Now that he's caught, looks like he's going to be brought back to the states to face sentencing.  He is a very gifted filmmaker and he has had a horrible life with his mother being killed in the holocaust and his pregnant wife being butchered by the Manson family.....but he did rape a 13 year old girl, and that, there is no excuse, there is never any reason to rape someone.  I know the the little girl he raped has now forgiven him, but should he still get a free ride?

No, he should definitely go to prison.

EDIT: Whether he should go to prison or not is of course up to the courts but he should definitely stand trail.

God damn right he should go to jail. A crime is a crime. Just because it's been so long doesn't change the fact that it's been done. And, don't forget why it's been so long. Fleeing the country to avoid going to jail is a big "uh-oh" moment.

Now, keep in mind that he fled the country in '78. Now, France and Poland want him released on bail. Lol. Anyone want to take a guess on what he's going to do if he does get bail?

It's just been a bizarre situation from the start. Polanski should not have fled, and he definitely should not have raped a 13 year-old girl. And he should have been fairly and justly prosecuted at the time.

But was he? Did he run b/c he was scared to go to prison? Did his ego prevent him from accepting his sentence like a man? Or did the judge really have some sort of vendetta against him for being a celebrity? I'm not really familiar with this case, so if anyone can clarify the details, please do.

What I do know is that it's ridiculous that a 76 year-old man was ambushed while being honored for his work. It's ridiculous that he couldn't accept his Best Director Oscar because the Feds were hunting him like a terrorist.

It's ridiculous because he foolishly thought he could run and hide forever.

Why didn't he just face the music at the time and gone on with the rest of his life?

Keep in mind that it was statuatory rape, and not rape.  His sentence would have been a very short time, compared to what it could be now.


Phil

Quoted from The boy who could fly his pregnant wife being butchered by the Manson family

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

Quoted from dogglebe Keep in mind that it was statuatory rape, and not rape.

Drugging a 13 year old to fill her with your baby gravy is not statutory, that's full blown rape.

Quoted from Wiki Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Europe's age of consent variances. Now, a number of countries define the age to be as low as 14, which makes his action borderline. Polanski could, arguably, be excused to a degree for this.

My personal opinion, the guy is a pervert. Plain and simple. Suggesting contributing factors led to Polanski at 44 electing to sleep with a girl of 13 is simply apologising for him 'cos he's "talented". He was sound enough in mind to actively avoid extradition, so if such disgusting thoughts entered his mind, he should have seen a shrink. Had he been an abused child, and perpetrated this vile act as a man before 20, maybe, just maybe the flimsy defence would stand up. No, he was a man of 44. He knew better, and shame on those who worked with and harboured a man actively avoiding his just punishment.

Apologist posturing for a man who took away a girl's innocence for nothing more than his own gratification goes way beyond tasteless, I think. This is not about being an intellectual, this is about considering the victim. Children are our future, and we have a duty to protect them, give them the best possible environment to grow up, and not create a world where perverts like Polanski roam free.

I hope he spends the rest of his days in jail.

Oh, and Woody Allen, another "film guru" is equally despicable - sure, it's a different thing, but any parent/step parent would be repulsed by the thought of sleeping with a child they raised. Being talented doesn't equate to you living by another set of rules, and too many overlook this.

Andrew

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. He's a rapist and a coward. And whatever sympathy he's received is simply a by-product of the absurdity of this case.

I don't feel bad for Polanski per se, but it is a shame that the man could be in prison for the rest of his life when the victim has moved on and forgiven him (so she says) and apparently so has the industry. The Feds, however, are elephants. As well they should be. This should have ceased being news a quarter century ago.

A brilliant filmaker but a stupid, stupid man.

But y'know... hindsight... whatever.

Quoted from Niles_Crane If it had been Joe Bloggs from down the road, rather than an acclaimed film director, there would have been no sympathy

Exactly. A crime is still a crime, regardless of who commits it. Or at least, it should be.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work like that. Think O.J. That cocksucker got away with double homicide.

