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.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

&feature=player_embedded#!

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.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

lol - wrong thread (or right?)

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.

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.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

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.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

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.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

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?

__________________

^ 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.

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

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

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.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.