roman polanski arrested

[hater]

Why are you making this about me?

Ad hominem. Stay on topic. My personal views or experiences have no bearing with my argument.

yet they do. way to dodge my question.

[MiamiHeat]

Is that what he was "charged" with, or was that what he plead guilty to? Those can well be two different things.

When I lived in San Berdo, in 1973, I was "charged" with DWI. I plead guilty to reckless driving. 50 bucks for the lawyer and 50 bucks for the fine. You see, a plea bargain always favors the defendant, never the victim.

I had to go look it up, but apparently I was incorrect. He wasn't charged with that. He only had that 'unlawful sex with a minor' charge in his plea bargain.

"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"

[SAGambler]

She took the qualude herself. He didn't drug her.

However, I think a case could be made that, since he is the adult and provided the pills, that he could be technically the one who 'drugged her'

I don't know how the legal system would define that, really.

Well, it's pretty simple. If I am a bartender, and I serve alcohol to a 13 year old, I'm probably going to be in cuffs. And that's just the beginning.

[Slomo]

I already did.

You're oversimplifying it.

While most European countries have the age of consent between 14 and 17 years (Spain in fact 13), there are many bylaws stipulating for whom and under which cir stances that age applies.
The purpose of those are to protect young kids from adult predators.
But strictly speaking you are correct - you would still get in a lot of trouble in most European countries for doing what Polanski did.

Polanski got off easy because he is who he is and as I said when Jackson died. You may chose to believe his innocence but do not try to excuse his acts because of who he is/was.

[MiamiHeat]

oh, I am not excusing his acts at all. He f'ed up and he broke the law in the USA. He is going to get 50 years in prison now. He won't make another movie ever again

[Kermit]

I totally ing forgot. Apparently, Roman was done with his sentence and they were waiting for the pysch exam to come back which would seal the deal and the sordid affair. Dumbass went out and was photographed with some underage girls. Judge got super pissed, ordered him back to jail, and the rest is history. Sorry to put any blame on the judge. My bad.

[MiamiHeat]

If Polanski wanted to hang out with younger females, he should have taken his butt back to europe. Gotta follow the laws of the country you are in

[Kermit]

It's not smart to with a judge's leniency.

[SAGambler]

oh, I am not excusing his acts at all. He f'ed up and he broke the law in the USA. He is going to get 50 years in prison now. He won't make another movie ever again

But the guy is already 70 something. If he lives for 15 of those years in prison, he is still a winner. Bought himself 40 years of freedom along with the capacity of making millions and living the life of Riley, while a fugitive from the California courts.

If he had of done the right thing 40 years ago, this would have been behind him, and he could have lived out his golden years knowing he missed a big hit many years ago.

, if his ego wasn't so big that he thought he could go to Switzerland and stayed in his beloved France, he would still be a free man today, because the French have made it crystal clear that they won't extradite him.

[JMarkJohns]

You do not have to sentence someone within the boundaries of the statute. Just because the law says that this crime carries a 12 month to 3 year prison sentence, does not mean that you go to prison for at least 12 months. The court can sentence you to 30 days in jail if they want to. It is up to the discretion of the prosecutor and Judge.

You just said it yourself. The Judge had the power to sentence what he deemed fit the crime, regardless of whatever plea agreement was in place amongst the attorneys.

The original article in this thread says the Judge felt an additional 48 days of prison were what he deemed adequate. So, 90 days of prison total.

Instead of the standards of 16 months to 3 years.

I'd say such was extremely lenient and far more fair for Polanski than the victim.

How do you know the prosecutor was star struck? Where did you get this information?

It's called deductive reasoning. If standards were 16 months to 3 years in prison for no-namers, and the prosecutors agreed to 42 days in jail for Polanski, then my guess is Polanski's name held more weight than the charges for the attorneys.

Just so you know, back in 1977, the crime he was charged with was "unlawful sex with a minor" and that was not nearly as serious as it is today.

The standards of justice I'm citing are for the charge in question. You don't agree, take it up with the current DA of Los Angeles. It's his words I'm citing. He said the standard plea for the charges of Polanski in 1977 as anywhere from 16 months to 3 years in prison.

The judge had every right to do what he did within the context of his office and the standards of justice for the day upon that specific charge. His sentence was a bit harsher, but hardly excessive - and most would say it was still inadequate.

Polanski is a chicken- who couldn't man up and face what he'd done. He fled, directly extending the process to today. It's directly a result of his fleeing that has his charges still in the news today.

[MiamiHeat]

Yeah I agree. 90 days of prison, that's it?

He should have done the time and this would have been over.

[Kermit]

It's called deductive reasoning. If standards were 16 months to 3 years in prison for no-namers, and the prosecutors agreed to 42 days in jail for Polanski, then my guess is Polanski's name held more weight than the charges for the attorneys.