But in this case, if he gets extradited to the US (and why shouldn't he), then it's game over on Roman.

While I think he should face the court and accept whatever punishment is coming to him I do think we are allowed to feel some measure of sympathy for him.

His crime was despicable and certainly should not go unpunished, although it could be argued that he has suffered far worse that someone spending 10 years in jail would have done. After all todays jails seem like nothing worse than holiday camps, Roman has spent the last 30 years unable to practice his immense talent to the fullest. something I am sure hurts him more that a jail stint would have.

There is no excuse for what he did and I don't want to appear to be offering one, but jesus if someone murdered my pregnant wife then I just don't know what would happen to my mind. He has not even been able to visit her grave all this time.

Taking all this into consideration I would not be unhappy for him to be found guilty but not sent to jail. I say he has paid enough dues in this life.

I wouldn't throw him in prison for the rape nowadays. The victim has said she doesn't want this all dragged up again and has forgiven him, that should be enough for us all. He made one mistake more than thirty years ago. Yes, it was a horrible mistake, but it was a mistake and, like Murphy said, one that he has paid for in other ways.

What he should really be arrested for is The Pianist.

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.

There have been a international arrest warrant out for Polanski since 2005 but this time the US knew he was coming to Switzerland. I'm sure they leaned heavily on that neutral country and it worked, they finally got him. A job well done in my book.

Before anybody starts jumping to the conclusion that "the whole sodomy/drug angle is a straight-up lie", please read the victim's grand jury testimony and then let's talk again.

Statuatory rape implies consensual sex with a minor, but the sex in the case wasn't consensual. She said NO. That is rape. The lawyers involved then plea bargined it down to statuatory rape, probably in a hope to settle the matter quickly.

Whether he gets a fair trail is really irelevant because he has already pled guilty to the crime, he has already been convicted the crime. Now he just have to show up and do the time.

To say that this is a waste of money makes no sense to me. So if it's "too expensive" to persue a case the perpetrator should just be allowed to walk? What about the money already spent on this? Stopping now would be wasting them.

I hate to drag old Nazi war criminals into a case like this, but when I hear the "it was over 30 years ago" defense, I must shake my head. I love seeing these old Nazi fucks getting dragged home from South America, or where ever the hell they've been holed up, in order to face justice. While I'm not comparing the two crimes, the principle is the same.

I'm saying there is more important things America should be spending its money on.  Like paying off the enormous deficit left by the Bush years.  Like making sure everyone gets health care.

I don't think Polanski has gotten away with anything - this whole incident continues to affect his life and it has for more years than it would have if he had gone to prison.  

But he didn't kill anyone (Nazi war criminals did and it is unfair to make the comparison), Polanski hasn't been a problem for society since then, the girl who was the victim is leading a normal life and doesn't want to pursue it.

Why spend the money?

My problem is that people get emotional about things like this and common sense just seems to fly out the door.  Like what are you going to prove, Roman Polanski is a bad man. We already know that.



  

  

But what is 'common sense'?  One person's common sense is not always another person's common sense.

One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

Another person's common sense tells them why spend the money on something the victim says they forgive the person for.

Each is considered common sense to the person thinking it, although the two ideas are diametrically opposed.

Will the real common sense please stand up?

Quoted from mcornetto I'm saying there is more important things America should be spending its money on.  Like paying off the enormous deficit left by the Bush years.  Like making sure everyone gets health care.

And persuing ONE ongoing criminal case will prevent that?

Quoted from mcornetto I don't think Polanski has gotten away with anything - this whole incident continues to affect his life and it has for more years than it would have if he had gone to prison.

Then he probably shouldn't have fled the country.

Quoted from mcornetto But he didn't kill anyone (Nazi war criminals did and it is unfair to make the comparison)

Which is why I didn't compare the crimes.

Quoted from sniper And persuing ONE ongoing criminal case will prevent that?

