It can't really be argued IMO that he wouldn't have plead guilty if he'd known what sentence he'd have gotten because we actually don't know what sentence he'd have gotten, since he never got his final sentence. He fled the country rather than face that.

 

Just because the judge mentioned that something was possible doesn't mean that it would have actually happened (and arguably he'd have had ground to appeal, depending on what had been brokered in the deal).

 

He pled quilty to statutory rape, nothing else. Here's a quote from wikipedia, not the most trustful of sources but as far as I know the truth:

 

Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that he would imprison and then deport him. Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France in February 1978 hours before he was to be formally sentenced

 

Now naturally the judge COULD have given him probation, we'll never know right? You gotta admit though, it wasn't very likely. Also Polanski paid the victim a ****load of cash. Now I know it don't make it right, naturally not, but still that's a lot more than most "rape" victims get.

Now naturally the judge COULD have given him probation, we'll never know right? You gotta admit though, it wasn't very likely. Also Polanski paid the victim a ****load of cash. Now I know it don't make it right, naturally not, but still that's a lot more than most "rape" victims get.

 

And most rapists don't have the excuse of having had their near full-term pregnant wife brutally (and I mean BRUTALLY) murdered by the Manson family. Of course, I would have probably killed myself instead of starting to bang kids, but, yeah.

I don't see how anyone can say that having bad things happen to oneself gives a license to somebody to victimize someone else.

I don't see how anyone can say that having bad things happen to oneself gives a license to somebody to victimize someone else.

 

It doesn't. But it makes me feel sorry for the guy, unlike for basically every other pedo who deserve everything they get, and generally then some.

It doesn't. But it makes me feel sorry for the guy, unlike for basically every other pedo who deserve everything they get, and generally then some.

 

 

Hold up. I think its pretty well established that poop rolls downhill and that most pedos are themselves prior victims of a pedo. Why no love for them then? AFAIK, very few are "born pedos".

What Gfted1 said.

It doesn't. But it makes me feel sorry for the guy, unlike for basically every other pedo who deserve everything they get, and generally then some.

 

 

Hold up. I think its pretty well established that poop rolls downhill and that most pedos are themselves prior victims of a pedo. Why no love for them then? AFAIK, very few are "born pedos".

 

I'd go with the "get help" line here.

That's no doubt a preferred method of treatment.

 

But if you're going to excuse Polanski based on hardships in his past, you have to hold others to the same standards IMO.

 

 

Unless you're pulling a Whoopi Goldberg.

"And most rapists don't have the excuse of having had their near full-term pregnant wife brutally (and I mean BRUTALLY) murdered by the Manson family."

 

No excuse. In fact, being a victim of some hienous crap should have made him a better eprson. It's not like he was some young guy even then.

 

And, by the way, unless youa re willing to call the victim a liar, it was gflat out rape as she repeatedly said no which he ignored then she proceeded to give up as fighting the grown up man was a useless fight.

 

Quite frankly, Polanski isn't justa rapist, he's a stupid one. Because he spent more time in prison in Swissland 9before he paid tog et out) then he ever would have if he had surrendered himself to the court all thsoe decades ago.

 

But, he's a rapist but a 'popualr' rapist so let him free.

My guess is this whole thing is probably about the Swiss making an easy $4.5 million.

 

I'm going with this as well. The Swiss let the Nazi's grease their palms to store their stolen loot. After that, pulling a few million bucks to let a rapist go free isn't much of a stretch.

That's no doubt a preferred method of treatment.

 

But if you're going to excuse Polanski based on hardships in his past, you have to hold others to the same standards IMO.

 

 

Unless you're pulling a Whoopi Goldberg.

 

I know I should. I also should have given this thing a lot more thought before I started gobbing off.

I'm probably alone, but am willing to cut Polanski a lot of slack. Anyone would be pretty ****ed up by what happened to him (or his wife, to be specific) and he was never proven guilty (he plea bargained to some bs charge, but the judge bypassed the bargain part and stuck with the plea). So there's some "variables" in this case that make even an ex-prosecutor like me kind of uneasy about the whole thing.

 

While I applaud your kind impulse, I believe you are misplacing it. The point is not how many pedos are abused. The point is how few abused people become pedos.

 

Do you forgive a man who deliberately infects others with HIV because he has HIV? I don't think so.

Is he really a pedo though, or just a horny bastard who didn't care.

 

I mean, you don't stop being attracted to children do you. If he was one she could not have been the only victim, and keeping it a secret all these years after fleeing prosecution. I dunno.

