|
On October 02 2009 09:20 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2009 09:15 s_side wrote:On October 02 2009 07:43 jetpower wrote:On October 02 2009 06:45 s_side wrote:On October 02 2009 06:01 jetpower wrote:
Well, people who actually KNOW him tend to defend him. The victim doesn't want him prosecuted also. That's some hint i guess. I, like many others, could care less about what his Hollywood buddies think. His artistic talents are obvious and brilliant, but before the law, he should be held just as accountable as any old schlub. This is about society and the laws of society. Laws do not exist solely for avenging victims. Society deems rape of minors a serious offense and one which is punishable by incarceration. He plead guilty to this crime and then fled to avoid serving his sentence. That is the issue at hand. Not his admittedly tragic past nor his impressive work in film. Few things in life are simple, shades of grey and whatnot, but this couldn't be any more cut and dried. The audacity of prominent entertainment figures to think that he should be treated differently because of his work is extraordinarily offensive and serves as a great reminder of just how disconnected Hollywood is from reality and how little credence their views on topics other than hip night clubs, tiny dogs and red carpet "fashion" should be given. I mostly disagree about calling Mr. Polanski 'a scumbag' and similar by people who obviously know shit about him. (His 'hollywood buddies' were maybe there in the 70s. Now he's definitely an European director with little connection to the US. So no, no night club parties with chihuahuas and Paris Hilton lol) I think there's misunderstanding - nobody is saying it's because he has done nice movies he should be free or his talents make him above the law. The thing is, if he was, say, a construction worker that wouldn't affect his life much BUT since he was a famous guy EVERYONE got to know what he did. His co-workers, family, friends, the lady in grocery store etc and of course the general public. This is A punishment, no one can deny. There's still issue for me if he should be put in jail now and for how long exactly. You disagree with the nomenclature? Again, he drugged and raped a child. If anything, scumbag isn't a strong enough word. Furthermore, if he was just some regular Joe who was convicted of this crime yesterday, not only would Joe Q. Average be serving more than ten times the sentence that Polankski fled from, but he would be a registered sex offender and everyone in his neighborhood would most certainly know. One could argue, had he done the time, that he had served his debt to society and no one should make anymore stink about it. It's not an argument I would make, because I find sexual predation of children to be particularly heinous crime. Most lawmakers in the US agree with me, and therefore sex offenders are registered in public databases and prohibited from living in certain areas and working in certain jobs. You're saying his punishment is undeniably tougher on him because he's famous? Bullshit. Average people don't have the means to go live like kings in Europe while on the lam from child rape charges. Furthermore, while his conviction was big news, an overwhelming number of his colleagues supported and continue to support him! Do you think that would happen with Joe the construction worker? Would his fellow bricklayers be signing petitions and writing op-eds decrying his unfair treatment? Of course not. If he was just Joe Q then only the people in his neighbourhood would care. Yet everyone that cares to watch the news or is in any way remotely plugged to the tv or internet knows about the great asshole that this Polanski guy really is. Yes its a pretty bad crime but, as you have said, an award winning director goes a long way in giving back to society dont you think? And isnt that the point of judicial punishment? The lady doesnt want to press charges either it seems. So lets just leave it up to her and stop all the bickering with something that doesnt even concern us.
In the first place, none of your arguments make any difference as to how justice should be carried out. On a fundamental level, you're arguing that just because a man is gifted, his punishment should be more lenient. A legal system that works like that is just unacceptable.
It's also already been mentioned before that the victim's opinion is not grounds for determining the punishment. A legal system where the victim gets to determine the fate of the offending party would be truly broken.
The argument that his banishment from the country is enough punishment is also ridiculous. It's not his right to decide his punishment, and with good reason.
The purpose of judicial punishment is to enforce proper behavior in a society. Celebrities already think they're fucking untouchable because of their status and their money. You can't support that kind of mentality by allowing this crime to go unpunished.
Even if we were to entertain the idea that Polanski may have suffered enough, you'd still be wrong. Polanski wasn't exactly living the toughest life for the past 30 years. Joe Q on the other hand would have a giant red mark on his profile that will most certainly limit his options for places to live and work, and make his life a lot harder than before. Also, I'm pretty sure Joe Q would have to serve a couple years in prison, and not a nice one mind you. I don't know about you, but I'd take banishment from a country over the prison time.
The man drugged and raped a 13 year old.
|
I was going to write something longer, but to be honest i'd struggle to do so as clearly and coherently as Slithe just did above me, while covering the same ground. Amen to everything he said.
I will add that i'm constantly amazed by people's general ability to make this a more complicated story then it really is. The number of people who'll bring up Catherine Tate's murder and/or that he's a holocaust survivor as if it's somehow relevant boggles my mind.
Furthermore if he wishes to challenge the original (now deceased) judges decisions and rulings let him do so through correct and legal channels. It's not as if he's short of cash for a decent attorney.
