Roman Polanski, Hollywood, and Justice

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

Yes, I have a problem with this. You're basically saying that rich people can do whatever they want without any consequences as long as they pay a fine.

If the victim is okay with it, then why not? If the one and only victim of the crime is now content, then there is no longer a problem. If the victim decides that he has paid the price for the crime, then all is well. Everything else is just superfluous legal junk. I will argue that the victim feeling that justice is served is definitely more important than just punishing the criminal and ignoring the victim's feelings on the matter. A fine is definitely a valid form of punishment as well so it's not like he didn't lose anything.

Does the victim get to keep her money if he gets punished formally for the crime? Should he have to pay for one crime twice?

Once again, you're saying that the rich should be able to do whatever they want as long as they pay a fine, that's moronic and incredibly dangerous. Also, as Greenman points out, there are other reasons for punishing a criminal and putting him in jail.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

Yes, I have a problem with this. You're basically saying that rich people can do whatever they want without any consequences as long as they pay a fine.

If the victim is okay with it, then why not? If the one and only victim of the crime is now content, then there is no longer a problem. If the victim decides that he has paid the price for the crime, then all is well. Everything else is just superfluous legal junk. I will argue that the victim feeling that justice is served is definitely more important than just punishing the criminal and ignoring the victim's feelings on the matter. A fine is definitely a valid form of punishment as well so it's not like he didn't lose anything.

She's a rape victim. You clearly have no idea what a rape means on an emotional and logical level to a victim. She doesn't feel that justice is served, I promise you. Rather, she probably wants to bury all the feelings and the pain that will emerge as this case garners the national spotlight. I sympathize with that plight, but Polanski is a fugitive who probably a raped a 13 year old girl. He should be brought to justice.

Does the victim get to keep her money if he gets punished formally for the crime? Should he have to pay for one crime twice?

Do you understand the difference between a civil settlement and criminal proceedings? Obviously not. I said it above, but it bears repeating -- Roman Polanski is a fugitive from justice. This is no longer about the victim involved, he deliberately left the country to avoid sentencing and prosecution for a crime he plead guilty to. It doesn't matter what the victim thinks or does or says, because he has to face the music for the decisions he made both before and after he plead guilty to having sex with a minor.

 

[between]

...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: between
This is not really an issue for Americans to decide, anyway. It's all dependent on the Swiss courts, and I suspect Polanksi will pull out all stops to avoid being carted back to America. My ideal solution would be for him to get back to France, and continue making wonderful movies.

The only reason this is in the news is a publicity-hungry prosecutor who thinks political points can be scored for being seen as "tough on pedophiles" (not that Polanksi is a pedophile).

The ideal solution is that he gets sentenced for his original crime and gets five years on top of it for flight to avoid prosecution. That's the fucking law and we shouldn't bend it just because the guy makes movies. I'm sorry, but you and other people that defend him are absolutely disgusting abominations of human beings.

Ask yourself why you weren't protesting in the streets when police arrested Catholic priests for raping young boys.

Ask yourself if Roman Polanski was just your average immigrant from Poland, would you be defending a man who raped a 13 year old and then fled the country?

The man is a fugitive from this country. He not only broke a law in committing the initial crime, but he broke another when he chose to flee. Hopefully he gets what he deserves -- a nice long stay in a federal penitentiary.

edit: Also, Polanksi is a fucking pedo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile#Diagnosis

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[23][24]

* A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
* B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
* C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Ooops, looks like he really is a disgusting piece of shit.

 

[between]

...

 

[between]

...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
I'm sorry, but you and other people that defend him are absolutely disgusting abominations of human beings.

why thank you
I see Polanksi as a brilliant film maker, who made a tragic mistake, which he has paid heavily for. There is really no point in having this respected, talented artist languishing in an American jail. The only reason this is even an issue now is because a prosecutor thinks it will help build his career.

this is why people think you are a disgusting human being. the guy didnt make a mistake. a mistake is forgetting to turn on a blinker, mispelling a word etc.

giving a child drugs and to fuck her up the ass is no mistake.

 

[between]

...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The documentary everyone has based their opinions is a fraud.

I'd encourage people to watch it, and make up their own minds. Even if you aren't sympathetic to Polanski, the archival footage from the 70s is fascinating.

And what about the prosecutor recanting his part in the mocumentary?

Edit:

And just how the hell has he paid for raping a 13 year old girl? 50 years in prison /= 30+ years in France living as an elite.

