Is Polanski A Victim or Should He Be Behind Bars?
A flurry of international outrage erupted this weekend after highly acclaimed film director Roman Polanski, 77, was arrested in Zurich on a longstanding international arrest warrant for the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl. What are your thoughts on this? Does Polanski deserve to finally face the music? let us know. (Read More)
- 42 Comments
- Tags:
I think yes he should……JMO
ReplyFrom his home in Paris, Polanski settled a civil suit by the victim, Samantha Geimer, for an unspecified amount, and she publicly forgave him. He continued to direct films in Europe and married Seigner, with whom he has two children.
In 1997, Polanski tried to work out a deal with the district attorney’s office to return to L.A.: Authorities would arrest him at the airport and bring him straight to court, where he would be sentenced to time served and immediately released.
That deal fell apart, with Polanski’s side saying that he objected to television coverage in the courtroom.
For the next decade, Polanski made no public attempts to resolve the case. He won the Academy Award for best director for 2002’s “The Pianist,” but was not at the ceremony despite Geimer’s call for authorities to permit him to attend.
– Harriet Ryan LA Times
He should come back to face the Court, and whatever happens then is fine with me.
ReplyWhat Polanski did was/is a crime. He was never tried and punnished for it. His celebrity is what prevented justice from being timely handed out, so now it very well should be. “Don’t Do The Crime If You Can’t Do The Time”. On CNN news this morning, it was said that it came about finally because, “this case file finally came to the top of the pile of the DA in California”…geesh….have to be on line for everything these days it seems….
Reply@Pattyanne:He pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor but fled before he was sentenced. Recently he moved to have the charges dismissed but refused to show up in court – you really want to piss a Judge off – don’t show up.
ReplyThanks for the FYI DG. At least now justice will be served. @Different Guest:
Reply@Pattyanne:
Replygotta wonder what he will be sentenced to so long after the fact though don’t you ? I’m guessing no jail time….or very little. Maybe they can make him watch his own movies for punishment….Bad dum dum…haha i slay me
Lol. That would be a great punnishment. I agree with you d. I think they will say “time served” and that it will just go on his record. At this age why would he now care? Justice was not blind, just crippled for a time.@d:
ReplyAlthough i did love Chinatown….
ReplyHow the heck could I think of him as a victim? He raped a kid, then ran away, and because he was successful at that (thanks to idiotic French law) he should be let off the hook? No way. Justice delayed is justice denied. His “I’ll pay for the crime, but only on my own terms” attitude is just proof of his incredible arrogance. lack of remorse, and contempt for the justice system. And, paying off your victim doesn’t mean the crime never happened. So, as far as I’m concerned, he should be locked up based on his original sentence. To me rape is second only to murder in terms of criminal severity, and he has to be incarcerated, otherwise we do a horrible disservice to all rape victims, past, present, and future.
ReplyYeah not sure where anyone got the idea that because his victim has supposedly forgiven him he should be let off the hook? Call me old-fashioned but back where I’m from it’s the state who prosecutes the criminal, not the victim. So yes if it were put to a vote I would say behind bars for me please, where the law says he belongs. Shame on the French govt for their support of him too. Child abuse and statutory rape is not “very nice” either I think they’ll find.
ReplyExactly Keane~! I would wish upon him a nice long prison sentence with a good cellmate named Bubba The Looooove Gawd.@Keane Cyber Queen Supreme:
ReplyPolanski was prosecuted. He was not let off the hook. He had a plea agreement which was approved by all involved in the case. He entered his guilty plea and after a short incarceration, during which he underwent a lengthy psychological evaluation, was released by the judge at the request of the prosecutor pending sentencing which was to be time served (IIRC with one more day to go) followed by a term of superised probation.
While the victim’s wishes often guide the prosecution and judge, Polanski’s pela agreement and expected sentence were guided by the professionals who controlled this case – prosecutors, court services including psychological experts. Considering the wishes of a victim is a valid way of empowering them in the resolution of the case. Ms. Geiner was in reality not a “child” no matter how the law defines “child.” She was old enough to participate in decision making in this case.
