Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I agree with that. He is not going to be so cocky about where he travels in the future. He was never going to get a stiff senetence anyway. But he didn't get what he wanted, the case dismissed in the US without returning. So he has to worry about extradition charges being filed every time he leaves France. The charges won't disappear until he dies.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

It must be awful having to live like that. I mean not being able to travel anywhere, but he gets what he deserves. He has escaped the law for many of years and he may have escaped it until he dies , but really he has built his own prison by not being able to travel anywhere without having the chance of being brought back to America again.

He was the husband of Sharon Tate... but years ago when I was reading about the Tate/LaBianca murders... there was a considerable amount of evidence that pointed to the fact that Polanski was pretty screwed up way before his wife was murdered. He used to show nudie pictures of her and videos of them making love at his parties... and after she found some tapes of him with other women after they married, she had begun divorce proceedings but then found out she was pregnant and didn't go through with them...

Polanski called Tate a fat cow after she started showing... and when she was murdered he was off partying in England... and if memory serves, several of the females at the party were underage...

And yes, Polanski was well aware that his victim, Samantha Jane Gailey, was only 13 years old when he drugged, rapped, and sodomized her...

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Is Samantha Jane Gailey still alive? If she is I image this whole proceeding disturbs her terribly. Some sort of justice should come out of this to help this womens mind be eased.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

It's mostly all covered in this thread. :)

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Just read she is alive and has two children of her own and lives in Hawaii. Polanski also compensated her with 140,000 pounds.

She sued him over 10 years after the rape in an attempt to make him compensate her for the years of counseling she had had to go through... and as I recall, he finally agreed to pay, but I don't think there is any record of him actually doing so...

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I understand that Samantha Geimer would want to have this whole business over with. But, society needs to know that no amount of time can lesson such a wrong. Polanski raped and sodomized a 13 year old child. We, as a society, cannot keep condoning this kind of behavior by finding excuses to just let it go. We have religious pedophilia in this country that is swept under the rug. We have date rapes and women drugged and raped. And one of the reasons that these things go on is because not enough is being done to stop it and the sentences are not strong enough to deter it.

I don't care how much time has gone by or how talented that perv is. I not only want him to finish his sentence here, in this country, but I want a severe sentence given to him for running out. He has missed time in prison where he would have gotten as bad has he gave that child.

This is so true, there is no amount of time or money that will ever give this woman rest over what happened to her. Something really needs to be done to bring Polanski to justice.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

What I find interesting about this whole thing with, Roman Polanski, that many "thespians" come out and support him. If it was some "joe blow" they'd be asking for the electric chair. Actors...HA! Charlize Theron and many other Actors support PETA. PETA is just a militant group who on many occasions have caused more harm than good. Half of the time they don't know the facts.

The last people I listen to when looking to support a cause are Actors and Hollywood. I know I drifted from the subject, but, actors in the majority are full of s**t.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Oh, yeah! You see these beautiful actresses being spokespeople for cosmetic companies, than they're in some animal rights action group. "A lot of cosmetics are still tested on animals, especially in Europe"......shaking my head at the moment.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I completely agree with you. Actors are just as full of it as everybody else. It's just that Pop Culture doesn't care about you. Now, what are you going to do to change that so that we can see your dirty underwear hung out in public? Yes, there are people who still hang out clothes (no matter how embarrassing) to dry. Yes, there are at least a billion people who cannot even read! And I'm not talking about the ones who are under 10. Now, if that didn't screw this thread... oh wait, I shouldn't say "screw" in this thread.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I didn't understand that at all, but then again your probably a "thespian" LOL

I was on this UK based board and they were going all crazy because Americans use driers. Apparently most Britons still hang their clothes out to dry and can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to do that.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Whether you understand it or not, it's completely accurate and written with proper spelling and grammar. HA! No, I'm a teacher, but I guess that does make me a thespian; at least if I'm any good... I mean a director had better be a good actor or he's/she's only half a director, right?

How can they ever get their clothes dry since it rains practically everyday in the UK?:D

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Sorry, Sir! Does my spelling and grammar make the grade, or should I look to other forms of communication?

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I just wondered why you "didn't understand that at all". I'm not criticizing you for your English skills. I'm not criticizing you at all. Lots of people don't understand me, but sometimes a reread helps some people. Returning to the thread now.

Well. I lied, but I honestly believe this thread is getting more interesting and personal now. it's very overcast and often damp, but if you put your clothes out just when the wind comes up just before the clouds get blown away, they'll probably be dry in an hour or two. :cool:

I'm no thespian: I like women. Oh...wait. Me confused.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Sounds like you are, Mr. Guru.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Yeah, that kinda "thespian" likes women too! Now, wait a sec... are you getting ready to make some drunken, horny confession here?

