+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
118 messages
View: flat \ threaded

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:

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


Topic Outline: