Roman Polanski Arrested

[bigP]

Not a bad example. I wonder if he admitted 'making love' to one of the 13 year old boys and the boy even said he had consented, would Polanski's defenders do the same for Jacko?
After all, he was a gifted artist with a troubled childhood...

At the height of the trial, I think the case was very similar if I remember rightly. I know it greatly divided fans into sections of those that turned their back on him completely and believed he was guilty, those in absolute denial with "Michael is innocent" cards waving around outside the court and his home throughout, and those that did connect his background to the case and allowed that knowledge to help understand why a person would do what he was accused of. I'm not sure if this would have been the same split (or in the same numbers) if Jackson confessed, but I would be very surprised if there was not a legion following him with their support still, who did (in some small part) excuse the crime for his horrible history.

I have to admit, I never liked Michael Jackson's music, nor his persona, and I certainly did not know if he was guilty or innocent, but could imagine he did abuse the boy(s) and felt very strongly it related psychologically to his disturbing childhood. To me this doesn't excuse, but it explains more of the grey areas of the psyche, and allows for the appropriate treatment to be given. Being sentanced to a prison term does not help if what is needed is psychiatric care, and I will add that psychiatric care does not always work in the long term, however, patients tend to be treated according to their condition, in prison, you are just another number.

EDIT:

How about The Shawshank Redemption then?

I'll never understand the comments of the righteous public who are rooting for rapists to be raped in prison by the very rapists they probably verbally condemned a few months earlier. If there is any evidence that the prison system does not work for sexual predators, it's the occurence of prison rape, and if there is any evidence to show humanity falls foul of double standards, it's the rooting for the rapists to attack again.

[mfunk9786]

The bitch knew what she was up to

Wow, it's a good thing I'm not a mod on this forum, that seems pretty ban-worthy to me.

[gubbelsj]

Oh, he fucked some girl back in the 70s...blah blah

The bitch knew what she was up to

And we wonder periodically why we have so few female posters on this forum.

The Polanski case does and has always raised questions of age of consent laws and the sometimes puritanical enforcement of such laws in this country, and I think there's room for intelligent debate on how the entire concept of underage sexuality is sometimes treated simplistically. On the other hand, I don't think anybody who's read details on this case could make much of an argument in defense of Polanski. And calling 13-year-old rape victims bitches who knew what they were up to is the vilest sort of woman-hate that, quite frankly, I didn't expect to come across on this forum.

[Antoine Doinel]

At very least, out of all of this, someone is going to come up with a really good The Pianist joke.

[bigP]

At very least, out of all of this, someone is going to come up with a really good The Pianist joke.

One day, a man walked into a bar. He say's to the bartender, "If I
show you the most amazing thing in your life, will you give me
five free beers?"

The bartender says, "Show me this amazing thing first."

So the man takes out a 10 inch man and a tiny piano.

The 10 inch man starts playing the piano. The bartender scratches
his head and says, "Wow, that is amazing. Here are your five
beers. How did you do that?"

"There is a magic lamp outside. Rub it and a genie comes out and
will grant you one wish."

So the bartender goes outside, finds the lamp, and rubs it. Then
the genie comes out and says "I am the genie of this lamp. I will
grant one wish. Choose carefully."

"I want 10,000,000 bucks." As soon as he made his wish, 10,000,000
ducks came out of nowhere.

The bartender goes back into the bar.

"Boy" he says to the man, "that genie sure does have bad hearing."

The man answers: "I know, did you really think I asked for a 10
inch pianist?"

[Matt]

The bitch knew what she was up to

Wow, it's a good thing I'm not a mod on this forum, that seems pretty ban-worthy to me.

I have asked Cinephrenic to apologize in this thread for that statement. We have banned people for much less inflammatory statements, but I'm willing to give Cinephrenic, a long-time member, the benefit of the doubt.

Now that that's been addressed, let's please move on and try to discuss this matter in an adult, civil tone.

[Ted Todorov]

Do you have a problem reading english? Go over my posts again. Of course most young kids who impregnate their young girlfriend don't end up in prison. What do teenage relationships have in common with this case? I'm referring to men who admit to forcing themselves on underage girls WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
Polanski didn't just statutorily rape the girl (ie, consensual sex with an underage person) he raped her against her wishes.
You find me an example of a 40 year old guy (or 30 or 50 or whatever) who raped a 13 year old without their consent who didn't get sentenced to jail time and I'll give you a million dollars.