See, this thread is so much better now...

First, I'm not sure that Roman Polanski should have been found guilty of this crime. The details surrounding it are a bit muddied. But let's just assume he is rightfully guilty. Do you think the Swiss are basing their decision not to release him on the fact that it's Polanski and not just some blue-collar worker? Or are they basing their decision on the "crime" itself and they don't feel the crime warrants releasing him to the US? Or a bit of both?

He is, He was found guilty, if it was your 13yr old daughter I am sure you would want him charged :yup:
As much as I like Polanski he needs to do the time :yup: if he was a blue collor worker he would be back in USA by now :yup:

I'm sure you're right.

That's how I feel. The fact that he's a famous director is what kept him out of the US's hands.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Polanski never had a trial. He pled guilty to statutory rape only as part of a plea bargain, but no sentence was ever given because he fled the U.S. It's all in the earlier part of the thread.

What mostly kept Polanski out of the U.S. is that he went to France where he is a citizen and therefore could not be extradited back to the U.S.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

You mean, I gotta go back and READ the thread? That's stupid...

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

In your case, maybe, since you wrote half the thread. :cool:

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I still say that those that haven't really need to see the documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired.

Might even learn something.

If this was directed at me, all I'm asking (in this thread) is this question about the recent refusal of the Swiss gov't to give him up:

Yes you are right :yup: but I think the issue was about the Swiss not the French :)

So, maybe the Swiss gov't didn't want to PO the French gov't. I know, the Swiss based their refusal to give him to the US on some minor technicality, but I find it hard to believe they would do that if he was wanted on some first-degree murder charge.

Nope, not directly, I think everyone that has an opinion one way or another needs to see it, is all.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I just hope it's clear that the guy isn't a SICK F*CK like everyone wants to make him out to be.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I don't believe that's clear. At least half the different people in this thread think he's pretty sick. I may not be one, and yes, I have a daughter. He's gone through a lot and that doesn't give him a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card, but I think it may be considered extenuating circumstances, especially when you add in the "testimony" of his victim who was basically falsely maligned earlier in the thread.

no more or less sick than other sex offenders i figure.

that he's a famous person, doesn't mean diddly squat to me personally.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

It does to me. Emotionally, it does to me. I won't deny it. I just can "see" it.

But I'm ignorant about this topic. I should probably watch the film or read "about it" or something.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

You could always start by reading this thread... just a thought.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Seriously though. What's a good place to start?

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

An old fart shouldn't be forcing himself on a thiteen year old. Yeah, he's sick.

here's a recap for reference:

Events:
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). It ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this".

Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop

Aftermath:
Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported". In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States

Legal
There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor. A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime. As University of Southern California law professor Jean Rosenbluth noted: "The complication is that it is a separate offense to flee the jurisdiction."

Victim's Take
In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "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." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "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."





Regardless of the crime, I think jail is mainly for restricting a wolf's access to sheep - not for punishment for punishment's sake -- but you don't let kid-rape go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E41XkUXg2a0&feature=player_embedded#!

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Let us draw the line: left of the line is ok with it, right of the line thinks it is a bad thing - everyone else is confused. I think I am right.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

lol - wrong thread (or right?)

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

that depends, if it is sliced sausage, i approve.

look, this isn't about statutory rape. This is about a scumbag that used his perceived influence in hollywood to make an impressionable middle-schooler think she could be a star.

He drugged her with Qualudes and anally raped her. as if regular ol rape wasn't degrading enough.

plus, this turd did the deed at Jack Nicholsons house.

You'd think he'd at least have the decency of being a degenerate in a hotel room so as not to drag a buddies good name through the mud.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

If it was an 'ordinary' guy who did this, everybody'd all have their pitchforks out. Being a famous film director does not give you a right to be above moral scrutiny.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I'm not sure what's worse, those who seem to be fine with it, or the actual rape that occurred. Of course I jest, clearly the apologist are worse.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Jesus, still banging on about this... do you have nothing else to worry about in your life than trying to provoke people into a debate that has been had many times regarding this man, you are obsessed.

Watch the documentary about him if you're that concerned, a fair portrayal of the events from different perspectives.

You mean where he admitted to raping a child? Yeah, I saw that one. As far as still banging on about it, I've only been on the site for a short while and have been banned for bringing this subject in the wrong thread; mention it in the right thread, and still get yelled at. Your argument of have nothing else to worry about in your life is adorable, though. Thank you for that. :)

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Just to get things straight - You were banned because of a since deleted post in another thread entirely.

Reasoned debate in a thread such as this is welcomed. Spoiling for arguments isn't.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I think Polanski is a great director. Very talented. I decided it would be silly to not watch his films because of what he did, not that I exuberantly seek out his work but I also don't avoid them either.... and I judge each film on its own merits.

