something I'm kinda Confused about Roman Polanski

[Hearly]

Ok, he pleaded guilty to raping a 13 year old girl, now the prosecutor and his lawyers worked out a deal, the Judge decided that the sentence didn't fit the crime so he Fled the US for 30 years, pretty much staying in France which wouldn't send him back..

Now I want to try and understand how can anyone defend him? I mean ya he's a good director etc, but he anally raped a 13 year old girl, how does his fame/wife being murdered by Manson, being a survivor of WW2 camps, make any of this ok?

I saw the Former mayor of LA defending him, and I was just glad to see he was a Former Mayor.


Now before people start defending him and saying there was Misconduct by the prosecutor, there might well have been, but he still admitted raping a 13 year old girl... I mean if I'd been that girls Father, I'd have bought a plane ticket to France and found him myself and ... well I'd end up in Jail.

[Mac The Knife]

and you left out the part where he drugged the girl. Now, hopefully, he gets his just reward,,,,,,, without the drugs.

[Phantom]

Ok, he pleaded guilty to raping a 13 year old girl, now the prosecutor and his lawyers worked out a deal, the Judge decided that the sentence didn't fit the crime so he Fled the US for 30 years, pretty much staying in France which wouldn't send him back..

Now I want to try and understand how can anyone defend him? I mean ya he's a good director etc, but he anally raped a 13 year old girl, how does his fame/wife being murdered by Manson, being a survivor of WW2 camps, make any of this ok?

I saw the Former mayor of LA defending him, and I was just glad to see he was a Former Mayor.


Now before people start defending him and saying there was Misconduct by the prosecutor, there might well have been, but he still admitted raping a 13 year old girl... I mean if I'd been that girls Father, I'd have bought a plane ticket to France and found him myself and ... well I'd end up in Jail.

well few mistakes i can see you might be making .....
!. your viewing the case using 2009 Morals and not 1977 ones
2. Why does it seem no one's listening to the "Victim" in this and what her wishes are in this matter
I mean isn't she old enough yet ?

This just seems to me to be someones power play and not actualy about justice.......
(the Capture not the original crime)

Oh well just some thoughts

Phantom

[Hearly]

well few mistakes i can see you might be making .....
!. your viewing the case using 2009 Morals and not 1977 ones
2. Why does it seem no one's listening to the "Victim" in this and what her wishes are in this matter
I mean isn't she old enough yet ?

This just seems to me to be someones power play and not actualy about justice.......
(the Capture not the original crime)

Oh well just some thoughts

Phantom

Well, I'm glad I wasn't an adult in 77 (was 7 years old) because I honestly don't think my morals would be any different today vs then, (to me raping a child is worse than murder.)

Also the victim got a nice big settlement from him (prolly in the millions) plus why should her opinion matter? I mean he pleaded Guilty, then fled the country..

[Fel]

Ok, he pleaded guilty to raping a 13 year old girl, now the prosecutor and his lawyers worked out a deal, the Judge decided that the sentence didn't fit the crime so he Fled the US for 30 years, pretty much staying in France which wouldn't send him back..

Now I want to try and understand how can anyone defend him? I mean ya he's a good director etc, but he anally raped a 13 year old girl, how does his fame/wife being murdered by Manson, being a survivor of WW2 camps, make any of this ok?

I saw the Former mayor of LA defending him, and I was just glad to see he was a Former Mayor.


Now before people start defending him and saying there was Misconduct by the prosecutor, there might well have been, but he still admitted raping a 13 year old girl... I mean if I'd been that girls Father, I'd have bought a plane ticket to France and found him myself and ... well I'd end up in Jail.

The only way you can really defend him is this:

He made a deal. In exchange for his guilty plea, he was promised a certain sentence. Without the promise of that sentence, he would not have pled guilty.

When the judge threatened to renege on the deal he made in good faith with the prosecutor, he fled the country.

Mind that he could not withdraw that guilty plea. So, he was effectively cheated out of his chance to defend himself by a judge that refused to go with the plea bargain.

If I were put in a similar situation, I'd probably do the same thing Polanski did. It's tantamount to being railroaded.

What he did was heinous. But what the judge tried to do to him was similarly heinous, basically screwing him out of his rights. In the legal system, you DO NOT go against a plea bargain, because it undermines the ability of a DA to secure plea bargains with future defendants.

[dellstart]

yep. I guess that the law is the law , even if scumbags like him deserve to have their ball removed.Though sometimes you have to shake your head and sigh or is a better word cry.

[Phantom]

well few mistakes i can see you might be making .....
!. your viewing the case using 2009 Morals and not 1977 ones
2. Why does it seem no one's listening to the "Victim" in this and what her wishes are in this matter
I mean isn't she old enough yet ?

This just seems to me to be someones power play and not actualy about justice.......
(the Capture not the original crime)

Oh well just some thoughts

Phantom

Well, I'm glad I wasn't an adult in 77 (was 7 years old) because I honestly don't think my morals would be any different today vs then, (to me raping a child is worse than murder.)

Also the victim got a nice big settlement from him (prolly in the millions) plus why should her opinion matter? I mean he pleaded Guilty, then fled the country..

