394 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

So apparently Luc Besson, in a rather brave move, has refused to add his name to the pro-Polanski petition by famous film directors, stating that "no one should be above the law".

That's funny; I thought most of Besson's films are about how the law fails to do proper justice, and vigilantes and secret agents with martial arts skills are the ones who must restore order. And wasn't the Professional about a relationship between an older man and a young girl?

Yes, Besson's obviously a complete hypocrite. Which is far worse than being a paedophile and rapist. The content of Besson's films is a much more serious matter than what Polanski did in real life.

Sarcasm, I take it?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Sorry, double-post...

[SecretAgentFan]

So apparently Luc Besson, in a rather brave move, has refused to add his name to the pro-Polanski petition by famous film directors, stating that "no one should be above the law". Why, Luc, you boring old fuddy-duddy, you. Let's hope you'll still be able to get a meeting in Hollywood. And in Paris, come to that. Gah, the generation of European filmmakers that followed Polanski - what's French cinema coming to when its directors no longer smile indulgently upon middle-aged men drilling thirteen-year-olds? Besson wouldn't recognise true cinematic artistry if it came up and slipped him a Quaalude.

Anyway, here's an interesting "anti" Polanski piece:

http://blog.newsweek...d-a-primer.aspx

I have contributed to this discussion too much already, I´m afraid. Yet, after reading the recent comments I get the feeling that my point was not even considered.

So, I´d like to state it once again: This whole issue gets reduced to such a simplification that it reminds me of the "If you´re not for us, you´re against us"-stance.

Meaning: if one questions Polanski´s arrest one is automatically
a ) thinking that he should not be punished because he is a famous artist,
b ) ignorant of the law,
c ) ignorant of a poor child´s torment.

However, if one applauds Polanski´s arrest one is automatically
a ) sure of what has happened back then, namely CHILD MOLESTATION!!!!!,
b ) totally in line with the law,
c ) above the usual Hollywood-we´re-above-the-law lobby.

If this is really what you guys are thinking, well then let´s get the torches and burn Polanski at the stake. Because he RAPED A CHILD. Simple as that. Case closed. No questions asked. We are much too civilized to fuss around with details.

And please, give a humanitarian award to Luc Besson who so bravely stated what Joe Sixpack already thought: If he had raped my daughter I would have killed that monster already and be applauded for it. Because let´s face it: this is not about the legal system, this is about what´s right and what´s wrong.

Okay, irony and polemics aside - let me return to my point: do we really want to be a society that judges people without looking at every detail?

[SecretAgentFan]

According to CNN several directors are demanding Polanski be released. Will post who when they come to the story.

Just saw the list. Don't have it handy, but it was mostly high-falutin' artsy types.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Woody Allen was one of them.

Please don´t bring Woody Allen into this. Just because Mia Farrow wanted to get her revenge for being dumped, the "child molester"-charge is still attached to him.

ALTHOUGH he was NOT convicted but absolutely acquitted by the legal system. (The same legal system that so many here now want to uphold in order to get justice from Polanski.)

So, Woody Allen speaking out for Roman Polanski does not in any way mean what you are implying.

[Zorin Industries]

Anyway, here's an interesting "anti" Polanski piece:

http://blog.newsweek...d-a-primer.aspx

I gave up reading when the sloppy writing and even sloppier spelling mistakes got in the way of cut and pasted opinions taken from elsewhere. That is not good journalism in my book.

[Zorin Industries]

Now his rational in fleeing the country was that he had a corrupt judge. Well, that may be, but couldn't he appeal that legally?

How do you appeal against a system that was self-promoting and using Polanski and the alleged victim to court career favour and Hollywood brownie points?

And the rationale for leaving America (and be careful using "fled" here)...? He was allowed to go wherever he wanted - which was about the only promise the Judge stood by (most of what the judge said were backstabbing lies...allegedly). Furthermore, Polanski's treatment at the hands of the American judicial and media systems around the time of the Tate murders was appalling. I would not blame him for wanting out after that time. Basically, he had a deep mistrust of American laws and lawmakers. And I don't blame him.

I wouldn't even mind if the case was centred on the what did or didn't happen to a 13 year old girl whored out by her mother to whoever in Hollywood would take her picture and get her famous ("Oh I know..let's get that famously hedonistic lothario and lover of younger women who made some of the most erotically charged films at the time Mr Polanski to stay alone with my daughter and then we can blame him and generate some publicity for her when it inevitably goes wrong"). The very fact it became a witchhunt based on all sorts of Euro-phobias (which whether he is guilty or not should not affect opinion) speaks volumes about the nature of this trial. And now it is happening all over again.

and for which the victim has forgiven him

As I understand it, she has not forgiven him, and rightly so.