There was serious misconduct by the judge in this case as well as serious misconduct by the D.A.’s office when an L.A. prosecutor not involved in the case improperly and probably illegally interfered in the case. The judge and prosecutor engaged in improper ex parte communications which were designed to subvert the system and denied Polanski due process. This prosecutor was trying to talk the judge into giving Polanksi a stiffer sentence to appease the media and IIRC arranged communications between media people and the judge to lobby for a stiffer sentence.
If the judge had done his job properly this would have been over 31 years ago. Polanksi accepted responsibility for his crime, expressed remorse and entered a guilty plea to unlawful intercourse with a minor. He did all he was asked and required to do up to that point. He did not flee until the night before the sentencing hearing when he was advised of the illegal conduct of the judge and the judge’s improper bragging of his intention to violate the plea agreement and sentence him to 50 years in jail to appease the media.
Enough is enough. This case should have been dismissed ages ago due to the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Even murder cases are dismissed for such misconduct. Despite a judge’s recent holding there is no requirement for a defendant to be present for such hearings and rulings based on misconduct.
Reply@Liz E.:
ReplyHi Liz. I’ve never followed the particulars of this case. I suppose if I had been more interested, I could have researched it. LOL I’m quite familiar with criminal defense law and need facts to form an opinion one way or another. Are your statements actually facts … are they pubic record? As I said, I honestly know NOTHING about this case and find your post very interesting. Thanks. I just may have to read more about it prior to answering Ian’s question!
Ya know. We American’s like to raise our voice in outrage about other countries where child rape and human trafficking occurs. Please explain to me how dismissing a child rape case in our own country would balance our current stance on child rape abroad?
ReplyRoman Polanki’s talent is the other side of his evil. HIs artistic merit has no bearing on whether he should be freed. Debra Winger is a MORON.
Because the true victim in this case has found forgiveness in \her —for her ability to move on–does not mean the law nor society as a whole, should look the other way. what a slippery slope!
Listen to the victim in 2003! She HAD to move on because justice for her was unserved, regardless of by whose hand.
@Liz E.:
“Polanski was prosecuted. He was not let off the hook. He had a plea agreement which was approved by all involved in the case. He entered his guilty plea and after a short incarceration, during which he underwent a lengthy psychological evaluation, was released by the judge at the request of the prosecutor pending sentencing which was to be time served (IIRC with one more day to go) followed by a term of superised probation.”
Ian’s question is about now, not then, i.e. should Polansky be let off the hook now for his sentence, whatever that may be. And remember, on top of his rape, Polansky also became a fugitive, which also is a crime.
“While the victim’s wishes often guide the prosecution and judge, Polanski’s pela agreement and expected sentence were guided by the professionals who controlled this case – prosecutors, court services including psychological experts. Considering the wishes of a victim is a valid way of empowering them in the resolution of the case. Ms. Geiner was in reality not a “child” no matter how the law defines “child.” She was old enough to participate in decision making in this case.”
This is just a disturbing line of thought – you want the incredibly messed-up mind of a raped child to condone or influence the penalty phase? And you refer to her as ‘Ms. Geiner’, like she was an adult, she was a child. Even Polanksky disagrees with you, he admitted it was sex with a minor. And tossing out that “she was old enough to participate in decision making” like that makes her an adult. It seems to me you are implying that she was old enough to consent to the sex. The last time I heard such arguments it was from a pedophile group arguing that a ‘graduated maturity’ scale should be developed to define consent for having sex with kids under 18, i.e., some kids are more mature than others, so its okay to have sex with some kids under 18. Anything else you want to add in about 13-year old ‘Ms. Geiner’, like maybe she dressed provocatively, or was into older men, or it was clear ’she wanted it”?
“There was serious misconduct by the judge in this case as well as serious misconduct by the D.A.’s office when an L.A. prosecutor not involved in the case improperly and probably illegally interfered in the case. The judge and prosecutor engaged in improper ex parte communications which were designed to subvert the system and denied Polanski due process. This prosecutor was trying to talk the judge into giving Polanksi a stiffer sentence to appease the media and IIRC arranged communications between media people and the judge to lobby for a stiffer sentence.”