With the media that surrounds it it's going to be a hell of an expensive case.  You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.  

Who is going to pay for the crowd control? You think there won't be crowds?

Granted it doesn't hold a candle to those other expenses but it is one that can be avoided and every penny counts, you know.

Quoted from sniper Then he probably shouldn't have fled the country.

If you think he's had a free existence since then think again.  He's been restricted from entering many countries for fear of capture and probably for the first few years at least he lived in constant fear.  I'm sure life wasn't pleasant for him on the run.  Granted he wasn't in a prison which means the US did not have to pay for his upkeep.  
  

Quoted from sniper Which is why I didn't compare the crimes.

Yeah you did.  You compared them based on the "30 year" thing.

Quoted from steven8 One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Quoted from mcornetto That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Ah, but that's your interpretation of what that person considers common sense thinking.  I'm not condoning or condemning either thought process.  Merely observing.

Quoted from mcornetto With the media that surrounds it it's going to be a hell of an expensive case.  You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.   Who is going to pay for the crowd control? You think there won't be crowds? Granted it doesn't hold a candle to those other expenses but it is one that can be avoided and every penny counts, you know.

You're assuming there's gonna be a trail. He was already convicted.

Quoted from mcornetto If you think he's had a free existence since then think again.  He's been restricted from entering many countries for fear of capture and probably for the first few years at least he lived in constant fear.  I'm sure life wasn't pleasant for him on the run.  Granted he wasn't in a prison which means the US did not have to pay for his upkeep.

On the run? He's not exactly Richard Kimble this guy. He fled to France cos' he's a French citizen. The French don't extradite their own citizens. Until 2005, he was able to travel anywhere in the world, exept the US and the UK. I wouldn't exactly call that being "on the run". And if it was such a huge unbearable burden on him, why didn't he use his common sense? Do the time and get it over with.
  

Quoted from mcornetto Yeah you did.  You compared them based on the "30 year" thing.

Not their crimes (which I wrote - go back and check if you must), the fact that they thought they could get away with it.

Quoted from Steven8 One person's common sense tells them that someone committed a crime, pled guilty, then skipped out.  Now that we've got him, we bring him back and let him do the time.

Quoted from mcornetto That isn't common sense, that's machismo.

Some might even go as far as calling it, idunno, justice?

Rob, what the hell bro?
You're acting like he raped you.

Everyone is talking as though he has to be punished as if he has got away with it.

What exactly has he got away with?

Let us say he did stand trial originally and was sent to prison, how long would he have actually served? 2 years, 3 years? In a facility no worse than a holiday camp. He would have been let out, re-introduced into society and eventually let back into the 'Hollywood Inside' where no doubt he would have had a successful career in movies.

So where has he been for 30 years? In hiding in France, unable to go back to the US, not even to visit  the grave of his wife who along with his unborn child was murdered by Charles Manson. Unable to make the movies he wanted, unable to get the most out of his talent, unable to work with the people he wants to work with.

He has undoubtedly had 30 years of punishment for his crime, far more and far worse than had he actually gone to jail. So all this talk of him having got of scott free is simply not true.

It all boils down to what you believe the prison system is for..


Is it simple punishment? to deprive an offender of his lifestyle? Because if that is the case then he has surely served far many more years than his prison sentence would have been.

Is it rehabilitation? Well, at 74 years old and 30 years after the crime it is a little late now.

Is it to keep a dangerous offender off the streets? Certainly not the case here.

So what purpose would sending a 74 year old man to jail actually serve in this case?

He has served a far greater punishment than most murderers. That surely is enough?

Quoted from chism Rob, what the hell bro? You're acting like he raped you.

Not at all, Matt, I'm just saying "if you do the crime, you do the time". I think that's pretty fundamental in free societies such as ours. I just can see no reason for him to be given a pass for this crime. Whether is was a long time ago or that it brought burdens upon him is irelevant to me cos' he himself chose to make it so.