For the record I wasn't trying to jusify his actions or say he should suffer no punishment. I just think it's useless and a waste of time to go after a guy who's obviously not a habitual rapist, pedophile or a criminal and who's done time for his crime and settled the matter in civilian court already.

Edited July 17, 201015 yr by heathen

For the record I wasn't trying to jusify his actions or say he should suffer no punishment. I just think it's useless and a waste of time to go after a guy who's obviously not a habitual rapist, pedophile or a criminal and who's done time for his crime and settled the matter in civilian court already.

 

how do you know that he hasn't exploited underage girls following his flight from justice? as has been noted already, a very large % o' pedophiles were abused as children and suffer from serious and enduring traumas that does not disappear with prison time. the incidence o' recidivism is extreme high for pedophiles, even for those who voluntarily seek help. polanski, on the other hand, has shown little remorse since his flight from justice. the best we can say is that it is unlikely that polanski has abused any underage Californians since his escape.

 

as for the civil case, am not seeing the relevance. sadly, victims o' sexual abuse commonly and desire anonymity. 'course it ain't victims who bring criminal charges... is the State.

 

HA! Good Fun!

In 1976, Kinski started a romantic relationship with Roman Polanski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old. In 1979, their relationship ended at the completion of filming Polanski's Oscar-nominated Tess, in which Kinski had played the lead role

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski

 

I guess 15 and little boys are all OK in France though.

In 1976, Kinski started a romantic relationship with Roman Polanski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old. In 1979, their relationship ended at the completion of filming Polanski's Oscar-nominated Tess, in which Kinski had played the lead role

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski

 

I guess 15 and little boys are all OK in France though.

 

Age of consent is 15 in France. It is between 14-16 in the rest of the union. Most of my friends had lost their virginity by the age of 15, but it sure as hell wasn't with any 43 year olds. People like Polanski are simply pedoes, no matter what the age of consent is.

Edited July 18, 201015 yr by Meshugger

It's a bit funny how so many people get stuck on that arbitrary number that says when you can or can't have sex with someone. It's a number. It wasn't chosen by god. Ageing past it doesn't automatically mean you're mentally prepared to start your sex-life, and there's nothing that says there aren't some people who are ready before that.

It's a bit funny how so many people get stuck on that arbitrary number that says when you can or can't have sex with someone. It's a number. It wasn't chosen by god. Ageing past it doesn't automatically mean you're mentally prepared to start your sex-life, and there's nothing that says there aren't some people who are ready before that.

 

But you're going to do mkreku? Run a test with every girl and boy on the planet to see if they're ready to have sex?

It's a bit funny how so many people get stuck on that arbitrary number that says when you can or can't have sex with someone. It's a number. It wasn't chosen by god. Ageing past it doesn't automatically mean you're mentally prepared to start your sex-life, and there's nothing that says there aren't some people who are ready before that.

 

But you're going to do mkreku? Run a test with every girl and boy on the planet to see if they're ready to have sex?

 

No, but also labeling everyone who has sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is both incorrect by the very definition of the word and na

Edited July 19, 201015 yr by heathen

No, but also labeling everyone who has sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is both incorrect by the very definition of the word and na

Edited July 19, 201015 yr by WorstUsernameEver

No, but also labeling everyone who has sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is both incorrect by the very definition of the word and na

Edited July 19, 201015 yr by heathen

No, but also labeling everyone who has sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is both incorrect by the very definition of the word and na

No, but also labeling everyone who has sex with someone under 18 a pedophile is both incorrect by the very definition of the word and na

Edited July 19, 201015 yr by heathen

I'd certainly agree that there are folks who struggle to cope with sex even at an age over consent. It's an intense business (how English am I?) after all.

 

However I'd take issue with the argument that the numbers are 'arbitrary'. It makes perfectly good sense to argue there is an age below which sex is some confidence interval of being unreasonable. As Spider Jerusalem said "Having sex on presexual people is wrong." It leaves permanent and serious mental scars. Scars which are not solely in the area of sexual relations, but affect every aspect of human relations and even broader levels of anxiety and fear.

 

I am obliged to say that if mkreku could put forward a reasonable impartial test to establish that a person is indeed 'sexual' to an adult degree then that would have to be superior to an age system. However, I'd be bloody amazed if he or anyone esle could. And I _certainly do not think Roman Polanski had such a test in mid when he drugged and had sex with this girl_.

 

Seriously, WTF? We have a massive go at the Roman Catholic Church (quite correctly) for excusing and prevaricating on child abuse. Then the liberal arts establishment excuse their own for the same thing?