Its just so sad when a rapist has problems with the justice system! Let me pause and sob on his behalf okay I’m done now. There are legal channels to deal with such misconduct – if any of it even happened – and if it did, there have been now 30+ years to address the situation. Or is it Polanski’s position that there has been misconduct every one of the last 30 years?
“If the judge had done his job properly this would have been over 31 years ago. Polanksi accepted responsibility for his crime, expressed remorse and entered a guilty plea to unlawful intercourse with a minor. He did all he was asked and required to do up to that point. He did not flee until the night before the sentencing hearing when he was advised of the illegal conduct of the judge and the judge’s improper bragging of his intention to violate the plea agreement and sentence him to 50 years in jail to appease the media.”
His ‘remorse’ didn’t keep him in the country long enough to work out his legal issues – actions speak louder than words, if you can even hear the words from France. And I love the hearsay ‘the judge isn’t going to be fair to me’ bit – I’m sure every convict in prison will tell you they heard the same thing. Should we let them all go to France for three decades? If there is anything to his position about the legal system, let’s hear it, if a new trial is needed then so be it. But, all this stinks of lame rationalization and invented victimhood.
“Enough is enough. This case should have been dismissed ages ago due to the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Even murder cases are dismissed for such misconduct. Despite a judge’s recent holding there is no requirement for a defendant to be present for such hearings and rulings based on misconduct.”
The only ‘enough’ that there has been ‘enough’ of is apologists and excuse-makers for Polanski. If there is/was such misconduct, let him prove it. There have been 30 years of guard changes in the legal system, and no prosecutor would go after such a public figure unless the case was tight. And by the way, the presence of misconduct doesn’t actually open a door through time and un-rape the girl.
ReplyGreat case; include at the end , “Or unsodimize her” He admitted to that as well.@I’m on the bidet:
ReplyI find it hard to believe that anyone can stick up for this scumbag. He had sex with a 13 year old. He was OLD enough to know better. This according to gossip (and yes that means it isn’t proven) was not the first time he had had sex with an underaged girl.
ReplyIf he is allowed to go free after 31 years, then what we are saying to children who were molested, raped, and violated is that it is okay for a man or woman to ruin their lives by raping them, violating them etc. and that person can get off free just because time has passed.
Yes, the woman he had sex with has forgiven him, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there that need to know that we will NOT rest until their violator has been punished.
How much money will I get back for selling a ps3 to gamestop?
Reply@I’m on the bidet:
ReplyAwesome argument IOTB. Are you familiar with this case? I think Liz E. was stating her opinion as “fact.” I’m still trying to figure out if the statements she made are fact or not. Even if they are fact, and there was some kind of misconduct … that does not take away the fact that Polanski had sex with a minor child, and he most certainly WAS old enough to know better. What a pig … and that is MY opinion. Also, just because there are claims of misconduct does not mean there would be a finding of misconduct. So I’m not sure how any of this can be “fact.” Also, in our state, it IS required that a felon be present for all hearings. I’m not sure what Liz was talking about there at the end. I don’t know if that’s the case in California … so much I don’t know about because I have never followed the case or read up on it. I just don’t get it. How can a KNOWN and convicted child molester, who has evaded prison, have a public career? Okay … this case has no officially piqued my interest. I understand the technicality spin defense attorneys use and I understand it very well. Sometimes the charges are ridiculous, sometimes they are not. I am not sure exactly how some of Liz’s claims could or would be public record. But I think I’ll start digging a bit. I sincerely doubt it is going to matter how much time has elapsed …
I wonder why a 13 year old was left unsupervised and alone with a middle-aged male.
Where were her parents when the teen was raped?
Polanski should face the music. His sentence will probably be a light one; then after his release he can look forward to being treated like a returning hero in Hollyweird!
Not that it’s ok, imo! Hollyweird seems to reward the evildoers. The nice guys esp. “WASP’s” finish last.
ReplyAgain, jmo!
@Alif:
Unsupervised would not be the word, Alif, no one gave a crap at that party. That is why it happened and I would bet she was not the first, or the last. RP, is just one of his circle of friends who had sex with underage girls. That was the party scene.