Well not to defend him ...but Morals and laws were a lot diffrent back then ...hell even up to a few years ago

Case in point in 1977 Child abuse wasn't even really a crime yet ...unless the child was murdered
and up in till just a few years ago The legal age of a Female to get married in Kansas was still 14 with
parental consent .......a lot of what you may percive to be now maybe wasn't back then...
the age of consent in a lot of states at that time was not 16 or 18 ..but 13 and 14 ...
hell go back little as 100... 60 years even years and see what you find....a lot has changed in just 30 years ....

we're talking about a time before comptuers in home ...no CD's or DVDS no cable
(it was just begining to be introduced) there were generaly 3 TV stations
(some uhf channels depending on your area) No CNN no MTV and they didn't run 24 hours a day
even the one channel HBO was just becomming into being
(and even it wasn't 24 hour at first only about 8 hours per night)

I still remember some of this being in the news ....(harder to do these days since my fall last nov)
i do remember there were a lot of strange things about this case .
just can't remeber what they all were.

take Fels point a bargan was reached and made ....then it was broken ...not by him at first
but by the goveremnt it's self.....


Phantom

[bigbird312]

Depending on the state a judge can accept or reject the plea deal!

What makes me mad is if this person wasn't famous what would
the publics take on it be.


Kevin

[ANTIcarrot]

Now I want to try and understand how can anyone defend him?

1) He was a prisoner at Auschwitz? I don't think it's a good reason either, but it seems to work for Israel all the time, so why not an individual as well?
2) The plot of Con Air? I don't think it's a good film either, but people getting screwed by the legal system is not fiction.

The grand jury charged Polanski with giving a drug to a minor, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, oral copulation and sodomy. All the charges are felonies.

How can you defend a legal system that has laws against anal and oral sex? And let's remember another fact of the law at the time: If he had been convicted he would have been automatically deported anyway!

But to answer your question, and to quote the Washington Post a little bit down that page, "The probation report indicated that she consented. The judge said it made no difference." Convicting someone of rape when it wasn't rape (IF this was the case) is a monstrous thing to do. IF that is what happened, then there is no need to defend him. Referencing Shadow Walker... The ages of the females that Kyven sleeps with are not hidden. It is possibly for people under the age of 21 to give sexual consent. You either accept that or you don't. If you do, then you also have to accept that it's possible for this to actually happen in the real world with human beings. And I happily say that from personal experience.

I don't know what happened, if anything. I don't know the individuals involved. I don't have copies of the witness testimonies. I don't know what kind of evvidence, if any, the police actually have. As far as I'm concerened, he hasn't been proven guilty yet.

[boballab]

Anti you are forgetting something with that stance and that is AGE OF CONSENT. If the person is not legally allowed to give consent that means its automatic rape no matter what the person says then, now or in the future.

Get what he was charged with correctly and know what it means. Polanski was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Now what does that mean well here is the passage from California law:

California -- Age of Consent

PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269

261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person
under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person
who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(d) Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000).
(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil
penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected
for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action
shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the
judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the
Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the
State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy
Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing
underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.

261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289,
in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean
positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of
free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have
knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.
A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be
sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a
prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.
Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence
or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.

What is Statutory Rape?
Statutory Rape is unlawful sexual intercourse with someone
under the age of 18.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

Now lets explore this "consent" the victim gave by looking at her Grand Jury Testimony which has been unsealed:
Lets see she told him to stay away when he kissed her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib9.html

She Told him No and stoip it when he started going down on her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html

She told him to stop again when he started to penetrate her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib12.html

When he wanted to know if the girl was on the pill and when she had her last period and she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't sure when her last period was while drunk and having taken a Ouaalude, both provided by Polanski. He asked her if he could butt have anal intercourse with her and she said No. He went and did it anyway.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib13.html

They asked her why if she resisted when he penetrated her anus and she replied a little bit but not much because she was afraid of him and alone in that house with him.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib14.html

Yep sure sounds consensual to me.
Tell you what why don't we move him into your home and let him take pictures of every underage female relative you have and lets see how you feel then. He is a sexual predator, no more and no less and he did the crime and now he has to do the time.

[Quindo Ma]

Personally, I know too little about the case, beyond what I saw and heard in the news, to defend or judge him.
But the one thing that popped into my mind after hearing this the first time, was can they even still convict him? Wouldn't the case be statute-barred after this long?
*shrug* Be that as it may, I do agree with one fact, and that's that this wouldn't have been blown up so much, if it weren't for the celebrity status of the defendant.

[Phantom]

My whole point in this ...Isn't what some might think ...

My point i was trying to make is not if he's guilty or not guilty ...right, wrong or other
it's that Most seem to view this by todays standards and laws..

Not the standards or maybe even laws that existed in 1977

Now we are trying to reconvect him using 2009 standard's ...
be sides which ...Judges standards have changed as well
I won't be suprised if he is returned and then Slaped on the wrists told he's a bad man
and then told never do it again and released to probation or something else
simply because he's got a long history now of not being a violent criminal.
this looks more like someone out to score brownie points then trying to do whats right
returning him to CA a state that generaly puts people worse then him in Prison earily release
programs.

