Roman Polanski

[Ghost of Electricity]

too bad Roman and Jack weren't listening to Andre Williams that night. The whole thing might never have happenned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09ukTUUhBY

[Rusty Shackleford]

My understanding is that the judge accepted it and changed his mind, after significant pressure to do so from the prosecution.

 

This is not correct.

 

The plea bargain was that Polanski would plead guilty to one offense in exchange for the prosecutors dropping 3 others, and that the prosecutors would recommend a light sentence. The judge had nothing to do with the bargaining on sentencing, and the hearing at which Polanski entered his guilty plea makes that abundantly clear. The judge never agreed to a particular sentence and reserved the right to sentence Polanski to up to 15 years on the one count. Polanski fled because he thought (perhaps with justification) that the judge would give him jail time, but the judge had never agreed to do otherwise.

 

My understanding is that the prosecutors and even the probation officers recommended no jail time for Polanski, but those were different times. IMHO, Polanski should do time for the original crime--society's views on rape have changed somewhat since the 1970s and if he were to do this stuff today he'd most certainly go to jail. The Hollywood apologists for this guy make me absolutely sick.

[tongue-tied]

On the lighter side, Steve Martin's Celebrity Crime Perks.

[Ghost of Electricity]

No, he did already, with the plea bargain - essentially, he simply needs to be present in order for someone to give it the stamp of approval. Most legal experts agree that they will note his sentence for the rape as time served.

 

I don't quite catch what you are saying here- that his time in exile will be counted retroactively as time spent serving time? That if/when he comes back the plea-bargain agreement will be honored? I haven't hear either of these, and am not quite sure what you mean. please clarify.

 

I'm not arguing about the severity of the crime (because, let's face it, that one's a cakewalk), just the present legal issues at hand.

 

the severity of the crime is a cakewalk? I think you mean that whatever punishment he receives for a crime of this severity is a cakewalk, but again, I'm not sure.

[bjorn_skurj]

too bad Roman and Jack weren't listening to Andre Williams that night. The whole thing might never have happenned.

I like this one much better.

 

[Guest Speed Racer]

I don't quite catch what you are saying here- that his time in exile will be counted retroactively as time spent serving time? That if/when he comes back the plea-bargain agreement will be honored? I haven't hear either of these, and am not quite sure what you mean. please clarify.

 

Not to be lame, but I'm mostly paraphrasing articles that are earlier in the thread. Rather than clarify my paraphrases, I'll just direct you to the other three pages of the thread.

 

the severity of the crime is a cakewalk? I think you mean that whatever punishment he receives for a crime of this severity is a cakewalk, but again, I'm not sure.

 

Haha, no. Understanding that rape is a more heinous crime than simply running like a coward is a cakewalk.

[Ghost of Electricity]

I like this one much better.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Edie]

Well, clearly I am in the minority. But that's what makes these threads fun and interesting.

[HungryHippo]

And 30 years in Europe directing award-winning movies and with more money than you'll ever need doesn't sound like much of a punishment.

 

have you been to Europe before?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jk, its a nice place

[Littlebear]

I am not quite sure how to respond. You are essentially saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children.

 

Not at all. I say there are circumstances that can be avoided between some men and some teens, teens (from 13 to...) being more very young women than children most of the time. Roman Polanski isn't an example of wise person. It's a disturbed artist, all of his movies illustrate it.

 

More than that, if I well understand, they spend a whole day together (or a long afternoon? anyway...). Anything weird can happen in a day. Polanski, more than any other maybe, could pretty much make a movie about that, the complex story of a day (or a few hours), telling the strange relationship of two persons of different age, that would lead to the fault that everybody judges now only as a result. But anything more complex can lead to that terrible fault. And I don't even feel like playing the devil's advocate here.

 

You still can ask to an artist to be as wise as a judge, but it's, to my view, basically silly. Psychologically and sexually, the world of Polanski is pretty heavy, and far from being moral. If he'd been a man of law, he wouldn't have made movies at all.

[M. (hristine]

Not at all. I say there are circumstances that can be avoided between some men and some teens, teens (from 13 to...) being more very young women than children most of the time. Roman Polanski isn't an example of wise person. It's a disturbed artist, all of his movies illustrate it.

 

More than that, if I well understand, they spend a whole day together (or a long afternoon? anyway...). Anything weird can happen in a day. Polanski, more than any other maybe, could pretty much make a movie about that, the complex story of a day (or a few hours), telling the strange relationship of two persons of different age, that would lead to the fault that everybody judges now only as a result. But anything more complex can lead to that terrible fault. And I don't even feel like playing the devil's advocate here.

