[Stratego]

Your thoughts and opinions on the recent news of his arrest, if you care to share any.

Link to the news article
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[RBM]

I browsed the link - but seemed mostly posturing by either side. Is there an LA prosecutor involved who has political aspirations ?

[Cincinnatus]

I wondered if this would ever be rekindled. Thirty-one years is a long time. This will have to be one of those to watch just to see how it is handled. I'll let others make up their mind on the rest.

[Nemesis]

I watched a few documentaries about Roman P. a while back. The details of the incident that spawned this mess seem pretty shaky as is. None of that matters because this will just turn into another media/celebrity circus. I love how the actors and actresses cited in the article use "he's a good director" as a reason to call the arrest awful. Expect to see the media and the Hollywood shit-heads line up to dry hump this fiasco for publicity. Kick back and enjoy the dog and pony show.

[Holiman]

The facts of the case were pretty cut and dry; He gave a 13 year old girl drugs, he had sex with a 13 year old girl.


He was guilty he fled....

[darynthe]

Pedophilia and rape, plus escaping from justice. Where is the dillema here? He just has to serve his time like any other child rapist. No?

[Mogura]

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. Served time as per the plea bargain. The judge reneged on the bargain. He fled. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but an unethical judge tampered with the system. What would you do if the system failed you because it was unethically engineered against you, as was the situation?

Case should be thrown out. Even the victim has called for it to be dismissed.

He should have served time for the crime. But the court fucked that up, and the court should be held accountable (removal from the bench, disbarment, etc.) for not being able to serve justice.

The media's trumping up the child sex part, no doubt to sell more tabloids due to sensationalism...

[Profit]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The facts of the case were pretty cut and dry; He gave a 13 year old girl drugs, he had sex with a 13 year old girl. He was guilty he fled....

Short and sweet Holiman.....

As an amateur movie buff I've always found the international film communities embrace of Polanski as well, disgusting. Has he made some good films, of course, is he a talented director, absolutely, is he a child rapists, probably. I just don't understand how you can put the man on a pedestal for his art and simply ignore a crime because it happened 30 years ago. What is odd about his arrest though is why now? If you were going to issue the international arrest warrant why wait so long? That being said he should have to answer for his actions.

[rickster]

	Originally Posted by darynthe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pedophilia and rape, plus escaping from justice. Where is the dillema here? He just has to serve his time like any other child rapist. No?

Get your facts straight. He didn't rape her. When you confuse the rarely-used term "statutory rape" with rape you do all rape victims a disservice, and wrongly vilify the man.

Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. Served time as per the plea bargain. The judge reneged on the bargain. He fled. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but an unethical judge tampered with the system. What would you do if the system failed you because it was unethically engineered against you, as was the situation? Case should be thrown out. Even the victim has called for it to be dismissed. He should have served time for the crime. But the court fucked that up, and the court should be held accountable (removal from the bench, disbarment, etc.) for not being able to serve justice. The media's trumping up the child sex part, no doubt to sell more tabloids due to sensationalism...

That's about it. What's particularly scary is US law fucked up, but yet other countries aren't nearly as hesitant as they should be when it comes to assisting American extradition demands.

And since I'm becoming sick of Americans and their obsession with sex crimes I'd say all countries need to take a stand against the US, and tell them to shove it when it comes to extraditing cases like this.

[Profit]

	Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Get your facts straight. He didn't rape her. When you confuse the rarely-used term "statutory rape" with rape you do all rape victims a disservice, and wrongly vilify the man.

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

Most legislatures include statutory rape provisions in statutes that punish a number of different types of sexual assault. Statutory rape is different from other types of rape in that force and lack of consent are not necessary for conviction. A defendant may be convicted of statutory rape even if the complainant explicitly consented to the sexual contact and no force was used by the actor. By contrast, other rape generally occurs when a person overcomes another person by force and without the person's consent.

Samantha Geimer's Account of the sexual assault:

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.

[rickster]

Oh so we're going to re prosecute and re-try the case right here on the Forum? She does indeed describe rape but he was not charged with rape. And last time I checked, an unverified transcript from "Larry King Live" 26 years after the fact ain't a court document.

Now while I have a very clear understanding of what rape is, the victim - after 26 years - really needs to have the last word. Her ongoing trauma has been caused by the aftermath - the Second Rape By The System which so many victims complain so bitterly about.

It's a pity you didn't quote her statements regarding his sentence, and her agreement to it:

GEIMER: We were -- every one was comfortable with that. That's what we wanted.

KING: Your mother was happy about that?

GEIMER: Yes. I never even asked for him to be put in jail.

