394 replies to this topic

[Jim]

I will now be forced to illegally download SHUTTER ISLAND rather than give Martin Scorcese my 10 dollars.

Moral highground captured once more.

Yes, because watching illegal copies of films is just as bad as what Polanski did.

No, certainly not. It's just testament to the good old rider's wisdom that it's advisable to bow one's head when returning to the stable.

Well, true, but there are gradations of wrongdoing. A shoplifter, say, is entitled to take the moral high ground over a child rapist. Someone who deals small quantities of cannabis to friends has the moral upper hand over a terrorist. In my opinion, anyway.

I think this misses the point somewhat. The watching of illegal filmcopies isn't mentioned as confession to a tiny bit of petty crime as opposed to a much more severe crime. It's quite obviously regarded here as a weird form of private punishment for the perceived monstrous behaviour of the persons in question. And this begs the question whether the perception of 'justice' isn't a wee little bit skewed.

Quite.

The most baffling part of this thread is a perception that people didn't know this about Roman Polanski anyway, and well before now. Call it a daft assumption but I thought this was Roman Polanski Fact Number One. Didn't everyone know this? Seems a bit odd not to have known this.

Given that he was chucked the Oscar for being the Best Director only a handful of years ago, on some of the brainery on show here, one should boycott/steal films made by every single member of the "Academy" and should have been doing so ever since they so adorned him. If one doesn't, and one hasn't been, one has condoned the condonation of child-rape, you condonation of child-rape condoners, you. Steven Spielberg, he's a member of the "Academy", so watching anything he's made recently is tantamount to condoning the condoning of child-rape.

Mr Polanski doesn't appear to be very nice, for what it's worth, but I'm neither paid nor qualified to pass judgment on him, so someone else can do that for me. But no-one here.

[Ambler]

Steven Spielberg, he's a member of the "Academy", so watching anything he's made recently is tantamount to condoning the condoning of child-rape.

Odd that you should bring up Mr Spielberg. Anyone here see this piece in the Guardian?

The culture of sexual behaviour in 70s Hollywood was entirely different – even for those considered then and now to be the respectable good guys. In his classic history of the period, Easy Rider, Raging Bulls, author Peter Biskind includes this startling description of the personal stress suffered by Steven Spielberg during the troubled shoot of Jaws:

Spielberg was under an enormous amount of pressure. He brought his own pillow with him from home, and put celery in it, a smell he found comforting. He had no time for anything but work. A female friend of a friend was brought out from LA for recreational sex. She slept with him, and left. It felt like the production would never end …

Many readers of Biskind's book have pondered that passage since it was published in 1998. The book is packed with racy anecdotes about bad behaviour, yet this is not presented as one of them: just a throwaway remark about how the new alpha-males of the movie world dealt with work pressures. No one has ever alleged that Steven Spielberg engaged in any illegal activity. Yet given that the encounter did not happen spontaneously, what exactly did bringing this "female friend of a friend out from LA for recreational sex" involve precisely? And do we see in that passage a hint of the attitude which was to metastasise into the casual exploitation and arrogance which underpinned the Polanski affair?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well no, it is the complete contradiction that says something like Scorsese is such a monster for supporting someone I don't like so I will only download his new film instead of go to the theatre to see it...? That is nothing to do with where you stand on rape. That is a pathetic, selfish sentiment of someone who is clearly without any principles when it comes to cinema.

'Cinematic principles'? You've named yourself after a character in the movie A VIEW TO A KILL. There's no bigger affront to good taste and common decency in modern cinema than A VIEW TO A KILL, so come down off the cross, Zorin, because other people need the wood.

What about you? You've named yourself after an idiotic line from one of George Lucas's worst films...

How do you like it, having ad hominem attacks against you?

That wasn't last week. Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are.

Clearly you aren't referring to me, because I've never seen a Polanski film, never will see a Polanski film, and I was just as outraged back in 2003 when he received an Oscar for THE PIANIST as I am now. I would've argued with you about this back then, but we hadn't met yet.

Well, I don't like the stance the former Cat Stevens took on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start boycotting Harold and Maude wherever it shows just because it contains his songs.