Polanski is no great director, and is no great person.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
'Pedobear knows he is innocent'
|
I'd even go so far as to say that if it was consensual it'd be kinda sorta okay-ish (yea, that's right. for most of history 10 yo is already an adult. in some places it's still true).
but coercion sealed it. jail the perv.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 10 2009 07:39 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'd even go so far as to say that if it was consensual it'd be kinda sorta okay-ish (yea, that's right. for most of history 10 yo is already an adult. in some places it's still true).
but coercion sealed it. jail the perv.
Can we please do away with this argument?
I cannot fathom how many times it comes up "in the middle ages kings married 8 year olds"
YES
And they also burned witches. We have moved on.. evolved.. progressed.. we no longer wed 10 year old girls. Why in the HELL would that be used as a defense for a man engaging in a relationship with a little girl now?
|
I'm not talking about the middle ages
I'm talking about treating a person, even if that person is by our present cultural standards considered a child, like a person.
sex is not the thing that makes it bad here, it's always been the coercion, compounded by the fact that he coerced a kid.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
coercion is bad yes.
Sex with the 10 year old is also bad, yes.
The coercion was given teeth by the sex.
|
you're talking condescendingly to 13 year olds
look, if you expose a person to sex early on that person will be a more sexual person. if you expose a person to racism that person will be a hard person. you can't dictate what a 13 year old is suppose to be like, not everyone gets the idyllic suburban childhood that seems to be some kind of socio norm advertised by television. it doesn't exist and has never existed (like the hallmark cards with the white christmas). some people grow up in a hurry.
but coercion is always wrong. it's the difference between sex and rape. the polanski case made it abundantly clear that she was afraid of him, not in love with him. I can always respect love, and condemn fear.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 10 2009 08:25 .risingdragoon wrote:
you're talking condescendingly to 13 year olds
look, if you expose a person to sex early on that person will be a more sexual person. if you expose a person to racism that person will be a hard person. you can't dictate what a 13 year old is suppose to be like, not everyone gets the idyllic suburban childhood that seems to be some kind of socio norm advertised by television. it doesn't exist and has never existed (like the hallmark cards with the white christmas).
but coercion is always wrong. it's the difference between sex and rape. the polanski case made it abundantly clear that she was afraid of him, not in love with him.
I was not talking about sex between a 13 year old and a 10 year old. I am talking about sex between a grown adult and a child of 10.
And you are right, I certainly cannot dictate what a 13 year old "should be like" but we can have goals, or guidelines. And typically 13 or 10 is too young to be having sex, regardless of the context. Take note of the word "typically." Finding a case where a 13 year old had consensual sex and became a wonderful person does not disprove what I am saying.
|
never said 13 and 10 yo, where jew get that?
as for the "13 year old had consensual sex and became a wonderful person" you just don't attribute everything to that hour or 2.
if you actally make clear distinctions you'll see that it can also be attributed to people telling that person, repeatedly, that's it's wrong. ironically coercing that person into feeling guilt and self-hate. this happens a lot, women are told they've been raped when they're not.
I'd also say PTSD is a socio-psychological issue, because in this culture men are not allowed to cry, and thereby purging all that emotion. you don't attribute everything to a few instances of intense pressure and conflicting choices.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
at first you mentioned 10 year olds.. then you switched to 13 year olds. I assumed you meant sex between the two.
Look, we agree coercion is bad. Where we disagree is you seem to think that having sex with 10 year olds is ok or at least "not that bad". I don't.
The end.
|
yeah, don't make distinctions, be black n white. don't nobody try to understand the issue before deciding it!
that's why we americans are called stupid by the world
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Ah common, can we really rule it down to just 1 thing that makes us globally regarded as stupid?
|
you think "looking for simple answers to everything" is just 1 thing?
it's everything that has any complexity, that isn't clear cut black n white, good and evil.
|
|
|
So does this mean he will no longer be allowed into the US? Im not sure how these things work, but I would imagine upon entering the US he would be considered wanted?
|
On July 14 2010 05:40 eXigent. wrote:So does this mean he will no longer be allowed into the US? Im not sure how these things work, but I would imagine upon entering the US he would be considered wanted?
I'd guess so. No justice  .
|
|
|
There was never any guarantee that Polanski was going to get 90 days for pleading guilty. The plea bargain was to get rid of all the other charges except stat rape (or whatever it's called in California) and knock off a few years.
The judge received a psychiatric evaluation from Polanski's team suggesting he should shouldn't go to prison at all and ordered another one, which was done in prison. During that time the judge came to the conclusion that jail time was still necessary (what the driving force of this conclusion was is up to speculation), and Polanski fled the country before his sentencing.
Sure he paid off the girl and the girl forgave him, but that's not why he's a fugitive. He skipped out on sentencing because the judge disagreed (for whatever reason) with his defence team and was gonna put him in jail for the crime that he had already pled guilty to.
|
He raped a child. Logic dictates that if you do the crime you do the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.demotywatory.pl/uploads/1255106619_by_Remstin_500.jpg)
