Quoted from sniper On a related note, Susan Atkins died in prison last week.

I didn't know of this till now. She was Sadie. I'll have to google it and check it out. I read 'Helter Skelter' when i was a teenager. Damn, that was a terrifying book but absolutely riveting. The tele movie they did from it was very well done too.
I've always had an interest in the whole Manson killings from the Beatles connection.

Polanski? Yeah, I dunno. He did something bad years ago. Maybe if they get him to trial they won't throw the book at him too much. it's an iffy one.

Hey, i just realised something...  is rob the old Sniper? what's going on here?

Quoted from Niles_Crane Yes, simple answer. He committed a crime - and it should be noted has admitted his guilt. He then did a runner. If it had been Joe Bloggs from down the road, rather than an acclaimed film director, there would have been no sympathy or people popping up claiming he shouldn't be treated as he has been. As they used to say - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I agree with the Joe Bloggs comment. The only reason Polanski got away with this for so long was because he had the means to skip the country and start a life overseas. If a working stiff had done it they would've been forced to stick around and face the music. The only reason the media are questioning whether he should be locked up or not is because he's liked in the industry. If he wasn't liked there'd be no question.  If they let him off on the grounds of it being a long time ago it sends the message that you can get away with committing a crime if you can elude capture for long enough.

Quoted from Takeshi I agree with the Joe Bloggs comment. The only reason Polanski got away with this for so long was because he had the means to skip the country and start a life overseas. If a working stiff had done it they would've been forced to stick around and face the music. The only reason the media are questioning whether he should be locked up or not is because he's liked in the industry. If he wasn't liked there'd be no question.  If they let him off on the grounds of it being a long time ago it sends the message that you can get away with committing a crime if you can elude capture for long enough.

I am quite sure that there are plenty of Joe Blogs out there who have managed to skip bail and will never face capture. It hardly takes much means to do a runner, I am sure even working stiffs are quite able to jump on a plane.

I'd say it works both ways though. Do you really think the U.S. Government would go to this trouble to extradite Joe Blogs for a thirty year old crime?

I would say that the Switz police did not arrest him on their own accord and it is easy to assume that some pressure was applied from the U.S. The only reason this has happened is because he is high profile and someone within the U.S. justice department was determined to bring him to trial.

Joe Blogs would not even be on the radar.

This is probably gonna sound ugly, but I don't think he should go to prison for something he did decades ago. His "victim" doesn't even give a shit about it anymore. Honestly, I doubt she ever did.  I'm sure she could care less if he went to prison or not.

This 'statuatory rape' thing in the U.S  is bull-shit, anyway. But really, I could care less what they do with him by this point. I'm sick of the case.

--Julio

I can't believe they plan to waste taxpayer money, with the current economy, on something that happened close thirty years ago when the victim herself wants the charges dropped.

Couldn't they try to convict him anyway because of the crime?

I'm not an expert in law, but if someone dropped their charges, couldn't law enforcement/prosecutors still go for it?

It's about sending a message.  You rape someone, you go to jail for it.

If I broke a little kid's legs then proceeded to anally rape them, I should go to prison for that -- even if they "forgave" me and don't want to press charges.

Letting Polanski off would be total BS.  That's pretty much saying -- hey, you can rape someone, you just better hope they forgive you, so the system will let you off scott-free.  I don't think so.  Only God knows if he ever tried to do it again.

The man drugged a 13 yr old girl with qualudes and alcohol, and had his way with her.  Violated her, for his own satisfaction.  That's a scumball, and he's just like every other scumball rapist in the world.  They're all the same, and he should get some kind of tough sentence.

That being said....Chinatown is still awesome.

I don't see any rape conviction.  

Quoted from news Polanski is wanted for having unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer, an aspiring model, in 1977. The director was originally indicted on six charges, including rape. He has insisted that the sex was consensual. He pleaded guilty to a single count of having sex with a minor and spent 42 days undergoing psychiatric tests, but fled America before he could be sentenced

Statutory rape is not the same thing as rape - it means having consensual sex with someone underage.

This sort of thing has happened in Hollywood for years.  Look at Chaplin or Fatty Arbuckle.  I'm sure it was very prevalent in the 70s - which was a very sexual time.  I'm not condoning the behavior but I do think a lynching is not called for here.  Some people just like to blow these things out of proportion and at tax-payer expense.

I don't know about US law - but if you give a girl a drug here and then have sex with her, it's rape and is not considered "consensual"! The whole "statutory rape" business is because of plea bargaining by his lawyers.

As to "it happened 30 years ago" - are you saying that crimes should only count if we catch the offender straight away? Take the case in the UK of Lesley Moleseed - she was murdered in 1975. Here killer was finally convicted (thanks to DNA testing advances) in 2007 - 32 years after the crime. But if we apply your logic to this case, then the Police shouldn't even have bothered looking for him!

The chances are that Polanski will not go to jail anyway - he can afford lawyers who will no doubt get him a deal (and the fact that the woman involved has said she'd rather it was all left alone will no doubt help).

I object to the fact that the US is spending money on this rather than taking care of more pressing concerns.  