I must be hard to not want any more press about something you keep going to the press about.

And if the woman in question really wants to move on, she really should not attend the premieres of Roman Polanski documentary films and get her picture taken on the red carpet flanking the film's posters like she's appeared in a new Brady Bunch Movie. I find that most telling and actually very distasteful to the whole mucky saga and her supposed experience of it.

http://www.zimbio.co...Samantha Geimer

[Safari Suit]

I don't know. It truly baffles me. Why is it that Gary Glitter is villified (to the point where British radio stations feel the need to apologise if they play one of his songs "by mistake" and there was talk of British politicians proposing to ban his CDs "to protect children"), yet many speak of Aung San Polanski as though he's some kind of prisoner of conscience?

Seriously, what's the difference between Glitter and Polanski? Why is the latter seemingly getting automatic and uncritical support from the great and the good? What hold does he have over "the establishment"?

While it would perhaps be naïve to totally rule out the possibility that Polanski is spared vilification in certain circles because he makes "art", whereas Glitter is known for "disposable" Glam Rock singles, Glitter is a multiple-offender, often I believe with children considerably younger than 13. I am not saying that in anyway excuses Polanski, but it does, in my eyes, make Glitter considerably worse.

That said, there really is no need to ban the airing or selling of Glitter's records for his crimes, as they are after all punishing many innocent people who worked on his records by doing so. Although I still hear Another Rock N' Roll Christmas occassionally at the right time of year, so I guess they think Gary's records pose a threat to us and our children except at Christmas!

I have no particular desire to see Polanski tried but I must say that the whole affair is rather more sordid than I'd been lead to believe. I was under the impression that Polanski was guilty of statutory rape, and as such had committed no or not much worse a crime than the Jimmy Page's and Bill Wyman's out there who had (allegedly? I think it's pretty well documented) slept with underage girls with no retribution. If the testimony cited on thesmokinggun is to be believed, and I'm not saying it necessarily it is, it's a whole different case altogether.

[Trident]

One thing that's seemingly ignored in this matter is the simple question why now?

Polanski was at large for over three decades before the legal system of the United States decided it finally

a)had to do something to prevent Polanski from committing more crimes in the '77 fashion and

b)bring the child rapist to book for his crime of '77 and see that he does time in some over-crowded Californian dumpster prison.


Now, it's of course debatable why the powers that be responsible for this decision took more than three decades to arrive at it. But in my opinion one factor (and most likely the only factor) would be that Polanski recently had the insolence to file a request to have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. It's actually hard for me to avoid the impression that this was what triggered the arrest in Switzerland, a simple tit-for-that, a cheap vindictive move to kick Polanski in the face for failing to cower till the end of his days under the superior moral of his judges in the States.

While a certain degree of indignation and downright outrage in the ranks of California's law administration over this impudent suggestion is understandable, I for one have certain doubts if this latest behaviour really speaks for a fair and unbiased treatment of Polanski by the Californian authorities. Yes, Polanski doesn't stand above the law. Neither so does the law itself. Appearing to dish out a disproportionate arrest on the grounds of vain arrogance is the worst thing that can happen to this process, damaging much more than just the involved parties integrity.

It's perhaps worth to remember that this (to the best of my knowledge) is not Bin Laden, nor a repeat offender. If Polanski's
persistent freedom has been a danger to children since '77 and a blatant, glaring injustice for 32 years, I wonder how we all managed to sleep so well during this time?

[SecretAgentFan]

[Loomis]

Anyway, here's an interesting "anti" Polanski piece:

http://blog.newsweek...d-a-primer.aspx

I gave up reading when the sloppy writing and even sloppier spelling mistakes got in the way of cut and pasted opinions taken from elsewhere. That is not good journalism in my book.

Here's one I imagine you'll prefer. It's a my-heart-bleeds-for-Roman piece by the writer of THE GHOST, Robert Harris:

http://www.nytimes.c...arris.html?_r=1

It epitomises the sort of woolly-headed droit de seigneur drivel that Polanski's supporters are coming out with (although, admittedly, it's not as jawdroppingly ignorant and offensive as Whoopi Goldberg's "rape-rape" comment).

Harris writes: "So when, just before lunch on Sunday, the news broke that Mr. Polanski had been arrested overnight at the Zurich airport on an outstanding warrant relating to a conviction for sex with a minor back in the 1970s, my first response was to feel almost physically sick."

Not physically sick over what Polanski did, you understand. Physically sick over the fact that he was arrested.

"His past did not bother me," Harris continues dismissively, "any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph."