Also, Grav? Thought you might like to know your favorite asshat is getting a backlash in Britain:

http://www.guardian....ws-barack-obama

[Loomis]

Rape victims, particularly when traumatized at a very young age, can engage in irrational behavior. Why didn't Jaycee Duggard flee from her captor at any time during the last 18 years? Why was Elizabeth Smart handing out religious literature in Utah instead of trying to escape from her captors?

All of your protestations do nothing to address the main issue: did a 45 year old man have sex with a 13 year old girl? The answer is YES! Doesn't matter if she's the biggest whore in the world, teenage girls are off limits. Period. End of discussion.

[Royal Dalton]

A very interesting documentary film (and one that - very strangely - Samantha Geimer supported and promoted...see it to know what I mean) is on BBC FOUR on Monday 12th October in the evening.

I strongly urge people to watch that one to see some of the grey-er areas of this case - and a fascinating testament to the Hollywood of the 1970's.

POLANSKI - WANTED AND DESIRED
BBC FOUR
Monday 12th October 2009

Talking of which...

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/8284452.stm

[SecretAgentFan]

I should not answer and give more fuel to you but... the fact that you present Woody Allen is another testament to your unwillingness to enter an informed discussion (see my Woody Allen reference but I´m afraid you haven´t read that either).

And, please, Gravity, you might try to smear my reputation around here. And you might even succeed. I just hope that there are some members left who understood my points correctly.

Don't worry, mate, I, for one, understand perfectly what you were saying. Alas, it seems others are determined to deliberately misinterpret you...

Thank you, dee-bee-five!

[Dekard77]

Heard that one of the lawyers in that documentary lied to make it sound interesting. While it was not a big lie it shows there could be more doubtful/dramatisations of the film.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

http://www.usatoday....cumentary_N.htm

[Trident]

Heard that one of the lawyers in that documentary lied to make it sound interesting. While it was not a big lie it shows there could be more doubtful/dramatisations of the film.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

http://www.usatoday....cumentary_N.htm

Problem is, who's to say when this guy is lying? In the documerntary 'to make it look better'? Now, as this *hole is gettting some heat to backpedal as fast as possible to undermine justified complaints about the legality of the case especially on the judge's side? Both times, as this guy certainly knows to keep his mouth shut about all the backstage dealing and scheming of the original trial and the miraculously delayed victory of justice?

We will never know for sure and will hardly be able to find out from this dolt as he's now managed to completely sink his own reputation and credibility. It doesn't bode well that this is coming from a former member of the judicial authorities responsible for this case. Only good thing about it is, he cannot do more damage now. He's already had maximum effect.

[Dekard77]

Heard that one of the lawyers in that documentary lied to make it sound interesting. While it was not a big lie it shows there could be more doubtful/dramatisations of the film.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

http://www.usatoday....cumentary_N.htm

Problem is, who's to say when this guy is lying? In the documerntary 'to make it look better'? Now, as this *hole is gettting some heat to backpedal as fast as possible to undermine justified complaints about the legality of the case especially on the judge's side? Both times, as this guy certainly knows to keep his mouth shut about all the backstage dealing and scheming of the original trial and the miraculously delayed victory of justice?

We will never know for sure and will hardly be able to find out from this dolt as he's now managed to completely sink his own reputation and credibility. It doesn't bode well that this is coming from a former member of the judicial authorities responsible for this case.

True and once the media gets involved in a high profile case things usually go downhill. At the end of the day he is in the hands of the law.
My dilemma is whether or not I should be watching his films any further. I know most celebrities lead a very contradictory life (most of us as well ) but like I said before when things are put in front of you it challenges your morals/common sense.

[SecretAgentFan]

Heard that one of the lawyers in that documentary lied to make it sound interesting. While it was not a big lie it shows there could be more doubtful/dramatisations of the film.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

http://www.usatoday....cumentary_N.htm

I don´t know. Doesn´t it strike you odd that Wells says this now? Why did he lie in the first place? He had nothing to gain from lying. He was not a producer who needed to make his film "more interesting".