He's not the victim in this case and I don't understand why someone would even consider treating him as such.

That's the way I see this case. Others see it in another way, that's cool, we're all entitled to our opinions, I'm just yet to see any valid arguments for given him a freebie.

I agree with you Rob. He's lucky he's only facing jail time. It could be worse.

Quoted Text

Machismo? Wow, it's getting emotional to dish out that term.

Common sense out the window? An odd insinuation loaded in there somewhere. Personally, I am befuddled by those two claims.

Mike, if you pay taxes, then apologies. However, if we avoided prosecuting criminals on that basis - where is society heading?

There is nothing remotely emotional - and the inference is infact clouded judgment - in wanting to see a man tried for his crimes. Raping a girl of 13 deserves a proper trial to ascertain guilt. Should a rapist not serve time, and have an expiration date on when he enters jail? That's the logic put forth.

Is 42 days sufficient for a rapist? That's all he has served, and that was for "testing". Living out your life as a 'refugee', and not as a 'fugitive' - words from an American journo - that's how the media differ in representation. This isn't an issue to politicise, but a simple matter of justice. Unfortunately, leading French politicians are leaning towards the former with public pronouncements about 'mean America',  some Americans are politicising this by making it European v American cultural views, as captured by a piece in Time Online. This is the wrong way to look at it - all I am concerned is that when young children are raped/molested, then there is not a precedent that says if you are talented, and have evaded capture for 31 years, then you will escape punishment, or a trial. Can we not all agree on that?

Core fact is that everyone feels a rapist should serve time for his crime. Really, in lieu  - and none provided thus far - of a rational reason as to why not, then I don't see what the debate is.

Andrew

How is it that Polanski has been arrested yet Bob Saget is still walking around a free man? It is common knowledge that Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990, yet he has never had to face the music.

Bring Saget to justice!

Quoted from Murphy Unable to make the movies he wanted, unable to get the most out of his talent, unable to work with the people he wants to work with. He has undoubtedly had 30 years of punishment for his crime, far more and far worse than had he actually gone to jail. So all this talk of him having got of scott free is simply not true.

Eh? The following is a list of the films he has made while "unable to make the movies he wanted"! It should be noted that he won an Oscar for "The Pianist", plus the Palme D'Or and many other awards.

Not bad for "30 years of punishment"!

1979     Tess     
1986     Pirates          
1988     Frantic          
1992     Bitter Moon          
1994     Death and the Maiden          
1999     The Ninth Gate          
2002     The Pianist
2005     Oliver Twist          

As I said in an earlier post - if he was an ordinary nobody that no one had heard of, nobody would be jumping to his defense. Being a world famous, Oscar winning film Director does not put him above the law.

If we do not seek to bring to justice those who break the law, then why bother having those laws, or a Police force, or Courts to enforce them?

Quoted from Niles_Crane Not bad for "30 years of punishment"! 1979     Tess      1986     Pirates           1988     Frantic           1992     Bitter Moon           1994     Death and the Maiden           1999     The Ninth Gate           2002     The Pianist 2005     Oliver Twist

Yeah, but he really wanted to make Transformers. Those other movies you mention were just stay-busy movies  

Quoted from Niles_Crane As I said in an earlier post - if he was an ordinary nobody that no one had heard of, nobody would be jumping to his defense. Being a world famous, Oscar winning film Director does not put him above the law.

No, you have got that the wrong way round. If he was an ordinary nobody that no one had heard of then nobody would have bothered arresting him in the first place. He is only being extradited because he is Roman Polanski. It does work both ways.

The response is yes he should have gone to prison.

These days you can go to prison for using a computer to look at but he had sex with and fled the country. Innocent people don't flee.

The message I get is "Sleep with as many kids as you want and move to this place, we condone child sex"

This thread gives him too much credit in my opinion.

Quoted Text In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor

How do you argue that? He pleads guilty and runs...