(yea i know some will have problems with that statment ...but those facts are on his side
if you look at him from after his trial to today) we won't even talk about the lawyers he\s
going to hire

hell thinking about all of this is giving me a headace .....

I say open your eyes and see the truth people ....don't get caught in the trap
of following the masses or beliveing everything the media says ....
The news reporting we see everyday is just like a hollywood movie.
they can tell a story anyway they want it to look
and belive it or not they aren't in the business to tell you the news anymore
boys and girls they are in business to do one thing ......make money.

my point isn't if we's guilty ...hell he's a scumbag that should have done his time long ago.
but maybe your allowing your perceptions of what actualy happened or is happening to be scewed



Phantom

[dellstart]

Anti you are forgetting something with that stance and that is AGE OF CONSENT. If the person is not legally allowed to give consent that means its automatic rape no matter what the person says then, now or in the future.

Get what he was charged with correctly and know what it means. Polanski was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Now what does that mean well here is the passage from California law:

California -- Age of Consent

PENAL CODE
SECTION 261-269

261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor.

For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person
under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person
who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years
older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(d) Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000).
(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil
penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected
for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action
shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the
judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the
Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the
State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy
Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing
underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.

261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289,
in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean
positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of
free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have
knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.
A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be
sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a
prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.
Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence
or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.

What is Statutory Rape?
Statutory Rape is unlawful sexual intercourse with someone
under the age of 18.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

Now lets explore this "consent" the victim gave by looking at her Grand Jury Testimony which has been unsealed:
Lets see she told him to stay away when he kissed her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib9.html

She Told him No and stoip it when he started going down on her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html

She told him to stop again when he started to penetrate her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib12.html

When he wanted to know if the girl was on the pill and when she had her last period and she couldn't answer the question because she wasn't sure when her last period was while drunk and having taken a Ouaalude, both provided by Polanski. He asked her if he could butt have anal intercourse with her and she said No. He went and did it anyway.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib13.html

They asked her why if she resisted when he penetrated her anus and she replied a little bit but not much because she was afraid of him and alone in that house with him.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib14.html

Yep sure sounds consensual to me.
Tell you what why don't we move him into your home and let him take pictures of every underage female relative you have and lets see how you feel then. He is a sexual predator, no more and no less and he did the crime and now he has to do the time.

This makes your skins crawl .

Plus anticarrot to set the record straight, he actually wasn't in one of the camps, though he lost his mother in one.whilst the Ghetto was no picnic , he was actually saved by courageous Catholics and reunited with his Father .Not that really has any baring on his pedophilia or the like.To suggest otherwise , kind of cast aspersions on those who survived as well , which is honestly more than a bit unfair.

Dont get me wrong the guy is an absolute animal and there is absolutely no defense , no matter what you say. end of subject

[ANTIcarrot]

Anti you are forgetting something with that stance and that is AGE OF CONSENT. If the person is not legally allowed to give consent that means its automatic rape no matter what the person says then, now or in the future.

I wasn't ignoring it. I was deliberately calling it a stupid idea. Which is why I refered to my personal experience. As a 'victim' of 'statutory rape' I speak from personal experience when I say the whole idea is complete and utter crap and anyone who actually believes in it is fucked in the head.

I have no problem with rape as a crime. I just see 'statutory rape' (of all forms) as a pointless exercise. Rape is rape. If you need twenty different versions of the same law then there is probably something wrong with your legal system.

Get what he was charged with correctly

I did. Unlawful sex with a minor is what he pleaded guilty to, in exchange for dropping the other charges.

Now lets explore this "consent" the victim gave by looking at her Grand Jury Testimony which has been unsealed:
Lets see she told him to stay away when he kissed her.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib9.html

Thanks for this. Currently reading the origonal court transcripts. I've vot as far as page 16 of her testimony. I'll stop there. It's 2AM and I need to be out of my hotel by 10AM. When I've finished I may change mymind. But not before then.

underage female relative you have and lets see how you feel then.

Seeing as I have no underage female relatives... Even if I did, the chances that any of them woudl be model material, let alone all of them... But even taking that as red, why do you assume I'd have a problem with nude photos of them? There is nothing wrong with tasteful nudes, at any age.

[GBLW]

Anti you are forgetting something with that stance and that is AGE OF CONSENT. If the person is not legally allowed to give consent that means its automatic rape no matter what the person says then, now or in the future.

Get what he was charged with correctly and know what it means. Polanski was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Now what does that mean well here is the passage from California law:
..,

Unfortunately, it would be preferable if you quoted the 1977 laws.

I happen to know that the laws you quoted were from sections that were modified several times, as an example I know there were modifications made in 1998 and again in 2001 and those modifications were included in the laws you quoted.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was around at the time Polanski was in court, and at that time I seem to remember that there was some controversy about the charge of 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,' but I can't recall exactly what it was.

Personally, I'm going to say that I hate child abusers of any kind, but in this case there are too many things which were 'shady' to say the least. I do recall thinking at the time that the DA and the Judge must have worked hand in hand, along with the victim, to set the guy up so he had no chance of defending himself.