polanski

[Gromnir]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich...html#cnnSTCText

 

am curious. polanski polarizes. victimized or villain?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."

 

Gotta love it when asshats that fail to understand the basics of the rule of law get appointed to a cabinet. Happens all the time, too.

[kirottu]

Investigators in the United States say Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s. Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, but he fled the United States before he could be sentenced. He settled in France.

 

I think that says it all.

[Pidesco]

Personally I don't advocate the notion that everyone under 16 is a naive baby, so the question is what exactly happened between Polanski and the kid. However, in the eyes of the law he is definitely a criminal, obviously, so he should be punished if caught.

[Gfted1]

Whoa, are you actually saying that a 44 year old having sex with a 13 year old after drugging her is cool with you?

 

EDIT: Wiki snip;

 

Sex crime conviction

In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[33]

 

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

Edited September 29, 2009 by Gfted1

[Pidesco]

/snip

 

 

Oh, I wasn't aware about the drugging bit. Against the will is always a no-no in my book.

 

And that wiki quote doesn't sound nice at all. The story I'd heard was that the mother wasn't ignorant about the whole deal, and that the kid wasn't all innocent.

[Gorgon]

He should answer to those charges. If it was just some gold digger or a consenting (don't know if that's even possible) affair, would he have left his entire life behind to escape it ?. He's had a terrible time, but that doesn't mean anything to this case.

[Walsingham]

I can't stand the fact that just because the son of a bitch made a few good movies he's let off raping a child. WTF, people? Gary Glitter got hounded from pillar to post. Polanski gets posh inviets to film premieres?

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

I agree with this. There is no such thing as 'rape-lite'.

 

Others might not put it so crudely, but plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't "really" rape.

 

According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not "rape-rape" so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as "rape-lite". According to Goldberg, Polanski didn't want to spend time in prison for this minor infraction, so of course he jumped bail.

[Killian Kalthorne]

WHat he did was criminal and he should be punished by the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A child can not give consent.

 

Edit: Also he needs to be punished for fleeing from justice, also a very serious felony (but not if you donate to the Bill Clinton library)

Edited September 29, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[213374U]

A child can not give consent.

Debatable.

[Wrath of Dagon]

A child can not give consent.

Debatable.

That's the law, and anyone should be able to see a 13 yr old doesn't have the judgment required.

[Gfted1]

Personally I don't advocate the notion that everyone under 16 is a naive baby...

 

A child can not give consent.

Debatable.

 

So how young do you two feel you can go?

[Gorgon]

Depends on the age of both, no need to even ask that a question if you are an adult. You bloody well know.

[Gfted1]

Depends on the age of both, no need to even ask that a question if you are an adult. You bloody well know.

 

 

Hmm, interesting response, but with that and the above posts, if the minor is "old enough" to decide on consentual sex what difference does it make the age of the adult?

[Gorgon]

It makes a difference in law in many countries. I think the idea here is that an older adult will have all sorts of advantages in manipulating a very young person, and ought to know better. This is not necessarily the case if they are the same age.

 

13 is definitely too young. I suppose that's a personal judgment, but why push the limit, find someone closer to your own age instead.

[HoonDing]

Edit: Also he needs to be punished for fleeing from justice, also a very serious felony (but not if you donate to the Bill Clinton library)

What do you mean?

[Gorgon]

I'm guessing he wants to link in one of the Clinton pardons.

[213374U]

That's the law

I'm not disputing that. Laws come and go, though.

 

 

and anyone should be able to see a 13 yr old doesn't have the judgment required.

Yes, and anyone should be able to see that the Earth is flat. Only, it isn't.

 

A 13 yr old doesn't have the judgement required. How about a 14-and-a-day year old? How about a 17 year old? What exactly are you basing those frankly random statements on, other than anecdotal evidence and cultural indoctrination?

 

I said it's "debatable" because "a child" can be about anything you want. You also don't explain why "a child" cannot give consent.

 

This is, of course, tangential, as in this particular case, the victim did NOT consent. Mind you, I am NOT defending Polanski. It's just that these automatic value judgements rub me off the wrong way.

 

 

So how young do you two feel you can go?

No idea. Why don't you tell me?

 

That's precisely what I meant by "debatable".

[Volourn]

Fry the bastard.

[Gfted1]

So how young do you two feel you can go?

No idea. Why don't you tell me?

 

That's precisely what I meant by "debatable".

 

 

Well, I have a daughter so my answer is "sometime after I die".

 

TBH, I dont have a concrete answer. IMO, any adult engaging in sex with a minor is a crime, but of course the example of an 18 year old w/ a 17 year old girlfriend getting in trouble sounds silly right?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm guessing he wants to link in one of the Clinton pardons.

Marc Rich specifically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

 

A 13 yr old doesn't have the judgement required. How about a 14-and-a-day year old? How about a 17 year old? What exactly are you basing those frankly random statements on, other than anecdotal evidence and cultural indoctrination?

 

I said it's "debatable" because "a child" can be about anything you want. You also don't explain why "a child" cannot give consent.

 

This is, of course, tangential, as in this particular case, the victim did NOT consent. Mind you, I am NOT defending Polanski. It's just that these automatic value judgements rub me off the wrong way.

 

Automatic value judgments? And what do you propose to substitute? Shall we argue whether it's wrong to murder people? That's an automatic value judgment, isn't it? You have to draw the line somewhere, and usually it's pretty clear where it needs to be drawn.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

A child can not give consent.

Debatable.

 

Actually, it has BEEN debated. in Parliament. And in Congress. At length. By democratically elected representatives. Hence it's the law.

 

In England the minimum age is 16 years. Now, at 15 years, 11 months, and 28 days I'd be willing to concede leniency. 13 years is not just wrong, it's obviously wrong. A 13 year old does not even look like they're old enough to give consent.

[Dark_Raven]

He needs to go to prison so he can be gang banged by the inmates.