Polanski arrested in Switzerland

I heard about this last night & added him to the list of "people who's work I won't watch until he's dead & gone and I can enjoy it with out giving HIM any more money."

It's a relatively long list...

Oh for heaven's sake - it happened over 30 years ago and even the girl herself has asked for the US to let it go and move on!

None of us were there and therefore do not know what went on. I've known of some 13 year olds that look 20, act 20, and have been sexually active for some time. Maybe she slept with him thinking he'd get her into the movies.

I don't believe just what we read or hear in the media.

She wanted the case dropped because she got a huge settlement and was tired of draging her family through the case/reliving it every time it came back up. She still deserves justice.

You can't honestly think what he did was ok???

Regardless of whether or not we were present, he was convicted. The admited to what he did and was found guilty. That's not the same as idle speculation.

13 year olds, regardless of their sexual maturity, are stupid and have poor judment. That's why we adults are supposed to be here to help them learn about the world; not take advantage of their naiveté.

I'm sorry but in my books he's a paedophile through & through. I won't be giving him or any company he works for money.

(I hope I don't come across as argumentative, I'm trying to be more debate...ive?)

So then where were her parents? Why was she allowed to be in a position where she was very obviously alone and underage with him? Shouldn't they have been the first line of defense against this by maybe not allowing their 13 year old daughter to be alone with him.

If the US wastes taxpayer money to bring him back here I for one be highly annoyed. It would be the stupidest thing they could even do at this point. The only thing they really have on him is a confession that at this point any well paid lawyer could rip apart (it was made only under the assumption that he would get a plea bargain and do NO time at all) and the testimony of a woman who got a huge payoff and who most likely wouldn't testify at this point anyways.

It was also a different time than now in that parents weren't as paranoid about their children and allowed them to do things without 24-7 supervision. I'm sure 1973 was even more that way than the mid-1980s when I was ~13.

But regardless, are you saying that it's not her fault that she was young and it's not his fault that he's a pervert, but her parent's fault because they weren't with her 24-7? How does that make him any less culpable?

For those saying that 13 year olds look older...that's true, to a point. But again, this is a different age we live in now than in 1973 when this happened. Girls didn't usually "blossom" early like they do now. Dressing like a tramp like Britney and Xtina and Bratz Dolls wasn't acceptable - it wasn't even available, at least not to the extent that it is now.

He's already convicted and sentenced. There's no testimony for her to give - she likely already testified before a Grand Jury for the indictment. He ran because the judge was going to throw out the plea deal, as is the Judge's legal option, that would have sentenced him to 42 days in jail to a harsher sentence. He ran instead, and has snubbed his nose at the US judicial system for 30 years. France just sees him as an artist and apparently above the dumb US legal system. Maybe they see everyone as above the dumb US legal system, I don't know.

Is he a threat to the world and your children? Probably not. At the same time, what he did was one of the few things that couldn't be forgiven by the US after what happened to his wife Sharon and their baby (Manson Family murders, if you don't know by name). Not only what he did was wrong, but then he didn't have the cajones to take the consequences of his actions. He ran, and he's continued making movies and France and Hollywood treat it like it's no big deal. But IMO it is a big deal - the principal of it, if nothing else. You don't get to just run off and not do the time just because you're famous or an "artist".

I completely agree with what val just said, 100%.

I can NOT believe what I heard on the news tonight! One of the judges from the film festival (where he was arrested) claiming that the police were making a mountain out of a mole hill and that this was all just a "legal technicality".

A legal technicality!???? The TECHNICALITY is that HE DIDN'T GO TO JAIL!!!!

IMO 45 days is FAR less then he deserves.

There are no 13 years old that look and act like 20 year olds, there are 13 year olds that look like 16 year olds, and 16 year old that could pass a 20 year olds. The "well she looked 20" argument that lets paedophiles excuse themselves for things that are WRONG.

13 year olds are babies that should still have stars in their eyes, swap makeup with their friends, read stupid teen magazines and get crushes on movie stars.

I don't care if the guy is 25 and the girl is 16 and they "really love each other" that's still stat. rape. We have these laws to protect the most innocent of our society from being taken advantage of.

There is a good argument to be made on the "where were her parents" stream, but kids can be tricky. It's quite possible they thought she was at a friends house or something. That does NOT mean she deserved what happened in anyway.

