Roman Polanski free

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Yes, but for whatever your differences in reasoning you are still willing to give him that precise degree of leeway: the rape of a 13-year-0ld with impunity.

as you will recall the primary reason I said this should be done and he should get a pass now is that they system failed, both in what happened in the days before he left and in never going after him until decades later. I am thinking that the Swiss came to agree with me, that the arrest order was bogus.

Quote:

his fault, he fled. They were ready to do so

Partly I agree, but you seem to want to ignore that Polanski got wind of the Judges plan to impose a penalty that was way out of line with the standards of the time. Not to mention violate an agreement. I think that an individual has the right to attempt to escape injustice being done to him, which pretty clearly was what was waiting for him if he stayed.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I think that an individual has the right to attempt to escape injustice being done to him, which pretty clearly was what was waiting for him if he stayed.

And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Real men welcome change and do not consider themselves victims. Real men own up to the inequality that women have born all those years.

real men have enough awareness of the ways of man to know that it is very common for the abused to become the abusers, and to justify it on the prior abuse. Establishing equality takes all sides being evenly matched and willing to fight for their best interests, when you men practice complete surrender you **** everything up for the rest of us, and for today's boys.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty

Which was abdicated for decades, thus this right was forfeited.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Real men welcome change and do not consider themselves victims. Real men own up to the inequality that women have born all those years.

real men have enough awareness of the ways of man to know that it is very common for the abused to become the abusers, and to justify it on the prior abuse. Establishing equality takes all sides being evenly matched and willing to fight for their best interests, when you men practice complete surrender you **** everything up for the rest of us, and for today's boys.

The fact that you use the word fight in establishing equity is very telling. Also, you seem to think that "complete surrender" is the only option. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are among the boys that you mention at the end. Time to grow up and look at the world with eyes wide open.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And the courts have the right and obligation to hunt him down and impose said penalty
Which was abdicated for decades, thus this right was forfeited.

Exactly where do you get the forfeit part? They have been trying to get him for years.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

The fact that you use the word fight in establishing equity is very telling

Humans are both cooperative and combative, establishing equality requires having at least this must knowledge of human nature.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Quote:

They have been trying to get him for years.

America tried to get him for 30 years but could not? Is that really a claim you want to stand by?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The fact that you use the word fight in establishing equity is very telling
Humans are both cooperative and combative, establishing equality requires having at least this must knowledge of human nature.

It is when men become combative to women that is the problem. Unfortunately, you seem to condone this based on a series of posts in a series of threads.

Human nature has many qualities, the least of which is to lord over women. At least in the civilized world.

0 Replies

I think the prosecution back then was very sloppy (didn't the prosecution get cited at one point?), and I take it the judge was considered sloppy.

I think I agree Polanski should have a trial (what was the agreement, anyway?). I'd hate for one now to be a circus, and how could it not be. I'd also hate for that to be ballooned up, for punishment now, depending on the findings, a kind of hate chase. We have cases like this, I presume, except for the infamy, all the time. I'd like to see those cases worked. They're close to home. Hard to cite, as they are about minors and what happened to them. Probably pled, or not even started.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

the fact he was 43 and she was 13 meant that there was a fundamental disparity of psychological power in the encounter and so, at the very least, he behaved like deeply creepy f*cker

This could very well be applied to a (shudder) clown entertaining children in the cancer ward of a hospital.

Anyway....

Here's my opinion, and I know I'm going to be told how wrong I am...

The fact that this then 13, now 46? year old is STILL saying it was consenual, even after all these years, means a lot to me.

When I was 16 I started a 10 year relationship with somone significantly older than me. To this day I do not regret one moment of the time I was underage and had to sneak around to be with this man.

It would be different if the now grown woman indicated it was not consenual, but to the best of my knowledge, she never has.

Was what he did wrong? Yes.
Should this have happened? No.

But, if the only people who have a right to be angry at him, and mainly the woman in question, have no issue, then I don't either.

Question, has he ever been implicated with any other act like this?

UltimatelyI agree with you that she should be be the final arbiter of this.

however, with regard to yoru subsidiary question of whether Polanski has been implicated in similar behaviour, from what I have read, the answer appears to be yes.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

real men have enough awareness of the ways of man to know that it is very common for the abused to become the abusers, and to justify it on the prior abuse.