My plumber 'fairy tale' is an analogy for the fact that if Polanski was exactly the same person but had a talent for plumbing or spreadsheets or any other mundane job, not a single person would be upset that he had finally been caught.

Polanski plead guilty to "unlawful sexual conduct" with the girl. Had he been convicted of rape involving drugs he would have been extraditable from France and we wouldn't be having this conversation (not that he would have been given the opportunity to escape in the first place).

Since you are having trouble understanding very simple concepts I will spell it out for you: the point of a "statutory rape" is that the minor child is too young to give meaningful consent, therefore sex with him or her is by definition rape. There is no such thing as "consensual sex" under US or most other country's laws. By definition any 13 year old or younger child having sex s/he is being raped. Bearing a child is incontrovertible evidence that the rape occurred, complete with living breathing DNA evidence as to the identity of the perp. Far from putting the fathers in jail (and those fathers are almost always older, often adults) social services tends to try to get them to pay child support or otherwise participate in the raising of the child. Such a thing would be an unimaginable scandal if those involved were upper middle class or wealthy -- yet it happens all the time with the poor.

So the claims that Polanski got special treatment for being rich and famous are true -- in the opposite direction. Now in case someone yet again gets the wrong idea -- I think that Polanski is scum, never should have been plea bargained with, should have rotted in jail, etc. etc.

[Lemmy Caution]

The French and Polish gov'ts are unhappy about Polanski's arrest:

[Polanski's] ties with Poland are still strong and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said he might appeal directly to the United States over the case.

"I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency which would settle the matter once and for all," Sikorski was quoted as saying by the PAP news agency.

Then the next article is about Poland cracking down on pedophiles and ordering chemical castration, passing a tough new law just last Friday:

Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups.

Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said in a statement.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures."

"Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events," Tusk also said.

Exceptions for famous Poles, I guess.

[HerrSchreck]

Far from putting the fathers in jail (and those fathers are almost always older, often adults) social services tends to try to get them to pay child support or otherwise participate in the raising of the child. Such a thing would be an unimaginable scandal if those involved were upper middle class or wealthy -- yet it happens all the time with the poor.

So the claims that Polanski got special treatment for being rich and famous are true -- in the opposite direction. Now in case someone yet again gets the wrong idea -- I think that Polanski is scum, never should have been plea bargained with, should have rotted in jail, etc. etc.

What are you basing this on-- do you actually have any statistics to support this, and what is the source for these? I'd also be interested to know what percentage of underage mothers of children produced by rape bore their children, as opposed to those who bore them. Of course these scenarios don't apply in this case, since Polanski forced anal sex upon the girl and there was no resulting pregnancy (if I'm not misinformed).

But I couldn't think of greater political or career suicide than for judges/social services to try and keep sexual predators who prey upon/rape juveniles not only out of prison, but in the life of the child they attacked from thence forward by helping raise it! Not now-- especially not now in the days of the ridiculous Chris Hanson/To Catch A Predator hype. Child rapists are demonized in our culture beyond murderers, far beyond murderers. They are the unprotected scum of the prison system, and are regularly obliterated in the prison population and have to be put in Punk City-- Protective Custody, due to their inability to form the alliances in prison neccessary for their survival.

Obama in 2008 backed the death penalty for child rapists, which is a very popular sentiment around not only the country, but the world.

[bigP]

...the death penalty for child rapists[/url], which is a very popular sentiment around not only the country, but the world.

Thats true, for sure. Nothing incites street justice like paedophilia - note in the UK The Daily Mail newspaper's (I think it was this paper) venemous Name and Shame propoganda run which was pretty dispicable; I believe MichaelB mentioned this in a thread relating to the BBFC as I am a little rusty on the details, but if I recall, it was very literal in printing the names and hometowns of sex offenders, for all communities to be aware of. This caused violence, assault and I believe murder as a result, and put alot of people in prison for their attacks.

