Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)
-   Actors, Awards, & Directors (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Swiss detain Roman Polanski (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=20784)

Deadite 06-02-14 02:21 PM

That's another thing that irks me: people acting so offended by anyone calling Polanski a rapist. Well, he is a rapist. He's a very talented director of films but also a disgusting human being. It's even more disgusting that he escaped proper justice and also disgusting that some people are so willing and eager to continually argue in his defense as if he were something more than a great film director.

I know Scum get away with all manner of scumminess all the time and I've resigned myself to accepting they all won't be held accountable but do you guys really have to be so pathetically ready to jump to his defense? As if anyone's outrage at what he did has to be invalidated by you? Like you have any moral high ground whatsoever to allow yourselves to criticize me or anyone else who dare to say his sorry butt belongs behind bars? It's like frikking Alice In Wonderland in here.

Yoda 06-02-14 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Daniel M (Post 1097660)
I just hate this whole capital punishment and such mentality when it comes to issues like this, too many people will simply shout 'kill him', 'let him be raped', 'hang him by his balls' or something like that, when that's not what the justice system is there for, that's revenge, not justice.
Maybe this is the problem: treating people's reasonable anger about this as a proxy for the "whole capital punishment and such mentality."

I think it's a lot better to engage specific people and specific arguments, rather than treating them as stand-ins for a hazily defined "mentality."

Cobpyth 06-02-14 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097635)
What do either of these things have to do with it? If you can evade the law for 35 years, does that diminish the crime? Is there something about the 1970s that makes the act acceptable? If the answer to these questions is no, then I don't see what's being said here.
The answer to those questions is "no", but it was an act that wasn't as looked down upon as it is now and wasn't as severely punished either. That was pretty much the purpose of that bit. Nothing more was implied, besides putting things into the context of time.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097635)
So you believe people should have the power to forgive crimes perpetrated on them? The rest of society has no interest?
Sure, they should be able to forgive crimes perpetrated on them. That doesn't mean that society has to listen to that forgiveness, but as my post was directed towards the people who are still severely investing time in bashing Polanski on every occasion they think is valid, I do think it's an important factor to put things in perspective in this particular case.

No legal implications were meant by that bit, though.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097635)
I'm not sure why apologizing multiple times should be be considered part of his "punishment." Apologies only have legal significance because they suggest that you're pleading guilty and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court. That doesn't really work when you proceed to evade the law after.

So all we're really left with is that he spent 42 days in jail. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment for the crime?
I agree that, in legal terms, he has fled from justice and that is wrong, but when I stated he "has been punished enough", I was more alluding to the fact that (rightful) judgements have been directed towards his persona for 35 years and the fact that he he has been living as a fugitive for all that time. Also, one should count the days of arrest in Zurich (which lasted 10 months) with those 42 days in jail, because he was put in provisional detention.

AGAIN, legally this is no argument and I wouldn't sign a paper to request Polanski's "release", like many people in the film business did, but PERSONALLY I do feel he has been punished enough (be it in an unlawful way) for what he's done.

The fact that he's still not freed from his sin is of course his own fault. He should not have fled from the law back in '77 and therefore he is legally still a criminal on the run. I acknowledge that.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097635)
I think what he did is truly unrighteous, and I don't follow the logic of arguments about what people ought to be spending their time focusing on. Technically, people defending him should be spending their time focusing on other cases, too. We could all be doing something more constructive pretty much all the time, so saying it is just a deflection.
What he did is unrighteous, I never denied that. The "unrighteous" was alluding to the current situation. He hasn't been accused for anything in the last 35 years, has been married for 25 years, has lived as a fugitive all those times and every individual that was involved with the actual crime has come to terms with eachother.

@Deadite: I never said her forgiveness excused his actions, but I do think, that in the current situation, it means something. I get the point you are trying to make, though, and I explicitly want to say now that I do not believe that a victim's forgiveness excuses any perpetrator's actions or anything like that.
I do believe, though, that in this case, it does say something about the "righteousness" of the current situation, 35 years after the actual crime took place.

I do want to make a few things clear:

- My first post was SOLELY about my own, moral interpretations about the the current situation and about why I think people should put this to rest. It was in no way based on whether what's going on is legal or not.

