The Polanski case

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

He deserves punishment, I don't see much mitigating circumstances here, but what these eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth revenge fantasies concerns, you're about 2000 years too late for that.

Yes, sometimes even I agree with Christianity.

Well in all honesty, I am generally not for an eye for an eye approach. For example I don't think the death punishment to be of any use. But I think some people lack the understanding for how others feel or they lack the abilty to put oneself in someone's place. But I guess if they actually experienced what they do to others themselves, then they can realize how it is to be treated like that.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Well in all honesty, I am generally not for an eye for an eye approach. For example I don't think the death punishment to be of any use. But I think some people lack the understanding for how others feel or they lack the abilty to put oneself in someone's place. But I guess if they actually experienced what they do to others themselves, then they can realize how it is to be treated like that.

The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Cipher

The discipline on self must be strong enough to overcome desires. If failed, then you can only blame yourself. Atonement will not be achieved by running around, one must achieve greater discipline---and I believe that the prison cell (no death penalty) would be the suitable place for that kind of heavy reflection on heavy crime.

Yet there are those, for one reason or another, seem completely incapable of remorse, atonement or even empathy.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Yet there are those, for one reason or another, seem completely incapable of remorse, atonement or even empathy.

I can only conceive that as an abnormality---resulting from *negative history* or an inhumanity(mental illness).

[Shinoto]

I smell Oscar!

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Narona

You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:

There's high chance that Polanski:

- Offered money to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents).

Do you believe that there's a higher chance of the victim: paid as oppose to the victim "wanting to 'forget' things"?

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Do you believe that there's a higher chance of the victim: paid as oppose to the victim "wanting to 'forget' things"?

I can't tell. I don't know. I read many articles this morning, and apparently, from what i understood, his victim didn't want to stop this trial because she was defending polanski, but because she doesn't want to appear in the tabloid again. But whatever the victim is saying, it's the United states of america Versus Polanski.

Beside that, and from what I read, I only know that when Polanski and the prosecution made that lenient deal, samantha's parents recieved compensation from Polanski. How much? I don't know.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

The man is 77 years old. Few, if any, judges, despite his crime, would want to send him to a hard-core prison where rapists and child molesters are not well liked.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Lynnie. First, his crimes now include not only the act itself but his flight from prosecution. Some judges might view that as the more serious offense, since it was a slap in the face to the LA justice system.

Second, attitudes toward pedophilia have if anything hardened since Polanski went to trial. There will be a lot of public pressure to throw the book at Polanski if he's extradited, pressures that easily be exploited by politicians hoping to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd.

[Narona]

I repost my previous message, after that my parents asked me to remove many parts of it to avoid "possible" problems.

-

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Questions: Would people like Frederic Mitterand feel differently if a lesser known man committed the crime on French soil? Even if the criminal is not a French citizen or perhaps a naturalized one from elsewhere? Would things also be different if the case was one where the crime was never solved, and when the statute of limitation ran out, the criminal then spoke up?

You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:

"He received a very, very, very lenient sentence back then which would never be achievable under today's laws."

There's high chance that Polanski:

- Gave compensation to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents)
- That the trial was unfair to the victim till the judge thought about overturning it (that's when Polanski fled, duh).


Anyway............. another proof that the politicians, and many actors and directors think they are the center of the world, the voice of everyone, while tyhe public opinion is a complete opposite:

It actually is turning that MOST people from Poland are AGAINST Polanski! Yes, that's right, his own people from Poland are just disgusted and want justice too. Now the politicians in Poland try to shut up since a survey revealed that the big majority of people in Poland want Polanski to be extradited (and judged) for his crime

I suggest you to read this news, Polish People are NOT on Polanski side. It's very interesting. I bolded the important parts:

http://a.abcnews.com/m/screen?id=8701191&pid=76

Spoiler for Polish public reaction:

Roman Polanski's tarnished image may never recover in his homeland, Poland.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk today brushed aside any notion that Poles should be fixated over Roman Polanki's arrest.

"I don't think this national uproar is appropriate," he told reporters. "This is a moral and legal matter and not one of national or political consequence."

Polanski's arrest on charges that he fled the U.S. more than 30 years ago to avoid sentencing on a child rape charge has energized Polish public opinion to such a degree that even the Prime Minister felt it necessary to calm emotions. And, crucially, to distance himself from the case. In contrast to Tusk, many ministers in his cabinet view Polanski as a source of national pride -- and standing up for him as a matter of national prestige.

Polanski's popularity in Poland has always been huge. His rare theatrical performances sell out months in advance. He speaks to packed audience halls and his early films are treated as icons of contemporary Polish culture. In a country where film schools and the art of movie making have traditionally enjoyed a unique status, Polanski, a Lodz Film School alumnus, is simply revered.