Quoted from Murphy If he was an ordinary nobody that no one had heard of then nobody would have bothered arresting him in the first place

I don't know where you live, but here if a 44 year man rapes a 13 year old girl, he gets arrested. And if he flees abroad they will have him extradited if he is caught no matter who he is.

The way some people has spoken about Polanski on this thread you'd think he'd been hiding in a cave in Outer Mongola rather than walking about free in France, making movies and earning a lot of money!

According to a CNN article, various film makers, incl. Woody Allen, Martin Scorcese and David Lynch, protest the arrest of Roman Polanski. There's even a "Free Polanski" badge now.

I thought Hollywood couldn't make me more sick - it just did.

No surprise that Woody Allen is champing at the bit for his release.

Andrew

I think that gets to pay, but not in a prision. He may pays his crime with a great amount of money to instituitions like that protect abused children in africa or in east europe,or  latin america or USA. For me is anough charge for him.

Quoted from Helio I think that gets to pay, but not in a prision. He may pays his crime with a great amount of money to instituitions like that protect abused children in africa or in east europe,or  latin america or USA. For me is anough charge for him.

Helio, That is a very sensible suggestion.

Quoted from Helio I think that gets to pay, but not in a prision. He may pays his crime with a great amount of money to instituitions like that protect abused children in africa or in east europe,or  latin america or USA. For me is anough charge for him.

Whilst very "sensible", it also sends out a message that as long as you have the fame and money, it's ok to go on the lam, and then after 31 years,  just pay off your debt with money accrued whilst on the lam.

Nothing remotely sensible about that.

On a separate note, well done to Luc Besson for refusing to sign the despicable little list that's circulating.

Andrew

The facts of the case are that he plead guilty to a crime and part of that agreement was that he would spend 42 days in psychiatric evaluation and not serve any jail time. That was the deal promised to him by the judge in charge.

Whether you like the deal or not makes no difference, we were not there at the time and are not party to all the facts. The facts are that the judge make a commitment and Polanski went along with the process.

Then afterwards the judge changed his mind, there are rumours of corruption, the judge certainly seemed to have let the fame of handling a high profile case get to his head and loved being a TV star. He stated making noises in the news about going back on his deal and talking about life imprisonment and deportation.

This is why he says he fled, he was convinced he was the subject of a witchhunt and that something far more corrupt was going on.

I know this is a very emotional subject and certainly crimes of this nature are despicable to all of us and I would imagine those amongst us with children certainly more so as it is certainly makes crimes like this more more personal.

But the fact seems to have been overlooked that Polanski was charged and pleaded guilty to consensual sex with a minor. A disgusting crime, and should not go unpunished. But those who are only relying on the victims testimony are showing that they do not give a stuff about the law at all and therefore are quite happy to convict someone based on nothing more than a victims word and tabloid gossip.

This is why we have courts, this is why we have jurors. Because, believe it or not people lie. That is why civilized people have no choice but to put their faith in the justice system to do the right thing and then accept that decision as correct. In this case it seems the very system that we put our faith into delivering justice failed, it failed the victim and it failed Polanski in that he was not getting the fair trial that everybody deserves.

He is not a felon on the run, he pleaded guilty and accepted his punishment. I think some people are allowing their emotion to get the better of them and are not even thinking about the circumstances of this particular case.

Roman Polanski should not have run but he felt he was left with no choice. Now he has been caught then yes, it is only fair that he is returned to the US to face his charges, I have not said anything different. I just happen to think that there is no point to sending him to prison after all that has happened.

But when taking about this "despicable list" and so on you are making it sound like anyone who is supporting him are part of some gang of pedophiles. These are people who were around at the time and no doubt know more about what happened than you or I.


This is a Owen Gleiberman's review of a documentary about the case that premiered at Sundance a few years ago...