 

You still can ask to an artist to be as wise as a judge, but it's, to my view, basically silly. Psychologically and sexually, the world of Polanski is pretty heavy, and far from being moral. If he'd been a man of law, he wouldn't have made movies at all.

Is it your view that because he is a disturbed artist, and not a man of law, that he should be exempt from the law? I'm not talking moral or ethical law, I'm referring to the law of the country in which he resided, worked, and from which siphoned a good deal of money.

 

I just don't see this situation as some sort of murky, moralistic, Puritanical witch hunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Anything weird can happen in a day. Polanski, more than any other maybe, could pretty much make a movie about that, the complex story of a day (or a few hours), telling the strange relationship of two persons of different age, that would lead to the fault that everybody judges now only as a result.

 

Wow.

[howdjadoo]

Anything weird can happen in a day. Polanski, more than any other maybe, could pretty much make a movie about that, the complex story of a day (or a few hours), telling the strange relationship of two persons of different age, that would lead to the fault that everybody judges now only as a result.

 

 

Nuff said:

 

 

[rareair]

has hitler been mentioned yet?

[Sir Stewart]

has hitler been mentioned yet?

Not directly, no. But the original post mentions Polanski's father dying in a Nazi camp and Polanski escaping Krakow as a kid.

[rareair]

Not directly, no. But the original post mentions Polanski's father dying in a Nazi camp and Polanski escaping Krakow as a kid.

 

sorry. i did not think out my frustration with this thread.

 

i will stick to the peyton/romo debate until my normal thought process returns.

[Ghost of Electricity]

I live in Krakow. As I write this I'm sitting in my appartment, which is located in what used to be the Jewish ghetto. This does not qualify me in any way to claim I have insight into the experience of those who survived the Holocaust. Knowlege, perhaps. True understanding, not a chance. They are two realities which have a location in common but are in and of themselves unrelated. The very notion is ridiculous. The fact that I live here is actually completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Similarly, the fact that Polanski is a survivor is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The idea that a survivor should be granted criminal license is absurd. If there is any reasoning behind this notion, it is the same reasoning which allows Israel to perpetuate war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

 

People who commit crimes should be held accountable, be they Nazi, Priest, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Chinese, Tibetan, Democrat, Republican, Gay, Dogcatcher, Doughnut-maker, Garbage collector.

[Littlebear]

Is it your view that because he is a disturbed artist, and not a man of law, that he should be exempt from the law? I'm not talking moral or ethical law, I'm referring to the law of the country in which he resided, worked, and from which siphoned a good deal of money.

 

I just don't see this situation as some sort of murky, moralistic, Puritanical witch hunt. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

My point is not to say he should be exempt from the law. My point is : there can be attenuating circumstances to something that appears strictly shocking. Circumstances could have been worse, say, if the girl was 10 years old, if she hadn't posed naked, if the man had been known for raping again or being violent, etc, etc

 

So I repeat it: I don't say at all he should be exempt from the law. But I tend to temper the severe judgement that moralistic people apply to the man and the matter that makes this thread. There is the law, and there is life. Millions of things in life, light or serious, happen out the law.

 

I don't quite understand the man who spoke of "social contract" earlier. Any man can meet a girl and have a sex relation with her, to learn after she was only 17, whereas she looked like 21. And then the law leads him to prison. And then in prison, the man is raped by his colleagues, because things happen in prison out of the law, too. But then the *law* is totally responsible of something way more serious. No?

[Guest Speed Racer]

If she were 10, 20, 30, 40 or any age whatever, and was drugged and sodomized and engaging in sex acts against her will, rape is rape, circumstances be damned. Period. I don't care how short the skirt is, how sexy the cleavage, and I certainly don't give a fuck that she was posing naked for photos (which, let us be clear, is child pornography).

 

No one around here ever brought up prison rape, but just so we're clear: I'm pretty sure most folks around VC are with me when I say that all violent, non-consensual sex acts are criminal and should be treated as such.

[M. (hristine]

My point is not to say he should be exempt from the law. My point is : there can be attenuating circumstances to something that appears strictly shocking. Circumstances could have been worse, say, if the girl was 10 years old, if she hadn't posed naked, if the man had been known for raping again or being violent, etc, etc

 

So I repeat it: I don't say at all he should be exempt from the law. But I tend to temper the severe judgement that moralistic people apply to the man and the matter that makes this thread. There is the law, and there is life. Millions of things in life, light or serious, happen out the law.

