| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MguyX 
"X marks the spot"
|
 Posted - 10/02/2009 : 06:07:20
|
What do you think?
I don't care that a person has made some genuinely great films: an adult who drugs and screws a 13 year old girl is wrong. It's a crime. It's nice that the victim has forgiven him in the years since (after suing and recieving a handome sum), but it does not change the fact of what happened.
I admire, on a personal level, his evasion for 30 years -- good job! But the piper has played and needs to be paid.
Contrary to Whoopi, I say it was "rape-rape". I'd like to see him judged by the standards and negotiations made at the time, but I have to say, as I do believe, he must pay the piper. |
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 17:01:42
|
I think he must be judged by the standards and negotiations made at the time. I also think someone needs to be looking into the statements made by former District Attorney David Wells, who is now saying he "lied" in the documentary when he said that he had conversations with the judge in the case to urge more prison time. This is sort of like the guy who comes forward to say "your mother had an affair when we were married" after your mother dies and then backpedals. What's the deal, David?
But here I will get started on Debra Tate. I couldn't help but be struck by the contradictory message Debra Tate sent on the Today Show the other morning. She stands up to support and back her former brother-in-law. She claims that the judicial system of California was a "multi-million dollar broken system" that couldn't provide Polanski with a fair outcome. She spends a great deal of her time travelling to parole hearings to speak against parole for the persons convicted of killing Sharon Tate. Apparently she doesn't see the hypocrisy of denouncing the state for wasting dollars and time pursuing cases that "shouldn't be pursued", and yet campaigns against compassionate release for Susan Atkins, who was no longer physically capable of being a threat to society. Now mind you, I'm not particularly saying Atkins should have been home those last three weeks of her life, I'm saying Debra Tate wants her cake and eat it too. My foremost point is that the care Atkins had received due to her medical conditions exceeded $1.5 million, paid for solely by the state of California. These health costs would have no longer relied on state funding had they sent old Sadie home to die - it would have fallen onto her husband. The state wastes money pursuing a lawbreaker and this is wrong according to Tate, but it's right to force the state to pay for medical care for someone incapable of even completing her own grooming tasks because she hasn't paid enough? Hypocrisy at its worst!! Whatever credibility she may have held with me was completely tossed away by her contradictory, hypocritical stance regarding Polanski. Actually, I think what really pissed me off was at the end when she was whining about how the last few weeks have been so stressful for HER. Having to travel to attend the "parole hearing" (it wasn't a parole hearing), and then Atkins' death and now this. It ain't about YOU, Debs. She even showed up last year for television when they were digging around at the Barker Ranch hoping to find new Manson family bodies.
There. I feel better now.
|
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 10/02/2009 22:22:12 |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 23:24:38
|
A child rapist is a child rapist, and I don't think anyone should ever be able to rest in the knowledge that they got away with something of that nature.
OK, with hindsight we can now say that the 'damage done' wasn't great or lasting; the proof is the victim's public forgiveness of her rapist. None of that changes the fact that what he did might have wrecked someone's life, and the punishment should reflect that.
The victim wants this matter over and done with. Is anyone surprised? Polanski could have ended this at any time by going back to face the music... but he chose not to. So perhaps the time has come for the system to end this matter once and for all. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 00:21:37
|
| Actually, I have a question which doesn't seem to be getting answered very well in the press and perhaps MguyX can answer it for me. There has been a lot of dispute on the Polanski talk page at Wikipedia about how this should be described. Meanwhile, people are going around putting posts in the articles of the persons who signed the petition, which essentially say the article subject supports child rape (which factually is untrue, that's not what the petition says). My question is: If Polanski had agreed to plead guilty and was awaiting determination by psychologists/psychiatrists/probation people about whatever it was they were doing at the time he left, and thus was never sentenced, is it technically correct under California law to say he was convicted? Or is that in limbo? If not, does that mean that the original plea agreement under consideration at the time is no longer valid? Does he have to face trial now on those charges (not from being a fugitive - I understand that is something else entirely)? I'd really like to understand the legalities here. Thanks. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 00:21:39
|
I would never defend Polanski or anyone who coerces another into a sexual act, no matter what their age.