Quoted Text �We all think we know what happened when the celebrated and infamous demon-imp film director took a one-way ticket out of Los Angeles, skipping the country early in 1978 just as he was about to face sentencing for the crime of �unlawful sexual intercourse� with a 13-year-old girl. But Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, Marina Zenovich�s startling and grippingly told anatomization of the case, will make you realize that you barely know the half of it. At first, I feared that the movie was going to tiptoe around the issue of Polanski�s guilt. But no, it never denies that he committed a heinous crime. Yet by showing how a media feeding frenzy shaped the story, oozing like slime into the wheels of justice, and by going deep behind the closed doors of the hearings and negotiations (presided over by a judge on such a star trip he made Lance Ito look like Solomon), the movie creates an indictment of a legal system that was corrupted and warped by the celebrity culture � that is, by the very entitlement it was trying so hard to rein in. Polanski, that troubled and charming creep-genius, emerges, if you can believe it, as both guilty as sin and a victim. It�s that ambivalence that makes Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired a documentary of rare fascination and power.�

Quoted from Murphy But when taking about this "despicable list" and so on you are making it sound like anyone who is supporting him are part of some gang of pedophiles. These are people who were around at time time, people who will know much more about what went on, people who no doubt know Roman's side of the story.

It's a fair point. And in no way am I trying to suggest this is a measure of a person to support Polanski. It's something I am guilty of - writing and speaking in a forthright manner and this ruffles feathers, pisses people off, or leads them to think I am arrogant. Fair enough. I have always been taught to say what I mean, and mean what I say. Nothing said from me is intended as personal, and if it is, then people know about it. Same goes for this, I believe the list is despicable as opposed to the people. A lot of those who have signed that list have my respect, but this action and issue is an area of fundamental disagreement.

In terms of the charges, Polanski may have been dealt a ridiculous sentence, but upon appeal, it would've been quashed had it been so ridiculous it would lead him to consider fleeing the country. The plea bargain has gone, so it's not really an issue. Also, let's not lose sight of the fact he flouted US law by remaining a fugitive, and actively eluding capture for many years. Victims lie, rapists lie, sure. However, actions often speak louder than words, and Roman's certainly spoke volumes. At the very least, he is guilty of sex with an underage girl - the disgusting representation of a "Little Lolita" at the time remains odd considering she was a child and he was a grown man who should know better -, giving her drugs and alcohol, and of remaining a fugitive, so sympathy is not on my list. Instead, I care about people who have been molested by adults concerned with their own gratification. Consensual or not, and she has maintained for many years it was not.

I can understand if people feel he should get a fair trial, but to say he should not face trial at all is quite honestly a pretty hollow thing to say.

Andrew

Fair points Andrew, I must say I never really knew much about the details of this case until this past week.  I knew the girl was modelling nude for him in Jack Nicholson's house and it was consensual. So had just assumed she was slightly underage and this was all a bit of a bad beat for Polanski.

Reading about what is supposed to have happened is a little more chilling, if of course it is true. So my earlier posts had not really taken this into consideration.

I don't think it's hollow at all. I have no sympathy for Roman Polanski at all but...

In California where they are giving state employees IOUs in order to pay their salary,  where they are cutting back state services, where they are canceling highway and infrastructure projects, in a city where there is huge unemployment and tons of foreclosures, where the tax base is shrinking and they can't even afford to fix the schools pursing something that happened thirty years ago when the victim doesn't want it pursued, something that is going to cost a bunch of dollars is ridiculous.

If it were a different time, then maybe, but for now just let it drop there's more important things to pay for.

Maybe if Polanski could swing some deal trading his release for some oil... sort of like the Lockerbie bomber guy.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Maybe if Polanski could swing some deal trading his release for some oil... sort of like the Lockerbie bomber guy.

Yup, that would work.

He missed his opportunity to do some favors for George Bush and get himself on the pardon list too.

Quoted from Murphy He is not a felon on the run, he pleaded guilty and accepted his punishment.

I am afraid that is exactly what he is. He did plead guilty and then, because he says he believed the plea bargain was about to be reneged upon, he ran for it, and an international arrest warrant was issued. He did not accept his punishment because he has never been punished.

