22
   

Why Did Roman Polanski Run Away?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 01:00 pm
Personally, I don't know what Polanski deserves. He committed rape, for sure. I am content to let the law handle it. I think this time around, it will be handled according to the law, rather than the circus it once was. I haven't read all of the replies here. I am certain somebody has already asked about the actions and whereabouts of the thirteen year old's parents at the time. Shouldn't they have been held in some way liable?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 02:14 pm
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
took a deal to reduce his exposure


And then he knew the attorney (general?) was not going to respect the deal...
I'm not intimately familiar with the State of California, but typically deals are cut between State Attorneys and the defendant. I believe in most (if not all) jurisdictions; Judges retain the right to reject plea arrangements... so there's nothing outlandish about that fear... but there's nothing unusual about it either. All defendants face the same risk and it does indeed come up, with rich and poor alike. Said fear offers no excuse to allow the rich man to use his means to escape the justice the poor man could not.

You have my apology if, like Robert, you interpreted my zeal as some kind of an accusation that you approve of drugging, raping, or fleeing. The question was rhetorical by design... to deliver a blunt point... in hopes you would recognize the severity of the original crime and the blatant disregard for justice demonstrated by Polanski's actions. I did not intend to impugn you as Robert suggests.

Assuming Robert is correct, and like David, many are unfamiliar with the case (not sure how that’s my responsibility); even a quick stop at wiki would let you know the basic facts, including but not limited to:
1. The victim was only 13 years old.

2. The victim had rebuffed his inappropriate advances repeatedly.

3. The victim was fed qualudes and champagne.

4. The victim clearly said no, repeatedly.

5. Polanski took a deal that included a 90 day evaluation period. Said deal did not specify the total of the sentence, but he entered into it of his own free will in exchange for a reduction in the main charge, and having other charges dropped. The charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was VERY generous considering he was guilty (and this is not disputed) of having used drugs to rape a 13 year old kid, over her protests. "Polanski was initially charged[38] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor." wiki

6. Polanski then reneged on the exceedingly generous deal and fled the country.

7. Yes, the victim has asked for this to go away, but said this is because it still brings her and her family discomfort. This isn't because of the State's zeal; it is because the animal raped her in the first place and then denied her closure by cowering in France for the last 3 decades. He never finished answering for his original heinous crime and he has yet to answer for fleeing.

8. Statutes of limitations, around the globe, will generally not apply to anyone who's been charged with (let alone convicted of) a crime simply because they are avoiding justice.

9. Rewarding such criminal behavior, available only by extraordinary means, is a slap in the face of the poor who have no such opportunity to avoid justice.

Personally, I would find it unconscionable to give the rich rapist a pass, precisely because he successfully broke another law for 3 decades to get away with it. One need not share my disgust, to recognize right from wrong.

(Better Robert?)
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2009 05:20 pm
Quote:
Although the cultural divide between Europe and the U.S. has narrowed over the years, the legal fate of director Roman Polanski shows there are still major differences. Polanski's arrest in Switzerland on Sept. 26 was greeted with satisfaction in the U.S., where authorities hope he will face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Europeans, meanwhile, are shocked and dismayed that an internationally acclaimed artist could be jailed for such an old offense.


"To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history - and as he was traveling to an event honoring him - is absolutely horrifying," French Culture Minister FrÉdÉric Mitterrand said after Polanski was arrested upon arrival in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to receive a lifetime achievement award. "There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face." In comments that appeared to be directed at Swiss and American authorities to free Polanski, Mitterrand added that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy hoped for a "rapid resolution to the situation which would allow Roman Polanski to rejoin his family as quickly as possible."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090928/wl_time/08599192650800
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:01 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
(Better Robert?)


Heck yeah, much better. Here's another article that I liked, and it also highlights that many people just aren't familiar with the case that it has to even be said:

Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

Quote:
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.


The only caveat I'd add to this is that he was not convicted of rape, nor did he plead guilty to it. But this is the testimony of the victim and he did plead guilty to having sex with her.
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:18 pm
@Robert Gentel,
What is that supposed to mean to use, the exact details of what happened??? She settled with her abuser, says that the collective hurt her far worse than her abuser did, and her desire is that the collective leave Polanski alone.

Can't do it can you, you gotta have your pound of flesh even though you were not the one wronged. Don't claim that you are doing it for her though, that is an out and out lie.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
7. Yes, the victim has asked for this to go away, but said this is because it still brings her and her family discomfort. This isn't because of the State's zeal; it is because the animal raped her in the first place and then denied her closure by cowering in France for the last 3 decades.


I guess she was lying when she was interviewed by CBC Radio yesterday. She certainly expressed her belief that she had achieved "closure" quitesome years ago. She must have been lying. She said nothing like the bit I've bolded of your comments.

