AnimeSuki.com Forum

AnimeSuki Forum (http://forums.animesuki.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://forums.animesuki.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Polanski case (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=86785)

Narona 2009-09-29 06:51

The Polanski case
 
(
Edit: the question of the survey bugged >_<. Te question is "Do you think that given the US laws, Polanski should be judged for the crime he has done, even if it happened 32 years ago?"
)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_P...ime_conviction

For those who are lazy to click (please, read if you have not all the infos about this case, before replying)

Spoiler for Text:



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aqCrHN8qbPk8

Beside what other celebrities and "colleagues" are saying about him, I would want to know what other americans think about this case (mostly), but other people can vote and give their opinions too.

As a reminder, Roman Polanski had a sexual relationship with a 13yo girl in 1977 on the US territory (whether it is a rape [The girl said so] or not doesn't change the fact that having sex with a 13yo minor is illegal). And, to avoid to be judged, he fled from the USA to Europe.

32 years.

Now he got arrested in Switzerland, and the USA still want to judge him.

The question, imo, is not that the girl he raped had sex with with 32 years ago said that the US DOJ should leave him free (My guess is that she was paid to withdraw her complaint :rolleyes: but it's a personal opinion) , I think that case raises two problems:

- His colleagues ( :rolleyes: ) and many people from Europe claims that after 32 years, there should be a Prescription for his crime, and so, that the case is too old to be judged.

- I think we can't forget the fact that he "fled". Beside the fact that he is a coward and a loser (sorry if I offend his fans), I think it should be something highly punishable and unforgivable, and a crime.

\\\\\\\\

So, what do you think of it?

Should the USA act as if there was prescription?

Do you think that many people are easy on Polanski because he's a celebrity, while they would not care at all if it was a common person?

What do you think of the statute of limitation / Prescription? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

ganbaru 2009-09-29 07:23

I am supprised than it had take so much time to someone to post this news on this forum...

Should he be juged after 32 years, honestly I don't know. As far as I know most country than apply a statute of limitation / Prescription, don't apply for some kind of crime ( murder for example). Could the rape of a minor and fleeing the justice be considered heavies offences for not applying the prescription is somethin g to think about it.

Eisdrache 2009-09-29 07:37

Having sex with underage kids does NOT fall under the statute of limitation neither in the USA nor in Switzerland.

I agree that swiss officials had more than enough chances to arrest Polanski as he was there several times before.
I agree that something has gone wrong before.
I agree that people have to try to discover where it happened and correct it.

BUT WHAT I SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND is why other people (several other actors, directors, various politicals from France and Poland, an UNESCO secretary, etc) want the swiss goverment to have Polanski released? Honestly I cant think of ONE argument that would justify this. Let him go because his victim has forgiven him? Because he is a famous director? Because he was on his way to receive a prize for his life work? NO JUST NO. He is a criminal who broke the law and should be punished. Its as simple as that. There are no "Switzerland bends to the USA because of their fight over the UBS bank affair" arguments, no "swiss police invited Polanski as a trap to arrest him" ideas, arguments like those are NOT VALID.

Polanski has to follow the law like everyone else and does not stand above it. If he broke the law and is internationally searched by Interpol then arresting him is absolutely right.

Sorry for the extensive use of caps lock, Im just pissed by the arguments of the Polanski side.

Cipher 2009-09-29 07:56

Its so simple that I can't bear it. If you remove all these complexities, what he's done is a crime and that's it. There's nothing else to it. What saddens me the most is why we even have to discuss this. Its so simple.( I love saying that. The simpler, the better (FoMahBrain))

Woopzilla 2009-09-29 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisdrache (Post 2672275)
BUT WHAT I SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND is why other people (several other actors, directors, various politicals from France and Poland, an UNESCO secretary, etc) want the swiss goverment to have Polanski released? Honestly I cant think of ONE argument that would justify this.

I agree. If this was a random guy then people probably wouldn't be able to care less... they'd be applauding the arrest of someone who has knowingly dodged justice for the last 32 years; fleeing the country country and avoiding travelling to others because he knows he broke the law and is determined to not be caught.

