Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I think it probably has to do with how much creative input the person has, like Salva's Creeper in hindsight being a blatant metaphor for his unnatural hunger...

As for "underage sex" I try to be a bit liberal about these things dependent on ages of parties involved (EG. one's 17, other's 19) as well as circumstance but as far as I'm concerned any man who takes advantage of a 13 yr old child - even if she didn't resist or believed it was ok - is a scumbag.

Personally, I draw the line at gaffers and boom operators.

1. I banned you, not him.

2. Grill a MoFo isn't a roast, as is abundantly obvious if you spend any time scanning the posts in it.

3. People don't take comments in roasts personally because the people giving them like and respect them, and because they're actually funny. They don't do it because they're actually annoyed, as you clearly were.

On with the discussion, then.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Well, sociopaths probably have a harder time justifying any line drawn, anyways, since boundary violation is their forte, not respect.

SPOILERS! ;)

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I think the problem with topics like this is you have you extreme capital punishment loonys that want revenge, not justice, scream for all 'child molesters' to be punished in extreme ways and fail to look at the legal system which has a purpose to serve justice according to the laws in place.

Some people become "extreme" in their "loony" views on capital punishment because they get fed up with pieces of human waste getting away with horrible stuff with little to no consequences.

I'm angry now. You ought try to rephrase that in less self-righteous manner instead of offensive generalizations.

I don't think much of any argument that implies the other person cares too much. For one, it's not actually an argument (okay, they care a lot--so what?). For another, it doesn't really make any sense when the topic is rape.

Nor am I seeing these alleged loonies. What I do see are lots of people trying to nibble around the margins by talking about anything other than the crime itself. So we have pages and pages about extenuating circumstances, hypotheticals, and the motives of the people who have the gall to be mad about this. This is how people always go about defending the indefensible.

I think the real topic with problems like this is people thinking that picking at the edges of the argument can create some tiny space of deniability that allows them to go on enjoying his films without ever having to really confront the moral murkiness of that support.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

MY PERSONAL VIEW:

I think nobody here believes that a mature guy who has sex with an under-aged girl should NOT be punished or be held accountable for his actions, but seriously, this happened more than 35 years ago in a whole different time. The girl explicitly said she had forgiven him on multiple occasions and she even explicitly stated that he should be forgiven by society!

Yes, Polanski did something wrong, but I personally believe that he has had enough punishment now (the victim stated the exact same thing). He apologized multiple times, he actually did jail time (42 days) after he accepted the plea bargain. He has been living as a fugitive and sort of a reclusive ever since he heard that he would get more jail time and deportation (in stead of probation, which was more usual and current at the time and in Polanski's case). Since then (and before then), noone has ever accused Polanski of a similar crime. He has been married for 25 years now and the guy is 81 years old!

Give it a rest already. Yes, he's guilty and everbody knows he is, but the guy has done nothing wrong in the past 35 years, has deported himself from the USA and most importantly, the victim has no problem with the situation.

So, personally, I think all the (admirable) moral crusaders out there, should start focusing on cases that are TRULY unrighteous in stead of focusing on a 80+ years old famous film director who made a mistake 35 years ago and IN MY OPINION (and the victim's opinion) has paid enough for what he has done.

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

In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven.

In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion"

"I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever – besides me – and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it." - Samantha Geimer

"I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." - Samantha Geimer

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

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

In my eyes the justice system should focus on rehabilitation over punishment anyway.

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.

So you believe people should have the power to forgive crimes perpetrated on them? The rest of society has no interest?

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 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.

The statistics on recidivism in sexual abuse all but confirm that this doesn't work. But unless you think sex offenders are best rehabilitated in French villas without any actual treatment or counseling, it's not really relevant anyway.

By your reasoning, Cob, sexual predators who "groom" their young victims - which is common - may as well receive less severe punishment as long as the grooming tactics successfully manipulated their victims into accepting partial or full blame or into rationalizing/downplaying for the sake of the predator, like a kind of child's stockholm syndrome, and thus legitimizes "it isn't so bad" arguments as if we all should be judging by that warped co-opted mindset of a groomed victim.

I try to keep perspective on things like this but when people trivialize child abuse my instinct is to push back. Hard.

Where do you draw the line, as in how many times should society try to rehabilitate child rapists (or the worst of the worst) before they finally get locked away forever, at the tax payers' expense?


Do you honestly believe someone who can rape a child operates with the same mental functionality, as normal folks like you and I? Do you have a civility argument for rehabilitation Vs. natural order that makes sense in the context of child rapists, because there isn't one.


As an side, what do you think spare the rod, spoil the child means? I ask because I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

Punishment is an important part of the justice system, because it has a deterrent effect, so I think it should definitely stay a present factor. I also think that every case should be examined in a reasonable and constructive manner, though.

BY LAW, Polanski should still be punished for what he did and for not attending his trial back in 1977, but is this really going to do any individual that is involved with this particular case any good? I personally don't think so.

So, if they would decide to arrest him again and actually put him before a trial, well then there wouldn't be anything wrong with that, because it's perfectly legitimate and legal, BUT I personally just don't really see the point of it anymore.

My previous comment was more directed towards the people that are still screaming "RAPIST" and "HE SHOULD BE PUNISHED!" at Polanski every time the director becomes the subject of a conversation. I don't think they're really serving any purpose anymore at this point, even though I believe and know that their intentions are well-meant.

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'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.

The point is that it was wrong, it is still wrong, and should be punished. What kind of message does it send to let it go? Raping a kid only matters for a few years while the victim is still young and only if the victim never forgives?

First of all, Deadite, by post was worded to try and be a bit over the top (in kind of response to some of the posts in here) and provocative, even if in general it is what I believe, but yeah it wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular and I could start a whole other discussion on what my full beliefs on such issues are, but I kind of took the easy route there.

It should depend on the crime, certain tests and other factors that are beyond me to decide, but I think in this particular case (and any similar) there are certain factors that show this is not some serial child rapist (although some may argue with my here, I know) or person who deserves extra harsh punishment than what the system would deem at the time. 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.

No, not at all, especially in a lot of cases. But in some I believe that its easy to simply label them a monster and wish for the worst.

I also don't believe that a man who's parents were murdered at a young age, and wife murdered by a madman would operate with the same mental functionality as normal folks like you and I.

Whatever, if you're unwilling to look past your narrow minded black and white view then okay.

Never heard that before and I am not really sure what you're trying to get at, but I think my feelings are well explained in this post.

Then enlighten me, do you have a civility argument for rehabilitation Vs. natural order that makes sense in the context of child rapists?


Also, I asked you where do you draw the line, as in how many times should society try to rehabilitate child rapists (or the worst of the worst) before they finally get locked away forever, at the tax payers' expense? And you replied it depends on the crime. Well, I've already given you the crime, so... ?


3, 4 times maybe? How many chances should we give child rapists, or the worst of the worst?

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

1. There are different cases of child rape

2. It's not simply a numbers thing.