This sort of waffle goes on. Almost buried in the text is the obligatory, tokenistic, mealy-mouthed and vague reference to Polanski's crime: "Of course what happened cannot be excused, either legally or ethically."

It's typical of the pro-Polanski set. They all concede that "of course" what happened cannot be excused, before proceeding to do precisely that.

Look, I'm a redneck, I admit it. I don't go to art galleries. I've never been to a biennale, and I'd rather watch RAMBO than Andrzej Wajda. So perhaps I'm just too uneducated/uncultured to understand, but isn't there a contradiction here? I mean, Harris states loftily that "his past did not bother me", yet he also refers to it as legally and ethically inexcusable. So, then, do we take it that Harris is untroubled by things that are beyond the pale? I dunno. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand these clever artistic types. I guess I'd be better off in a thread like "Is Bond Bondian enough?", "Should Craig wear aftershave in BOND 23?" or "Is Gettler gay?".

[DAN LIGHTER]

Anyway, here's an interesting "anti" Polanski piece:

http://blog.newsweek...d-a-primer.aspx

I gave up reading when the sloppy writing and even sloppier spelling mistakes got in the way of cut and pasted opinions taken from elsewhere. That is not good journalism in my book.

Here's one I imagine you'll prefer. It's a my-heart-bleeds-for-Roman piece by the writer of THE GHOST, Robert Harris:

http://www.nytimes.c...arris.html?_r=1

It epitomises the sort of woolly-headed droit de seigneur drivel that Polanski's supporters are coming out with (although, admittedly, it's not as jawdroppingly ignorant and offensive as Whoopi Goldberg's "rape-rape" comment).

Harris writes: "So when, just before lunch on Sunday, the news broke that Mr. Polanski had been arrested overnight at the Zurich airport on an outstanding warrant relating to a conviction for sex with a minor back in the 1970s, my first response was to feel almost physically sick."

Not physically sick over what Polanski did, you understand. Physically sick over the fact that he was arrested.

"His past did not bother me," Harris continues dismissively, "any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph."

This sort of waffle goes on. Almost buried in the text is the obligatory, tokenistic, mealy-mouthed and vague reference to Polanski's crime: "Of course what happened cannot be excused, either legally or ethically."

It's typical of the pro-Polanski set. They all concede that "of course" what happened cannot be excused, before proceeding to do precisely that.

Look, I'm a redneck, I admit it. I don't go to art galleries. I've never been to a biennale, and I'd rather watch RAMBO than Andrzej Wajda. So perhaps I'm just too uneducated/uncultured to understand, but isn't there a contradiction here? I mean, Harris states loftily that "his past did not bother me", yet he also refers to it as legally and ethically inexcusable. So, then, do we take it that Harris is untroubled by things that are beyond the pale? I dunno. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand these clever artistic types. I guess I'd be better off in a thread like "Is Bond Bondian enough?", "Should Craig wear aftershave in BOND 23?" or "Is Gettler gay?".

I am shocked that you’re a Redneck Loomis! Shocked! I always had you down as living in Hardy’s Wessex for some reason. Or was it just a metaphor? You seemed to get your hands on A Week in December quite quickly!

Your quite right, why do we say something and then contradict ourselves with the legendary but word. Nearly everything that follows a but is always going to be a contradiction, but, I might be wrong?

[Sark2.0]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

If this is really what you guys are thinking, well then let´s get the torches and burn Polanski at the stake. Because he RAPED A CHILD. Simple as that. Case closed. No questions asked. We are much too civilized to fuss around with details.

Okay, irony and polemics aside - let me return to my point: do we really want to be a society that judges people without looking at every detail?

Are you ing serious? What kind of extenuating circumstances can excuse rape? That he didn't realize she was 13? Well, I guess that makes it OK. That her mother allegedly thrust her daughter into dangerous situations? OK them. That he hasn't done it again? Well, as long as he's learned his lesson.
"let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm."
link
The fact is, the only extenuating circumstances that really matters to people is that he's a talented artist. If he weren't, he would have to go door to door telling neighbors that he's a registered sex offender.

[Trident]

Look, I'm a redneck, I admit it. I don't go to art galleries. I've never been to a biennale, and I'd rather watch RAMBO than Andrzej Wajda. So perhaps I'm just too uneducated/uncultured to understand, but isn't there a contradiction here? I mean, Harris states loftily that "his past did not bother me", yet he also refers to it as legally and ethically inexcusable. So, then, do we take it that Harris is untroubled by things that are beyond the pale? I dunno. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand these clever artistic types. I guess I'd be better off in a thread like "Is Bond Bondian enough?", "Should Craig wear aftershave in BOND 23?" or "Is Gettler gay?".