No wonder that his arrest made such an impact. Polish newspapers, TV and news Web sites are brimming with the Polanski case. And it is not just the average reader and viewer who are interested. His arrest has literally hit the Polish political scene.

During his couple of days in Swiss custody, Polanski has managed to pitch political parties against one another and to spark a national debate on morality and art.

Polish political life is being dominated by Polanski's case. Some are asking if the government is doing enough to defend him. Others argue that the state should not squander its authority by sympathizing with a pedophile.

Everyone feels obligated to take a stand. President Lech Kaczynski got his lawyers involved and said, "Polanski is morally wrong. But much time has passed…"

Ex-president and Solidarity leader Lech Walesa came out in Polanski's defense saying that, "He'd already repented for the sins of his youth."

The highly respected Association of Polish Film Makers issued an open letter. Its signatories appealed to the Polish president and government to take "energetic steps to free Polish citizen Roman Polanski and to prevent his extradition to the USA."

"Although the events from thirty years ago were morally wrong, Polanski's departure from the USA was an escape from a court lynch. There were solid reasons to believe that Roman Polanski would not be given a fair trial," the letter continued.



Poland Has Europe's Harshest Law Against Pedophilia

As emotions run high, some reactions verged on the bizarre. Film director Borys Lankosz, whose new film will be in the running for the Oscars, fumed against the Swiss. In a TVN24 interview he insinuated that the Swiss were prostitutes "who agreed to set up a trap by inviting Polanski and then caught him...Switzerland is not a place to visit, not in a long time," said Lankosz.

The big irony is that the often uncritical and unconditional involvement in Polanski's case is happening against the backdrop of a new Polish law against pedophilia. Polish elites who defend Polanski so vehemently seem to forget that only last week (Sept. 24), the Polish Parliament passed Europe's harshest law against pedophilia.

Parliament amended the penal code and made it legal to subject convicted pedophiles to pharmaceutical treatment. Some consider this legislature highly controversial and dubbed it "chemical castration." However, legislators who passed the amendment argue that such treatment will stop pedophiles committing crimes against the under aged.

In the context of this recent legislature, Polish authorities now understand they need to be careful in their words and actions defending Polanski. Otherwise they will no doubt be accused of hypocrisy.

Only yesterday, there were some in the government who called on the foreign minister to get President Obama involved. Today, they have toned down their language considerably and the outrage is more controlled.

According to Bogdan Zdrojewski, Poland's minister of culture, the reaction is "reserved, calm and up to the point." A spokesperson for the Polish Foreign Ministry told ABC News that "The Polish Ambassador met with Polanski for two hours and we are providing him with all the assistance he needs. We are taking all the steps we feel necessary to secure Mr. Polanski's fair treatment."



Polish, French Foreign Ministers Appeal to Hillary Clinton
One of these steps is an appeal letter to Hillary Clinton. Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner are sending it jointly (Polanski holds dual citizenship – Polish and French). The main reason the authorities have now started to take a low-key approach is their electorate. An opinion poll published today shows that less than 25 percent of Poles would like to see Polanski escape another trial. "This is a very surprising result," says Jan Stolarz, a sociologist with a polling organization.

He told ABC News that "in light of the near-hero status Polanski enjoys here, this is very telling. People no longer believe that achievement can buy you immunity and that all are equal before the law...This is very encouraging," adds Stolarz.

Results of the opinion poll are reflected by many Web site comments. Most readers would like to see Polanski extradited to the U.S.

"I'm ashamed that my president and a few ministers are protecting a pedophile," reads one. "Law is law and money cannot buy you justice. Polanski, Obama or Mr. Jones -- in a lawful state all are equal."

To many Poles, Polanski had been an iconic figure. Events from 30 years ago, his past, were just an ambiguous blur, certainly nothing that could overcast his greatness.

Today, there seems to be a change. With Polish public reaction so vocal and negative, with the past once again revealed, Polanski's tarnished image may never recover in his homeland. Only a handful of politicians and fellow artists appear to be dedicated to saving the icon.

Now about France. I am waiting for a national survey, but at least right now, you will find very few web survey that defend Polanski. French public opinion is the same as Poland, Polanski needs to pay, and he actually got an lenient sentence at his first trial.

There are also french artists who don't defend Polanski, for example, the internationaly famous director Luc Besson who wants the justice to be the same for everyone, whether your rich or poor: http://www.liberation.fr/culture/010...-tour-le-monde

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Narona

You can actually wonder if the first trial was really fair. As Cooley (LA County District Attorney) said it:

There's high chance that Polanski:

- Gave compensation to his victim (he actually did during the deal, but no one knows how much he offered to the victim's parents)
- That the trial was unfair to the victim till the judge thought about overturning it (that's when Polanski fled, duh).