This is very true, however, I do not think things are inbalanced either way nowadays. An ilusion may be created by the fact that some differences will always exist, as the sexes ARE different.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I have told you before, your issue is zeal.

Thank you for the compliment, Art.

It would be nice if there was even a modicum of interest among people to discuss and hopefully then to end the brutality, the war crimes, the terrorism, the mass murder of the innocents of the world by the United States and its supported proxies.

This is related. The relation is the self righteous do-gooders who want a justice that is limited by their own narrow, self-interested notions.

The USA wants Polanski back to face justice but the USA doesn't want the ICJ to have jurisdiction over the many war criminals that reside in the US for crimes that dwarf this one.

That's hypocrisy that's way too good to leave alone.

So, why are you wasting time on a forum that doesnt likes you rather than leading a crusade against USA?

Hum...

panzade wrote:

ok jerk off. I'll fill in the words you can't seem to imagine...

How can sex with a 13 year old be consensual under the eyes of the law?

If the other part is also a minor, I suppose. But this wasnt what you meant either, was it? =)

I think someone who rapes a 13 year old is worse than someone who has consensual sex with a 13 year old, therefore the punishment should be higher.

Arella Mae wrote:

What if that criminal committed murder? John List wasn't caught for nearly 18 years. During the whole time he was on the run he committed no more murders. He was considered a quiet and upstanding citizen of his community, yet he slaughtered his mother, wife, and his children. You think because he then lived a crime free life he should be let off the hook?

Depends of why he didnt kill anyone else in the 18 years that followed.

3 Replies

@manored,

Quote:

This is very true, however, I do not think things are inbalanced either way nowadays

THis is a judgement call, I think that we have gone over the line with almost everyone blind to the line so I speak. I do not think that the situation today is horrible, but unless we wake up I am certain that it will get to be so.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You are delusional...rape has been redefined, the theory of informed consent has been completely redefined, and not only have the sex laws been greatly expanded but the penalty for breaking them has grown exponentially.

It is a new world, clearly. That you are trying to argue otherwise is so outside of the facts that it is impossible to take you seriously on this subject.

I'm delusional? There is no such thing as "the theory of informed consent", and there never was. "Informed consent" refers only to the giving of consent for medical procedures, after first being informed of the risks. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Rape is sexual intercourse against the will of the victim and chiefly by force or deception. That is what rape has always been. About the only changes in the rape laws over the past few decades have been to include men and female spouses as victims, and to not require that victims have to be beaten black and blue to show that they "resisted" the assault. The fact that they did not consent, and were forced, to engage in sex is considered to be enough. A 13 year old minor is not considered legally capable of consenting to sex, and that was true in 1977 as it is true in 2010.

Polanski wasn't just charged with statutory rape. He was charged with furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18, rape by use of drugs, perversion (now called oral copulation) and sodomy. He pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse in order to get the other charges against him dropped.

There was no issue of consent in 1977, and that would not be an issue today. The child did not wish to have sex, what occurred was against her will, and against her stated wishes to Polanski at the time (as revealed in her Grand Jury testimony). Apart from his conviction in the criminal case, when she was older, the victim brought a civil suit against Polanski for harming her, and she won a judgment against him. So Polanski was found guilty in both criminal court and civil court. He raped this girl. And the standards for defining that rape in 1977 would still apply today. He drugged her, he coerced her, she did not wish to engage in these activities, and she was only 13 years old.

It is not "a whole new world today". That's why Polanski was convicted in 1977--the same standards applied then. He raped a child. If he repeated the exact same crime again today, he'd be convicted all over again. The world hasn't changed, what was considered rape in 1977 is considered rape today. And he admitted his guilt.

You're trying to find some out for this guy. You're blaming feminists, giving him leeway because of his artistic nature, absurdly claiming everyone was engaging in this sort of sexual activity in 1977, etc. It's all nonsensical. The man admitted guilt. He copped a plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He was convicted. He then lost a civil suit she brought against him. Even if the judge was going to double cross him at sentencing (and I'm not sure we'll ever know that would have been the case), that doesn't excuse Polanski's behavior or what he did to that child.

Stop dredging up excuses to pardon a child rapist.