I absolutely think they should ship this guy back to the states and string him up by his toes outside the capital building.

ive quickly scanned this topic, i did watch the news about this earlier today (well yesterday with it being 2am here) and what was picked up was her parents pretty much pushed it to happen for somesort of acting career

i agree what he did was wrong and he should be punished, but if some of the parties are saying they do not want to pursue the case then how can they

and as for saying you have never seen a 13 year old look like a 20 year old i think you need to walk into a night club/or pub and check ID's i know plenty through working in bars (that i wont serve) that are underage trying to drink and certainly look old enough, and depending what country and religion people are legal ages for this sort of thing varies greatly!

There are SO many victims that don't want to go through the ordeal of trial, after 30 years of this hanging over her head can you really blame her? That doesn't mean the shouldn't have someone speak for them & push them to seek justice.

I agree he's probably not a huge risk to the population, but if he had sex with a 13 year old once, that doesn't mean he's never going to do it again; especially since he got away with it.

I hadn't heard that about the girl's parents, that is sickening.

I AM saying I have NEVER seen a 13 year old that I would mistake for a 20 year old. I never have, and not being much over 20 myself and being around allot of younger people, specifically because of my younger brothers & sisters, I really mean that. I know they can paste on all the dark makeup they want and hike up their skirts, but they still aren't 20. There are certainly some hairy 16 year old boys that I could mistake for 20, but like I said, I've seen 13 year olds that could pass for 16 and 16 year old that could pass for 20s.

Presumably Polanski TALKED to the girl for more then 30 seconds before jumping into bed with her? He should have known she wasn't old enough.

Don't think for one second that the family didn't get what they wanted out of this. They got their fame and their money and it only cost them the well being of their 13 year old daughter.

The man is an idiot there is no doubt of that. It's the same as putting a big sign over a huge diamond that says "Steal Me" and then you wonder why you're in trouble when you steal it. Sure the shady person who put the sign up hoping that someone would steal it is partly responsible even though they are not trouble with the law, but it still makes me think they are just as despicable as the person who stole it.

My thinking exactly. There's a whole lot more to this story than meets the eye. Some star-struck moms back in those days pushed, pushed, pushed to get their daughters' noticed and they weren't particular on how it was done. Lindsay Lohan and her mom are a good example of that scenario in today's world.

Yes, Polanski was wrong but he shouldn't get all the blame IMO. He is a talented director and I wouldn't hesitate to see any of his films.

She was 13 and he gave her drugs and alcohol! And he not only raped her, he sodomized her.

I hope the judge throws out the previous sentencing and gives him 20 years!

The little sh** was a coward and fled the country. I don't feel a tiny bit sorry for him.

Too bad he wasn't arrested in Poland:

Poland okays forcible castration for paedophiles

Maybe the girl looked older than 13; maybe her parents were even complicit in what occurred. How does any of that mitigate what was a criminal act? Some who are giving this poor excuse for a man a pass are coming dangerously close to the old and reprehensible "reasoning" sometimes given for rape: "well, if she hadn't dressed (or acted) that way it wouldn't have happened..."

It mystifies me how people can separate despicable acts committed by "artists" from whatever it is those people produce - music, films, etc. Polanski's "art" is a reflection of who he is as a person - the sum total of all of his experiences, his thoughts. He is an adult who raped a 13 year old child, and then ran from serving his sentence. With all the great films that are available, why would anyone waste their time watching a film directed by a known pedophile?

I wonder how many artists over time have skeletons in their closets -- even pretty despicable ones. How many works of art have we seen, heard, been moved by, that were crafted by someone who had in his/her life done something just as despicable, but was never found out? Does our knowing about the despicable act somehow diminish the value of the art? I can respect, value, be moved by a creation without any need to know that the creator of it had done nothing to be ashamed of in his/her life. I don't need to deprive myself of a person's creation, because I disapprove of the person. That would be to cut off my nose to spite my face. You're welcome to do so, of course, but I won't.

Rap. made a good point, expensive lawyers can go along way; but I still don't feel the need to financially support the person in this case.

In the same way I don't buy food products (-cough- -cough- Kraft -cough-) owned by cigarette companies (-cough- Philip Moris)!! There aren't too many ways as ordinary citizens we can speak out, but I strongly feel on the best way to make my point is with my pocket-book.