It's likely to be very hard, at this point in time and esp. with the judge then now passed away, to know what was going through the judge's mind.

(Although if people have copies of his working papers on-line that lists why he was planning to add more jail time, that would be very helpful. )

As for the chemical castration change in Polish law, yes, I went back yesterday to edit my original post when I read the news article.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Lynnie. First, his crimes now include not only the act itself but his flight from prosecution. Some judges might view that as the more serious offense, since it was a slap in the face to the LA justice system.

Second, attitudes toward pedophilia have if anything hardened since Polanski went to trial. There will be a lot of public pressure to throw the book at Polanski if he's extradited, pressures that easily be exploited by politicians hoping to gain support among the "think of the children" crowd.

I got to politely disagree with you. Unless there is a "Three Strikes" law, his age should generate some leniency in sentencing at this point. From what I understand - since I haven't been in jail ever - neither rapists or pedophiles are well-liked in prison, and aren't treated well there. While attitudes have hardened against such crimes since then, I think that many people who aren't strict justice thumpers would disagree with a lessened actual sentence imposed - that is, the judge throws the book at the man, but then lessens the sentence due to his age.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by mg1942

and to heck with Swiss neutrality

UBS AG giving 4,450 Names to U.S. gov sets bad precedent

Excuse me sir, but as a swiss person I have to ask you what the hell has giving out names of people who are guilty of tax fraud have to do with neutrality?

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I really don't understand the need to punish him after 30 years, considering that the child molested by Polanski got over it long time ago, and he had already suffered the consequences and got acquitted at the end in the eyes of the community he belongs to, and a non-negligible portion of the society. Yes, his troubled past might have a lot to do with this, and also his actions afterwards telling that it was a single bad mistake not an incident of repetitive nature.

I also didn't understand, if those really happened at the time, why he was given the freedom to flee the country. To me it is a bit late to search for justice, even though it may look as the right thing to do. I think people need to hear what the victim says about this case.

For your second point, I do agree that he shouldnt have had the right to travel around. But your first point is utterly ridiculous.

People really need to understand that it does not matter how much time has passed between the incident and the arrest. Having sex with minors does not fall under the statute of limitation in the USA so any argument with "30 years later is too late" has no merit at all. Just because 30 years have passed and the victim has forgiven him does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that Polanski should not be judged. And by judged I mean the usual punishment of 50 years in jail in the USA.

The same goes for the argument that "it was only a one time mistake and he has proven not to be a repetual offender" thing. So what? By saying this you just have accepted that any criminal, no matter how serious the crime, should not be punished if he doesnt do it a second time. Why do we have have laws then? Roman Polanski does not stand above the law and has to be judged like every other criminal as well.

It does not matter if he had a sad past. It does not matter if he is a famous director. It does not matter if the victim has forgiven him. Arresting Polanski was the only correct thing the police could have done.

[Kusa-San]

Here for those who want to know who are these stupid artist who defend a rapist :

http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutien...ki.1340.0.html

These artist who tell us "No you can't download for free, it's illegal !! It's baaaaaad " tell us here that we need to protect a rapist ?!!!

Personnaly, I will boycott every products of these stupid peoples

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Excuse me sir, but as a swiss person I have to ask you what the hell has giving out names of people who are guilty of tax fraud have to do with neutrality?

It takes Washington to finally pry you open

Your country is doing a favor for Washington that they wouldn't do for another.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Narona

You create other issues at your will. The justice system doesn't work like that.

The justice system "can" be affected by that. There is nothing wrong with it.

Moral? You don't judge people based on morals issue from people like you. If it was the case, when the father of a raped victim would want the rapist to be sentenced to death penalty, and if 51% of the people of the country agrees, then it means that we would have to kill the rapist.

No. What I suggested can be thought like this: if the laws allow for the death penalty, and there is a public request of that, it can happen. It doesn't have to, but there is the possibility of it happening. And if it happens, it may be considered as partly due to what the public demanded. After all the people who make the decisions are part of the same public, with their approvals and disapprovals.

It doesn't work like that. And beside that, whatever the voice of his community, I doubt that the majority of people from France or the USA are on Polanski's side.

That may be true for US. But, for France, considering their strange values compared to even the other European countries, I cannot say the same.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

For your second point, I do agree that he shouldnt have had the right to travel around. But your first point is utterly ridiculous.

People really need to understand that it does not matter how much time has passed between the incident and the arrest. Having sex with minors does not fall under the statute of limitation in the USA so any argument with "30 years later is too late" has no merit at all. Just because 30 years have passed and the victim has forgiven him does ABSOLUTELY NOT mean that Polanski should not be judged. And by judged I mean the usual punishment of 50 years in jail in the USA.