Sex may or may not be about sex. But it's nearly always about power.
The issue of morality for me is about the coercion, not the age.
Attitudes about these things change all the time. Juliet is 14 when Shakespeare has her mother say that by the time she was her age, she'd already given birth to her.
Many tribal societies consider a girl's first period the proper time to regard her as nubile.
Even in the west, attitudes toward famous men and their predilections for girls has changed. It changes all the time.
No one batted an eyelid in 1835 when Edgar Allen Poe married his 13 year old cousin, Virginia Clemm, with whom he'd been living for several years. A scandal did arise, not because of the marriage, but because he started exchanging letters with fellow poet Frances Sargent Osgood.
Have you heard the expression "in like Flynn"? It comes from the charge against Errol Flynn for statutory rape of two teenagers. The defence argued that what red-blooded American girl could resist him. He was acquitted.
Jerry Lee Lewis's career was very badly affected when he married his 13 year old cousin Myra, but no charges were brought. In fact, contemporaneous articles note that liaisons with 13-year-olds were common among southern men.
We should remember that the word rape in the context of statutory rape charges is about the age of the girl and/or whether she was taken across state lines. It is not necessarily about forcing someone into a sex act.
Coercion is another matter and that's been tacitly accepted for centuries in various circumstances. Old World droit de seigneur gave men in power the right to sex with whomever they pleased. Colonial slave owners throughout the British Empire, and among the Founding Fathers of America took any girl they fancied, whether their wives knew or not.
Any teenage boy, young man, or old man who's poured alcohol into a girl or woman in order to get her drunk enough to fuck is coercing. Or rohypnol or equivalent.
The morality is so muddy. People scream about young girls having sex and/or babies, but they dress their 3-year-olds in glittery Madonna-like outfits, and teach them to deliver sexy songs for talent contests.
Janet Jackson's naked breast causes a sensation, but porn is publicly available. And breastfeeding in public ain't.
After more than a century of a struggle for sexual equality, women are still objectified, and men are still confused about their desires. Hell, we're all confused. It's a wonder we're not all raving loonies.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 10/03/2009 00:26:03 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 02:12:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The morality is so muddy.
Although in this case I don't think it's muddy at all. From her testimony it's clear she was raped. If she was 18 at the time it would still be considered rape. |
|
|
|
rockfsh 
"Laugh, Love, Cheer"
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 02:28:39
|
| Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor and thus is guilty of a felony. The court is not bound to the plea agreement but he may be able to get his plea set aside due to misconduct of the prosecutor but then he would have to go to trial on the rape and drugging charges as well as the flight charge. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 07:49:05
|
To answer livie's question:
The parties reached an agreement, and Polanski pled guilty, which is why he served the minimal time he did for psychiatric evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to see how he would acclimatize to prison (a whole different inquiry). Because he pled guilty, he is a convicted felon.
Polanski's case is in limbo because he was never sentenced. The liability phase of a criminal proceeding is separate from the penalty phase.
When a person pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain, he or she is entitled to withdraw the plea and go to trial if the sentence given deviates materially from the sentence agreed upon: the court is not bound by the plea deal, but the defendant is not bound to the deal if not honored.
In Polanski's case, it appears that he could seek to withdraw his plea if he does not get the deal originally offered. What complicates matters is the fact that he fled the jurisdiction to evade punishment, which is a separate crime.
I project that the court will impose the original sentence agreed upon, thus eliminating the possibility of plea withdrawal, but all bets are off on the additional offense of fleeing. I quote section 1320.5 of the California Penal Code ["Heh heh ... he said 'penal' ..."]:Every person who is charged with or convicted of the commission of a felony, who is released from custody on bail, and who in order to evade the process of the court willfully fails to appear as required, is guilty of a felony. Upon a conviction under this section, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Willful failure to appear within 14 days of the date assigned for appearance may be found to have been for the purpose of evading the process of the court. Given the flagrance of the action, I think the court would be hard-pressed not to sentence Polanski to the maximum year on the evasion charge (he's lucky he didn't escape from confinement: that would have been another 3 years).