 

[5150Joker]

Polanski should be imprisoned, given qualuude and sodomized.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Polanski and the victim settled out of court and the victim received an undisclosed amount of cash. The victim has also publicly called for the case to be dropped. Not that I agree with anything he did, but apparently he paid a price that satisfied the victim(Morally, that is all that ever need be done in a criminal case). Why punish him further?

So basically as long as someone can afford to pay off the victim anything goes. Great.

Polanski wronged a person. He made it up to the victim to the point where the victim is satisfied with the end result. Do you have a problem with this? No one is more important than the victim when it comes to justice. If the victim feels that justice has been served, then that is all that matters.

Yes, I have a problem with this. You're basically saying that rich people can do whatever they want without any consequences as long as they pay a fine.

If the victim is okay with it, then why not? If the one and only victim of the crime is now content, then there is no longer a problem. If the victim decides that he has paid the price for the crime, then all is well. Everything else is just superfluous legal junk. I will argue that the victim feeling that justice is served is definitely more important than just punishing the criminal and ignoring the victim's feelings on the matter. A fine is definitely a valid form of punishment as well so it's not like he didn't lose anything.

Does the victim get to keep her money if he gets punished formally for the crime? Should he have to pay for one crime twice?

You are confusing laws between civil cases and criminal cases. Criminal law concerns activities that society has outlawed, while civil law is about the rights and liabilities between private parties.

In criminal law the government decides whether to prosecute and the court determines guilt/punishment. Civil law is where the victim brings the case, guilt isnt determined and compensation is rewarded. So in essence, the victim won compensation for the trauma caused by the rape. The government still has to punish Polanski for the crime against society. Raping little girls is a crime against society in this part of the world, I don't know what France thinks but the US doesn't accept raping girls let alone 13 year old girls.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: waggy
this is why people think you are a disgusting human being

as opposed to the people who really CARE about the victim, so much so they ignore her wishes, essentially re-traumatizing her on a daily basis by refusing to let this tired old case die

Has anyone you know ever been raped? Have you ever dealt with the emotional fallout? Have you ever seen the trauma and damage that is caused to a rape victim and how long it can last? Have you ever seen how rape victims try to rationalize what happened? How they try and not find fault with their attacker? How they find fault with themselves? I've dealt with that shit first-hand.

That woman is so traumatized by what happened to her that she doesn't know what she wants or what is right.

Honestly, after reading your casual appreciation of child molestation, your indifference and insensitivity to rape victims, and discovering your twisted and completely warped moral values, I'd just like to tell you to go fuck yourself. You have no idea how much fucking damage this pedophile child molester did and you blind yourself to the facts because he made fucking Chinatown.

He stuck his dick in a 13 year old girl's vagina and then crammed it up her ass as she repeatedly told him "no." He then fled the country to avoid prosecution. At least the Catholic priests had the balls to face their accusers and to stand in front of a judge and be sentenced for their crimes. Nothing so kind can be said about Polanski. He's had a history of dating underage women. He's a predator and he, and his blind defenders, hide behind the fact he's an "artist." Fan-fucking-tastic. Last time I checked, he was residing in the United States when he stuck his cock in a 13 year old and, last time I checked, that's illegal.

 

[between]

...

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
That woman is so traumatized by what happened to her that she doesn't know what she wants or what is right.

Essentially what you are saying is that she doesn't know what is right for herself, but you do know what is right for her. What a sadly paternalistic attitude. It's almost as if you think she can never be trusted to make her own decisions ever again.

This is a 44 year old mother of two, who, if you watch a few of her interviews, appears perfectly reasonable and level headed. She has clearly stated that the discomfort she feels now, stems from people who will not let this issue die. I think you obviously have your own issues, and are projecting those onto Samantha Geimer. Which I do not think is healthy, either for you, or for her.

It also essentially doesn't matter what she thinks now. The crime was committed and our laws of society were broken. The crime is not looked through the eyes of a 44 year old mother, but looked at the time when Polanski committed the crime.

Women in domestic abuse cases usually tend to come back and defend the aggressor but the state government ultimately decides whether to continue. She may love him and be willing to forgive but the government is not that romantically attached to any individual.

To defend Polanski, is the same as saying our society should not outlaw rapes. I'm sure no one is willing to say society should stop prosecuting rapists. Unless you are a rapist, of course.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
That woman is so traumatized by what happened to her that she doesn't know what she wants or what is right.

Essentially what you are saying is that she doesn't know what is right for herself, but you do know what is right for her. What a sadly paternalistic attitude. It's almost as if you think she can never be trusted to make her own decisions ever again.

