Reply With Quote
The charge against him wasn't rape.
I think that anyone who tries to try and say what Polanski did wasn't bad is pretty foul.
The charge against him wasn't rape.
A very serious crime, to which he pled guilty and for which he should stand.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
But to paint Mr. Polanski's supporters as being pro-child rape is dishonest.
Technically true. But usually rape is generally used as a means of forcing sexual contact upon a person when it's unwanted. From the (admittedly small) details I've read, Polanski gave her some sort of drug, correct? I've also read that she said "No" to him on multiple occasions. So the term "rape" would seem to be correct.
As part of his plea bargain, he plead to a lesser charge of "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".
The original charge was "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".
Ok, they're pro unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor .
There was "substantial misconduct" by the judge. Surely that is a good faith basis for skepticism about the process.
OTOH, the argument that Mr. Polanski should be judged for his life in toto, including his artistic contributions, is utter horse and should have no bearing on his prosecution.
I don't think anyone has said that. Not on this board anyway.
Sharon Tate's sister speaks for herself; I didn't see anyone on HuffPo taking up cudgels for her, or dismissing the seriousness of what Polanski did.
This whole thread is another stupid DarrinS strawman.
actually i just read another post in regards to the "substantial misconduct"
JMarkJohns posted this:
It is not a violation of the ethics code. The deal is between the attorneys. Before the sentence is handed down, the Judge has the right o determine if the deal meets the standards of justice.
I've heard from the current DA that in 1977, the standard plea for a crime like this was 16 months to 3 years IN PRISON. Not 42 days in jail. It seems the lawyers negotiating the deal were far more star-struck than the judge who recognized the woefully inadequate sentence to the deal and attempted to remedy as best he could within the context of the plea deal.
Instead of 42 days in jail, Polanski was to be sentenced to 90 days in prison.
Still inadequate, but hardly a sentence to flea the country for. Sure, he could have withdrawn a guilty plea and gone to trial to contest the extended woefully inadequate sentence, but he probably would have lost and been sent to prison for a far greater period of time.
I've discussed the actions of this judge with my father, a one-time Arizona Prosecutor Of The Year. He said the judge had every right to do what he did. According to the standards of the day, Polanski was hardly even getting a slap on the wrist. The judge obviously, for whatever reasons, knew the inadequacy of the sentence and acted WELL WITHIN his rights.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...=135649&page=5
That is persuasive to me, but an official investigation still found "substantial misconduct".
I love his movies. but this Polanski guy is a pussy. All this fuss for just a few weeks in jail??? what a
The very light sentence Polanski faced suggests the DA was pro-child rape, or at least not strongly anti, wouldn't you say, Darrin?
No, it means Polanski is a wealthy man.
Polanski didn't reduce the charges. The DA did.
He represented himself?
Of course not.
He needs to spend a long time in jail.
Sure. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is DarrinS suggesting that one whole side of the political spectrum -- the side he disagrees with -- is pro-child rape. Not only is that outrageous, it's demonstrably false, per DarrinS own source. A number of HuffPo posters came out solidly against pleas for lenience, but he still paints them all with the same brush.
It's intellectually dishonest. And for darrin, sadly typical.
Which is why I don't understand why you're bothering to humor him/respond to him at this point.
I don't know. I think it's worth pointing out, even if Darrin doesn't get it.
I was mainly responding to what Darrin posted about what Whoopie Goldberg said.
more conspiracy theories... somebody add the ‘I want to believe’ image
I read crazydaysandnights for entertainment from time to time. It's "Hollywood" focused, with major emphasis on the broader pop culture; anonymous gossip offered in blinded form. When politicians appear, it's usually connected somehow to the entertainment world.
Men having sex with underage teens is essentially tabooed now, but the teenybop theme has been a mass culture staple for ages and seemed frankly normative in the 1970s-- me and KISS wanted the same sixteen year old babysitter, the main difference was I was ten years old when "Christine Sixteen" came out, the guys n KISS were pushing thirty.
Then and now, unashamed participation in socially forbidden activities signifies privilege. What are money and power for, if you can't break the rules with impunity?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
