EPTPolanski was never CONVICTED of any crime. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, in return for the greater charges being dropped. Perhaps it's just me, but in my mind, that's not enough to allow an assumption of guilt, especially on the drugging and rape charges, which seems to be what most of the people in this thread are doing.
Roman Polanski - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
Polanski was never CONVICTED of any crime. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, in return for the greater charges being dropped. Perhaps it's just me, but in my mind, that's not enough to allow an assumption of guilt, especially on the drugging and rape charges, which seems to be what most of the people in this thread are doing. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On October 01 2009 03:22 Lucktar wrote: The issue I'm seeing is this: Polanski pled guilty to STATUATORY rape, as part of a plea bargain in which the charges of drugging the girl and regular rape (I know there's a term for it, but I don't know what it is) were dropped. Now, the fact that he was offered that plea bargain in the first place tells me that the prosecutor didn't believe he could get a rape charge to stick. So while I agree that the girl's testimony is rather damning, it's a bit hasty to take it at face value and assume that it's true. Polanski was never CONVICTED of any crime. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, in return for the greater charges being dropped. Perhaps it's just me, but in my mind, that's not enough to allow an assumption of guilt, especially on the drugging and rape charges, which seems to be what most of the people in this thread are doing. Then he should be brought back to the US to continue his case. He can legally challenge the previous trial, I believe. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36362 Posts
On October 01 2009 02:29 cyronc wrote: the only problem in this case is that in california EVERY intercourse with a 13-years-old girl (if she wants or not) counts as rape before the law (the motive is quite OK, to protect underage ppl, but considering EVERY (and thus even willingly) sexual intercourse rape is imho just plain wrong... (read the 3rd post in thread, even the 'victim' thinks this is an obsolete case) are you saying that sex when a 13yo says "sure have sex with me" is fine? and the victim only wants it dismissed because she wants to move on with her life and not have to keep dealing with it, not because it didn't happen | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
Then he should be brought back to the US to continue his case. He can legally challenge the previous trial, I believe. I agree, but screaming that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice, like some people are, seems a bit extreme to me. Polanski shouldn't get preferential treatment because of his film career, and he should be pursued just as seriously as any other person. But, on the other hand, what are the odds of a man being extradited from Switzerland to California, of all places, on a 30-year-old statuatory rape conviction? Unless his name happens to be Roman Polanski, I'm betting they're pretty low. The celebrity argument works both ways. | ||
|
Kaniol
Poland5551 Posts
On October 01 2009 03:51 Hot_Bid wrote: are you saying that sex when a 13yo says "sure have sex with me" is fine? and the victim only wants it dismissed because she wants to move on with her life and not have to keep dealing with it, not because it didn't happen Still she had sex 2 times before as she confessed, so if she decided she is "mature" then it's her choice... | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36362 Posts
On October 01 2009 04:16 Kaniol wrote: Still she had sex 2 times before as she confessed, so if she decided she is "mature" then it's her choice... what if a four year old decided she was mature to have sex, and had sex 10 times? you can disagree about statutory rape laws in the US, but arguing about the legal age of consent is useless in this case -- the line had to be drawn somewhere, and california drew it somewhere above 13. this isn't a 15year old having sex with a 13year old. this is a 40+ year old adult taking advantage of a young girl. its not for children to decide whether they are "mature" or not. as i said, the age line had to be drawn somewhere. | ||
|
unsmart
United States322 Posts
I agree, but screaming that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice, like some people are, seems a bit extreme to me. Still she had sex 2 times before as she confessed, so if she decided she is "mature" then it's her choice... | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36362 Posts
On September 29 2009 20:10 closed wrote: Polanski is not Polish (nor French for that matter). He is a Jew. There are no ethnically Polish people with such a name (it would be pretty counterintuitive). Jews can sodomize 13 year old girls because there was the holocaust. I dont understand how can americans want to put him in guantanamo. You cannot do anything to a Jewish person in Europe because you are labeled anti-semitic. All you americans are racist bastards. In fact, have you ever heard of a bad Jewish person? Like in a movie, or something? + Show Spoiler + Dunno how it looks like in America, but in Europe if you say the TRUTH e.g. that someone is a Jew - then you are automatically labeled a racist; you lose your job, you have to apologize; they ban you from your fav website etc. So learn this - Jew = hero = they can do whatever they want. Ask the French minister. i completely missed this post haha wikipedia says he's "Polish-French" and a quick google search: Last name origin: Polish (Polański) Last name meaning: ethnic name for a Pole, or more specifically for a descendant of the Polanie, one of the original Polish tribes. regardless, i just think its funny that the guy has "Polan" in his last name and you are so sure he's not polish, i mean his last name contains 5/6 or 83% of the word "Poland". plus it ends in "ski" | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On October 01 2009 03:53 