Sackett 2009-09-29 08:21

Statute of limitation does not apply because he pled guilty. He then fled before sentencing because the judge rightfully refuse to honor the prosecution's plea agreement. The prosecution recommended a sentence of "time served". You think maybe the prosecutor was showing some favoritism for Hollywood there? How would you want a judge to react if a man comes into your court and admits to drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl, and then the prosecution says they want you to set him free?

A judge does have the power (rarely used) to overrule a plea agreement in the interests of justice. He can make the sentence shorter than the prosecutor and criminal agreed to. He can also make it longer. I think Polaski knew which way the judge was going, so he jumped bail and fled.

He pled guilty. That means he already waived his right to a trial, and is under the law, guilty. (Also, as near as I can tell, no one seriously contends that he didn't rape the girl).

Furthermore his jumping bail and flight from justice is considered a continuous act, so he can be charged with fleeing justice.

Statue of Limitations is used to prevent people from being charged with old crimes when the evidence and memories are no longer fresh. It has no bearing on people who pled guilty and then fled his punishment.

It's no different from someone who is sent to jail for say 10 years and then breaks free from jail. He doesn't get to say after 32 years have passed that the statute of limitations applies. He doesn't get to say that his sentence is up.

Look, I grasp that he apparently has shown that he is not a repeat offender, as rare as that is.

Doesn't change the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old can't give consent. He screwed up- big time. And apologies while escaping punishment does not satisfy the demands of justice. I'm glad that he's reformed- but that reformation should have occurred while in prison- and then after he got out he could demonstrate that he's reformed. You don't get a pass on prison time by being a famous and skilled movie director.

I deeply resent the elitist attitude that one set of rules applies to us peons and the elite get to live by another set of rules. It's the same with Chappaquiddick and Kennedy. He got away with stuff that you or I wouldn't, just because he was rich and famous.

That's wrong. And it's wrong for Polanski to escape punishment the way he has.

As for the victim no longer wanting him to be punished, well you know that is something I think can be considered. However it is not the final say on the matter. Justice is not only about avenging the victim, it is also about establishing a set of behavior that society does not tolerate.

Raping 13 year old girls and fleeing justice are activities that society should not tolerate.

Tsuyoshi 2009-09-29 09:12

The sad thing is that on most cases, justice does take it easy on celebrities. My honest opinion is that it should be much more strict on celebrities because of who they are, and bail should be either much higher than it would be for a normal person, or not at all appliccable because they have the money and everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is that most of the people (not all of them) think that because they are famous, they can get away with anything. The truth is that they can't, whether they can avert punishment or not, because when the public finds out what he's done, his reputation is in shambles.

As for Polanski, the fact that he pled guilty and THEN ran off to hide in France makes him even more of a coward than he would've been if he didn't plead guilty. And he's done it for 32 years at that. Imho, the amount of time doesn't matter. He's done it, he admitted it, and he ran off to avoid punishment for 32 years. Like Sackett said, it's a continuous act. Even if he was running for 100 years, he should still be punished. I have to say that Geimer was very generous to say she's forgiven him, because I certainly wouldn't have. If he really felt sorry, he'd have gone back to the US and paid for the crime he's done willingly rather than being caught by Swiss police.

yezhanquan 2009-09-29 09:50

All I have to say is: Face up to it, Roman. Stare it down and just get it over with.

Vexx 2009-09-29 09:56

I spazzed and accidently voted no... so apologies as I intended to vote yes. I remember this case when it originally transpired -- and I don't recall it being non-consensual (even though it was statutory). So the original details are a bit more complicated...

However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.

Tsuyoshi 2009-09-29 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx (Post 2672469)
I spazzed and accidently voted no... so apologies as I intended to vote yes. I remember this case when it originally transpired -- and I don't recall it being non-consensual (even though it was statutory). So the original details are a bit more complicated...

However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.

Well, it's not something they should've done since Polanski pled guilty. That's what makes the difference here. If he hadn't, things might have turned out different right about now.

justsomeguy 2009-09-29 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx (Post 2672469)
I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.

Cipher 2009-09-29 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy (Post 2672478)
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.