For every person that defends this, close your eyes, visualize, him sodomizing , holding her from behind, pulling down her bathing suit in the hot tub as she cries,while others party near by , and no one came to help her. I can not believe anyone can defend him at all. His piggy partner JN , I wish someone would expose him, glad that McKensie had her say about MJ. All of this is just my opinion though, and I have no intention of debating it. I am on the Bidet, very impressed, excellent summary of what most of us feel.
Reply@Alif:
well, she was a runaway/hooker so she was sexually experienced. Polanski is old and should be let off the hook!
Reply@Kate:
BIll Wyman married Mandy Smith at the age of 16 after dating her since the age of 13!!!!! He claimed they didn’t have sex until she was 16 but would you believe a man of his age would wait for a girl for 3 years before getting his leg over? As if. It was widely known and they whitewashed/sanitised it by making it legal. They were even on early evening chat show Wogan talking about it for goodness sake, I remember it vividly from my childhood. They all knew what was going on and IMO they were all at it. Child abuse like heroin abuse is just another one of HW’s big dark, dirty secrets in my view. And as to where the parents were in all this, well apparently Mandy Smith’s mum took her and her sister out clubbing. Just like Mr and Mrs Hilton did with Paris and Nicky (and look how that turned out). There are many, many diabolically bad parents in the world and consequently plenty of easy targets for paedphiles.
ReplyHaving a rational discussion about the case and trying to objectively examine its strengths and weaknesses is not the same as defending the behavior of “this man.” You can call this man every bad thing you’d like and I would probably agree with you but that doesn’t advance the discussion. I am quite familiar with these cases and there are always different degrees of guilt. That’s why sexual assault, as almost all criminal offenses, has various charging levels and why sentences differ. Criminal offenses are rarely a one size fits all proposition.
Every case is different and each case has to be examined by those working the case to resolve it appropriately. This is what they did 31 years ago. No matter what the press may have you believe there are factors that we may never be privy to which almost certainly guided their decisions. Personally I found her grand jury testimony less than credible at points and I’m sure the prosecutors were concerned with it as well. It is one thing to give a well prepared presentation to a group of unschooled grand jurors who rarely challenge what is presented to them by the prosecutor. It is quite another thing to have its accuracy stand up to serious questioning by an experienced trial attorney. We really have no idea how much was the absolute truth. What we can probably safely assume, however, is that what Polanski pled guilty to happened. He had sexual intercourse with a minor.
You know there are times when a witness – victims and even defendants – does not want his/her stories to face the challenges at trial because they know they were not completely truthful to the police, to the Grand Jury, to their own lawyers, to their mothers, etc. They can come up with all kinds of excuses – “I just want to plead guilty and get it over with,” “I can’t relive my assault,” or “I can’t face the defendant” and on and on – but sometimes it is simply because they don’t want to be found to have lied.
As for court hearings: there are some pretrial and posttrial hearings where a defendant’s presence is not required. In my jurisdiction a defendant can waive his presence for certain hearings that involve only legal arguments, e.g., a hearing to decide jury instructions. Appellate arguments also never require a defendant’s presence. If a defendant fails to return to court during the middle of a trial, the trial and verdict goes on without his presence. In any event, I’d have to review the judge’s holding when he dismissed Polanski’s motion to dismiss based on misconduct in his case and why he ruled Polanksi needed to be there. The judge was clear, however, that he found substantial merit in Polanski’s arguments.
It is a very interesting case. And not even because Polanski is involved. That’s actually for me the least interesting aspect of it.
ReplyI’m sorry to disagree with you, Liz, but I think you misunderstand the nature of a plea agreement.
A plea agreement is negotiated between prosecutors and criminal defendants to facilitate and expedite justice. But because sentencing is solely within the authority of the judge and entirely outside the authority of either of the negotiating parties, no plea agreement can ever provide for anything other than a RECOMMENDATION to the judge with respect to sentencing. In other words, the deal Polanski negotiated included a sentencing RECOMMENDATION, but no guarantee of what his sentence would be.
Upon learning that the judge was not going to accept the RECOMENDATION, Mr. Polanski then compounded his crimes by fleeing the jurisdiction.
And while a forum and formal process exists whereby Mr. Polanski can raise any claims of judicial misconduct he feels he may have, he has repeatedly chosen not to avail himself of it.