KING: Your father was with it?

GEIMER: Well, I don't know about that, although I didn't talk to him about it.

KING: You didn't think he deserved more time in jail?

GEIMER: No and the publicity was so traumatic and so horrible that, I mean, his punishment was secondary to just getting this whole thing to stop. I mean, it was crazy. There was people outside my house and, you know, it was horrible.

KING: And his life, of course, would never be -- he would always be -- and he will be if he wins these awards, it's always going to say when he passes on in the first paragraph of the obituary, Roman Polanski who...

GEIMER: Right. So, I mean, that's his form of punishment in itself. I think everyone finding out about it when you're a celebrity that's a high price to pay in itself.


And she has continually maintained this stance:

Samantha Geimer, 45, has filed a legal declaration claiming she is being harmed by renewed focus on what happened to her when she was 13. She believes prosecutors are revealing sexually explicit details to distract attention from allegations of wrongdoing against them and the judge who initially heard the case. Ms Geimer said she would be willing to appear in court - if Polanski cannot - to urge that the case is dismissed.

It's all very well and good to say we support victims' rights, but apparently in this case the victim has no rights whatsoever to be heard on the matter.

[themuzicman]

Rule #1: If you don't want to go to jail, Obey the law.

If memory serves, fleeing stops any statue of limitations, so he's coming back.

[TemperateSloth]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I browsed the link - but seemed mostly posturing by either side. Is there an LA prosecutor involved who has political aspirations ?

There have been rumors, unconfirmed for now, that the current Los Angeles County DA eventually might like to run for governor of California. Though there have not been any rumblings in our local media about the topic from the DA himself. This is his website for the DA's office:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Another link from a Salon article re: Roman Polanski's current legal situation:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


As to rape vs. statutory rape, for as long as I can remember, the "age of consent" in California has been 18 years-of-age.

[RBM]

Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. Served time as per the plea bargain. The judge reneged on the bargain. He fled. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but an unethical judge tampered with the system. What would you do if the system failed you because it was unethically engineered against you, as was the situation? Case should be thrown out. Even the victim has called for it to be dismissed. He should have served time for the crime. But the court fucked that up, and the court should be held accountable (removal from the bench, disbarment, etc.) for not being able to serve justice. The media's trumping up the child sex part, no doubt to sell more tabloids due to sensationalism...

I don't see this being weighed in the discussion at all. Seems most already have there 'facts' selected for their opinion.

[Holiman]

There are plenty of way to handle an 'unethical judge' or failed system problems he had the money and lawyers available to handle this he instead chose to flee the US and hide. The victim was paid well and chooses now to forgive and move on but the system still deserves its payback so to say it as simple as possible..... Screw Roman Polanski I hope he serves life, I have a 13 year old girl and drugging and raping a child is a sick crime, compounded by fleeing jurisdiction these are things he is guilty of, that he does not nor can he deny. So why should we care about anything else brought up about this case ?

[Hamburglar]

Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are plenty of way to handle an 'unethical judge' or failed system problems he had the money and lawyers available to handle this he instead chose to flee the US and hide. The victim was paid well and chooses now to forgive and move on but the system still deserves its payback so to say it as simple as possible..... Screw Roman Polanski I hope he serves life, I have a 13 year old girl and drugging and raping a child is a sick crime, compounded by fleeing jurisdiction these are things he is guilty of, that he does not nor can he deny. So why should we care about anything else brought up about this case ?

You're the arbiter of good and bad?

[wardo]

Let's see... Old man has sex with 13 year old girl. Flees. Decades later, he is brought in. How can anyone protest against justice being served, late or not?

I think the courts should slap much harsher than usual penalties on the extravagently rich and famous, instead of the inevitable slap on the wrist.

[Valiyn]

US Sex laws are some of the strangest and unjust laws of concerning sex there are.[source: The Economist] Not to mention, justice is not about revenge but fairness. If both the victim and the guilty think the ruling/punishment is unfair, is justice served? No it is not, because in no way does the sentence address the problem in that case. "We're going to lock you away for life for something your victim doesn't believe you should suffer for anymore" - yea, I would run too because that's not justice.

At the same time, an unethical judge doesn't change the ruling. But the system should uphold it's original word or the faith that citizen's must have in the law for it to be effective would diminish slightly. If the people do no believe the law to be just and truthful with them, they will fight (sometimes violently) with anyone who tries to enforce it on them - making the law ineffective at best.

[darynthe]

	Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Get your facts straight. He didn't rape her. When you confuse the rarely-used term "statutory rape" with rape you do all rape victims a disservice, and wrongly vilify the man..