While I fail to see what the colour of your (or anybody's) neck has to do with it (certainly one can have a substanciated opinion on this with a red/yellow/pink/whatever colour of neck, can't one?) I still feel the answer to this is quite obvious and has nothing to do with any kind of 'artistic' worldview (apart perhaps from using the term in a supposedly libellous manner; this is in fact l'art pour l'art as, contrary to common superstition, the notion of 'art' is still not seen as an offence in wide parts of the world).

There is quite a simple fact and I have adressed it already. It wasn't only Robert Harris (or some other person suspected of using his brains for thinking and using high-brow, 'artsy' language to look down on us insufficiently washed mortals from their ivory tower) who didn't care about Polanski's past. It was very, very nearly bloody well all of us, regardless of neck-colour. This is not about leave-him-be-he's-so-bloody-fine-an-artist-! (ugh, now I've done it too; must be contagious). This is about why-the-hell-didn't-you-come-30-years-earlier-?.

The Polanski case wasn't a state secret and I remember knowing about it (although not in detail) since 1977. Most of us old enough would do so, I suppose. The case and Polanski moving from the US was major headline stuff. Yet it would seem nobody has lost any sleep over it. Surprisingly, most surprisingly, not even the prosecutors and law-enforcement administration trusted with pursuing the case.

I've said it before and I'll gladly repeat it. Polanski isn't above the law. Nor is the law itself. It cannot decide arbitrarily which felony to penalise, which perpetrator to chase at fancy. Not without losing its integrity and raising suspicions about its corruption. Yet this is just what has happened in this case. For over 30 years the authorities have failed miserably in bringing Polanski back to do his prison term (always
bearing in mind that Polanski hasn't been hiding for thirty years somewhere in the Afghan mountainside). Either that, or they simply have decided, after Polanski has left the States, that it wasn't worth the effort, for whatever reason unkown to me. Which of course also opens the door to speculations about all kinds of irregularities concerning the original trial.

Now, after this long and extended period of complete and utter impotency on the side of the US authorities, it's really most remarkable how easily, almost bordering on the terrain commonly known as 'effortlessly', it suddenly was for the Department of Justice to convince the Swiss authorities to do their bloody duty (and nothing else is the arrest on the grounds of an international warrant between two friendly states). Especially remarkable in light of the recently filed (and denied) requests by Polanski. To me this strongly suggests an arrest primarily on the grounds of damaged pride, not for the cause of helping justice in any way.

None of the involved parties has made any substancial move for over three decades, although supposedly a dangerous child molester was at large; not even the last US Administration, that has made it one major concern of them to make the entire world a supposedly more secure place. There is only one reason I can see for things being so thoroughly messed up. The danger wasn't deemed nearly dangerous enough, the injustice not nearly injust enough, to, well, justify an arrest and extradition of Polanski to California. Not until Polanski was dumb enough to file his requests. And this is the scandal.





Apart from that, I really, really don't understand what this I'm-so-uncultured-I'm-so-undereducated-the-corn-will-sprout-from-my-hillbilly-ears attitude of yours should mean. I've had the pleasure of getting to know you via CBn as the very opposite of the above mentioned and over the years you never gave the impression of having to fish for compliments.

[Tybre]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

Quite wrong. If we assume every other factor of the case to have been the same and just replace "director" with "Wal-Mart employee" well, quite honestly, I would be more upset, but with the legal system and not so much with Polanski. Oh yes, certainly still would be quite irate over the thought of him raping a child, but it's understandable why it dragged out this long. A good directorial career has afforded him to ability to keep away from places where he may be prosecuted. On top of that, the man is a director, and the courts have a tendency to go light on celebrities. Conversely, the common man tends to be brought down quite swiftly. Thus I would be forced to question both how someone who made the sort of salary a Wal-Mart employee makes, even if he were manager or regional manager, could afford to go on the lam for 30-odd years, and how the hell it took the courts 30-odd years to nab the fellow. At the end of the day, rape is rape, and whether you're a farmer, factory worker, politician, actor, musician, or for all I care Jesus, justice must be had.

[Zorin Industries]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

Quite wrong. If we assume every other factor of the case to have been the same and just replace "director" with "Wal-Mart employee" well, quite honestly, I would be more upset, but with the legal system and not so much with Polanski. Oh yes, certainly still would be quite irate over the thought of him raping a child, but it's understandable why it dragged out this long. A good directorial career has afforded him to ability to keep away from places where he may be prosecuted. On top of that, the man is a director, and the courts have a tendency to go light on celebrities. Conversely, the common man tends to be brought down quite swiftly. Thus I would be forced to question both how someone who made the sort of salary a Wal-Mart employee makes, even if he were manager or regional manager, could afford to go on the lam for 30-odd years, and how the hell it took the courts 30-odd years to nab the fellow. At the end of the day, rape is rape, and whether you're a farmer, factory worker, politician, actor, musician, or for all I care Jesus, justice must be had.