Lucktar wrote: I agree, but screaming that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice, like some people are, seems a bit extreme to me. Polanski shouldn't get preferential treatment because of his film career, and he should be pursued just as seriously as any other person. But, on the other hand, what are the odds of a man being extradited from Switzerland to California, of all places, on a 30-year-old statuatory rape conviction? Unless his name happens to be Roman Polanski, I'm betting they're pretty low. The celebrity argument works both ways. It's not extreme. He plead guilty to a charge of having sex with a 13 year old girl (while 44). In the United States and Canada, we call people who do that pedophiles, whether rape is involved or not (though it almost certainly was). He's also a fugitive, fleeing justice. So 'screaming' that he's a fugitive pedophile who's fleeing justice is not extreme or even outlandish, it's a simple statement of facts. | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
ejac
United States1195 Posts
I didn't read the article, so this may be completely irrelevant, but just saying what I believe. | ||
|
cyronc
218 Posts
On October 01 2009 03:51 Hot_Bid wrote: are you saying that sex when a 13yo says "sure have sex with me" is fine? and the victim only wants it dismissed because she wants to move on with her life and not have to keep dealing with it, not because it didn't happen i just said what i said, but to clarify: i think the mistake in the legal system here is this: Roman Polanski confessed he had intercourse with a 13-years-old girl, which for the law made it look like he confessed being a rapist (the californian law makes no exceptions here afaik); and thats just plain wrong, because he never had any intention to confess being a rapist, only that he had intercourse with the girl, got it? im not arguing whether Polanski raped her or not here (and thus whether he should be convicted or not), im arguing about an IMO faulty system that merges to seperate situations into one before the law, and thus is prejudicial (which in some cases wont matter since it will have been actual rape, while in others it might not have been rape but is treated the same, which imho is hypocritical for a system seeking 'justice' ) and my generalised answer to your question, yes, i think ppl should be allowed to do whatever they want together to each other as long as it is consensual (even if they'd harm each other like in taking drugs f.e.), BUT i dont consider it consensual any more if during the deed someone wants to stop and others decline to accept it (which imho would be rape again if we talk about intercourse, or would be criminal threatening (sry dont know the english term) in case of taking drugs together) hope that i made my point clear to you... edited for anti-smilies (those bracketts get me every time again) | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33109632/ns/entertainment-celebrities/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33110308/ns/entertainment-celebrities/ | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On October 01 2009 19:19 ejac wrote: Atleast 2 girls come to mind who at age 15/16 willingly had sex with 35-40 year old guys, a 13 year old having sex with a 45 year old ain't out of the realm of possibility and frankly, as long as its consensual and non-manipulative, I don't give a damn. I didn't read the article, so this may be completely irrelevant, but just saying what I believe. Your reiteration of the statements that multiple other people have made is much appreciated, especially considering the fact that it's a moot point in this context. He gave her drugs, and she said no multiple times. That's non-consensual and manipulative. | ||
|
shidonu
United States50 Posts
On October 02 2009 01:54 Slithe wrote: Your reiteration of the statements that multiple other people have made is much appreciated, especially considering the fact that it's a moot point in this context. He gave her drugs, and she said no multiple times. That's non-consensual and manipulative. Also, a 45 year old having sex with a 13 year old child is inherently manipulative. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
| ||
|
s_side
United States700 Posts
On September 28 2009 21:10 Velr wrote: He was quite often in Switzerland (he has a chalet here, he came often to Ski)... But as it seems this time the US justice department knew where and when he would come and asked the Swiss police/justice department to take him. There wasn't a legal alternative, not taking him would have been against the contract/law between Switzerland and the USA. I think the Swiss are also trying to court some favor (which is smart) during this whole UBS private banking scandal. It's a win-win, really. Help Swiss-American relations and put a scumbag behind the bars he should have been behind 30 years ago. Cheers to you and your countrymen!  EDIT: Oh, and are their any online Swiss food shops that sell Laeckerle (sp??)? We have a family friend who lives in Zurich and brings them every time she comes, but they never last more than a day. | ||
KwarK
United States41470 Posts
| ||
|
jetpower
Poland85 Posts
On October 02 2009 04:40 s_side wrote: I think the Swiss are also trying to court some favor (which is smart) during this whole UBS private banking scandal. It's a win-win, really. Help Swiss-American relations and put a scumbag behind the bars he should have been behind 30 years ago. Cheers to you and your countrymen! EDIT: Oh, and are their any online Swiss food shops that sell Laeckerle (sp??)? We have a family friend who lives in Zurich and brings them every time she comes, but they never last more than a day. I think the word scumbag is a bit over the top. Unless you're joking, one shouldn't judge a man based on one action. You know, he has a family, kids. He avoided scandals. Many people in the movie industry who he worked with actually defend him now. Doesn't anybody think his life must have sucked in many ways all this time because of what he did 30 years ago? I am amazed how he could continue a successful career after that. | ||
| ||