- If they would ever capture him and put him before a trial, I would not out any protests. He's still a criminal on the run from a legal point of view and that was his own choice back in 1977.

- I am strongly against child abuse and I do not approve of what Polanski did in ANY WAY.

- My first post was especially directed towards people who are still hammering on about Polanski's crime whenever his name is mentioned somewhere. I was trying to point out why it doesn't really serve any good purpose anymore, IN MY OPINION.

---------------------------------

Daniel M 06-02-14 02:27 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
People aren't allowed to have different opinions?

And I wouldn't just be saying this stuff because it's Polanski, but it's how I feel in general with stuff like this.

Daniel M 06-02-14 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097675)
Maybe this is the problem: treating people's reasonable anger about this as a proxy for the "whole capital punishment and such mentality."

I think it's a lot better to engage specific people and specific arguments, rather than treating them as stand-ins for a hazily defined "mentality."
Whilst you are correct I do feel that this overriding mentality that I see a lot in society has a large part to play in debates such like this where people allow their instincts and personal (gut?) feelings/opinions to cloud the facts regarding the legal system and other such factors when judging the case.

Deadite 06-02-14 02:34 PM

I'm TALKING about the general attitude I've noticed coming from people as if it's so unfair and mean to have a negative view of Polanski. I've already said the whole "stop dredging up old mistakes" angle really stinks and is practically a nonsequitur.

Daniel M 06-02-14 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Deadite (Post 1097682)
I'm TALKING about the general attitude I've noticed coming from people as if it's so unfair and mean to have a negative view of Polanski. I've already said the whole "stop dredging up old mistakes" angle really stinks and is practically a nonsequitur.
I don't think what you're referring to is directly an issue, but this poster, Green, deliberately tried to provoke members into a reaction and got what was coming to him and what he 100% wanted when people took the opposite side. He used provocative language and wanted an argument, and then tried to personally attack a moderator when he told him to move it to an appropriate thread.

I have no issue with people wanting to discuss this whenever they like, or taking whatever side they once, but when it's the same sh*t over and over again, and often done to deliberately provoke an argument, it's irritating.

Deadite 06-02-14 02:43 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
It's also irritating when people ad nauseam their "opinion" after Yoda or I or anyone else puts forth a solid argument and just get basically ignored for our trouble.

Cobpyth 06-02-14 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097648)
It's not supposed to. None of the penalties for rape, murder, or a thousand other things can actually make things right. They exist to do good for future victims of similar crimes by making sure they happen less often.
I agree, but there should also be a certain level of constructiveness to punishment, I think. That's the way it goes in my country at least.

Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 1097648)
I'm pretty sure people are using stark language like that because they feel it's the only way to break through the steady stream of pseudo arguments and excuses that people keep throwing up every time the topic is raised.
They are the ones that are always raising the topic, though.

Anyway, I think it's never good to use extremes like that or to completely judge someone's whole life or persona based on one crime. I tend to defend people who are publicly hated in extreme ways because of something they've done in the past (especially when I personally think people are blowing things up) or supposedly have done in the past (like in Woody Allen's case). One should stay nuanced and constructive as much as possible. Good intentions don't excuse extreme judgements, in my opinion.

Daniel M 06-02-14 02:46 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
Not really, I try to respond to most things, and so have a lot of people in here. A lot of my points have been ignored too by Green.

Green 06-02-14 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Daniel M (Post 1097683)
Green, deliberately tried to provoke members into a reaction and got what was coming to him and what he 100% wanted when people took the opposite side. He used provocative language and wanted an argument, and then tried to personally attack a moderator when he told him to move it to an appropriate thread.
I didn't personally attack the mod, if you'd have actually read the question I asked then you would have noticed there wasn't any malice behind it. I wasn't trying to start an argument.


I brought it into this thread where it belongs and the first thing you say is basically this: like OMG this **** is still being talked about... herp derp let it go already. I then asked you very simple questions, some of which you still haven't answered. We left off with you refusing to give the number you think is appropriate for child rapists, which I understand, but then you just skirting the worst of the worst with it's not simply a numbers thing.


I'll make this very easy, what crime has to be committed and how many times, before you accept rehabilitation as a failure in that particular situation. I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Dani8 06-09-17 07:36 PM

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...lose-1977-case


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Movie Forums