The problem is, sometimes, all it takes is a mistake and you are on the sex offenders list. One of my friends works in the haulage business, and a worker there was arrested, charged and imprisoned for statutory rape for a one night stand with a girl he had met in a bar or night club, who had lied to him and said she was at the University. It turned out that she was only 15, yet he still made it onto the sex offenders list, and since being released has found himself without a job, friends etc etc. So the problem with the death penalty for child predators is where that strict line is drawn and why. Not to mention the fact that it is not unknown for the death penalty to be served on innocent people.

[aox]

In Michigan, you can be placed on the Sex Offender list with two or three public urination tickets.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

In Michigan, you can be placed on the Sex Offender list with two or three public urination tickets.

Way to go. Those public urinators should be pitch-capped and ridden out of town on a rail. Let's torch some of those paediatricians homes too!

[Ted Todorov]

What are you basing this on-- do you actually have any statistics to support this, and what is the source for these? I'd also be interested to know what percentage of underage mothers of children produced by rape bore their children, as opposed to those who bore them. Of course these scenarios don't apply in this case, since Polanski forced anal sex upon the girl and there was no resulting pregnancy (if I'm not misinformed).

You are correct on the Polanski case -- there was no pregnancy.

I was offering up the cases of pregnant teens because that is one area in statistics where the books can't be cooked (along with the murder rate -- statistics on rape, statutory or otherwise OTOH are notoriously unreliable): if the girl was pregnant below a certain age, rape occurred. Period.

Teen pregnancy stats: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If statutory rapists were being jailed, there would be hundreds of thousands of them in jail every year for just those rapes that resulted in pregnancies. Obviously there aren't. I'm too lazy to google for social services approaches to under age of consent teen pregnancies but there were reports in the usual media sources (The Economist, NY Times, New Yorker, NPR) about infighting with those who wanted the fathers on the hook for child support (monetary/child rearing responsibilities) prevailing over those calling for criminal sanction. If you are genuinely interested, I suspect you can use "the google" just as well as I can.

[Cinephrenic]

Well i'm sorry for my statement. I have been attacked all of a sudden for my comments. All I wanted to say is (could have been better written), is that i'm not defending Polanski for anything that he has done nor blaming the victim, but there should be a clear distinction between pedophilia in the common sense. Yes, I agree she was a young girl, but girls that age marry in many countries and bear their own children. I don't endorse this idea nor relationships in any way with younger women, but all I wanted to point out is there are much "worse" monsters out there that actually rape little children (as apposed to 13 year old teenagers who shouldn't have been left with him in the first place) that more attention should be focused on and not some crime happened 30 some years ago. I don't know, I was sexually active at that age, but that's me. I just don't buy the idea that she was merely "raped" or tricked into it. Law is the law I suppose. I see this is a touchy subject, expecially with members with kids. I'm sorry, for the controvercy. My intention was not to become the topic of this thread. I just wrote something quick without thinking. Sorry.

My opinion on the subject is about "satutory rape" in general and how young is too young. This I think will generally have people opposed on the subject and my comments and I'm fine with that. Do you think people ever will come to terms on the same page regarding abortion. As an adult, I have no interest in younger women, even 18-year olds. One member is calling me a "woman-hater" and is taking me out of context. I'm with a legal woman and i'm quite happy with her. I probably went too far in calling her a "bitch", but my anger is really at the parents. What was she doing with him in the first place? I don't recall the details, but it seemed like she was old enough (not chronologically) to know what sex and drugs can do.

[MichaelB]

Nothing incites street justice like paedophilia - note in the UK The Daily Mail newspaper's (I think it was this paper) venemous Name and Shame propoganda run which was pretty dispicable; I believe MichaelB mentioned this in a thread relating to the BBFC as I am a little rusty on the details, but if I recall, it was very literal in printing the names and hometowns of sex offenders, for all communities to be aware of. This caused violence, assault and I believe murder as a result, and put alot of people in prison for their attacks.

It hardly seems worth quibbling, given that both papers have broadly identical positions on this issue, but it was actually the News of the World. I'm not sure any murders resulted from it, and the most widely-publicised story - whereby a paediatrician was hounded out of her home by an illiterate torch-wielding mob - turned out to be almost total fiction.

But what undoubtedly did happen, as the police warned would happen as soon as the paper tipped them off that they were going to go ahead with their name and shame campaign a few hours in advance of publication, was that several known paedophiles who were being tracked by police simply disappeared off their radar as they went into hiding. In other words, the campaign was completely counterproductive - and demonstrably damaging.