After everything is done, after even the victim has reached the state of forgiving her molester, what you are trying to do may not do any good from the victim's perspective. The justice you seek is not for you or for me, it is mainly for the victim herself. It is too late. US, the country that set up *exciting* camps all over the world, could have captured Polanski long time ago, and brought him to justice when it mattered. It was not like Polanski was hiding in a location that US could not find. And it is not even fair to say that US completely follows the international laws.

The same goes for the argument that "it was only a one time mistake and he has proven not to be a repetual offender" thing. So what? By saying this you just have accepted that any criminal, no matter how serious the crime, should not be punished if he doesnt do it a second time. Why do we have have laws then? Roman Polanski does not stand above the law and has to be judged like every other criminal as well.

I suggest you to try to explain this to the victim too. Because, that is one of the reasons why she had forgiven Polanski. Believe me, if he had done that to one another girl elsewhere, we would have never heard about any kind of forgiveness from her. And, justice system, if I am not mistaken, takes this kind of things into account when punishing criminals.

It does not matter if he had a sad past. It does not matter if he is a famous director. It does not matter if the victim has forgiven him. Arresting Polanski was the only correct thing the police could have done.

I believe psychological evaluations are used in the courts. A person's past matters in his actions.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

That may be true for US. But, for France, considering their strange values compared to even the other European countries, I cannot say the same.

Don't talk for us please The truth is that a majority of french citizen are not on Polanski's side.

After everything is done, after even the victim has reached the state of forgiving her molester, what you are trying to do may not do any good from the victim's perspective. The justice you seek is not for you or for me, it is mainly for the victim herself. It is too late. US, the country that set up *exciting* camps all over the world, could have captured Polanski long time ago, and brought him to justice when it mattered. It was not like Polanski was hiding in a location that US could not find. And it is not even fair to say that US completely follows the international laws.

No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Don't talk for us please The truth is that a majority of french citizen are not on Polanski's side.

Interesting. Can you please direct me to links offering polling results to justify that?
And about the talking, sorry cannot do that, not when your country and your countrymen talk about other people and other countries as they please.

No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.

Unfortunately exceptions do happen, since the justice system (probably everywhere) is not a completely fair or a perfect system.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Interesting. Can you please direct me to links offering polling results to justify that?
And about the talking, sorry cannot do that, not when your country and your countrymen talk about other people and other countries as they please.

Here :

http://blog.lefigaro.fr/le-fol/2009/...-non-dits.html

and

Originally Posted by Du Fil à retordre

L'affaire Polanski révèle une nouvelle fracture entre l'opinion et les élites. Alors que le monde du cinéma s'insurge dans une pétition internationale contre son arrestation, jugée "absolument épouvantable" par le ministre de la culture, Frédéric Mitterrand, tous les sondages réalisés depuis dimanche montrent que l'opinion est largement favorable à ce que Polanski soit extradé aux Etats-Unis pour y être jugé. C'est le cas de 70,7% des internautes ayant répondu à la question hier sur lefigaro.fr sur un total de 29 500 votants. Or, les internautes ne passent pas pour d'odieux réactionnaires.

Now please show me a proof which states the contrary ?

Oh and don't worry about your last comment, it's the same for every other country

Unfortunately exceptions do happen, since the justice system (probably everywhere) is not a completely fair or a perfect system.

And because of that Polanski shouldn't be judge ?

[Solace]

There's way too much generalizing going on in this thread. I suggest people relax a little bit and take a step back.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Here :

http://blog.lefigaro.fr/le-fol/2009/...-non-dits.html

Let's just say that I am surprised.

And because of that Polanski shouldn't be judge ?

Even if he is judged, justice may not be served.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

No the justice is not only for the victim but for the society. There is no exception because in society everyone are under the same laws. Polanskil will be judge and go to jail.

If societies were all under the same law, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't have the sham of a jail sentence she served, Nixon wouldn't have received a presidental pardon, and Bush and Cheney would be under investigation for war crimes/treason.

Money and power *do* influence much of what people can get away with. The laws are on the paper yes, and those laws don't say "here's the exception", but society has to enforce those laws, or they're just words on paper.

The US has had decades of opportunities to extradite Polanski and charge him, why they chose to act now is anyone's guess. One thing to keep in mind is that in 30 years, sex laws have become incredibly strict in the US (to the point of sheer absurdity in most cases), largely in part to our extreme conservatism and hypocrisy regarding sexuality. It's possible that the prosecutors revisited this case to score another notch on their belt, and they're backed by officials eager to point out the "horrible sex criminal" who justifies their reasons for the tougher laws.

Now that doesn't mean I find Polanski innocent. However, he was forgiven by the victim and he is very old. What sentence could he possibly be given at this point that would hold any meaning?

People who wish for eye for an eye justice just end up going blind.