From the time he committed the crimes he pled guilty to until the present, Mr. Polanski has shown nothing but disrespect for the laws of our society. But while he may prefer to live in a state of anarchy, most people would not.
Reply@Kate:
Do you know who Nancy Grace is? She’s a hard-hitting reporter, (and I mean just that!).
Her history includes such a brow-beating of a young Asian woman…giving her the third degree.
What the woman did, my memory fails me at the moment. The disgraced (no pun intended) lady subsequently committed suicide. NG refused to blame herself. But I think she should have because in certain Asian cultures, public disgrace is followed by the suicide of the one humiliated.
It seems to me that Nancy Grace was culturally ignorant, or insensitive, or both.
The description you made of the rape was also graphically explained on Nancy Grace’s show.
I”m not a fan of NG but she does stand up for her beliefs. And it is a different news reporting style than the past with which I’m familiar.
Her influence has already put a sound-alike woman on a different time slot on the same site.
I did read about the parties at JN’s house and the fact he was out of town when it happened. Just didn’t know about the character of the teen. Hmmm!
ReplyRead that the now grown victim rec’d a large settement, and publicly “forgave” Polanski.
Incidentally, She had a large, “can’t miss” article in The Los Angeles Times during the oscar voting season of a few years ago. (According to a reporter/blogger).
She argued that the voters shouldn’t deny Polanski the oscar because of that long ago incident. She stated that she had forgiven him, and therefore, the academy should do likewise.
As I stated, this large article was published during the oscar voting period , in a newspaper that the great majority of voters were likely to see.
Roman Polanski won the oscar for Best Director, for “The Pianist”. The favorite up to then had been Rob Marshall, for “Chicago”. He had triumphed at the Directors Guild of America (DGA) Awards, winning their Best Director award.
Father Polanski Would Go to Jail
THIS CATHOLIC’S VIEW
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse.
And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?
The president and cultural minister of France, where Polanski has been protected for years, objected when the Swiss arrested Polanski at the Zurich airport when he arrived to attend a film festival at which he was to be honored. Good for the Swiss. Good for the Los Angeles prosecutors who have not given up on this case.
Polanski’s defenders, including a 2008 HBO documentary, argue that he should not be punished. They say that the girl was willing and sexually experienced and she has forgiven him (after receiving a settlement). They even cite his tragic childhood and life as an excuse. And besides, it is ancient history.
Such arguments from pedophile priests would be laughed out of court and lambasted by everyone, and rightly so. It makes no difference that the girl is willing and sexually experienced, it is a crime. It is the role of the court, not the victim, to decide who goes to jail and for how long.
It is not as if Polanski is the only Hollywood celebrity to be accused of child abuse. Woody Allen and Michael Jackson come to mind. I am sure that with a little research the media could come up with quite a list. The Catholic Church has rightly been put under a microscope when 4 percent of its priests were involved in abuse, but what about the film industry?
The world has truly changed. Entertainment is the new religion with sex, violence and money the new Trinity. The directors and stars are worshiped and quickly forgiven for any infraction as long as the PR agent is a skilled as a saintly confessor. Entertainment, not religion, is the new opiate of the people and we don’t want our supply disturbed.
Is there a double standard here? You bet.
ReplyI wonder if that was part of her ’settlement’.@Alif:
ReplyWhen someone leaves the country before final sentencing, does the plea stand or must it be revisited?
Replyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez30-2009sep30,0,4549479.column
Worth the read…..
ReplyFor Togi….
Replyhttp://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html@Togi:
Reply@Alif:
Hi Alif, yes, I know the young woman you are talking about, she went into a closet in grandparents home with his shotgun and blew her head off, why, because she had murdered hey baby son, lied, partied, manipulated everyone around her, including her parents, her grandparents, her ex-husband, all of her friends. She stupidly , (Melinda, I believe was her name) broke into his myspace account and changed his password, she left a trail all over the place. It was a very sad heartbreaking case. Why, she did not want him to have the little boy. How sad is that.
I know who Nancy is, don’t like her at all, but yes she does stand up for victims , but she did not make Melinda do that. If you look at the case,she had found out the police were coming to arrest her, so she took her own life before they could do that.