Fine.

So if justice is indeed the motive here (though it has NOTHING to do with why some career-desperate juniors in America are still pushing a case that has so many holes in it, it is beyond repair) why has it taken 30 years for the biggest superpower in the world to apprehend ONE man for allegations of child abuse?

And we are presumably going to arrest the mother of the girl for whoring her own daughter round Hollywood are we? And also arrest the girl herself for constantly changing her stance to the whole thing and wasting police time over the years? (for the record : rape victims DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO AND TRAIPSE UP AND DOWN THE RED CARPET WITH GRINS ON THEIR FACES BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE TAKING THEIR PHOTOS AT THE PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKERS).

[SecretAgentFan]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

I dare say everbody here would because all those who questioned Polanski´s arrest stated again and again that they do not defend him because he is a famous director.

If this is really what you guys are thinking, well then let´s get the torches and burn Polanski at the stake. Because he RAPED A CHILD. Simple as that. Case closed. No questions asked. We are much too civilized to fuss around with details.

Okay, irony and polemics aside - let me return to my point: do we really want to be a society that judges people without looking at every detail?

Are you ing serious? What kind of extenuating circumstances can excuse rape? That he didn't realize she was 13? Well, I guess that makes it OK. That her mother allegedly thrust her daughter into dangerous situations? OK them. That he hasn't done it again? Well, as long as he's learned his lesson.
"let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm."
link
The fact is, the only extenuating circumstances that really matters to people is that he's a talented artist. If he weren't, he would have to go door to door telling neighbors that he's a registered sex offender.

Once again, you are obviously not paying attention to the points I made. Read them again if you really want to understand. But I guess you don´t want to understand. Sadly.

[Trident]

A good directorial career has afforded him to ability to keep away from places where he may be prosecuted.

This is not true. Polanski has at various times been to places where an extradition to the US would have been possible. Had the case just been deemed urgent enough. Which it has not.

[Tybre]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

Quite wrong. If we assume every other factor of the case to have been the same and just replace "director" with "Wal-Mart employee" well, quite honestly, I would be more upset, but with the legal system and not so much with Polanski. Oh yes, certainly still would be quite irate over the thought of him raping a child, but it's understandable why it dragged out this long. A good directorial career has afforded him to ability to keep away from places where he may be prosecuted. On top of that, the man is a director, and the courts have a tendency to go light on celebrities. Conversely, the common man tends to be brought down quite swiftly. Thus I would be forced to question both how someone who made the sort of salary a Wal-Mart employee makes, even if he were manager or regional manager, could afford to go on the lam for 30-odd years, and how the hell it took the courts 30-odd years to nab the fellow. At the end of the day, rape is rape, and whether you're a farmer, factory worker, politician, actor, musician, or for all I care Jesus, justice must be had.

Fine.

So if justice is indeed the motive here (though it has NOTHING to do with why some career-desperate juniors in America are still pushing a case that has so many holes in it, it is beyond repair)

And we are presumably going to arrest the mother of the girl for whoring her own daughter round Hollywood are we? And also arrest the girl herself for constantly changing her stance to the whole thing and wasting police time over the years? (rape victims DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO TRAIPSE UP AND DOWN THE RED CARPET AT THE PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKERS). In my book that speaks volumes about wasting police time over the years.

If I were in charge of things, the mother, assuming she is still alive (I don't know, but I assume she is), would most certainly be facing the court for her blatant failure as a parent. As for the woman herself, as I've said before, I don't know everything about it, so I would first then look into things before deciding whether or not she, too, must face some sort of punishment. And of course if that old judge were still alive, I'd certainly be throwing his over the fire as well. And if indeed there were any corruption involving his recent arrest, I would see to it they faced punishment as well. At the end of the day, all guilty parties must answer for their crimes, but those with greater crimes, namely Polanski and the mother, are to be dealt with first. Alas the justice system likes to deal in grey....

[Trident]

If I were in charge of things, the mother, assuming she is still alive (I don't know, but I assume she is), would most certainly be facing the court for her blatant failure as a parent. As for the woman herself, as I've said before, I don't know everything about it, so I would first then look into things before deciding whether or not she, too, must face some sort of punishment. And of course if that old judge were still alive, I'd certainly be throwing his over the fire as well. And if indeed there were any corruption involving his recent arrest, I would see to it they faced punishment as well. At the end of the day, all guilty parties must answer for their crimes, but those with greater crimes, namely Polanski and the mother, are to be dealt with first. Alas the justice system likes to deal in grey....

