394 replies to this topic

[DAN LIGHTER]

I say, has a thread over gone further off topic than this one? This might be a record

[Safari Suit]

No, not really. The subject of the thread is a Roman Polanski film, and the posts have all been related to Roman Polanski. I've seen threads go much further off-topic.

[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the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn.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.

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

Which is an inherent feature of penalisation. It must be a realistic possibility, not just a hypothetical danger unlikely to happen. And by letting the case slumber for over thirty years the responsible authorities have sent the exact opposite from a deterrence signal, which hasn't disturbed them (or in fact anybody) very much all this time.

[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the victim of Polanski’s sex crime, Samantha Geimer, publicly forgave him, and expressed her wish for the charges to be withdrawn.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.

Which is an inherent feature of penalisation.

Of course it is, but "penalisation" means "the act of punishing". Arrest - in and of itself - is not punishment. However, arrest does carry stigma and it's also something that's nowadays rather harder for the arrestee to cover up than was the case in the past. Which is why I say that it would be enough to deter some people.* And, therefore, that Polanski's recent arrest does in itself serve a usual social purpose, even if no further action had been or were to be taken against him.

*Not everyone, of course, but some - and that's a start.

And by letting the case slumber for over thirty years the responsible authorities have sent the exact opposite from a deterrence signal, which hasn't disturbed them (or in fact anybody) very much all this time.

Time to make amends, then.

[Trident]

I think this arrest does have an element of punishment, although firstly it is merely a measure of the Swiss authorities to keep him from leaving the country. And of course it's not really realistic to not expect further measures, i.e. extradition to the USA. If that wasn't a goal in the first place his arrest would have been illegal (and it's truly debatable if it isn't anyway, as the charges against Polanski would be time barred under Swiss law).

And by letting the case slumber for over thirty years the responsible authorities have sent the exact opposite from a deterrence signal, which hasn't disturbed them (or in fact anybody) very much all this time.

Time to make amends, then.

Maybe too late for amends. All that can follow now will have the mouldy aftertaste of a PR stunt and a few career-eager minions riding up the ladder on the ticket of late justice. Nothing more to be expected.

[Harmsway]

And by letting the case slumber for over thirty years the responsible authorities have sent the exact opposite from a deterrence signal, which hasn't disturbed them (or in fact anybody) very much all this time.

Time to make amends, then.

Maybe too late for amends. All that can follow now will have the mouldy aftertaste of a PR stunt and a few career-eager minions riding up the ladder on the ticket of late justice. Nothing more to be expected.

It's (sadly) true.

[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.

Three things I would like to mention:

- The way France has behaved? What do you mean?
Well for one the open critsism by ministers of the govt. Also he is a very prominent figure in France at least he should have been jailed for a few years or even blacklisted. There might have been legal issues with jailing him but honestly France gets to vote in U.N against countries that violate human rights so I guess if they wanted to they could have taken care of this matter.

- 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?
Eva Mendes, Paris Hilton, Lohan, Kimora Lee Simmons, Charlie Sheen,Owen Wilson, Robert Downey Jr, Lil Wayne and the list would go on. The main thing is that the gravity or dangers of doing drugs seems less bothersome when celebrities getaway with it and lie away on talk shows.
http://www.popcrunch.com/busted-100-celebrities-arrested-for-drug-possession/


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

True I didn't hear him try that again otherwise the tabloids would have gone to town. But I guess we will never know.

[Harmsway]

The Problem with Polanski
The debate isn't new--it all started 200 years ago.
by Morgan Meis

[SecretAgentFan]

- The way France has behaved? What do you mean?
Well for one the open critsism by ministers of the govt. Also he is a very prominent figure in France at least he should have been jailed for a few years or even blacklisted. There might have been legal issues with jailing him but honestly France gets to vote in U.N against countries that violate human rights so I guess if they wanted to they could have taken care of this matter.

Why shouldn´t the French government protest against a questionable arrest of one of their citizens? And Polanski could not have been jailed in France since the crime was committed in another country. And blacklisted? Please - thankfully the McCarthy era is over. Concerning your claim that since France gets to vote in the U.N. they should have taken care of the Polanski case... again, the crime was not committed in France. Do you really think a Government of any country should just decide: "Hey, we think it´s wrong so to hell with laws and regulations, we´re just doing this anyway"? I thought the Bush era was over.