 

I don't quite understand the man who spoke of "social contract" earlier. Any man can meet a girl and have a sex relation with her, to learn after she was only 17, whereas she looked like 21. And then the law leads him to prison. And then in prison, the man is raped my his colleagues, because things happen in prison out of the law, too. But then the *law* is totally responsible of something way more serious. No?

.

I agree with with most everything you have said here, except that none of it applies to this case . Polanski never denied the charges of drugging and subsequently having unlawful, non consensual sex with a minor.

 

I have seen pictures of the child, and there would be no mistaking her age.

 

The victim's grand jury testimony paints a different picture than any 'attenuating circumstance' could ever excuse.

[Sir Stewart]

I live in Krakow. As I write this I'm sitting in my appartment, which is located in what used to be the Jewish ghetto. This does not qualify me in any way to claim I have insight into the experience of those who survived the Holocaust. Knowlege, perhaps. True understanding, not a chance. They are two realities which have a location in common but are in and of themselves unrelated. The very notion is ridiculous. The fact that I live here is actually completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Similarly, the fact that Polanski is a survivor is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The idea that a survivor should be granted criminal license is absurd. If there is any reasoning behind this notion, it is the same reasoning which allows Israel to perpetuate war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

 

People who commit crimes should be held accountable, be they Nazi, Priest, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant, Chinese, Tibetan, Democrat, Republican, Gay, Dogcatcher, Doughnut-maker, Garbage collector.

 

Is this in response to my mentioning Krakow? If so, your diatribe is not only wildly assumptive but woefully misguided. For the record.

[Moss]

If she were 10, 20, 30, 40 or any age whatever, and was drugged and sodomized and engaging in sex acts against her will, rape is rape, circumstances be damned. Period. I don't care how short the skirt is, how sexy the cleavage, and I certainly don't give a fuck that she was posing naked for photos (which, let us be clear, is child pornography).

 

No one around here ever brought up prison rape, but just so we're clear: I'm pretty sure most folks around VC are with me when I say that all violent, non-consensual sex acts are criminal and should be treated as such.

 

This pretty much sums it up for me. Also, it's not consensual with a 13 year old no matter what, even without the drugging it's sleazy. The drugging just puts it way over the top.

[Littlebear]

If she were 10, 20, 30, 40 or any age whatever, and was drugged and sodomized and engaging in sex acts against her will, rape is rape, circumstances be damned. Period. I don't care how short the skirt is, how sexy the cleavage, and I certainly don't give a fuck that she was posing naked for photos (which, let us be clear, is child pornography).

 

I disagree. Rape is rape, but there are different sorts of rapes, and different sorts of sentences required to these. It's obviously worse to rape a 10 years old girl than a 30 years old one. Unless the 30 years old one is handicaped or something. It's worse to rape with violence than with psychological pressure. And yes, a girl who's been sexually provocative is an attenuating circumstance to me (but I don't say it's been the case with Samantha Gailey).

 

If you claim that girls aren't responsible for provoking rape when they're sexually attractive, then you totally dismiss the power of the sexual pulsions. The sexual world is a big part of the human life. The raping pulsion takes part of the sexual game. It belongs to any of us to deal carefully with it. To men, and to girls.

 

Polanski is totally responsible of what happened. But HOW did it really happen? That's the only question I have no answer to. And the facts we know (alcohol, drugs, sodomy) aren't helping in any way. There are just shocking words thrown like these, that don't tell the reality of how the things happen. That's what I tried to say with my idea of movie describing the circumstances. That's probably why some movies were done in the first place: to describe a reality that's far more complex than a final judgement.

 

We don't live with the law in mind. We don't live with logic or under a social contract. At least I, for one, don't - bless my soul.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Again, wow. I can't respond to you anymore without calling you a number of names, so I'm just not going to engage with you as far as this thread is concerned.

[tongue-tied]

It's obviously worse to rape a 10 years old girl than a 30 years old one. Unless the 30 years old one is handicaped or something. It's worse to rape with violence than with psychological pressure. And yes, a girl who's been sexually provocative is an attenuating circumstance to me (but I don't say it's been the case with Samantha Gailey).

 

If you claim that girls aren't responsible for provoking rape when they're sexually attractive, then you totally dismiss the power of the sexual pulsions. The sexual world is a big part of the human life. The raping pulsion takes part of the sexual game. It belongs to any of us to deal carefully with it. To men, and to girls.