It would seem fairly certain that the same case to be tried in a process nowadays would have a different outcome. That doesn't mean necessarily a more just one. But certainly the entire background of this case, as well as the circumstances it was handled by the court, would be subject to infinitely deeper scrutiny by all kinds of envolved parties as well as the media.

Would that make it a better process? Highly disputable. Still I think the victim's mother would have to answer a series of most uncomfortable questions regarding her responsibility.

Would the verdict concerning Polanski's actions be the same? In light of similar cases and the tendency of the law system to head for deals whenever possible to save the effort, I fear it wouldn't have come to a trial in the end.

Would justice be done?

When has it ever?

[Sark2.0]

I dare say everbody here would because all those who questioned Polanski´s arrest stated again and again that they do not defend him because he is a famous director.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If not, that's totally missing my point. My point was that people are in denial about why they defend Polanski. They defend him because they desperately want him not to be a child rapist. They want that because he is an artist. If he wasn't rich or famous or talented he'd be just another guy on To Catch a Predator. "Have a seat over there."

Let's say that hypothetically, it was consensual (there's no reason to think it was). How many men here would have sex with a 13 year old? How many would be friends with someone who does/did? Lets even say that Polanski overestimated her age by 2 years (which men apparently do, I saw an article on it somewhere but can't find it now). Is it OK in your book for men in their forties to have sex with 15 year olds?

[Loomis]

And also arrest the girl herself for constantly changing her stance to the whole thing and wasting police time over the years?

What do you mean by "constantly changing her stance to the whole thing"? Are you saying that she's ever denied being raped? How, precisely, has she ever wasted police time? You seem to be strongly implying that her accusation of rape was false.

But perhaps she "asked for it", eh? Gadding about with Hollywood types and everything. I expect she was wearing a short skirt on the day, so....

[SecretAgentFan]

I dare say everbody here would because all those who questioned Polanski´s arrest stated again and again that they do not defend him because he is a famous director.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If not, that's totally missing my point. My point was that people are in denial about why they defend Polanski. They defend him because they desperately want him not to be a child rapist. They want that because he is an artist. If he wasn't rich or famous or talented he'd be just another guy on To Catch a Predator. "Have a seat over there."

It was not sarcasm at all. And I don´t see why that would be missing your point. How can you know that I am in denial about Polanski´s crime? I certainly am not. Go back to my posts - I always said that he commited a crime. The same applies to those here who question Polanski´s arrest. But let me say it again: IT IS NOT ABOUT HIM BEING AN ARTIST. If he were "just another guy" and not rich and famous I would still say: Please, everybody, look at all the details before condemning anybody. I would still say that the arrest, especially now, is questionable.

Let's say that hypothetically, it was consensual (there's no reason to think it was). How many men here would have sex with a 13 year old? How many would be friends with someone who does/did? Lets even say that Polanski overestimated her age by 2 years (which men apparently do, I saw an article on it somewhere but can't find it now). Is it OK in your book for men in their forties to have sex with 15 year olds?

I don´t even know why you ask these questions. An answer by us people in this forum is completely irrelevant to that case.

[Trident]

I dare say everbody here would because all those who questioned Polanski´s arrest stated again and again that they do not defend him because he is a famous director.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If not, that's totally missing my point. My point was that people are in denial about why they defend Polanski. They defend him because they desperately want him not to be a child rapist. They want that because he is an artist. If he wasn't rich or famous or talented he'd be just another guy on To Catch a Predator. "Have a seat over there."

Sorry, but this is rubbish. There is no shortage of people clamouring for blood if it's not their own. And much less of people demanding it if it's a celeb's, an artist's, a politician's. The web's the place to find evidence of this in abundance, but you can also see it most every day on TV or read it in your paper. Nobody 'desperately' wants Polanski 'not to be a child rapist... because he's an artist'. To the contrary, I often get the feeling this is what spices up the whole repugnant affair for some people, gives them something of a superior feeling á la 'A director? A bloody intellectual pervert, that's what he is!'. I don't think the criticism of Polanski's arrest has much to do with his status as an artist, apart from the fact that him being a famous artist would chiefly be responsible for the sudden interest to bring him back to the States.

Let's say that hypothetically, it was consensual (there's no reason to think it was). How many men here would have sex with a 13 year old? How many would be friends with someone who does/did? Lets even say that Polanski overestimated her age by 2 years (which men apparently do, I saw an article on it somewhere but can't find it now). Is it OK in your book for men in their forties to have sex with 15 year olds?

