" about this whole sordid mess. A crime is a crime is a crime. And a crime against a child is the most heinous of all. But some people don't mind forced sex with children it's somehow  "artistic" and therefore "good".

Has NAMBLA - North American Man Boy Love Association - http://www.nambla.org/ - come out and supported their hero Polanski already?

remind wrote:

DaveW wrote:

(hello, Naomi!)

 WTF is this?

 

ummm, let's see:

supermodel superprivileged Naomi Campbell, who threw her cell-phone at the head of her PA, and abused in her in innumerable ways until law-enforcement stepped in to protect the latter...

remind: try to keep up with the news, eh?,

even when you are "watching over" the rest of us ....

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Not sure if anyone knows the answer but did Polanski "drug" her or did they "take drugs", i.e. did he slip her a pill without her knowledge?

Apparently, he gave her part of a quaalude (sp?) which she accepted.  She said so in a TV interview.

He drugged and sodomized her.

Dave....fuck off with your gratuitous bashing, eh!

Equating someone throwing a cell phone at someone, to anally raping a 13 year old, was not on my radar.

Stargazer wrote:

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?

Of course the justice system will not get better merely by sentencing this pervert.  However it will be called into disrepute if he is allowed to walk scot free.  I doubt if he is remorseful or if he has stopped having sex with young women or girls.

Mind you if he had tried to marry her at the same time as he was married to Ms. Tate then of course society should step in and prosecute him fully because that is worse than actual abuse. Sorry Unionist but after your support of draconian laws for polygamists even without proof of abuse I find it hard to reconcile with go easy on this convicted child molester/rapist. I know that even if she had said yes at 13 it was still rape and his conviction should be enforced with the appropriate penalty.

His lifetime achievement award certainly does show how much he has suffered from people knowing that he is a fugitive from the law for raping a child.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Just love passive-aggressive unsubstantiated swipes at POC on babble in a thread about a white dude CONVICTED of rape. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I doubt if he is remorseful

Clearly he is not.  Polanski characterizes his victim as a willing participant. 

Using drugs or booze with someone is not a justification for rape.  Without consent it is rape no matter if you agreed to drink and do drugs it is not agreement to have sex and if the person is a minor it is rape with or without consent.  Our children need to be protected from sexual perverts.

Remind, I agree with you. Certainly on a moral leve. I just don't know if legally there would be a distinction. I would think, for isntance, that if someone slips a drug into a person's (a person of ANY age's) drink and has sex with her, that would be ruled "aggravated rape". Whereas, there might be the possibility that if two people (one a minor) are drinking and taking drugs consensually before, it may end up being a count of "providing drugs and alcohol to a minor" and a count of "statutory rape." I don't think Polanski was charged with the more serious offence, hence his ridiculously lenient initial sentence.

 I mean, there have certainly been times when my (adult) wife and I have downed some champagne, smoked a joint and had (consensual) sex. Obviously, though, if the woman in this case said "no" then I would think the charge should be first degree rape (or however it was classified in California in the 70s), drugs or no drugs.

I suspect that the act of giving someone drugs against their will would be a separate assault offence rather than part of the rape charge.  It would certainly be taken into account in sentencing as a an aggravating factor in a rape charge.

unionist - he was convicted.

I think he plead guilty, didn't? I know he served a short prison sentence. But I think there was an issue where the prosecutor or judge was going to undo the initial plea deal, so Polanski went to France, where he's a citizen and which will not extradite French citizens.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I think he plead guilty, didn't? I know he served a short prison sentence. But I think there was an issue where the prosecutor or judge was going to undo the initial plea deal, so Polanski went to France, where he's a citizen and which will not extradite French citizens.

It was a plea bargain - he plead guilty to a lesser charge with time served being the time he spent (42 days, I think) in a psych ward for evaluation by psychiatrists.  He got wind the judge might not accept the time served and scarpered before sentencing.

Quote:

I have no doubt that he committed a crime and was convicted. But after reading all these links, I have no idea what exactly he was convicted of. That was my only small point. If you have a clear account of that somewhere, I'll have a look. There's more heat than light so far.

 

hear hear

Quote:

Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday, fled the country in 1978 before sentencing on a charge of having sexual intercourse with a minor.

The 76-year-old had initially been charged with raping and drugging his teenage victim before a plea deal saw the charges reduced.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Showbiz/Story/A1Story20090929...

Timebandit wrote:

He plead guilty to "unlawful intercourse with a minor". 

Thank you, TB and RP, for the info and link. I'll figure this out yet.

Actually, it's not very related at all.

Good story here. This part is noteworthy:

For generations, women have suffered unfairly in rape cases, particularly at the hands of the courts. The onus of guilt was often shifted to the woman under the phrases "she should have known better" or, even worse, " she asked for it."

These ugly phrases and the often lack of support from the police and courts caused untold numbers of women to suffer in silence rather than seek justice in a public forum.

Fortunately, things are changing, but not far enough nor fair enough. Polanski's efforts to avoid prison -coupled with all the prominent people who are rushing to support him - are a reminder to many women of the unfairness of both public sentiment and the legal system.

As Mos Def sang: "You can laugh and criticize Michael Jackson if you wanna/ Woody Allen married and molested his stepdaughter"

Here is a better example.  R. Kelly, notorious for having sex with underage girls, was found not guilty of 14 counts of videotaping himself having sex with an underage girl.  There was a video tape for crissakes and the dude gets off.