REGARDLESS of the above and REGARDLESS of even his victim's feelings, Polanski IS a criminal and should have gone to prison. If that meant we wouldn't have some of his films now because of it, so what? Justice is more important than movies and even if he has been inconvenienced by HIS CHOICE to become a fugitive, he still doesn't deserve special treatment.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

As I said I think way back on the first page of this thread years ago, there are two different things: the rape, and the legal proceedings. No argument from anybody that the act is in any way defensible, but one major point that gets lost most of the time is that these were the 1977 California statutes, and the maximum penalty for coerced sex with a minor, at the time, was rather shockingly light. If anything "good" resulted from the publicity of the trial and Polanski's subsequent fleeing before the verdict, it's that in its wake California enacted much stricter penalties for such crimes afterwards. As well there should be, and should have been at the time.

Had he ever returned for sentencing, be it months later, years later, or now even these many decades later, he would still be punished according to those old statutes, from the time that the act was perpetrated, and not from what is on the books today. That's just how the law works, like it or not.

So that's why if you want to talk about the actual legal ramifications and penalties, at least get your facts straight. You want to talk about what he did morally, please, have a field day. But this notion that he was going to have spent five or eight or ten or more years in prison, had he waited for the original verdict, is simply incorrect. That there was not a thicker book to throw at him in the late 1970s is a shame of the legal and political systems, but according to the laws of the land at that time, the plea deal he had in place that was not going to be honored by the judge was actually quite common, in that era, and not common because he was an internationally famous name, but because the system was horrible and inadequate. At the very least, appropriate penalties are now attached to the crime...just not Polanski's specific crime.

Anywho, please, back to rehashing the same thing over and over again. That doesn't get dull.

I would have preferred if you had banned me because I wouldn't stop posting about this child molester in his appreciation thread, which is entirely my fault because you told me to stop, twice. But you telling me I was banned because I roasted you in a thread specifically created to Grill a MoFo is just silly. You shouldn't have taken that comment personal, I thought I was keeping it in context.


Now just to be absolutely clear, I've watched almost all his films, so I won't fault anyone for appreciating his work. But when someone makes an excuse for his actions, then I'll speak my mind and if this ends in a heated argument... I better not hear spoiling for an argument as an excuse to ban me again. I don't think this will happen though, as most everyone on this site have already spoken on it.

Do the people who refuse to watch his films not watch any of his films, or just not the ones that he made after the crime? I haven't yet seen The Pianist, which I've heard nothing but great things about, but, in my opinion, all of his best films--- Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, Repulsion, Knife in the Water--- were made before the whole rape incident anyway, so I don't see why the holier-than-thou cinephiles can't still enjoy those films at least.

I won't give my personal opinion on the whole thing, since talking about my warped views on morality would just make me look like the complete sociopath that I am, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the people who act as if nobody should ever watch Polanski's films weren't fans of his films to begin with. If it was Spielberg or Tarantino or whoever their favorite director is, their stance might be slightly different. I mean, if you learned that the director of your favorite film had been strangling babies for the past decade or setting kittens on fire or something of that sort, would it affect your enjoyment of the movie? Would it stop being your favorite film?

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

^ It's a fair point above about the flaws in our system but that aside - something I've noticed that's a bit weird is how people pop into threads like this with a chorus of "this is old and boring". I guess they can have the time or inclination to say so yet it comes across as evasively dismissive or a cop-out. If you (general you) are genuinely disinterested, you ought to find another topic to spend your time in, 'cause otherwise you come across as a bit arrogant and obstructive. The topic exists, and it's inevitable people will come along and decide to talk about it.

Er, yeah... it would kinda affect my enjoyment at least somewhat. Jeepers Creepers used to be one of my favorite horrors but I've gradually grown distant from it due to my associating it mentally with its pedophile director.

I still think it's a well-made horror film and I've watched it several times since learning about Salva's past but I don't have the same fondness for it now like I originally did.

What changed was me, I know, not the movie, but that doesn't make the change any less meaningful for me.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

I'd never heard anything about that until just now.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

Yeah... sigh. It was a disappointing, strange and disturbing thing to learn. Sorta like finding out SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! :(

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski
 

For the people who don't watch films because of a crime, how much of a connection does someone have to have with a film before it becomes a problem? Would a producer be a problem? An editor? Cinematographer? Set designer? I don't mean this to sound facetious, I'm just interested how associated someone has to be with a film before you 'don't watch his/her/their films'.

BTW, if underage sex is the reason to not watch certain films, then you'd better hope that a lot of what has and does go on behind closed doors stays there. Otherwise you might find yourself waking up and not being able to watch a film you love. Actually, the same applies to music, too. :(

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Swiss detain Roman Polanski