As far RP, I don’t care how talented the man is, or if she was a runaway,a hooker , or how long it has been, she was 13 years old. He drugged her, her gave her alcohol, he sodomized her as she cried in the hot tub, with others nearby, he had sex with her,he admits he had sex with an underage minor, she testified that she protested.
So do we just say, oh well she was a bad little girl, too bad, or he is such a great director he gets a pass. No, we do not because then we are setting a precedent. The article about the priest is spot on. Look at what Whoopi said, it was not rape-rape, , the girl was 13 years old. yes it was rape, she was pleading with him to stop. Let’s give him the benefit of doubt and say she wasn’t, teachers go to jail for having sex with boys older than this that, do they get a free pass? Is a teacher 22 years old having sex with a 14 year old boy off the hook? No.
Oh RP is so nice, says his ex sister in law, soooooo. JN was out of town, yes I know that, but he stood up for RP’s character, what does that say about him.
AS I said, I am no fan of Nancy Grace, but I admire her determination to stand for the victim. I am well aware of the customs in the Asian community, I have relatives in the islands, and 3 little nieces that adopted from asia. Nancy has made many mistakes stemmed from her fiance being shot in the head and killed when they were in college, something she has never gotten over. Worse than her is Tom Steddon, sometimes one needs to retire.
I understand what you mean though, she was very very tough on Melinda, and she was already mentally unstable. That is why she was living with the grandparents to begin with. The entire case was a mess. I am not a big fan of people being convicted in the media, I prefer the system the UK uses. I really do not think information should be released to the public until after the trial. The jury pool was flooded long before she died. She would have most likely gotten the death penalty in Florida. Sadly, for such a young girl.
Did I say Whoopi is crazy, as is the rest of these stars sticking of for him. sorry, come back Roman,take this like a man, no judge at this point is going to give him 50 years. I wonder at his age now, does he understand the magnitude truly of what he did? All these stars that are petitioning for him, do they pimp out their young daughters, would they be okay with it, I wonder?
If this was not just a Priest, but just someone that Hollywood hates, can you imagine, just pick anyone, throw a dart, and think about it. They would not be given a pass. Do I want him to do 50 , 30, 20, 10 years, no, but I do want him to do some jail time. He got off to easy.
ReplyNo need to apologize for a differing opinion, GMP. That’s what makes discussion interesting. Generally you are right but that is not always the case.
Plea agreements can and do include an agreed upon sentencing component. In many jurisdictions if the judge does not agree with the recommended or agreed to sentence then the defendant can withdraw his guily plea and schedule a trial. In Polanski’s case this was a very structured plea agreement with the sentence requested by the prosecution a foregone conclusion. That is why even the Los Angeles prosecutors from the original case have been protesting Judge Rittenband‘s conduct for decades. I was rather surprised that these prosecutors were sympathetic to Polanksi’s fleeing but then they were the ones who knew all the ins and outs of the case better than anyone. Rittenband’s conduct in blatantly kowtowing to the lobbying by local media and bragging that he was going to exceed the plea agreement was almost as serious judicial misconduct as you can get. Judge Rittenband’s last minute stated intention in this case was a disservice to the criminal justice system. It wasn’t just that he was secretly devising a new sentence: it was how and why he was doing it.
Plea agreements serve everyone: defendants, courts, victims, the public. But defendants must be able to rely upon them and trust them or they will avoid them like the plague and force all cases to trial. A government victory in the Polanski case was an iffy venture. I personally think they wouldn’t have gotten a conviction on anything except the charge he pled in the agreement. If the victim had balked and refused to cooperate they would have ended up with nothing.
I agree with you. Of course, Polanski shouldn’t have fled but under the circumstances even the original prosecutors were sympathetic. In reality Polanski has been trying to settle this case for decades by offering to return to the U.S. His lawyers were trying to arrange that he be taken immediately from the plane to court for the original plea agreement to be enforced.
This case just gets more interesting. I appreciate your thoughtful opinion.
