Polanski arrested in Switzerland - Page 4

Linda, your posts and a few other peoples' posts do NOT read that way to me. I am not the only one that is reading your posts like this.

This man admitted to his crimes and STILL people made excuses for him saying his lawyers may have made him do it.

Just what does one have to do for people to say, "Yeah, the dude is guilty"
Does there have to be an eye witness? Maybe two eye witnesses, because just one eye witness may be lying? Maybe three eyewitnesses, because two may have gotten paid off to lie?

Cindy, I don't think any of us do not believe he committed the act (is guilty), none of us are saying that. We're simply saying there is more to this whole issue than the act itself. Saying there is more to the issue does not constitute making excuses for him - it's simply expanding the scenario. Surely that isn't so difficult to understand?????

GREAT point. Now that you mention it I remember that being discussed and many people were talking about that horrible crime and how horrible the teacher was.

Now there was consenual sex, still a crime. The female teacher, Mary Jane Letourneau, went to prison.
Letourneau did not rape or sodomize or drug Vili Fualaau but he was a minor and she went to jail and EVERYONE thought that was correct.

Now here comes Polanski, 46 years old, drugs a 13 year old, plies her with alcohol and rapes her and sodomizes her and ADMITS doing it and the same people think he should be left alone.

Your first post on this thread makes no mention of any blame going to the rapist himself. In this post you are blaming the victim.

Your second post blames the mother, with a footnote at the end putting a little blame on Polanski.
Forgive if I am wrong, but just WHO commited the act of drugging and raping and sodomizing this girl?

im sure the forum is called in my opinion! everyone is entitled to there own opinion and its going way off topic now

Actually, in neither of those posts was I "blaming" anyone but I can see how some folks could interpret it that way. Perhaps the word "maybe" was confusing, or "move on", or reference to the parents who sold their kids down the tube for fame for themselves was confusing. It's also possible that those words (maybe, perhaps, possibly) mean something different to me than to others. I'm sure I don't know how others think.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I haven't seen anyone going, "way off topic." I must have missed that.

Thanks, that was exactly the case I was thinking of. I have to say at the time I was APPALLED, but maybe I didn't hear enough & maybe I believed too much what was on the news. I changed my mind seeing them in an interview more recently where they are still together and very happy.

Like what? What more could there possibly be to this story? That is what I don't understand.

She wilfully took the drugs?
Does that make anything different?

She wilfully had sex with him?
Does that make anything different?

If she was not a virgin?
Does that make anything different?

If she had been sexual abused as a young child & was therefore quite "experienced"?
Does that make anything different?

What if she was trying to get a movie career out of it?
Does that make anything different?

What if she did get allot of money of out if? (and apparently she did)
Does that make anything different?

To me, 13 is 13 is 13... SHE WAS A BABY
As I said before, it's not like she was 17 3/4, she was 13, 13, 13!!!

I think this has been a remarkably civil & on topic debate actually (time-out to applaud everyone )

well why do other stories have to be dragged into it, to be he said then she said then

some people in this topic seem to not want others to have their say and its only their opinions that count, i wish i had never even posted in here in future i wont

I was around for the 1970s and I think there are some differences which are appropriate to mention.

First, a 13-year old was not considered a "baby." Kids were much more independent back then, and we were expected to take responsibility for ourselves at a much earlier age. We didn't have parents insisting on being able to call their thrid-grade children in school on their cell phones or filling out their college applications for them. The country had just gone through a wave of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 ("If I'm old enough to fight and die for my country, I'm old enough to buy myself a beer.") although California did resist this trend.

Second there were several "Lolita" films that came out about that time (for example, Little Darlings, Pretty Baby) that glorified underage girls as sex objects. For anyone who is interested there is an interesting editorial which compares Geimer's mother with Brooke Shields' mother here:
(warning there is bad language in the first paragraph)
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54259,...roman-polanski
In case you weren't around in the 1970s, Brooke Shields was IMO exploited by her mother and involved in some movies, ad campaigns, and public photography which was very controversial at the time and which is also linked to in this article. And the nude pic of Brooke Shields at the age of ten (!) with full make up I think says volumes.