So it looks like Roman is looking at one year on evasion and 16 months on "unlawful sex with a minor". The court could sentence him to consecutive terms or a concurrent term. My bet is consecutive, but Hollywood has demonstrated repeatedly that if you've got money and media appeal, you can get away with murder, isn't that right O.J.?
He should waive extradition and just get this over with: there is no guarantee that he will get any credit for time served, if his lawyers are thinking that he can stay in a cushy Swiss jail for a while as they fight extradition. In fact, recent trend with the L.A. D.A's office is to make defendants waive pretrial confinement credits as part of any deal.
He could be in and out in nine months, is my outside estimate, if he just gets this crap taken care of now. They will put him in a minimum security prison on keep-away status, so it's not like he'll be pumping iron in the yard with the Aryan Brotherhood. Pay the piper, man, just pay him. |
Edited by - MguyX on 10/03/2009 20:45:27 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/03/2009 : 10:26:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
A child rapist is a child rapist, and I don't think anyone should ever be able to rest in the knowledge that they got away with something of that nature.
OK, with hindsight we can now say that the 'damage done' wasn't great or lasting; the proof is the victim's public forgiveness of her rapist. None of that changes the fact that what he did might have wrecked someone's life, and the punishment should reflect that.
The victim wants this matter over and done with. Is anyone surprised? Polanski could have ended this at any time by going back to face the music... but he chose not to. So perhaps the time has come for the system to end this matter once and for all.
I have a huge problem with the fact that the publicity of all this seems to be counter-productive. I recall that the victim publicly asked people to forget about it all, back when Polanski was nominated and won the Oscar for The Pianist. Making this whole thing public is just dredging it all up for her once again, and I don't think that's what she wants.
Would that the media would respect her wishes, first and foremost, and thereby allow the legal system to do what they have to do, in private.
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 04:55:25
|
Thanks, MguyX. It really helps to have a lawyer in the house. Now about this speeding ticket I got...  |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 16:41:24
|
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged. That's not justice.
Also, yes, yes, Polanski is not a threat or a priority, and the trial may have been legally questionable. But he is in fact a rapist.
quote:
Any teenage boy, young man, or old man who's poured alcohol into a girl or woman in order to get her drunk enough to fuck is coercing. Or rohypnol or equivalent.
What? Seduction isn't illegal, and isn't rape, even in questionably ethical circumstances. Getting someone drunk to have sex them isn't illegal either (and if it is, I know a lot of people who raped each other simultaneously.) The difference between alcohol and rohypnol is that unless you've had way, WAY too much to drink, you can still give consent, and if you don't, it's still rape. Rohypnol robs you of your ability to consent one way or another, which is why it's used in rape.
The ethics of the Polanski case aren't muddy at all. It's very clear that Polanski needs to go to jail, that he has cheated justice, and I say that as a huge fan of his work. But he did rape a 13-year-old, and that's an unavoidable fact. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 17:08:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I completely understand her desire not to go through all this again, but the victim doesn't get to decide whether her rapist gets charged, anymore than Polanski could have decided whether Charles Manson got charged. That's not justice.
Also, yes, yes, Polanski is not a threat or a priority, and the trial may have been legally questionable. But he is in fact a rapist.
quote:
Any teenage boy, young man, or old man who's poured alcohol into a girl or woman in order to get her drunk enough to fuck is coercing. Or rohypnol or equivalent.
What? Seduction isn't illegal, and isn't rape, even in questionably ethical circumstances. Getting someone drunk to have sex them isn't illegal either (and if it is, I know a lot of people who raped each other simultaneously.) The difference between alcohol and rohypnol is that unless you've had way, WAY too much to drink, you can still give consent, and if you don't, it's still rape. Rohypnol robs you of your ability to consent one way or another, which is why it's used in rape.