Listen, you must be a great fan of the guy, but honestly. If drugging a child and forcing all kinds of sex acts on her as she says no no no isn't rape then God is my witness I truly don't know what is a crime. I don't care if they made a bargain and called it a trip in the park.

I don't know what would I do if someone did this to a child of mine.

He paid handsomely, but this kind of crimes should be paid with time, not with cash. The victim may be happy about it now for all I care. Truth is that justice is the same for all and the punishment is due to make example and to regenerate the person so he doesn't commit a crime again.

Why should Mr Polanski be spared this just because he is rich and famous?

[Bobert]

I don't know. Sounds like someone has a bug up their ass about Polanski. Maybe recognition or bonus? IDK.
On the other side, what is the US Statute of Limitations?
As darynthe points out, what if Polanski were Joe Schmo down the street?

Technically, it's rape. Was is forceable rape? IDK, I wasn't there.
But I've known some pretty "active" 13 year olds.

Oh, what would Romeo and Juliet have said?

Anyway, I try to remain neutral with so little knowledge of the facts.

[Profit]

	Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh so we're going to re prosecute and re-try the case right here on the Forum? She does indeed describe rape but he was not charged with rape.

He was initially charged with rape by the police. The victims testimony in court makes it clear that she was raped.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


He accepted a plea bargain that dropped the charges to unlawful sex with a minor. You can argue that the judge was going to unfairly renege on the plea bargain deal but it was in his power to send Polanski to jail and have him deported. Was this unjust, perhaps. There are a lot of unjust aspect to US law, crack and cocaine charges are a great example.

I personally have no sympathy for this man though. Seeing how he has won Academy Awards, been elected to the Académie des Beaux-Arts, awarded a lifetime achievement "Golden Icon Award" by the Zurich Film Festival, and won numerous other awards for his films since the crime while living a luxurious life I can't see how his life or career have suffered on the same level as young girl who was the victim of a sex crime.



If you want to debate the nature of US sex laws I'll be happy to take part, we might actually agree on a lot of things. Please don't start this debate by setting up Polanski as some type of victim though.

[rickster]

	Originally Posted by darynthe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Listen, you must be a great fan of the guy, but honestly. If drugging a child and forcing all kinds of sex acts on her as she says no no no isn't rape then God is my witness I truly don't know what is a crime. I don't care if they made a bargain and called it a trip in the park.

Originally Posted by Profit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He was initially charged with rape by the police. The victims testimony in court makes it clear that she was raped. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. He accepted a plea bargain that dropped the charges to unlawful sex with a minor. You can argue that the judge was going to unfairly renege on the plea bargain deal but it was in his power to send Polanski to jail and have him deported. Was this unjust, perhaps. There are a lot of unjust aspect to US law, crack and cocaine charges are a great example.

I'm not a fan of Polanski, nor am I a fan of excusing rapists. I am however a fan of law, and how it serves the victim. Law has failed itself here since the stench of corruption permeates the case.

From its inceptions, common law as we know it was founded on a principle of recompense to a party for damage done by another. Common law wasn't established to serve the bloodthirsty wishes of a braying mob: it was for that very reason that mass public hangings were eventually deemed to be undesirable - and thus the establishment of incarceration.

But the Polanski case is a damned good example of how a victim's satisfaction with compensation and her campaign to have the case dismissed for her own good have become irrelevant to the general mob mentality, as underscored specifically by the mob shrieking of Americans and their current sick obsession with pedophilia and sex crimes.

[Mogura]

	Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the Polanski case is a damned good example of how a victim's satisfaction with compensation and her campaign to have the case dismissed for her own good have become irrelevant to the general mob mentality, as underscored specifically by the mob shrieking of Americans and their current sick obsession with pedophilia and sex crimes.

Hypocrisy is a passionate fucking business...

[Zombicide]

Poor Roman Polanski, having his pregnant wife murdered by the Manson family really screwed up his head. I don't know what the fuck pedophilia has to do with it but I think that just because he's the great director that he is he should be allowed to rape people and only get a slap on the wrist, I mean he is Roman Polanski after all.

[Solus]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If both the victim and the guilty think the ruling/punishment is unfair, is justice served?

That the victim thinks that the guilty should not be punished is of no importance. This is not a civil but a criminal case. It is the state that prosecutes.

On a more general note, I'd be more interested to find out why the Swiss have decided to arrest Polanski now. He's visited the country on numerous occasions before. In fact, he even has a house in Gstaad. Why then did they act on American arrest warrant now? I wonder if this has anything to do with the USB deal.