Third there was nowhere near the understanding for rape victims that is standard today. Back then there would most definitely have been a backlash of "If she lied to her mother and didn't know that posing topless for the camera was wrong, she is partly to blame." As a victim she would have been dragged through the mud, I have no doubt about that.

Please be clear that I am not posting this to attempt to excuse Polanski in any way. I'm liberal about what consenting adults do behind closed doors, but the split second it involves children, lack of consent, or a superior/subordinate relationship I have zero tolerance. I am trying to get anyone who is interested into the mindset that I think existed back then, and I was 20 in 1978 (and also living in California.) If anyone is to blame other than Polanksi then maybe the mother, but for me it is 99.9% vs 0.01 %. The guy deserves to rot in jail, I don't care how good his movies are.

I don't quite believe I'm about to type the following words but...

I agree with Cindy.

Wow. (=

Hey aj, don't feel that way. There are always going to be folks that disagree with you and will berate you for your opinions/posts. As long as in your heart you feel comfortable with yourself, it's A-OK. I don't take offense - I've learned that as we get older and gain more experience and knowledge that we can and often change how we think about various things and often take more into account when forming opinions. I know I certainly have - some call it mellowing. I could have sworn I knew more and was right more often when I was 30 than I do now. Mark Twain was right about that one.

It's all good!

That's true, but for me personally, everything you said took a major credibility hit when you said this, apparently one of those "mitigating circumstances":

I've stewed over this for awhile, and I think it's time you made an apology for making this statement. You made a perverse sweeping generalization the likes of which would makes some frat boys wince. If you're bitter about the direction society is going with some of its cultural norms, I understand and can relate to that somewhat, but it has no bearing on the scope of a child's mind, and the mature sexual decisions that they're simply not ready to make, regardless of the impression they might be giving you.

No, nothing to apologize for. I made an observation from my own knowledge and experience to be true and did not say ALL girls (I said "some" - you said it was a perverse sweeping generalization). As far as I know there is no reason to apologize for stating a truth. I didn't say anything about how mature their sexual decisions were (you said that) or whether they were ready to make them (again your words). The statement I made was also based on more than the impression they gave me. I have a 29 year old daughter who was very straight-forward and open with me when she was growing up who often related details (sometimes much too much detail) of what some of the "kids" were doing so I stand by that statement.

As to my "credibility", if you don't believe as I believe, then naturally my statements would have no credibility for you - that's only logical.

As far as mitigating circumstances, I think Tricia's was really the only post that stated what could be called "mitigating circumstances" and could have been argued to the judge, had Polanski bothered to show up at the sentencing hearing.

While I agree he had been through more than his fair share of grief, heartache and pain by 1977, and that *might* have contributed to his actions I have a really hard time saying that he got more than he deserved in this case. He was originally charged with 6 felonies. Had he been convicted of all of those indictments he faced life in prison. Because the prosecutors wanted to spare the victim having to go public (there weren't any rape victim shield laws or even protocols then), testify against him in court and face him, and be cross examined by the bulldog lawyers that his money could afford him, they accepted his plea to the least of all of those charges. The 5 charges that carried the most prison time were summarily dropped.

He was initially given 90 days in prison for psychological evaluation. He served slightly less than half. The judge has since been quoted as saying he wanted to ensure that Polanski did at least complete the 90 days - so he ran instead of spending 48 more days in prison. I know prison sucks (not from personal experience), but considering what he had been facing another 48 days is pretty mild. The judge had his hands tied by the guilty plea on that sole count - he couldn't sentence him to what he actually deserved; he had to go by the guidelines of "unlawful sexual conduct".

Personally, I think a lot of the debate about whether Polanski should be extradicted here would be moot if the sentencing had taken place with him in abstencia. The lawyers would still have made the same arguments, the judge could have said what the sentence would be. I agree that no matter how heinous the crime to extradict him from Switzerland for 48 days in jail/prison would be stupid. Just not a good use of funds. If the sentence were for a few years in prison, that to me would be worth it.