Regardless of the plea-bargaining, statutory rape is what he was convicted of.   Not of giving drugs to a minor, not of raping her either, but of statutory rape.   If the lawyers thought they could have actually gotten a conviction then they would have gone for it.  

Whether he did any of those other things or not has not in any way been proven - so why are you saying he did them like it was a fact?  He might of, he might not have but there is certainly no conviction and probably no evidence that he did otherwise the lawyers would have tried him.  The fact that his victim doesn't want charges pressed indicates to me that maybe the story was a bit inflated to begin with.

And once again, not condoning it, just trying to put things in perspective.  

Guys, I take back what I said. I am actually quite embarassed. I had always thought the sex was consensual (which still doesn't excuse the enourmous age gap between the two). I just read a transcript of the girl's testimony, and it appears she was sodomized, photographed and intoxicated. I had no idea!

Forgive me. I was completely misinformed. Now I definitely believe Polanski should be punished -- no way around it.  

Digressing, I still believe the statutory rape law in the U.S should be reworked. I normally would not care, but since I live here now, it does bother me a lot. If I want to have sex with my 17 year-old girlfriend and I am 18-19, I should be able to do it so long as she consents. That law is bullshit and poorly thought out.

Quoted Text Whether he did any of those other things or not has not in any way been proven - so why are you saying he did them like it was a fact?  He might of, he might not have but there is certainly no conviction and probably no evidence that he did otherwise the lawyers would have tried him.  The fact that his victim doesn't want charges pressed indicates to me that maybe the story was a bit inflated to begin with.

Wait. Is this true? Was nothing officially proven?


--Julio

Maybe the victim doesn't want to press charges because she doesn't want the whole world to know she was sodomized by Roman Polanski.

Well, everyone believes it already, so what's it matter?

Quoted Text As to "it happened 30 years ago" - are you saying that crimes should only count if we catch the offender straight away? Take the case in the UK of Lesley Moleseed - she was murdered in 1975. Here killer was finally convicted (thanks to DNA testing advances) in 2007 - 32 years after the crime. But if we apply your logic to this case, then the Police shouldn't even have bothered looking for him!

I'm not condoning what Polanski did, but the girl you are talking about is DEAD, and the dead always demand justice. The girl Samantha is alive and has supposedly openly stated that she could care less what they do with Polanski, wanting the charges dropped. It makes me think the whole sodomy/drug angle was a straight-up lie.

I don't know the facts nor to I claim to know them. But there's something fishy here.    

--Julio

I would say that it does surprise me it has taken this long for him to be re-arrested. It can't have been the first time he has visited Switzerland (or, for that matter, any other country with an extradition treaty with the US) - so why now?

After all this time, and after all this publicity, he would probably be able to maintain a defense that he can no longer receive a fair trial.

Politically motivated, high financial cost or 30 years later - Polanski never served the time. Why should he have received immunity? Btw, why should non-Americans decry what they spend in catching criminals under their law?

"Oh, but it was prevalent in the 70s?"

That is absolute shite. Ok, so, we can dismiss charges for girls of 13 being raped - statutory or not - 'cos that's what they did in the '70s. We don't condone it, but the charges have an expiry date. That is the logic of what's being said. Absolutely absurd.

"Putting it into perspective".

You do the crime, you do the time. 30 years later or not - you are owed punishment.

"It's America flexing their muscles politically".

There is a real deficit of rational thought.

"She doesn't want him prosecuted".

Ever heard of "Stockholm Syndrome"?. Quite often, those victims don't either. Should we just let those criminals go as well?

"He's suffered enough".

When did society become about putting perpetrators first? The victim no doubt put it behind her. Should we take her sensible life decision, and allow a rapist, who admitted his guilt to roam free 'cos he's talented? What other reason is there? Non-one is obstructing the fact this is a man with problems, and he clearly needs to see a shrink - he raped a girl of 13.

"It's a lynching".

Nothing boils blood like rapists/paedophiles roaming free - we all feel that. Apologists without a rational argument are as anger-inducing.

"It was a mistake".

Ian Huntley regrets his actions now, 'cos it altered his life. Rapists and murderers are well known to blame everyone but themselves for their actions. Polanski is on record saying he 'didn't think what he had done was wrong for years'. He actively evaded capture for 31 years, but let's forgive and forget.

If anyone has a good reason why he should receive immunity, then it's yet to be seen. The dismissive: he should go to jail is "lynching", or they're "in a wave of emotion" smacks of arrogance. Ok, so where is the intellectual thought in "but those were the '70s". The single most absurd statement I have ever read on SS. Mind boggling.

"But it was 'statutory rape'".

Yes, that was the charge he ran from, yet she's on record that it was not consensual. The plea bargain deal is gone. He's to be held accountable for the charges that were originally brought against him. Hell, he might even be innocent of actual rape. Irrespective, he requires a proper investigation and trial to ascertain exactly what he is guilty of.

Andrew

I still say it ridiculous for America to spend tax payer money on this.  Whether you want to be emotional or not about it, it's still something that happened 30 years ago and neither party wants to pursue it.

And I happen to hold both an American and an Australian passport and I have to file American taxes every year. So I have every damn right to be concerned about it.