But then she says "Its' Ok". Its like she's saying Justice is for nothing. It also seems like she's implying that "raping" can be left w/o proper justice-served punishment. I don't really care if she was raped or not, but her choice affects too much of our current understanding of justice and the lack of it. What I care more about is one celebrity(power)-example being brought down. It might be just as how Narona (or did she?) perceived it: the old lady valued money and fame(she wanted to be a model , yeah?)---these *might* have some connections to her apparently shifty position.

Telmah 2009-09-29 11:09

I really don't even see what his defense exactly was at this point. Time? Sorry, the only reason he wasn't tried was he fled. To not prosecute him would be a travesty of justice. Honestly, I'd like a harsh sentence for the fleeing and avoiding justice. Dating back to the Magna Carta (the base of English law and in turn the USA's to a degree), there were limitations placed on nobility and the rich...sorry, laws are laws, you break them, you pay the piper.

justsomeguy 2009-09-29 11:12

Just because she had wanted to be a famous model at 13 years does not mean that she consented to have sex. It could be that her resistance was diminished because Polanski drugged her, or because she was (rationally) afraid that resisting a rich and powerful older male would lead to bad results. The reason she's not condemning him now is because she's moved on with her life after so many years. Who would want to remember bad memories?

@Telmah: He was prosecuted, and plead guilty in some sort of deal. The judge declared the deal to be BS and sentenced him differently, upon which he fled the country.

Cipher 2009-09-29 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy (Post 2672597)
Just because she had wanted to be a famous model at 13 years does not mean that she consented to have sex. It could be that her resistance was diminished because Polanski drugged her, or because she was (rationally) afraid that resisting a rich and powerful older male would lead to bad results.

The injustice in this... Power creates fear. Fear creates control. Control is power. Thus, power creates more power.

Zetsubo 2009-09-29 11:32

I say, bring him before the court to stand trial... and complete his sentence.

He perverted the course of justice.

1. In bad faith he jumped bail. Is this an example for other rich and powerful people to follow ?


2. He already pleaded guilty to the charges. Therefore take your knocks like a man ! You were certainly a "man" when you were ecstatically shagging a drugged 13 year old girl. Despite having 3 decades of life on her.

Forget morality for a bit, what legal reason should the US justice system let him go ?

mg1942 2009-09-29 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx (Post 2672469)
I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.


Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy (Post 2672478)
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.


Testimony from the trial:

http://imgur.com/XPE1b.png

Vexx 2009-09-29 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy (Post 2672478)
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.

ah, thanks for correcting my recollections on the story. It was handled in a fairly tabloid way at the time.

Kusa-San 2009-09-29 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx (Post 2672469)

However, I also never quite grasped why he wasn't arrested decades ago. There were many instances where he was on "grabbable" soil. I suspect that *because* it was originally consensual (and therefore non-violent) that the countries he passed through just blew it off. Interesting that just NOW the Swiss decide to clear their books.

Yes and it's certainly not for nothing that's happening now....(who said tax havens :rolleyes: )

Well anyway Polansky must be judge and go to jail for what he did. There is no exception even for (in)famous people :mad: !

Narona 2009-09-29 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsomeguy (Post 2672478)
Actually, according to Wikipedia, the victim in fact said "No" several times even in her drugged state; hence Polanski did not have consent.

Originally, if i understood correctly the case, there wasn't any consent. They just made a deal that reduced the sentence from 30 years of prison to 4 years if he was pleading guildty for sexual intercourse with a 13yo girl, sodomy, that he drugged her etc. but not rape. Originally there was 5 charges against him, including Rape.

So there's little to no doubt about all that he has done.


What made me want to vomit is how his lawyers tried to save him during the trial. Example:

"The defendant acknowledges to have given her champagne to make her drunk, to have given her barbiturate, and even if she objected and said No many times, penetrated her in her mouth, her vagina, and her anus."

His lawyers: "Objection! The girl's physical appearence can have confused him about her age!" (as if she was 20-25)

Now, Samantha at 13yo as she was when he raped her:

http://e.pardon.pl/pa599/7872f7a300047ea048479cf1

Really? I mean... really...?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.