I actually haven't seen anybody here suggesting it was OK, but I may have not read that particular part. Anyway, this is a pretty good point of yours, a truly repulsive thought, a mature male having sex with a 15-year-old. No, doesn't go down well. In fact it sticks in my throat and makes me retch. Really, not a pleasant thought.

Why does the tidal wave of Asian pørn suddenly come to mind, I wonder? You know, if you take a look at the models in these films you easily can get the impression they are not only underage but in fact quite kiddy. Of course they aren't, many Asian females just have the gift of aging very, very favourably. Still, it makes me wonder a bit. This particular genre is a huge chunk of mainstream pørn. So there would happen to be a considerable amount of males (most pørn consumers are males) watching films that happen to depict sexual acts with one or several female actors looking decidedly underage. Now, what are those consumers? Are they prone to kiddy pørn, to child molesting?

I truly cannot answer this, but I think this indicates one particularly uncomfortable fact. Fantasising about sexual acts with very young girls would seem to be a much more common fantasy than one should reasonably expect. And I really have little doubt that most of us know somebody, are friends with somebody, who has had experiences with this kind of fantasy in some form. Disturbing thought, somehow. Yet it would seem to be legal.

[Mr. Blofeld]

News flash: Roger Avary, co-writer of Pulp Fiction and Beowulf pled guilty to driving drunk and causing a crash that killed his friend and seriously injured his wife... and he was only sentenced to one year in prison.

Now, call me old fashioned, but I was raised to believe that murder was a worse crime than rape. Getting so drunk that you plow your car into a tree and kill your friend is pretty heinous, yet no one is hopping up and down mad or calling Roger Avary 100% evil because of what he did. Also, the light sentence leads me to believe that the judge actually took into account the character of the defendant, the severity of the crime, etc. (Yes, folks; it actually does happen.)

It would be ridiculous for Roman Polanski to get locked away forever when Avary only gets one year for killing his friend; otherwise, it'd be like saying Polanski would be better off if he had killed the girl instead of raping her (obviously, I'm not advocating that, but still...).

[Safari Suit]

News flash: Roger Avary, co-writer of Pulp Fiction and Beowulf pled guilty to driving drunk and causing a crash that killed his friend and seriously injured his wife... and he was only sentenced to one year in prison.

Now, call me old fashioned, but I was raised to believe that murder was a worse crime than rape. Getting so drunk that you plow your car into a tree and kill your friend is pretty heinous, yet no one is hopping up and down mad or calling Roger Avary 100% evil because of what he did. Also, the light sentence leads me to believe that the judge actually took into account the character of the defendant, the severity of the crime, etc. (Yes, folks; it actually does happen.)

It would be ridiculous for Roman Polanski to get locked away forever when Avary only gets one year for killing his friend; otherwise, it'd be like saying Polanski would be better off if he had killed the girl instead of raping her (obviously, I'm not advocating that, but still...).

?

I don't want to be a Next Tuesday or anything, but this has to be about the most bizzare post I've ever read. What exactly is to gain from deciding whether or not rape is "worse" than murder? What does Roger Avary have to do with Roman Polanski? Nothing, besides them both working in the film industry. And technically Avary's crime was not murder but manslaughter.

And before anyone pounces on me, if I'm on anyone's side here, while uncertain I'm on Polanski's. But there are good ways of defending him and bad ways, and frankly I don't think bringing in more or less ad hominem attacks on others (regardless of how horrible their crime was) and saying things like "I was raised to believe that murder was a worse crime than rape" are among the better ways.

[David Schofield]

I would have - will, just pass me the knife - chopped Polanski's cock off.

That way he would have still been able to make films so as not to disappoint his admirers in Hollywood and his fans worldwide.

I make no apologies for this.

[Mr. Blofeld]

You don't have to apologize. Dave.

Anyway, the opinion expressed above is not my opinion; it's this guy's:

http://www.agonyboot...s...;t=3732&p=4

It's the fifth post down.

[dee-bee-five]

Would anyone be interesting in expending this type of energy defending Roman Polanski if he, say, worked the night shift at Wal-Mart? I dare say no one here would.

Quite wrong. If we assume every other factor of the case to have been the same and just replace "director" with "Wal-Mart employee" well, quite honestly, I would be more upset, but with the legal system and not so much with Polanski. Oh yes, certainly still would be quite irate over the thought of him raping a child, but it's understandable why it dragged out this long. A good directorial career has afforded him to ability to keep away from places where he may be prosecuted. On top of that, the man is a director, and the courts have a tendency to go light on celebrities. Conversely, the common man tends to be brought down quite swiftly. Thus I would be forced to question both how someone who made the sort of salary a Wal-Mart employee makes, even if he were manager or regional manager, could afford to go on the lam for 30-odd years, and how the hell it took the courts 30-odd years to nab the fellow. At the end of the day, rape is rape, and whether you're a farmer, factory worker, politician, actor, musician, or for all I care Jesus, justice must be had.