This is a 44 year old mother of two, who, if you watch a few of her interviews, appears perfectly reasonable and level headed. She has clearly stated that the discomfort she feels now, stems from people who will not let this issue die. I think you obviously have your own issues, and are projecting those onto Samantha Geimer. Which I do not think is healthy, either for you, or for her.

Wow.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old.

Polanski slept with an under age minor which can mean one of two things. If she was past the age of puberty it was statutory rape. Prepubescent makes it child molestation.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: between

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
That woman is so traumatized by what happened to her that she doesn't know what she wants or what is right.

Essentially what you are saying is that she doesn't know what is right for herself, but you do know what is right for her. What a sadly paternalistic attitude. It's almost as if you think she can never be trusted to make her own decisions ever again.

This is a 44 year old mother of two, who, if you watch a few of her interviews, appears perfectly reasonable and level headed. She has clearly stated that the discomfort she feels now, stems from people who will not let this issue die. I think you obviously have your own issues, and are projecting those onto Samantha Geimer. Which I do not think is healthy, either for you, or for her.

Go fuck yourself. I know two women who were the victims of rape and you have no fucking clue how fucked up they are. Years of fucking therapy, hours of fucking crying and, yes, both these women I know also "appear" to have their shit together. They don't. Rape fucks people up.

Take your child molester, rapist pity party somewhere else.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Take your child molester, rapist pity party somewhere else.

where to take this pity if not the internet? hmm? I don't know the facts of the case to form an opinion either way.

 

[between]

...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: between

I'm sorry, but the fact you have first hand experience with the aftermath of rape, doesn't make you an expert on what's best for Samantha Geimer. The fact that you discount her wishes, her intentions - because you apparently somehow know what is best for her - is kind of chilling. It's like your more concerned about getting your pound of flesh, than you are concerned with the wellbeing of an actual, real person with real feelings. Roman Polanski abused her once. whereas people who insist on raising this issue again and again, are essentially re-inflicting that trauma every time they raise the issue. This women has told the world, in no uncertain terms, that the trauma she experiences now stems from people who won't let this issue die. Does it give people pleasure, to cause her more pain? There's really no excuse. :thumbsdown:

Geimer chose to reveal who she was to the press and get her 15 minutes of fame. Geimer also chose to pursue a civil case against Polanski. She put herself in this position. While the rape was beyond her control, the things that have happened as a direct action of her behavior since are a direct result of her behavior.

The state has an obligation to follow through with the case.

Polanski has admitted his guilt repeatedly, and told the world he prefers very young girls.

How does it feel to be in agreement with the progressive countries like Nigeria in allowing sex with a 13 year old?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Take your child molester, rapist pity party somewhere else.

where to take this pity if not the internet? hmm? I don't know the facts of the case to form an opinion either way.

I certainly don't know all the facts, but the facts to which Polanski and his lawyers specifically admitted are plenty damning enough, no matter what else happened. He needs to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Patranus
Only a Liberal would think to set a man free who drugged a 13 year old girls, raped her while she was crying and screaming for him to stop,

There's no excuse for the crime Polanski ACTUALLY committed, but YOU are a lying, pathetic piece of shit. ALL of your posts include your contrary-to-fact embellishments.

Now: Please SHOW us where in the grand jury testimony the girl said she was "crying and screaming for him to stop?" Come on. I dare you.

Answer: She didn't. She was crying PRIVATELY, not in front of Polanski. She wasn't "crying for him to stop." She TOLD him (didn't "scream") "No." And she made up a story that she had asthma to try to get Polanski to stop.

Again, none of this remotely excuses what Polanski did. But YOU are garbage. You don't care about truth. You just care about trying to score points with lies. You are the quintessence of trolldom.

The truth was the girl was 13 years old and a CHILD. Polanski drugged raped the child... Who the fuck cared if she cried in front of him or at home? Does it really concern you that much that she wasn't crying for him to stop????!?!? Polanski is a sick bastard who never served his sentence.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old. I'd recommend people take a look at Roman Polanksi: Wanted & Desired. A great documentary in its own right, and it portrays a very sympathetic portrait of Polanksi. I came away from the documentary thinking he made the right decision to leave America. In a sense, it was what the judge was trying to force him to do. The judge was using an illegal manoeuvre - putting Polanksi under psychiatric observation for 90 days - because he knew he couldn't make a 90 day jail sentence stick. (It would have been lost on appeal - no-one seriously thought Polanski would get much if any jail time). Even the girl, and her parents, specifically requested in the courts that he not get jail time. It seemed like the judge was placing Polanski in an impossible legal position, in order to force him to leave the country (problem solved, and the judge doesn't have to suffer criticism in the media for handing out a light sentence or handing out a sentence that was easily appealed).