Couldn´t this be just a way to make the case against Polanski easier to swallow?

Again, I do not advocate rape. I do not think Polanski or any artist is above the law. I´m just curious about this very strange, muddled case in which everyone seems to lie and the truth is probably impossible to find out.

Why am I curious? Not because of Polanski. But because in these times information can be manipulated so fast and details can easily get lost. It all becomes a pile of conflicting intel until nobody knows what´s right or wrong anymore. It is therefore so important to go on asking questions instead of adopting just one perspective, losing any balanced thinking.

My dilemma is whether or not I should be watching his films any further. I know most celebrities lead a very contradictory life (most of us as well ) but like I said before when things are put in front of you it challenges your morals/common sense.

My advice would be this: don´t shy away from that challenge. Watch his movies and try to find out whether you can still appreciate them or not. And basically, don´t confuse the artist with his art. While, of course, the artist´s thoughts are reflected in his work that does not mean that every film is just a confessional or even autobiographical.

[Dekard77]

Wells may have just wanted to spice things up. Either way what he lied about was not to serious but brings to doubt on most things seen in the documentary. I have never seen the documentary though.
Media has a way of playing for both sides or being biased. So everything said should be taken with some caution.
For most people to work with Polanski must be used to similar behaviour from their colleagues that it has become a way of life. I am not saying raping is o.k in Hollywood but I think they are used to seeing or hearing about certain unsavoury behaviour within the industry.

[coco1997]

Well no, it is the complete contradiction that says something like Scorsese is such a monster for supporting someone I don't like so I will only download his new film instead of go to the theatre to see it...? That is nothing to do with where you stand on rape. That is a pathetic, selfish sentiment of someone who is clearly without any principles when it comes to cinema.

'Cinematic principles'? You've named yourself after a character in the movie A VIEW TO A KILL. There's no bigger affront to good taste and common decency in modern cinema than A VIEW TO A KILL, so come down off the cross, Zorin, because other people need the wood.

What about you? You've named yourself after an idiotic line from one of George Lucas's worst films...

How do you like it, having ad hominem attacks against you?

That wasn't last week. Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are.

Clearly you aren't referring to me, because I've never seen a Polanski film, never will see a Polanski film, and I was just as outraged back in 2003 when he received an Oscar for THE PIANIST as I am now. I would've argued with you about this back then, but we hadn't met yet.

Well, I don't like the stance the former Cat Stevens took on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start boycotting Harold and Maude wherever it shows just because it contains his songs.

Also, Grav? Thought you might like to know your favorite asshat is getting a backlash in Britain:

http://www.guardian....ws-barack-obama

Yes, Obama is an asshat, but I hope you meant to the use the phrase "favorite" sarcastically.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I guess one Sean is your avatar, the other's in your heart?

By the way, on last night's episode of Lie to Me, concerning a statutory rapist, right before the opening credits, they flashed a set of famous faces who had committed similar crimes.

Even though this episode was filmed looong before the arrest, guess whose mug was the middle photo?

(I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with "Loman Golanski".)

[Trident]

My dilemma is whether or not I should be watching his films any further. I know most celebrities lead a very contradictory life (most of us as well ) but like I said before when things are put in front of you it challenges your morals/common sense.

Polanski's films, although some people doublessly will claim the opposite, don't in any way propagate violence against women in general nor sexual relations with minors and especially not rape, neither of minors nor of adults. So I don't really see a problem in watching and enjoying his films.

[Dekard77]

My dilemma is whether or not I should be watching his films any further. I know most celebrities lead a very contradictory life (most of us as well ) but like I said before when things are put in front of you it challenges your morals/common sense.

Polanski's films, although some people doublessly will claim the opposite, don't in any way propagate violence against women in general nor sexual relations with minors and especially not rape, neither of minors nor of adults. So I don't really see a problem in watching and enjoying his films.

[Zorin Industries]

Well no, it is the complete contradiction that says something like Scorsese is such a monster for supporting someone I don't like so I will only download his new film instead of go to the theatre to see it...? That is nothing to do with where you stand on rape. That is a pathetic, selfish sentiment of someone who is clearly without any principles when it comes to cinema.