Wow. Well...kudos to you for trying to make poison palatable.

This thread has been a damn sad experience. I'm out of here.

IMO isn't for everyone. One needs to have a bit of a tougher skin and be OK with their own feelings while at the same time appreciating that others will feel differently, agree to disagree, but still respect a difference of opinions. It's a wonderful place for a good, stimulating discussion.

Can we try this one again?

I don't believe a 13 year old is mature enough to make the decision to have sex regardless of the reasons she was fed. I can't imagine she actually tried to "seduce" him any more then just being herself. Perhaps it is because I have a young sister who is closer to the age of 13 then not ( well she's gone to university this year, but I still see her as my little baby sister! ) and knowing her and her friends and what it was like when I was 13; I can't imagine ANY circumstances under which Polanski's behaviour is even understandable.

Roman Polanski is nothing but a dirty, old perverted man. That is all he is, nothing more. He is disgusting and dispicable.

Here is another of his young, teenage girls, this one he picked up AFTER he ran from the United States judicial system and ran to France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2712371.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-15803,00.html

Ashley, Lindas right. Don't stay away from IMO because your entitled to put your point over as well. Just because someone disagrees on something it doesn't mean you have to jump on their bandwagon

I have to say, anyone in their 40s who would do a 13-year-old, even if she looked a few years older, sounds to me like an excellent candidate for having the charges tattooed on his lower back right before putting him in the general prison population. At that age split he could have been her father; it wouldn't have taken stunning intellect on his part to realize that she was just! too! young!!!

I get that he'd been through some stuff. Reduced impulse control might be excusable, but pouring alcohol and drugs into her was premeditated.

Regardless of whether she was really experienced/developed for her age or not, there's a reason for the concept of age of consent. Kids are kids and it's crappy behavior to take advantage of them, especially sexually. I do think that the concept is sometimes taken to extremes, in situations like a 15-year-old in a state where the age of consent is 16 getting people labeled as sex offenders if she says yes and they don't ask for ID, but this isn't one of those situations--first, he had a professional relationship with her and her family, so he knew her age; second, he gave her drugs and she said no anyway.

In summation:
Doing someone to whom you're an authority figure...wrong
Doing a known minor...wrong
Getting someone drunk/high in order to do them more easily...wrong
Doing someone when they say no...wrong

I understand the concept of media spin, but even just from the bare facts, how is this not obvious?

Hasta la vista, pardon.

The "Governator" says he has no intention of pardoning the pervert.

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_New...7731254498752/

Regardless of what the details of the situation are drugs, how she looked anything like that..Its against the law he was and it still wrong he fled the police and violated the law. Karma bit him in the butt bigtime and he will eventually get what he deserves because no matter which was you slice it he was wrong in what he did he broke the law. No ifs ands or buts about it! But again thats just my opinion and we are all entitled to such opinions.

HOO RAH for Arnold.

He's a sick man. If it were up to me he'd be in prison as somebody's girlfriend.

I know I'm a little late to get involved in this debate, but I just wanted to add that the documentary about this case, called "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired", is an interesting one. It primarily includes commentary from the defense and prosecuting attorneys, but also commentary from Samantha Geimer herself, along with past videos of many people involved in the case. It's available on the instant play Netflix if anyone is a subscriber.

The documentary was filmed one of his friends and supporters and has about the truthfullness of a Micheal Moore flick.

And the prosecutor who stated in the film that he talked to the judge when he wasn't supposed to have has stated that he lied. Wanted to make his part in the whole thing look better.

I personally like the smoking gun site better for facts. They have the actual court documents.

Plus read this op-ed piece from a former judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-..._b_304567.html

According to him the judge was completely in his rights to sentence him to something other then the 45 days time served.

In the court documents you see that Polanski knew this. In fact he, himself had to say it, in court.

I'm so glad that someone else besides me actually read the transcripts. I think you are the only one to do so.