Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Labhead
Labhead
1868 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
I wonder what makes people glad he got off?

The incident being 30 years ago doesn't make it any less of a rape.

And lets forget all this talk about him "being exiled." He was a convicted felon who fled justice, a criminal on the lam, not man enough to take responsibility for his actions. And its not like he was on some barren rock in the middle of nowhere. He was in France, going to Cannes, apparently living a very good life.


OK, I'll probably regret this, but here goes.
There are several problems and confusion here, and you can be against the recent developments while being against the statuatory rape at the same time.

A couple articles that don't contain everything I've read, but are a good starting point:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/sex_drugs_and_roman_polanski_20100713/

1) Why did the mother send her 13 yr old daughter unsupervised to a risque photo shoot?

2) There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.

3) Instead of defending himself as not guilty, Polanski agreed to a plea bargain where he would serve some time, and then right before the trial found out that the judge was going to renig on the deal and make an example by sentencing him longer than normal. He probably had a fear of irrational punishment after his hard life up to that point (Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.)

4) After 30 years, isn't the statute of limitations in affect, or would you prefer to ignore the rules in preference of emotions?

5) Why did the US not have France have a go in court, which was an option for years?

6) The victim does not want this to continue and has forgiven him, as she's said that it hurts her and her family when this is brought up again and reporters hound her privacy?

7) He has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

I'm sure there's other things I'm forgetting as well.

We weren't there, so we don't know exactly how everything happened. Nothing is ever that easy or black & white. Like I said, I don't agree with what he did and he should probably have been punished (after a fair trial 30 years ago that never happened), but I don't know if I agree with breaking the rules after all this time just because many people didn't do their job over many years.

Jul 13, 2010, 22:40


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

velvetwater
velvetwater
835 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Labhead, I think that your username suits you very well and I am glad that finally somebody broadminded has spoken.
A not really female (!) velvetwater wanted to thank you for having wrapped this up beautifully.
As I said (please forgive this very last participation of mine), I will not add anything more and so I suggest should do everyone else.

Jul 14, 2010, 01:23


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

DevastatorJr.
DevastatorJr.
961 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

I think I find 3 and 6 the most convincing arguments and 7 and "We weren't there" the least. "We weren't there," is a given, but in a conversation like this, which is completely theoretical, we're sort of assuming we "do know" that the incident as it's popularly described did indeed take place. Otherwise we really can't so anything, either way.

Anyway, assuming that he did do it, I find the so-called punishment in number 7 inadequate, especially considering that in spite of all that, he has lived a life of wealth and fame.

On the other hand, if number 3 is true, I'd probably have run too. I'd probably run no matter what if I could, self-preservation is job 1.

Jul 14, 2010, 02:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

DevastatorJr.
DevastatorJr.
961 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

I don't know why you're taking personal offense just because some of us have a differing opinion. I certainly don't think any less of you because of it. I myself am on the fence.

I do think it's an interesting topic that we should be able to bat around without getting upset about, unless IN FACT YOU ARE ROMAN POLANSKI!?!

Jul 14, 2010, 02:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

In spite of velvetwater's claim, I am very broadminded, and you didnt wrap things up beautifully. Let me address some specific points:
Labhead wrote:

1) Why did the mother send her 13 yr old daughter unsupervised to a risque photo shoot?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. This does not mean the girl deserves to be raped, nor did it entitle Polanski to rape her. A bad parenting decision does not suddenly make rape legal.

Labhead wrote:

There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.

Is there? Other than that same line being repeated in that article you linked, I don't know that. Even still, he drugged and raped her. That is a fact. Whether he knew her age or not doesn't change that.

Labhead wrote:

Instead of defending himself as not guilty, Polanski agreed to a plea bargain where he would serve some time, and then right before the trial found out that the judge was going to renig on the deal

Yes, I'm aware of that. However, Polanski has never retracted his confession. He never said he didn't do it. If he had a fear of irrational punishment, he should never have raped anyone.

Labhead wrote:

4) After 30 years, isn't the statute of limitations in affect, or would you prefer to ignore the rules in preference of emotions?

I never mentioned emotions. The statute of limitations governs the time after a crime that the prosecutor can bring charges. It does not apply to convictions. Polanski was charged, prosecuted, and convicted all within the statute of limitations. Perhaps you should learn the rules before getting snarky about how they work.

Labhead wrote:

Why did the US not have France have a go in court

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Polanski is a convicted felon who is fleeing justice.

Labhead wrote:

The victim does not want this to continue and has forgiven him

Good for her. I hope her forgiveness helps her healing process. But the State of California brought the charges, and the State has not forgiven him.

Jul 14, 2010, 02:59


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

continued

Labhead wrote:

He has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.


He cannot visit Hollywood to direct a film or receive his Oscar. Boofucking hoo! That's his own fault for raping someone and then not being man enough to own up to his crimes and then fleeing justice. He's lived very comfortable life in Europe, he hasn't paid shit. He is a rapist. Living in France is hardly punishment for that.

Jul 14, 2010, 03:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5922 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

velvetwater wrote:

A not really female (!) velvetwater


Oops!!! Sorry, I must be mixing you up with another forumite.

Jul 14, 2010, 03:15


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

JS
JS
489 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Cheeso wrote:
In spite of velvetwater's claim, I am very broadminded,



Well, you systematically consider anyone who doesn't fully agree with you as being wrong, accusing them of "talking out of their ass", resorting to insults and diversions. This happened countless times.

Broadminded? yeah, right...


Your life must feel really empty since I don't argue with you anymore. Poor Cheeso is looking for some fresh meat.

Jul 14, 2010, 06:28


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mu Mu
Mu Mu
2778 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

Hi.

Jul 14, 2010, 06:29


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Re: Shame on the Swiss

These are the facts:

* Polanski sodomised a 13-year old to whom he had given narcotics.

* The narcotics given - quaaludes - are known for, among other things, their use as a muscle relaxant (think about why he may have chosen those).

* He then escaped certain jail time to live in exile.

* He has since lived without punishment (except for the restriction on international travel), has published a memoir (presumably for profit) in which he recounts the crime, and has successfully sued at least one publication for defamation in absentia.


Throw him to the fucking wolves. I think it's disgraceful that anyone defends the guy.

Jul 14, 2010, 06:32

Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index