'Cinematic principles'? You've named yourself after a character in the movie A VIEW TO A KILL. There's no bigger affront to good taste and common decency in modern cinema than A VIEW TO A KILL, so come down off the cross, Zorin, because other people need the wood.

And Polanski is alleged to have committed his crime in 1977.

Check your facts. He's not alleged to have done anything. The facts are not in dispute; only the degree to which he was guilty of rape. Again, CHECK YOUR FACTS: he plead guilty to STATUTORY RAPE.

That wasn't last week. Yet, still people who are very against him on this thread have watched his cinematic output since 1977. That is where the contradictions are.

Clearly you aren't referring to me, because I've never seen a Polanski film, never will see a Polanski film, and I was just as outraged back in 2003 when he received an Oscar for THE PIANIST as I am now. I would've argued with you about this back then, but we hadn't met yet.

Rape victims DO NOT attend the paparazzi-flanked red carpet premieres of documentary films about their alleged attackers. They do also not flank the poster of the film grinning like they are at their prom night. That is not - as Geimer keeps reminding the press (inbetween changing her stance on a few things) about "moving on".

Rape victims, particularly when traumatized at a very young age, can engage in irrational behavior. Why didn't Jaycee Duggard flee from her captor at any time during the last 18 years? Why was Elizabeth Smart handing out religious literature in Utah instead of trying to escape from her captors?

All of your protestations do nothing to address the main issue: did a 45 year old man have sex with a 13 year old girl? The answer is YES! Doesn't matter if she's the biggest whore in the world, teenage girls are off limits. Period. End of discussion.

I am not going to start arguing against cinematic principles, Gravity Whatever. Not with the likes of you who twist and argue everything into the realm of ludicrousness beyond idiocy. My cinematic principles work very fine for me thank you - in all sorts of ways.

I don't care what you think of my nickname on CBN. I really don't. Your opinions on A VIEW TO A KILL are merely your opinions (and you really should change some of your Profile favourites round here if you think Bond '85 was such a disaster). The reasons I am fond of that film are myriad, very personal, very close to me and don't always have anything to do with the finished film itself (which I do believe is solid Bond entertainment).

And I am not getting into discussing sex crimes and illegal activity with someone who advocates online piracy. Just remember what sort of activities film piracy funds and continues (it's not a million miles from what Polanski is being accused of here). So let's get a wider perspective, shall we?

And if an American chap such as yourself wants my wood... you only have to ask...

[Loomis]

Well, when all is said and done I still don't see any extenuating circumstances (like, whatsoever) for a 44-year-old doing a 13-year-old (regardless of whether it was statutory rape, rape, "rape-rape", completely consensual, or whether Polanski slipped on the soap in Nicholson's hot tub and toppled over, thereby penetrating the other person "by accident"), so still I maintain that Polanski needs to go back to America and face justice - U.S.-style!

That is all.

[Trident]

Perhaps interesting (from Business World Online)

Roman Polanski’s American dream
by Ian Buruma

NEW YORK — What purpose is Switzerland serving by jailing the renowned Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski on a 30-year-old warrant? Arrested in 1977 for allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of having unlawful sex with a minor. In the belief that his judge, the late Laurence J. Rittenband, would renege on his promise to let Polanski go free after serving 42 days in a California prison, the director fled the United States in 1978 before his final sentence was announced.


Since then, the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn. So the reason to pursue the case now can have nothing to do with the rights or feelings of the victim. Nor is Polanski, a married father of two children with no other criminal record, likely to repeat his offenses.

So the good of society is not served by forcing him to return to LA for a trial. Common sense would seem to leave no other conclusion than that his arrest — in a country that is obliged by treaty to extradite fugitives from US justice — serves no purpose at all.


Yet the reactions to his sad plight, especially in France, have been oddly shrill. The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, called Polanski’s arrest "sinister." Frederic Mitterand, the culture minister, spoke of "a scary America that has just shown its face." The former culture minister, Jack Lang, said the "American system of justice had run amuck." He added that it was like "an infernal machine" that advances "blindly."