- 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?
Eva Mendes, Paris Hilton, Lohan, Kimora Lee Simmons, Charlie Sheen,Owen Wilson, Robert Downey Jr, Lil Wayne and the list would go on. The main thing is that the gravity or dangers of doing drugs seems less bothersome when celebrities getaway with it and lie away on talk shows.

I see. But again, one should look at the details of the drug use. Owen Wilson, for example, ended up trying to commit suicide - hardly something to aspire to. And whether those celebrities are really role models (Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen...?) for a majority of teenagers.

- Sex offenders must be kept under observation. True. One, of course, could argue that Polanski has been kept under worldwide observation.
True I didn't hear him try that again otherwise the tabloids would have gone to town. But I guess we will never know.

[Harmsway]

There's a special place in hell for Roman Polanski
by Gene Lyons

Anyway, here's what the now-deceased judge who accepted Polanski's guilty plea said at the hearing: "The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the (victim) was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17-year-old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the (victim) was not unfamiliar with the drug Quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her 10th or 11th year."The child also apparently had the Stage Mother from Hell, a film industry tradition. In short, there may have been excellent reasons why both sides wanted to avoid a highly publicized Hollywood trial, and no reason to treat the grand jury testimony of a 14-year-old girl pressed by her mother and the prosecutor as holy writ. She may have interpreted Polanski's pleading guilty to a reduced charge as a kindness.

That said, Polanski's 1979 interview with novelist Martin Amis ought to earn him a special place in hell, if not a California penitentiary. "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?" he said. "But ... judges want to (bleep) young girls. Juries want to (bleep) young girls. Everyone wants to (bleep) young girls!"

Actually, no they don't. But a culture that tolerates beauty pageants for heavily made-up little girls, promotes teen bombshells like Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus and a million "Barely Legal" pørn films ought to consider where Polanski got the idea. The law may demand that a fleeing felon be brought to justice, but we Americans should probably be a bit less smug about it.

It's from Salon.com. For some reason, I keep getting an error saying that the administrator doesn't allow links to that site.

[Trident]

Thanks Harmsway for finding some interesting articles, particularly the Morgan Meis piece.

[Dekard77]

- The way France has behaved? What do you mean?
Well for one the open critsism by ministers of the govt. Also he is a very prominent figure in France at least he should have been jailed for a few years or even blacklisted. There might have been legal issues with jailing him but honestly France gets to vote in U.N against countries that violate human rights so I guess if they wanted to they could have taken care of this matter.

Why shouldn´t the French government protest against a questionable arrest of one of their citizens? And Polanski could not have been jailed in France since the crime was committed in another country. And blacklisted? Please - thankfully the McCarthy era is over. Concerning your claim that since France gets to vote in the U.N. they should have taken care of the Polanski case... again, the crime was not committed in France. Do you really think a Government of any country should just decide: "Hey, we think it´s wrong so to hell with laws and regulations, we´re just doing this anyway"? I thought the Bush era was over.

Nothing to do with Bush era, just found it a bit strange to let a known sex offender wander free. If the law lets him getaway with technicality then I suppose it should make everything all right.

- 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?
Eva Mendes, Paris Hilton, Lohan, Kimora Lee Simmons, Charlie Sheen,Owen Wilson, Robert Downey Jr, Lil Wayne and the list would go on. The main thing is that the gravity or dangers of doing drugs seems less bothersome when celebrities getaway with it and lie away on talk shows.

I see. But again, one should look at the details of the drug use. Owen Wilson, for example, ended up trying to commit suicide - hardly something to aspire to. And whether those celebrities are really role models (Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen...?) for a majority of teenagers.

Message is it's not as bad as it looks as Owen Wilson and co and walking around like everything is ok. So most people say I guess it can't be that bad.

- Sex offenders must be kept under observation. True. One, of course, could argue that Polanski has been kept under worldwide observation.
True I didn't hear him try that again otherwise the tabloids would have gone to town. But I guess we will never know.

[Tybre]

[url="http://\"http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10020901.aspx\""]The Problem with Polanski
The debate isn\'t new--it all started 200 years ago.[/url]
by Morgan Meis

Have to call BS on the segment I\'m reading now, regarding Williams\' ideas. Kant and I may sometimes clash, but the fellow at least had a handle on some things.

Still, good article thus far, and thanks for the linkage.

Also I think the following does a good job of summing up part of the issue:

"To the French mind, this has made Polanski a combination of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus — the victim of systematic persecution," [Ted] Stanger says. "To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law." That's a perception gap as wide as the Atlantic.

[B. Brown]

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 …

I couldn't help laughing at that.