He admitted to drugging her before he raped her. Does that put a different spin on it?

It's about time that man faces justice. I can understand why the woman wants this to be over with on a very personal level, but I can also understand the prosecutor's desire to see justice through. He was convicted, sentenced, and fled. He should serve the time he was given (even if it is way to short) and serve time for fleeing- whatever that may be.

I remember that "old and reprehensible" reasoning,

Reasons why men were not convicted of rape:

1. She looked old enough.
2. The way she was dressed - she deserved it.
3. She wanted it too.
4. She asked for it.

Seems like there are many people that still think this way. Blame it on the victim or blame it on the victim's parents. But heaven no, we can't actually blame it on the perpetrator of the crime, that would be, "personal responsibility and EVERYONE knows that is a thing of the past.

I've no doubt that over the course of time, there have been other artists who have led less than stellar personal lives. In those instances, ignorance is certainly bliss to the viewer of the art, isn't it? Yet in Polanski's case we have been made aware that he has committed a crime and we know the nature of that crime.

There are so many truly classic and excellent films to be seen. I don't feel that any one director's body of work is so important that I would feel "deprived" by not viewing it. Rather, I would not subject myself to viewing a film directed through the vision of a man who would rape a child.

If Polanski had murdered the child, would you still feel comfortable viewing his films? What if it was discovered that he tortured and killed cats? Is there a point at which your disapproval of the person interferes with your ability to "respect, value and be moved" by his creation?

The creation and the person ARE separate as far as I am concerned. I am not here to judge the person. I was not on the jury, and I am not God, so it's not my place. While how he has lived his life is part of who he is, and in some way informs how he expresses himself, I think it is still possible for a person to produce beautiful and moving craft, and capture truths that perhaps someone else never would. The art is more than the product of one act, or even one aspect of his character. If his art has merit, his art has merit, and I am not prepared to dismiss it because of a personal failing of the artist of which I happen to be aware.

I'm not saying that wonderful art excuses the artist's failings, particularly when they are as serious failings as we are contemplating here, only that the art deserves its own judgement, uncoloured by the artist's failings, because once it has left the artist, it has its own valid life. It is, in a very real way, the child of the artist. Would you condemn a wonderful human being, because you discovered that his father was a pedophile? It's not a lot different, to my mind.

I suspect that we may need to agree to disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0NR3..._embedded#t=24

At :16 16 seconds into the video is a picture of the 13 year old girl he raped.
Judge for yourself if she looks like she is of age.

In addition to drugging this 13 year old girl he sodomized her.

I'm with you on this one.

Exactly! I am so tired of being hassled by all of the women I've impregnated, by the cops for all of the unpaid parking tickets, and by my mortgage company for not paying on my house for the past 8 months. Don't they know there were (or may have been) exceptional circumstances that led to my behavior? Sheesh, stop living in the past; it's time to move on!!

Good one key .

Sharon Tate's sister has come up with another excuse as to why he shouldn't be extradited and just left to live his life...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...tml?test=faces

It was "consensual". Yup, that's right, apparently at 13 years old the girl was able to concent to being drugged, have sex and be sodomized. I guess all those states and countries with Age of Censent laws are just wrong - children can consent as young as 13, or at least they can if the man is a famous film-maker.

I understand why she doesn't want him villanized because of his association with her sister's memory, but this was well after her brutal murder. It is no reflection on Sharon Tate at all.

And the Hollywood Left has taken up the cause for one of their own. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html

Gotta love this snippet (emphasis added):

Apparently, because he skipped out on bail, the actual sentencing was never completed. I presume he never actually entered the plea in court. But the girl, who was maybe 14 at the time, DID testify before the grand jury. Even if she decided now that she would rather go to jail on contempt charges rather than testify now, that testimony could still be admitted if he changed his plea to not guilty, which would only be a logical assumption at this time.

So I was wrong that he had already been convicted, just that he had worked out a plea deal with the prosecutors to accept guilt of a lesser crime. The actual charge against him that still stands is not statutory rape, or consensual sex, but drugging the girl and anally raping her. That's what he's fighting extradition on.

Who gives a rip what Whoopi Goldberg thinks?

I tell you what I love THIS snippet:
Woody Allen?!? Now if that isn't someone who should keep his mouth shut in all of this I don't know who is.