She also used language stronger than "discomfort" when she talked about how she felt about all of this being back out in public.

~~~

Polanski did something very bad, very stupid. Thinking that you know better than the woman involved what she feels/thinks is your contribution to the genre.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
ok, that whole collective **** is getting boring
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
What is that supposed to mean to use, the exact details of what happened??? She settled with her abuser, says that the collective hurt her far worse than her abuser did, and her desire is that the collective leave Polanski alone.


But that isn't entirely up to her. That she was paid off by Polanski introduces a conflict of interest. It's certainly something that should be considered, and I've said absolutely nothing about what punishments Polanski should receive, but none of this changes that Polanski is not the victim here.

Quote:
Can't do it can you, you gotta have your pound of flesh even though you were not the one wronged. Don't claim that you are doing it for her though, that is an out and out lie.


Where did I say anything about this hawkeye? I am not to blame for your inability to demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

The girl was younger than the line you yourself advocated. What should be the punishment for crossing that line for consensual sex? And when you are done considering that tough question then think about what it should be for non-consensual sex.

I've said nothing about what punishment he should receive. It's a complicated question. But if there is to be such lines they are going to be meaningless without consequences. Polanski is not a victim of some legal harassment here. He committed a crime we all agree should be a crime and a type of crime that should have some form of consequence.
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:24 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
7. Yes, the victim has asked for this to go away, but said this is because it still brings her and her family discomfort. This isn't because of the State's zeal; it is because the animal raped her in the first place and then denied her closure by cowering in France for the last 3 decades.


I guess she was lying when she was interviewed by CBC Radio yesterday. She certainly expressed her belief that she had achieved "closure" quitesome years ago. She must have been lying. She said nothing like the bit I've bolded of your comments.

She also used language stronger than "discomfort" when she talked about how she felt about all of this being back out in public.

~~~

Polanski did something very bad, very stupid. Thinking that you know better than the woman involved what she feels/thinks is your contribution to the genre.


<applause>
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:25 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

ok, that whole collective **** is getting boring


<standing ovation>
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:35 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
He committed a crime we all agree should be a crime and a type of crime that should have some form of consequence.


Not after this many years. I can go with you for doing that with hunting down Nazi's who ran the death camps, but not for sex crimes. There is no way to avoid judging him by 2009 standards for a crime that was considered much differently at the time that it happened.

Justice is unobtainable, it is long past time to drop it.
hawkeye10
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 07:38 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
ok, that whole collective **** is getting boring


Entertaining you is not my job. I am a socialist, I use the language at my disposal to convey what I mean as best I can. In this case I know of no word or phrase that works better for what I want it to than "collective".
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:16 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
7. Yes, the victim has asked for this to go away, but said this is because it still brings her and her family discomfort. This isn't because of the State's zeal; it is because the animal raped her in the first place and then denied her closure by cowering in France for the last 3 decades.


I guess she was lying when she was interviewed by CBC Radio yesterday. She certainly expressed her belief that she had achieved "closure" quitesome years ago. She must have been lying. She said nothing like the bit I've bolded of your comments.

She also used language stronger than "discomfort" when she talked about how she felt about all of this being back out in public.

~~~

Polanski did something very bad, very stupid. Thinking that you know better than the woman involved what she feels/thinks is your contribution to the genre.
Obviously I hadn't heard her on the radio yesterday, Beth. I did read on wiki, however;
Quote:
"In a 2003 interview,[48] Samantha Geimer said, Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us."
I didn't see any quote about calling for forgiveness till 2008. Count um... that's at least 26 years, possibly 31... or roughly 3 decades the the woman suffered without closure while the rapist thumbed his nose at justice while cowering in France. NONE of this suffering would have occurred if the piece of **** hadn’t raped her in the first place.
That she's since overcome the horror doesn't change this fact, and your attack on me and unfounded accusations about what I think I know are uncalled for. Get over yourself.

(wanna take a crack at the other 8 simple truths?)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:18 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:

<applause>
Due to ignorance.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 08:44 pm

Drugging and raping are despicable, wretched and horrible.
Some jurisdictions have applied the death penalty for rape; (not recently).
I thought that was OK at the time.

If the victim were demanding to be avenged,
then this case woud be in a different light.

She wishes not to carry vindictiveness about 30 years into the future.

Legally, technically, her desires don 't count.
The opinions of the victim are not taken into consideration
when chasing down a fugitive, as Bill has correctly pointed out.

If it were my decision, I 'd honor her wishes and just forget it.

There 's not much glory in dragging back an old man who 's almost 80,
for sadistic vengeance. If she wants to forgive n forget, then so be it, in my opinion.



David
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 09:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Not after this many years.


Statutes of limitations exist mainly because of evidentiary problems. After years memories, witnesses etc begin to lose their value.

This is not the case here. He pled guilty and ran. I'm not advocating throwing the book at him, but he needs to face his sentencing. We shouldn't endorse running away from sentencing and forgetting about it. Fugitives should be pursued. We shouldn't just let people move to another country and forget about it.

A lot of pedophiles escape justice this way, and it's not a loophole that society should condone.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:00 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Is statute of limitations even an issue in this case? I thought it applied between the time a crime was committed and when charges were filed. I never thought it applied after a conviction had been made. Also, I understood that a gulity plea was exactly the same as being convicted by judge or jury.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:05 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Is statute of limitations even an issue in this case?


No, and that has already been pointed out to hawkeye but he's still using its principles to advocate that the time passed makes justice unobtainable. I'm trying to explain why it isn't a legitimate legal or a moral argument.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:19 pm
@Robert Gentel,
THe concept behind the stat of limitations is that the time delay makes a fair judgment impossible. Has Polanski been given a penalty at the time but run out on it then the time delay makes no difference. However, my understanding of the case is that should Polanski sit in the courtroom now a judgment will need to be made about what his penalty should be. I don't believe that it is possible to do that fairly, after all the time that has gone by, and all of the change in attitudes in the culture about his crime. Let's remember, at the time the majority opinion in the culture seem to be that it was the girls fault, which people today could scarcely fathom. But that was what it was like back then, and that was the environment in which he would have been judged.

Making him be judged by 2009 standards would be a miscarriage of justice, which is why any judge who looks at this case now has only two choices, time served or throw out the case. Anything else would be an outrage.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
You've already said all that, I suppose there's nothing more to do than agree to disagree.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 03:19:14