[bigP]

Oops

Thanks for clearing that up MichaelB. Oh dear, i'm normally wrong about one thing but this time everything I said in that paragraph was tabloid worthy :^o

[mfunk9786]

Cinephrenic, do you honestly believe that she was devious enough to have consentual sex with Polanski and then lie about it? She was by all reported accounts [that I've read/seen] an innocent, sweet 13 year old girl, not some kind of Lolita.

And we're not all Cinephrenic [especially in the 1960s!]. I'm not embarassed to admit that when I was 13, if I were offered ludes and booze and asked if I ever had anal sex before, I wouldn't have known what the hell was being discussed/going on.

Roman Polanski is lucky that he's Roman Polanski, he could be in a mental facility, castrated, lobotomized... maybe it's because I recently watched Louis Theroux's "A Place for Paedophiles", but I'm having a hard time having any sympathy for Polanski in regards to this incident. The case should obviously be thrown out due to corruption by the authorities, but that doesn't make what he did any less heinous, and it certainly doesn't make the 13 year old victim of a drugged anal rape an accessory in her own assault.

[aox]

She was by all reported accounts an innocent, sweet 13 year old girl, not some kind of Lolita.

I am on your side on this one, but you haven't read or seen all reports apparently. Please edit to say 'some'.

[Mr Sheldrake]

Whenever the Polanski case comes up, with all the condemnation and defending that arises, I'm always reminded of the Noah Cross quote, in a Polanski movie no less -

"You see, Mr. Gitts, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of ANYTHING. "

-

[tavernier]

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child

[mfunk9786]

Whenever the Polanski case comes up, with all the condemnation and defending that arises, I'm always reminded of the Noah Cross quote, in a Polanski movie no less -

"You see, Mr. Gitts, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of ANYTHING. "

Hate to break it to you, but I won't ever be capable of fucking a 13 year old, whether she's consenting or not.

but all I wanted to point out is there are much "worse" monsters out there that actually rape little children (as apposed to 13 year old teenagers who shouldn't have been left with him in the first place)

Not to keep using myself as an example, but I like to think that someone could leave a 13 year old in my presence for a day, hell, a year - without me giving her booze and raping her. That argument of "shouldn't have been left with him in the first place" is probably the biggest stretch and the most aggravating justification for what he did out of all of them (and there are a lot!)

[Cinephrenic]

Apparently, the victim doesn't want him tried.

[bigP]

I think thats more for the sake of peace for her and her family, rather than a bygones be bygones situation.

[Tom Hagen]

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child

Highly recommended reading; I was going to post this myself. It states broadly a liberal rationale for prosecuting this and other similar cases, and is a much needed antidote to a lot of the sillier anti-prosecution and/or American sentiment fomenting over this case (looking your way, French Cultural Minister). While I won't go as far as to presume that the sex involved was not consensual (two reasons: 1) grand jury testimony isn't subject to cross examination and 2) Polanski did not enter a plea of guilty or no contest to any counts alleging that the sex was non-consensual), there is little question that Polanski's conduct was ethically reprehensible and criminally culpable.

Again: there's no question that tremendous procedural injustices took place in the prosecution of this case. Polanski, in many ways, was railroaded by a Judge who in retrospect appears to have had very improper motives in how he handled the case and plea bargaining process. But none of that excuses Polanski's 30-plus-year flight from justice, or substantiates the wilder claims of his partisans.

The irony is that after the dust settles over the extradition maneuvering, and if Polanski is ultimately returned to America, a likely outcome may well be the dismissal of the case.

As someone whose day job is in the criminal justice system, this case is an excellent reminder that for all of the great procedural and constitutional features of the American legal system, there are still plenty of cases where justice for everyone - victim and defendant alike - is sadly perverted.

[Jeff]

She was by all reported accounts [that I've read/seen] an innocent, sweet 13 year old girl

Not that this even remotely justifies Polanski's deplorable actions, but I'm not sure that your description above is entirely accurate. While she was certainly taken advantage of (and at 13 unable to consent to anything), sex, Quaaludes, and alcohol were not new experiences to her.

She would later explain that she'd had sex twice in the year before she met the director, that she'd drunk alcohol and that "once I was under the influence of Quaaludes [a sedative used as a recreational drug in the 70s] when I was real little".