The ethics of the Polanski case aren't muddy at all. It's very clear that Polanski needs to go to jail, that he has cheated justice, and I say that as a huge fan of his work. But he did rape a 13-year-old, and that's an unavoidable fact.
Gee, I really hope some day you'll learn to read instead of rushing to shit over someone's head. What's your fucking problem?
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 10/04/2009 : 18:46:07
|
Apparently I misunderstood something. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 07:04:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Apparently I misunderstood something. What am I missing?
I'm a bit at a loss here, too, Beebs. I think Mr.B was pointing out that the use of a mood altering substance (or mere personal persuasion) is not per se an instument of rape, but that it certainly can be. In fact, it appears quite clear that he agrees the use of some substances leans very heavily toward rape instrumentality, but that the circumstances of the act have to be weighed to determine whether rape has occurred (e.g., a person given rohypnol can certainly be said to have ingested a substance that negates will, but whether the will was present before the ingestion may still be a quetion to answer before declaring it rape). I think his point was to raise the somewhat academic, but absolutely probative question of consent under the circumstances present in a given situation, which remains a sticky wicket.
I have to agree, however, that the ethical issue is not muddy: in 1976 or 1977, when the event occurred in California, the law classified the act as rape per se notwithstanding the issue of consent. And I do not recall the victim ever saying that she gave consent at the time. As to the other, historical examples given, I agree that societal views on the matter have gone through many changes over time, but contemporary views -- and legal classifications -- have come to the point where we are now, which is pretty much where we were in 1977. It is rare in Western society that marriages between adults and pre-16 year olds are allowed. But Polanski wasn't marrying the girl: he was just getting his honeymoon on in a patently illegal way -- he boozed AND drugged her, did not obtain consent, then he illegally fucked that 13 year old girl. Again, I don't see that as muddy ethics. That's "rape-rape" with a "statutory-rape" chaser.
Compare that to the case of a friend nearly 20 years ago. He was 18. His girlfriend was 17. They had consensual sex. Her mom found out and went apeshit. He was arrested, convicted of statutory rape and served about two years in prison. He has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. That is a muddy situation. And all we are left with in that circumstance is this cold fact: "dura lex, sed lex".
I don't think Mr.B was chiding you Beebs, but then again, maybe I missed something too.  |
Edited by - MguyX on 10/05/2009 10:27:45 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 09:13:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I don't think Mr.B was chiding you Beebs, but then again, maybe I missed something too.
My post was NOT about Polanski or the case. If you read it, my post is about a bigger picture of the flexible nature of morality and the hypocrisy of society in the muddy mixed messages it sends. I was not equating coercion with rape, merely comparing them. I never said seduction was illegal - I implied getting someone drunk enough to fuck them was immoral.
I hope things are better now, though I don't see any huge evidence of it - but when I was "in the market" men expected to manipulate girls, women into having sex with them. I won't say we girls, women expected it, too, but those of us who had self-esteem issues, which is practically everyone, were continually being coerced in many, many ways.
Let's be clear - I grew up in a time of very different public/private morality. I wasn't a prostitute, and I was far from alone in my behavior. I had lots of sex with lots of different men and, looking back, it's almost funny the ways that they presented sex as the only option. Bear in mind we had no sex education, "normal" sexual behavior wasn't a topic of conversation, myth prevailed over fact, our parents were far more screwed up than they'd ever admit ... blah, blah, blah.
The conclusion of my post tried to evoke a lot of that context.
I posted my thoughts because I'm always wary of any particular case being used to extrapolate. Both laws and morals are mutable in the longer term. I don't believe anything in my post warranted the insulting arrogance of Mr. BI and I might have been more tolerant if he hadn't done it repeatly in the past. Since he doesn't seem to take a dump on anyone else, I think my paranoia may be justified.
Perhaps you're missing some of that, honey.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Polanski