[DAN LIGHTER]

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 …

I couldn't help laughing at that.

I agree, very funny.

[SecretAgentFan]

So, Polanski is finishing "THE GHOST" from his cell. Whatever one may think about him this film still remains a highly interesting project. I can´t wait to see Brosnan in this.

[Tybre]

That's certainly good to hear. Can't wait for it to open. Book was brilliant, if somewhat obvious in places. Film will likely be the same.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Ghost in the cell, huh?

[Royal Dalton]

So, Polanski is finishing "THE GHOST" from his cell.

He's probably Oliver Twist over it. Maybe even Frantic. I don't suppose there's much chance of a Tess screening now. Even if there was, it might fill the audience with Repulsion. And what happens if the Pirates get their hands on it? There'll be bootleg copies for sale in every Cul-de-sac in Chinatown.

[Loomis]

So, Polanski is finishing "THE GHOST" from his cell.

He's probably Oliver Twist over it. Maybe even Frantic. I don't suppose there's much chance of a Tess screening now. Even if there was, it might fill the audience with Repulsion. And what happens if the Pirates get their hands on it? There'll be bootleg copies for sale in every Cul-de-sac in Chinatown.

[Ambler]

If Polanski dies in custody - he's 76 and on medication - this won't be so funny.

[coco1997]

If Polanski dies in custody - he's 76 and on medication - this won't be so funny.

Suit yourself.

[Loomis]

If Polanski dies in custody - he's 76 and on medication - this won't be so funny.

You seem to be implying that Royal Dalton has made a sick joke. I found his post pretty funny and without obvious malice. Trust me, there are many much sicker Polanski jokes out there.

[Ambler]

If Polanski dies in custody - he's 76 and on medication - this won't be so funny.

You seem to be implying that Royal Dalton has made a sick joke. I found his post pretty funny and without obvious malice. Trust me, there are many much sicker Polanski jokes out there.

Not my intention.

However, there is a strong 'eye for an eye' atmosphere in this thread that I suspect will only be appeased if Polanski dies in custody.

[Loomis]

So I'm halfway through THE GHOST and so far it's terrific stuff, an original and well-written thriller. I can certainly see why Polanski was drawn to this novel, with its slow-burning suspense and its atmosphere of gothic gloom (it's set during a bleak, grey winter in Martha's Vineyard, largely within the gilded cage of a billionaire's mansion) - easy to see why the director of THE TENANT was turned on by it.

Brosnan seems a terrific choice to play former British prime minister Tony Blair - sorry, Adam Lang, while Ewan McGregor also appears well-cast as the ghostwriter of his memoirs.

I've just got to the bit where Lang, about to be indicted as a warmonger by the International Criminal Court, is advised by his lawyer not to leave the United States and told that the only "safe" countries for him to visit are Iraq, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Israel "and some of the nastier regimes in Africa".

"Nevertheless, as your attorney, until this whole thing is resolved, I do strongly advise you not to travel to any country that recognises the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. All it would take is for two of these three judges to decide to grandstand to the human rights crowd, go ahead and issue a warrant, and you could be picked up."

Hmmm....

[Tybre]

So what you're saying is Polanski should be playing Lang and not Brosnan?

[Jim]

....an eye for an eye...

The realm of the the cheaply undereducated.

If that were to apply in this case, it would mean a buggering of Polanski's daughter. Like for like justice. Those who advocate an eye for an eye engorge themselves on childbuggery.

Millionpound finery, smackedroundtheheadery, but not that.

Not that.

Don't do that. An eye for an eye is no system of educated justice.

[Loomis]

So what you're saying is Polanski should be playing Lang and not Brosnan?

Hardly. Good actor though he is (see THE TENANT), Polanski wouldn't exactly be convincing as an athletic former British prime minister in his early fifties. I was merely remarking on the coincidence.

....an eye for an eye...

The realm of the the cheaply undereducated.

If that were to apply in this case, it would mean a buggering of Polanski's daughter. Like for like justice. Those who advocate an eye for an eye engorge themselves on childbuggery.

Millionpound finery, smackedroundtheheadery, but not that.

Not that.

Don't do that. An eye for an eye is no system of educated justice.

Agreed. Not that anyone on this thread has actually been advocating the sort of eye-for-an-eye "justice" to which you refer. That I've noticed, anyway. Look to other fora for comments along the lines of: "The peedo ought to of been castrated!!!!"

[Ambler]

Bye bye, morons.

[Loomis]

Why the rudeness, Ambler?