4 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

that doesn't excuse Polanski's behavior or what he did to that child

everybody to include Polanski has agreed that what he did was wrong, the question is what was then and what is now the appropriate response. The victim thought no response, and at least for a few days the major players in the case agreed on more than that, but what is wanted now is outrageous.

The Swiss messed up by arresting Polanski, but they eventually got it right, it just took too long.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Stop dredging up excuses to pardon a [you fill in the blank].

0 Replies

@manored,

Quote:

So, why are you wasting time on a forum that doesnt likes you rather than leading a crusade against USA?

Hmm, another major hypocrite. It's nice to meet you too, Manored.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

the question is what was then and what is now the appropriate response

Why should the "appropriate response" be any different now than it was then? The crime hasn't changed in the past 33 years. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Except, of course, they could tack on an additional charge of fleeing the country to avoid sentencing. Or Polanski could try to withdraw his plea and then he'd have to face all of the charges in the original indictment if he demanded a trial.

I said in a much earlier post what I'd like to see happen. I think Polanski should return to the U.S.and serve brief jail time (like a month) and he should make a very hefty donation to a fund for victims of child abuse, or something similar.

The victim of this rape no longer has any influence over what should happen to him. The charges against Polanski were brought by the state of California, not the victim.

It really is hard for me to believe that Polanski did not do this sort of thing with other females, either adults or minors. What he did with this girl during their encounter suggested he was quite familiar with this sort of thing.

And, what he said to this girl after the sex is a little chilling...

This is from her Grand Jury testimony:

The victim testified that after the sex, she got dressed and waited in the car for Polanski to drive her home. Before driving her home, he asked her to keep the incident a secret.

A: He said to me, he goes, 'Oh, don't tell your mother about this.' ...

Q: What did you say?

A: I wasn't saying anything. He says, 'Don't tell your mother about this and don't tell your boyfriend either.' ... He said something like, 'This is our secret.' And I went, 'Yeah.' And then later he said, 'You know, when I first met you I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you.'
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/entertainment/celebrity_news/Roman_Polanski_Transcript_25782845

I think he sounds like a classic child predator.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It is not "a whole new world today". That's why Polanski was convicted in 1977--the same standards applied then. He raped a child. If he repeated the exact same crime again today, he'd be convicted all over again. The world hasn't changed, what was considered rape in 1977 is considered rape today. And he admitted his guilt.

Not everyone agrees that there has not been a change, though it is rarely talked about , so this quote will have to do

Quote:

In a trial in December, 1986, in Anchorage, Alaska, we first testified about the antisexuality inherent in some aspects of the effort to deal with sexual abuse of children. We described the criminalization of behaviors that had formerly been viewed as foolish or deplorable but not as criminal acts. We also wrote about the antisexuality of the child sexual abuse system in our 1988 book, Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse ()() (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988).

Nothing that has occurred since then has caused us to change that view. We believe that the manner in which our society attempts to reduce sexual abuse of children represents the most virulent and violent antisexuality the world has known since the days of Tertullian in the second century. Tertullian was an early Christian theologian who maintained that the only proper way to be a Christian was to emasculate yourself. Fortunately, however, the church officially labeled Tertullian a heretic and his view never became dominant.

The view that there has been a movement towards antisexuality and overreaction to childhood sexuality is supported by a poll of mental health and legal professionals reported by Haugaard and Reppucci (Okami, 1992). The poll indicated that 20% of these professionals believed that frequent hugging of a 10-year-old child by parents required intervention, that between 44% and 67% believed intervention was required if parents kissed the child briefly on the lips (as when leaving for work), and that 75% believed intervention was required for parents who appeared nude in front of their 5-year-old child.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_2_2.htm

Feel free to read on about how men have been made into presumed rapists, and how normal power imbalances have become the basis for rape and child abuse charges.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I'm delusional? There is no such thing as "the theory of informed consent", and there never was. "Informed consent" refers only to the giving of consent for medical procedures, after first being informed of the risks. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexual behavior.

Your definition is too narrow. There are other applications for the concept of informed consent than just for medical procedures. For instance, in counseling and psychotherapy, patients have to sign informed consent forms (and they are called precisely that - "informed consent" forms) before undergoing therapy, before being assessed, before participating in surveys...
Such forms are also a standard part of any social work code of ethics.

3 Replies

Roman Polanski free

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know