Fine.

So if justice is indeed the motive here (though it has NOTHING to do with why some career-desperate juniors in America are still pushing a case that has so many holes in it, it is beyond repair) why has it taken 30 years for the biggest superpower in the world to apprehend ONE man for allegations of child abuse?

And we are presumably going to arrest the mother of the girl for whoring her own daughter round Hollywood are we? And also arrest the girl herself for constantly changing her stance to the whole thing and wasting police time over the years? (for the record : rape victims DO NOT GET DRESSED UP TO GO AND TRAIPSE UP AND DOWN THE RED CARPET WITH GRINS ON THEIR FACES BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE TAKING THEIR PHOTOS AT THE PREMIERE OF DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKERS).

Quite. One really has to question all this. After 30 years - 30 years in which RP has travelled around reasonably freely - this suddenly happens. It smacks less of a desire for justice, more of some little runt career-building by claiming a high-profile scalp.

God knows what they'd do to the late, great Joe Orton if he was still around...

[Dekard77]

It's a bit surprising that this case took over 30 years to get to where it is now. I mean the man was awarded an Oscar by a high profile American Actor(they all knew where he was). What was France stance on this? Is this a case of justice or morality? When the Max Factor heir jumped the U.S after alleged rape charges he was apprehended in Mexico a few months later. So what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?
I bet this kind of thing is not very uncommon in Hollywood but when it does get aired then I suppose the law has to take over.
Now am wondering what kind of person am I for owning some of his movies and trying to order Ninth Gate on Blu?? I really don't know.

[SecretAgentFan]

I would have - will, just pass me the knife - chopped his cock off.

That way he would have still been able to make films so as not to disappoint his admirers in Hollywood and his fans worldwide.

I make no apologies for this.

You don´t have to apologize - unless you want to be applauded for this. Because even if your reaction might be human and understandable, it does not help in any way to achieve what you think one could achieve: stopping a rapist from committing this crime ever again.

Because - and I got this from a police officer assigned to rape cases - a rapist is always committing his crime to counter his feeling of being powerless. The rape itself makes him feel powerful again. If you humiliate the rapist and show him that he has no power you are actually recharging his batteries. That´s why those men so often commit rape again.

If you throw them in jail the prisoners will punish them and rape them as well. Which will make the rapist absolutely powerless in turn. And when they leave prison they will have the almost uncontrollable urge to act out their need again.

And make no mistake - even if castrated they will use other ways to rape their victims with. So, castration, while surely a huge laugh guarantee and shoulder-clapping incentive in bars or on certain message boards, will not make the situation any better but even worse.

Every police officer or psychologist familiar with these cases tell you the same: you can only try to change these men or women with extensive therapy (psychologically or with drugs) and hope for the best. Or you can lock them up in a mental facility (which will worsen their state as well but maybe protect future victims as long as the perpetrator does not break out).

By the way: most rapes are committed within families or by friends. The unknown "monster" leaping out of the bushes is extremely rare.

What does this have to do with Polanski? IMO he is not a typical rapist. His crime was different (as to how different many posts here have already explained this). But I never debated whether he committed a crime or not - he did! I debated the validity of his arrest right now.

It's a bit surprising that this case took over 30 years to get to where it is now. I mean the man was awarded an Oscar by a high profile American Actor(they all knew where he was). What was France stance on this? Is this a case of justice or morality? When the Max Factor heir jumped the U.S after alleged rape charges he was apprehended in Mexico a few months later. So what did Polanski have with France to keep him away from jail?
I bet this kind of thing is not very uncommon in Hollywood but when it does get aired then I suppose the law has to take over.
Now am wondering what kind of person am I for owning some of his movies and trying to order Ninth Gate on Blu?? I really don't know.

Just to to be clear: no high profile American Actor awarded Polanski an Oscar - the majority of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted for him as best director. Harrison Ford was just a presenter, albeit one who had worked with Polanski on "Frantic".

This only means one thing: They liked his movie "The Pianist" and his work on that. You can try and interpret it also as a gesture ("We forgive you") but this is pure speculation.

And please, you don´t have to wonder what kind of person you are for owning Polanski movies or even enjoying them. I cannot remember any of his picture advocating rape or sex with a minor. Actually, just the opposite (see "Chinatown").