ReplyRegardless of the era it took place, statutory rape implies consent with the minor. He raped her. Drugged her and raped her. It is unfathomable that anyone could rationalize it. Imagine if it was you. You’re uncle, your teacher, your priest, your neighbor, your boss at the fast food joint, plying YOU with quaaludes after your parent has left you alone with them. Imagine if it was your son or daughter who was assaulted and then heard “This is our secret”
I say, let him come back, sentence him as the laws in that time dictated or the plea agreement said. Have him serve time for fleeing and a fine equal to the amount of the young girls counseling, medical bills, and the LA prosecutors/lawyers on the extradition pay.
Due course is done. Many horrible folks get a plea bargain. He was told he had one, so that is that.
Now for Whoopi. She’s a moron to say it wasn’t rape rape . WHA??? Jay Leno had a great monologue last night. For Debra Winger. Has been. JN…who cares about him. Woody Allen. Shit. I haven’t seen any of his movies since he molested his daughter and then waited until she was of age to photograph and marry her (yeah, I don’t believe it started after she became an adult). Martin Scorceses. I barely like his movies anyway. I reviewed the list of folks that signed the petition. Didn’t recognize any names of relevance in the American film industry. European perhaps, but color me uncultured, I haven’t seen many foreign films of late (or American for that matter).
ReplyOne final thought. It never ceases to amaze me how women undermine the protection of our sisters, mothers, and daughters by portending to be “objective” and rallying around in speech or writing the merits of rapists and abusers. We pretend to be unemotional and educated while we play ‘devil’s advocate’ to determine whether their was an underlying cause that could some how excuse the behavior. Until women –regardless of nationality, ethnicity, orientation –realize we are our strength and band together against depravity toward children we will continue to have children’s victimized by those bigger, stronger, or more clever than them.
The so called raped girl who was sold by her mother should have prosecuted every damn man who entered her pussy, her mouth or her ass.
She was sexually active with anyone her mother felt fine to sell her too.
And Polanski was one of them. That’s all there is to say about this.
American justice on that story is a joke, like it usually is anyway. It sucks. And they know it so well, everyone is VERY embarassed. Let’s now see what they really wanted politically speaking from dear Sarkozy … since it’s all there is really to know about such a stupid thing.
Replyhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/3/
ReplyJust a quick correction. I wouldn’t characterize him as plying her with ludes. I’d have to read the transcript again for her version but I remember she indicated she wanted to take a lude and she was given a portion of one. She insisted to Polanski that she had experience with them and knew what effect they would have on her when he questioned if she knew what a lude was and its effects. Not sure who here has real life experience with quaaludes but back in my day they were quite popular for a while. I’m not sure how effective the referenced third of a quualude she consumed would have been. I think the champagne she drank with Polanski and Angelica Huston probably had more of an effect on her.
Polanski’s actions were wrong but there is no need to exaggerate.
Reply@French Chick: Why the hatefulness. We disagree. The majority of the posters here believe that giving a child drugs and alcohol and then pinning her to then put your penis inside would constitute rape of a child. Apparently you feel there are mitigating circumstances. Again the majority on this post disagree. I believe the girl should not have been victimized just because the mother was horrid. Just because in my life I’ve had a beer and sex with a man doesn’t mean tomorrow when I’m drinking at a bar a man can pull me into the bathroom and rape me. So regardless of the fact that she may or may not have had a drink , drugs or consensual sex before, she did not consent to sex with RP.
ReplyI say France can keep him.
@biggie:
ReplyThanks for the great read, biggie. You saved me from having to do my own searching! LOL.
@biggie:
It could well be. So many things I’ve read and heard about Hwd, I can’t put out there. But it’s not news that from the beginning there has been felonies committed by stars and directors that were covered up by the studio heads.
Orchestrating the oscar voting process has also been done from the beginning. After tons of research I am no longer a fan of the oscars, but enjoy some of the actors I admire going nuts over that statuette.
If I’m not mistaken the man who is collecting all those signatures is known for influencing the oscars. He requently has contenders among the hopefuls. He could well be collectiing IOU’s with his current politicking.
KATE!
ReplyThanks for clearing that up. My views are the same as the priest’s, btw.
I can’t believe the filth that inhabit Hollywood are defending this guy and Woodie Allen for that matter. Pigs. Just because the girl’s scummy parents (who let her go Jack Nicholson’s at the age of 13) took hush money from the rapist doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape. If he killed her, wouldn’t it still be murder?
Reply