The documentary has a few shots of the girl from that time - she displays obvious secondary sexual characteristics - developing breasts, widened hips - she looks about 16. So it's not factually correct to call Polanski a pedophile. Polanksi acknowledges he's always had a thing for young-ish girls/ women. He was also in a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15. That relationship led to her becoming a huge star. It also didn't really attract much condemnation at the time. (There's obviously a disconnect between comptemporary American attitudes towards sex with teens, and the attitudes held by Europeans in the 1970s, as indicated by the calls for blood by morons in this thread.) So being a young girl, and getting fucked by Polanksi, was potentially an excellent career move. Perhaps that's why the mother dropped Samantha off with Polanksi, knowing full well his penchant for young women, and the kind of wild/ crazy life he led.

Interestingly, the victim, Samantha Geimer, makes the point that the aftermath of the abuse - the insensitive questioning by police, the botching of the trial by the judge, and the media attention - caused more damage than the abuse itself.

Overall, I am sympathetic to Polanksi, and I hope the Swiss come to their senses. He doesn't deserve jail time. People who refer to him as a pedophile are morons, and can be ignored.

First, this isn't about what the victime wants (even though I can be sympathetic to that), the state has to pursue this. Second, by your own admission 'she looked 16'. I am not an expert in 'consent laws' but I think in most of the country this is still underage. Third, she could have been 53 years old; he DRUGGED her and she told him NO and he fled from sentencing, he has to pay for that. Sorry, I don't care what kinda movies he makes or how much money he has, he has to pay for his crimes.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old.

You are either lying or severely ignorant.

The Smoking Gun: Roman Polanski Plea Transcript

MR. GUNSON: The elements of the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse are: One, that on March 10th, 1977, you committed an act of sexual intercourse; two, that the act of sexual intercourse was with the complaining witness in this case; three, that she was under the age of 18; and four, that she was not your wife.

Do you understand that to be convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse by a jury, all twelve jurors would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that teach and every element of the crime occurred?

Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

...

MR. GUNSON: On March 10th, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?

THE DEFENDANT: She was 13.

MR. GUNSON: Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10th, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

The Smoking Gun: Unsealed Grand Jury Minutes

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

Q: What do you mean by intercourse?

A: He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A: I was mostly just on and off saying, "No, stop." But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

Q: What did he say, if anything?

A: He didn't answer me when I said, "No." I think he was - he was saying something, but I wasn't listening to him and I can't remember.

...

Q: What happened then?

A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, "Oh, I won't come inside you then."

And I just went - and he goes - and then he put me - wait. Then he lifted my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?

A: He put his penis in my butt.

Q: Did he say anything at that time?

A: No.

Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because -- (pause)

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: between
Polanksi didn't admit to rape. He said he had a consensual sexual encounter with what turned out to be a 13 year old.

You are either lying or severely ignorant.

The Smoking Gun: Roman Polanski Plea Transcript

MR. GUNSON: The elements of the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse are: One, that on March 10th, 1977, you committed an act of sexual intercourse; two, that the act of sexual intercourse was with the complaining witness in this case; three, that she was under the age of 18; and four, that she was not your wife.

Do you understand that to be convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse by a jury, all twelve jurors would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that teach and every element of the crime occurred?

Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

...

MR. GUNSON: On March 10th, 1977, the day you had sexual intercourse with the complaining witness, how old did you believe her to be?

THE DEFENDANT: She was 13.

MR. GUNSON: Did you understand that she was 13 on March 10th, 1977, when you had sexual intercourse with her?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

The Smoking Gun: Unsealed Grand Jury Minutes

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

Q: What do you mean by intercourse?

A: He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A: I was mostly just on and off saying, "No, stop." But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

Q: What did he say, if anything?

A: He didn't answer me when I said, "No." I think he was - he was saying something, but I wasn't listening to him and I can't remember.

...

Q: What happened then?

A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, "Oh, I won't come inside you then."

And I just went - and he goes - and then he put me - wait. Then he lifted my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?

A: He put his penis in my butt.

Q: Did he say anything at that time?

A: No.

Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because -- (pause)

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.

HE MADE CHINATOWN AND IS A EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL!! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND.

Seriously fuck these people that are defending a rapist.