Infernal or not, one might argue that justice is supposed to be blind, in the sense that no one — not even the greatest filmmaker — is above the law or entitled to escape from it. Yet that is precisely what many people, including his colleagues in the film world — for example, Pedro Almodovar, Wim Wenders, and Ettore Scola — are claiming. They believe that it is "inadmissible" for an artist of Polanski’s stature to be arrested for what he did.


Polanski is a French citizen, and France is probably more indulgent toward its great artists than is the US. In 1943, after a life of petty crime, the writer Jean Genet faced another prison sentence for theft, when Jean Cocteau declared that Genet was a literary genius. A French court, afraid of being too hard on a master of letters, reduced his sentence.


Allowing recognized artists to get away with behavior that would not be tolerated in lesser men is a tribute France pays to superior talent. (Think of Oscar Wilde, who, like Polanski, found refuge in Paris.)


Perhaps this shows that France is more civilized than the US. The Americans, and to an extent the British, sometimes pay a different kind of tribute to famous artists. If they are caught misbehaving, they are often treated with particular harshness by courts and the popular media alike. This is a form of populism: it shows that even the most famous people are no better than us — and it sells newspapers (or, nowadays, generates Web traffic).


A particularly nasty example was the case of "Fatty" Arbuckle, a great comedy actor in Hollywood’s silent-movie era. When a girl claimed to have been raped at one of his parties in 1921, and then died a few days later, Arbuckle was pilloried in the press, and sentenced for rape and murder twice. It was not established until his third trial that he was innocent. The girl was a known blackmailer, and she died of causes that had nothing to do with her sex life. But Arbuckle’s career was ruined, the victim of an ambitious prosecutor and a popular press that made money out of scandals.


Polanski was not innocent, but he, too, may have fallen victim to the same combination of a judge’s desire to bring down a famous man and a sensation-starved media. Perhaps the US is not as civilized as France, but it is more democratic. And, while equal treatment under the law obviously is one of democracy’s more commendable features, the zeal of elected officials and mass media that pander to popular opinion in their treatment of talented artists is the ugly face of democracy.


The great French observer of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, saw this face of American democracy in the 1830’s, noting that "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." The price for American-style democracy, he wrote, was artistic mediocrity and public conformity.


This, too, was an exaggeration, but Tocqueville had a point. If too much deference to great artists is the mark of a society that has never quite escaped from its aristocratic roots, too little regard for them is a sign of narrow philistinism.


So what should Polanski do? In an ideal world, he would agree to return to Los Angeles, face his judges, and hope that his case will be dismissed. This is not an unlikely outcome. Americans can be generous. And he would then be free to go wherever he likes in the remaining years of his life.


Alas, the world is not ideal, and Polanski might find the risk of incarceration in a US prison too high. If he decides to resist being tried in a court of law, like any other offender, this would be understandable. Whether it is admirable is another question.


Ian Buruma is the author of Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance. He is a professor of democracy, human rights and journalism at Bard College. His latest book is the novel The China Lover.

[Dekard77]

Well he's saying pretty much what most of us here had been saying......... do the crime to the time. However the media likes to portray it Polanski got off without so much as a slap on his wrist. He jumped America and had a somewhat successful career in movies. No one blacklisted him. In a town where actors were fired or blacklisted for making racial remarks or sexual discrimination/abuse, Polanski had it very easy. Yes he never committed the same crime again (as far as we know) and he did have dark period with the death of Sharon Tate but still I doubt he really ever regretted what happened. Most of what I understood from what the article says about celebrities is that it's a way of life for them to behave in such dark ways and shouldn't be judged harshly. Terrible.

Here is what Sharon Tate's sister has to say about the arrest!
http://www.guardian....2009/sep/30/usa

[Safari Suit]

I doubt he really ever regretted what happened.

I very much doubt he doesn't regret it, for one reason or another.

[HildebrandRarity]

He is a sick animal...and I think we need to send in James to send a message.