Do any of our American friends know if, once agreed, a plea bargain can actually be thrown out by the Judge? Everyone is claiming the Judge was a publicity hound who only wanted a trial so he could make a name for himself - Maybe the truth is that he felt that justice would not be done in this case if the facts could not be put before a jury and a verdict reached on the evidence.

For all any of us know, Polanski could have walked free had a full trial been held on the charges.

By the way, as he had pleaded guilty to the original offence, there will be no need of a trial now, he could just be taken straight to a Prison (assuming the original guilty plea stands given the circumstances of the case - has he ever actually been sentenced for the crime he admitted?) - but I assume he will face new charges of absconding from justice and could face a new trial on this.

Now that will be a media circus.

Quoted from mcornetto I don't think it's hollow at all. I have no sympathy for Roman Polanski at all but... In California where they are giving state employees IOUs in order to pay their salary,  where they are cutting back state services, where they are canceling highway and infrastructure projects, in a city where there is huge unemployment and tons of foreclosures, where the tax base is shrinking and they can't even afford to fix the schools pursing something that happened thirty years ago when the victim doesn't want it pursued, something that is going to cost a bunch of dollars is ridiculous. If it were a different time, then maybe, but for now just let it drop there's more important things to pay for.

While your financial concerns are definitely valid, Michael, I just don't see how or why we should put aside law and order for more prosperous times.

The reason why it takes place now - in a time where the economy is terrible - is indeed because he fled in the first place. To me, it just sends out a whole bag of wrong signals if he was allowed to walk away from this due to the state of the economy.

The O.J. Simpsons murder trial back in '94/'95 cost LA County an estimated USD 9,000,000. That was a trial that ran for almost two years for various (stupid) reasons. I have a hard time imagining this trial costing even a tenth of that. I doubt it'll break Californias "law and Order" budget.

This is about context. The attorneys and judge reached a plea agreement. Then the judge, for reasons specific to himself, changed his mind. Polanski was then looking at 50 years. Everyone was shocked, even the victim.

No, I don't condone what Polanski did, but I'm not going to draw and quarter him either. The sanctimony is a bit over overwhelming.

It seems anything that has anything to do with sex sends people off the deep end.

Seth

Sanctimonious? Last time I checked, it was an accusation of high-mindedness, hell, maybe I could even go as far as to say hypocrisy.   Considering the vast majority do not consider sex with a child - it's an odd charge.

Some people just feel that a grown man having sex with a 13-year-old girl is fundamentally wrong and have no problems with asinine charges subsequently being thrown at them for laying down the reality.

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew Sanctimonious? Last time I checked, it was an accusation of high-mindedness, hell, maybe I could even go as far as to say hypocrisy.   Considering the vast majority do not consider sex with a child - it's an odd charge. Some people just feel that a grown man having sex with a 13-year-old girl is fundamentally wrong and have no problems with asinine charges subsequently being thrown at them for laying down the reality. Andrew

Cases like this allow people to flex their "superior" virtue. And, of course, the ones who are most harsh in their desired punishment for the purp are the most virtuous.

It all seems a little self serving to me.

seth

Quoted from Seth Cases like this allow people to flex their "superior" virtue. And, of course, the ones who are most harsh in their desired punishment for the purp are the most virtuous. It all seems a little self serving to me. seth

We will have to agree to disagree here then, 'cos we clearly see this issue in a fundamentally and irrevocably different way.

Andrew

From what I have read, it should perhaps be noted that there is no proof that the Judge was going to throw out the plea bargain.

This story seems to have been based largely on what Polanski's lawyers have claimed they heard rather than any actual statement from the Judge - and one of the Prosecutors in the case now says that he lied about having had a conversation with the Judge about this subject, which has been the basis for most of the claims ever since!

If the plea bargain had been thrown out at sentencing and Polanski had received a longer sentence, his lawyers would surely have had grounds for a successful appeal.