The prosecutor gave in to the plea because the victim didn't want a trial and wasn't going to testify. From watching the doc, dude was a pitbull but he didn't have much of a choice. After the pics of Roman and some underage girls surfaced, Wells (the prosecutor) went to the judge and told him that if looked like the judge was getting "flipped off" which led directly to Roman fleeing.

[JMarkJohns]

The prosecutor gave in to the plea because the victim didn't want a trial and wasn't going to testify. From watching the doc, dude was a pitbull but he didn't have much of a choice. After the pics of Roman and some underage girls surfaced, Wells (the prosecutor) went to the judge and told him that if looked like the judge was getting "flipped off" which led directly to Roman fleeing.

Thanks for the better context. Wasn't one of the reasons for the girl not testifying in court that she didn't to create negative opinions of her mom, who was the one that pushed the daughter into that lifestyle in hopes of future fame? Obviously the mom never wanted the daughter to be drugged and forcibly raped/sodomized, and thus the protection of her mother, even to this day.

[MiamiHeat]

Doesn't matter though

By the age of 13, before she met polanski

she had already been drunk, had sex twice, and had experience with drugs.

[JMarkJohns]

she had already been drunk, had sex twice, and had experience with drugs.

Fine. Such a life doesn't mean anyone is deserving of future rape, nor does it justify the rapist.

She was worldly, largely because of her mom pushing into the biz. When the hit the fan, she testified she said NO and Polanski forced himself upon her every which way regardless.

[rjv]

Doesn't matter though

By the age of 13, before she met polanski

she had already been drunk, had sex twice, and had experience with drugs.

all this suggests is that you had a child spinning out of control. her mother seems to be somewhat cupable here as well putting her in an environment where wolves like polanski could have such easy pickings.

[Kermit]

all this suggests is that you had a child spinning out of control. her mother seems to be somewhat cupable here as well putting her in an environment where wolves like polanski could have such easy pickings.

Yeah, but her mother trusted him. She allowed him into her home. It's not like she knew that he was a pedo. She hoped that he would help her daughter in the biz. A lot of 13 year olds have sex, for better or worse. A lot of them take drugs. The fact that she did both before the rape has no effect on the cir stances. I invite anyone to read the grand jury testimony. It's easy to try and put blame on the mother, but I don't and I can totally see Samantha Geimer wanting to protect her JMark.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

[DoubtingThomas]

There is no doubt this guy has issues.

[Bukefal]

Spain.

and then there are many who have the age of consent at 14.

Germany
Cyprus
Croatia
Bulgaria
Bosnia and Hezgevonia
Austria
Albania
Hungary
Italy
Kosovo
Portugal

That's BS. In Europe its not normal to have sex with 13 year old girls when you are 40. And in all those countries you named its even more strange and sick to have sex with 13 year olds.

[rjv]

Yeah, but her mother trusted him. She allowed him into her home. It's not like she knew that he was a pedo. She hoped that he would help her daughter in the biz. A lot of 13 year olds have sex, for better or worse. A lot of them take drugs. The fact that she did both before the rape has no effect on the cir stances. I invite anyone to read the grand jury testimony. It's easy to try and put blame on the mother, but I don't and I can totally see Samantha Geimer wanting to protect her JMark.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html

i am not saying the mother is a party responsible for blame here but i do believe that she was not doing a good job of parenting if she had a 13 year old taking drugs and having sex at such a young age . all that and the mother still decides to have her daughter trying to make it into a society that is renowned for having those in it lose control of their lives.

[Jacob1983]

Just because something is legal and/or is common and not frowned up in a certain country does not mean that it's perfectly okay and not wrong in other countries.

[rjv]

Just because something is legal and/or is common and not frowned up in a certain country does not mean that it's perfectly okay and not wrong in other countries.

true. some of the countries on the list of those who have 12 years old as the age of consent also have some very barbaric traditions regarding children still in place.

[CavsSuperFan]

This has got to be one of the most disturbing threads of all time…The details of the sexual assault & the accusations (by some), that a 13 year old girl was partially responsible for this heinous act…The French newspapers have called her Lolita…Now Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are screaming to Free Roman Polanski! How perverse can things get?


http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b146...rss_topstories

[JMarkJohns]

This has got to be one of the most disturbing threads of all time…The details of the sexual assault & the accusations (by some), that a 13 year old girl was partially responsible for this heinous act…The French newspapers have called her Lolita…Now Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are screaming to Free Roman Polanski! How perverse can things get?


http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b146...rss_topstories

Agreed. What part of, "I said no, no, no, I don't want to do this" makes her a Lolita? Because her mom thought Polanski someone who could help get her into movies? Because she was OK with being photographed? The peripherals of those excusing Polanski are as disgusting as the specifics of the case.

"Shame, and eternal shame... Nothing but shame."
- Bourbon, "Henry V"

[Kermit]

the woody allen thing keeps cracking me up.