[SecretAgentFan]

But because in these times information can be manipulated so fast and details can easily get lost. It all becomes a pile of conflicting intel until nobody knows what´s right or wrong anymore.

There's no amount of "conflicting intel" that would make me question whether it is appropriate, moral, or legal to have sex with a 13 year old girl (or boy). It was wrong in 1977 to f*** a 13 year old girl, and it's still wrong in 2009 to f*** a 13 year old girl. Anyone whose moral compass can get so easily manipulated needs to see a qualified therapist. What part of Polanksi's admission do you not understand? The part where he sodomized her or the part where he drugged her?

My advice would be this: don´t shy away from that challenge. Watch his movies and try to find out whether you can still appreciate them or not.

Yeah, tell that to Elia Kazan:

How do you like it, having ad hominem attacks against you?

I don't even know who Ad Hominem is, so his attacks can't hurt me. What has he said? Where has he posted something about me?

So, you are doing satire after all. Gee, and I thought your posts were really meant seriously.

[Loomis]

I have a lot of respect for Ian Buruma, but I'll take issue with the following:

What purpose is Switzerland serving by jailing the renowned Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski on a 30-year-old warrant? ... Since then, the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn. So the reason to pursue the case now can have nothing to do with the rights or feelings of the victim. Nor is Polanski, a married father of two children with no other criminal record, likely to repeat his offenses.

So the good of society is not served by forcing him to return to LA for a trial.

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

[Dekard77]

no Retribution...

[Harmsway]

Is Hollywood really a hotbed of support for Roman Polanski?

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

Very true.

And one could argue that since the Polanski case is a very prominent and public one, it's all the more essential that the law makes an adequate demonstration of justice.

[SecretAgentFan]

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

Basically, you are right: the law is supposed to deter people from committing a crime. It does not really work, of course, but it is the best chance that we have.

For sex offenders, however, the law is totally irrelevant. They don´t think: Oh, if even someone like Polanski gets in trouble then maybe I should not do this. A sex offender acts out because he/she cannot control his/her urge. Laws do not keep them from doing it. And certainly not messages about famous artists.

[Dekard77]

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

Basically, you are right: the law is supposed to deter people from committing a crime. It does not really work, of course, but it is the best chance that we have.

For sex offenders, however, the law is totally irrelevant. They don´t think: Oh, if even someone like Polanski gets in trouble then maybe I should not do this. A sex offender acts out because he/she cannot control his/her urge. Laws do not keep them from doing it. And certainly not messages about famous artists.

Agreed but that is why they must be kept under observation or given some form of treatment. The way France has behaved it almost excuses celebrities from this sort of behaviour. Same with the drug use, now a lot of people feel popping a pill or doing hard drugs is not that bad due to constant reminders as to how popular personalities getaway with it.

[SecretAgentFan]

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

Basically, you are right: the law is supposed to deter people from committing a crime. It does not really work, of course, but it is the best chance that we have.

For sex offenders, however, the law is totally irrelevant. They don´t think: Oh, if even someone like Polanski gets in trouble then maybe I should not do this. A sex offender acts out because he/she cannot control his/her urge. Laws do not keep them from doing it. And certainly not messages about famous artists.

Agreed but that is why they must be kept under observation or given some form of treatment. The way France has behaved it almost excuses celebrities from this sort of behaviour. Same with the drug use, now a lot of people feel popping a pill or doing hard drugs is not that bad due to constant reminders as to how popular personalities getaway with it.

Three things I would like to mention:

- The way France has behaved? What do you mean?

- Concerning drug use - I agree completely. Especially young people consider those who refrain from drugs uncool. Although I don´t know which kind of celebrities with heavy drug use you refer to. Robert Downey jr. comes to my mind - but he did not get away with it and changed his ways. Then there are the myriad alcohol abusers, of course. But are they teen idols? Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears are hardly big draws anymore due to their personal desasters. The only celebrities promoting heavy drug use I could think of seem to be situated within the music industry. So, my simple question: which celebrities do you have in mind?

- Sex offenders must be kept under observation. True. One, of course, could argue that Polanski has been kept under worldwide observation.

