POLANSKI'S BIG FAT OSCAR NIGHT

Good grief, Larry. Do you have to insult people to make your point?

There's nothing about the additional jail time being months at Chino -- he spent a few days in jail as I recollect. The burden is on you to find a reliable source relating to any lengthy time in jail (Chino is not a "jail"). Yes, eoe, that is Larry's MO. It's his first line of defense. Think "preemptive strike."

The mans talent is not in question and his alleged crime is not restricting his movie-making opportunities.

However, regardless of what all of our opinions may be to what indeed happened during the sexual incident, the law in America states that he is guilty of statutory rape. I don't claim to be an expert on sentences for such a crime but I would have thought it to be a little longer than the several months mentioned above. If Mr. Polanski wishes to return to America then I believe he should serve his time for the crime he was convicted of. If he does not wish to accept that responsibility then perhaps he should stay where he is and continue with his successful life.

Roman Polanski might be a great director, but you ought to check out this link:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Lightwizard, what is Chino if not a jail? And since we are casting aspersions on each other, something can EITHER be a first line of defense OR a preemptive strike (an offensive strategy, as President Bush is now proving in Iraq). It can't logically be both. But why should I expect an illogical person who, unable to refute me, prefers to badmouth me personally, to be able to make that distinction?

Heeven, I think you are being way too harsh. My Mom is a criminal court judge so I know that a first offender like Polanski would routinely receive probation for as minor an offense as statutory rape, which is after all a nonviolent victimless crime. What happened in P's case was that he had the bad luck to get a reactionary judge who threatened to "make an example of him" by imposing an exceptionally harsh sentence. I really think that, after all this time, the matter should be newly adjudicated and resolved. Nor do I think that Polanski should serve one more minute of his life in jail. The whole "crime" was always a tempest in a teapot, even 25 years ago.

Ahem, larry, my aunt is a Supreme Court Judge, and I do think you should check out the link I posted above, with the actual transcript of the original trial. Read that, and tell me it wasn't rape.

"way too harsh"? I don't think so. As I said, I don't know what the sentence is for statutory rape. Mr. Polanski made a choice to leave America because he did not want to serve the sentence (whether it be unfair or not) and has made a very successful life for himself elsewhere. Where is the issue here? Does he want to come back to the U.S.? Is it required, to achieve more than he already has? I think he is doing quite well where he is. Why would he want to rock the boat by coming back to the United States? I am wondering if the man even wants to do so or is this about other people wanting him back? Besides he has a wife and children in France that he would not want to jeopardize in any way. It is not a huge sacrifice to him to not return to the U.S.

Lest we forget, statuatory rape was the plea bargain charge, not the original charge of rape, plain and simple, against Polanski. Polanski fled the country because the judge was going to toss out the plea and go the whole hog, and he would have done severe jail time. And yes, I agree he is doing quite well in France indeed...he may as well stay.

You people are acting as if Polanski committed some heinous, unprecedented crime. He did not. Can I remind you that the only reason he was prosecuted AT ALL was that Angelica Huston turned state's evidence against him? Considering the alleged behavior of Bill Clinton in the matter of Juanita Broaddrick, Americans should be able to distinguish between what Polanski did (Statutory rape) and what Clinton allegedly did (forcible intercourse). There was never any proof that Polanski used any force whatsoever, which would have made proving a charge of rape difficult at best. His "victim" now says she wishes the case were adjudicated, thrown out, and that P. could come back to America. Does that carry any weight with you moralists?

Don't get so angry about a man who made a mistake in his life and has to accept the consequences of it.

And I do call rape a heinous crime - she did say "no" and he drugged her!

larry: Two things.

1. READ THE LINK!! That includes the recounting of the victim's testimony. If you still want to assert that it was a "statutory rape" you do so at the peril of losing any credibility as to your ability to see beyond your preconcieved notions.

2. Your attacks on the lightwizard are so off base as to be laughable.
I have interacted with him on this site as well as others, and a more reasonable, well spoken, and tolerant individual you would be hard pressed to find.

larry, a couple of things....

First off, the as you say "supposed" victim's request to not punish him further could very well be atrributed to her personal psychological journey to get over a very troubled past.

Second, this testimony was only released as Polanski is currently trying to sue someone, so he was forced to unseal all his legal records, so if he is in hot water, it is his own fault now, as it was at the time of the rape.

Third, nobody is contesting his talent as a director, just the way he fled justice for this crime, and how perhaps rather than run away in the face of the harsher sentence he was going to get, he should of sucked it up and taken what was given to him, like a man who commited a truly vile act, and actually felt some remorse for it.

P.S. Pedophiles are notoriously uncureable...I really hope those kids of his are okay

Statutory rape is considered a victimless crime in your mom's court? Gee, if I ever get in legal trouble, I wanted to be prosecuted under her jurisdiction.

Don't get me wrong, I think Polanski is a gifted director, but special pleading is special pleading...

I will stand by my characterization of what Polanski did. Most rapes involve violence and/or the threat of violence. Nothing like that happened in his case. When I called statutory rape a victimless crime, I meant to contrast it to felony rape, robbery, assault, etc. where physical or material harm is done to the victim. Perhaps my words were poorly chosen, but my point is legally valid. As far as my treatment of Lightwizard, it is mutual--he posted on the CHICAGO discussion that he wishes I were a woman so I could get pregnant. I have PM'd Lightwizard offering a peace treaty in our skirmishes, but he refused. So much for your canonization of him!

And one more thing for all you moralists:

Under the American system, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Roman Polanski was never proven guilty of ANYTHING. So calling him a rapist or a pedophile or anything else is just ignorant slander.

When I say that Polanski was never PROVEN guilty, I mean that his case was never fully adjudicated and he never had appellate rights. Due process of law may not mean anything to you people, but it sure would in a hurry if you ever got arrested or were ticketed for a moving violation.

Is that your euphemism for rape?

Look, I am not defending what Polanski did. I have already said I thought it was scummy. But I also don't think it was the worst thing in the world. You could even argue that, morally speaking, it wasn't as bad as what Woody Allen did to Mia Farrow! I think you moralists need to calm down. You're as self-righteous as all the people who thought Clinton should be publicly flogged for his dalliance with Lewinsky.

Sex between consenting adults is considered different from sex between an adult and a minor in this country. You seem to be exhibiting some cognitive dissonance in grasping this distinction. What do Clinton's exploits, real and alleged, have to do with this? Was Lewinsky underaged when they met in his office?