[Trident]

I have a lot of respect for Ian Buruma, but I'll take issue with the following:

What purpose is Switzerland serving by jailing the renowned Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski on a 30-year-old warrant? ... Since then, the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn. So the reason to pursue the case now can have nothing to do with the rights or feelings of the victim. Nor is Polanski, a married father of two children with no other criminal record, likely to repeat his offenses.

So the good of society is not served by forcing him to return to LA for a trial.

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

The function of justice itself is merely to form a couple of basic rules to regiment and regulate a society's everyday behaviour.

I think what you and some others are referrig to is more specifically the function of penalisation. Penalisation in its judicial sense has three, no really four functions

-Specific deterrence: to discourage the criminal from future criminal acts

-General deterrence: to deter other individuals from deviance in the future (and thus keep society safe from such further acts)

-an element of 'lex talionis' or Eye for an Eye: although retributive justice is an ancient theory of punishment even modern law sees a need of the victim to see the offender punished

-and finally peace of law: after the case was tried, the defendant found guilty and having served his sentence there must be no reason for further trials for the crime


Now, all Buruma has done is to take a look at the case and the specifics of penalisation.

Specific deterrence: to the best of our knowledge Polanski is not likely to repeat his offenses and never was. Bringing up Kinski would mean one had an intimate knowledge of when and how their relationship proceeded. None of us has or ever had.

General deterrence: it's an uncomfortable fact, but sex offenders are not subject to sensible consideration. A true sexual offender isn't affected by whatever happens or doesn't happen to Polanski.

There is a kind of signal that might be sent by this case, but nobody here has given it any thought up to now. Individuals vulnerable to fantasies of the paedophilic kind may decide to seek help. May, and it's debatable if one of these potential sexual offenders wouldn't seek help and treatment even without a public Polanski-spectacle. Anyway, it seems this is actually of little concern to most people.

Retribution: Mrs Geimer has already stated she wasn't interested in a further pursuit of the case (for whatever reasons of her own). It would seem others feel they have more right of getting retribution than the victim itself for reasons entirely beyond me.

Peace of law: as it would seem three decades the law (embodied by the Californian authorities) found the case peaceful enough it begs the question what has changed. A question desperately avoided and dodged by the representatives of the Californian DA and Justice Department, despite numerous occasions and several different ways to get Polanski to court years, maybe even decades earlier. An official authority behaving in this manner undermines every trust and belief in its incorruptibility and 'candor'. And inevitably leads to questions and doubts regarding the legality of the initial process as well as the latest developments.


So it would seem the reasons for a late 'just' punishment of Polanski are mostly effete. Remains the serious apprehension an unpunished Polanski may shake our belief in the law system itself and it's good to worry about such things as this is the by far more serious danger in my view. But did it do so since 1977? I don't think so. Did the botched case of O.J. Simpson shake this belief? Once more I think hardly anybody was really shocked about that outcome. Do the all-too-familliar 'deals' undermine our belief in this law system? To the contrary, they confirm what we already suspect about it, that there is a considerable gap between aspiration and reality, and not just in the US law system. Still, these are questions and tasks beyond the specific case and should be discussed another time.

This is what Buruma meant and I'm with him.

[Loomis]

I have a lot of respect for Ian Buruma, but I'll take issue with the following:

What purpose is Switzerland serving by jailing the renowned Franco-Polish film director Roman Polanski on a 30-year-old warrant? ... Since then, the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn. So the reason to pursue the case now can have nothing to do with the rights or feelings of the victim. Nor is Polanski, a married father of two children with no other criminal record, likely to repeat his offenses.

So the good of society is not served by forcing him to return to LA for a trial.

One of the functions of justice is to deter other people. Polanski's recent arrest sends a message to other sex offenders and those who may be contemplating sexual offences. Which is surely something that serves the good of society.

The function of justice itself is merely to form a couple of basic rules to regiment and regulate a society's everyday behaviour.

I think what you and some others are referrig to is more specifically the function of penalisation.

Not just penalisation, no. The "mere" possibility of arrest/police interest is enough to deter some people.