Roman Polanski.............

[BeachGirlFLA]

See, I was thinking sickens and disgust is more appropriate.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I thought an agreement had been made that he would plead quilty to a lesser offense (no trial) and he would be sentenced to time served (42 days). When it was time for the actual sentencing, he got word that the judge wasn't going to approve of the deal (judges don't have to approve of any deal) and was going to give a longer sentence.

Rather than find out his sentence he fled the country.

You might be right about that. I was going by a snippet I read. But it seems like it was a wrap one way or another and he fled before sentencing.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I'm as liberal as they come and even I know that he needs to man up, get his butt back here, and face the consequences.

He had illegal sexual contact with a child. He broke the law. Period. That point has never been in contention.


ETA: If you google "Roman Polanski petition", you can find the names of the people who have signed the "Free Roman Polanski" petition. It's heartbreaking, some of the people on there. Natalie Portman? Seriously? I used to respect her.

Thanks for posting this. Natalie Portman is a surprise to me.

 

[DVC Sadie]

You might be right about that. I was going by a snippet I read. But it seems like it was a wrap one way or another and he fled before sentencing.

I thought I read that he fled before his sentence of 2 months was to begin. He didn't even think that having to serve two months for " illegal contact with a minor was a justified sentence. What an idiot.

 

[Heidict]

Thanks for posting this. Natalie Portman is a surprise to me.

Are you serious? So sad.

There is a counter petition now, going around the industry. Lets be sure to show support to those that sign that one. The say rape is rape and that RP needs to pay for his crime.

 

[Briarmom]

I just want to point out that there are probably a zillion (give or take ) of those 'petitions' that you could find and perhaps we should wait to boycott their films until we are positive they signed the real petition...if there is, indeed, a real petition.

There are several 'don't believe everything' posts on the DIS right now that are just flat out false, so I just wanted to put that out there.

 

[jodifla]

It's interesting how everyone who says they are so, so upset for the victim don't care at all about her not wanting this back in the spotlight. Basically, people are willing to throw her under the bus so THEY can get their "justice." Her feelings don't seem to matter to anyone at all.

Yes, it's the state vs. Polanski, but the state doesn't often prosecute rape cases without the victim.

 

[legalsea]

It's interesting how everyone who says they are so, so upset for the victim don't care at all about her not wanting this back in the spotlight. Basically, people are willing to throw her under the bus so THEY can get their "justice." Her feelings don't seem to matter to anyone at all.

Yes, it's the state vs. Polanski, but the state doesn't often prosecute rape cases without the victim.

It is my understanding that Polanski had already pled guilty to the lesser charge, and the others were dismissed. The judge then ordered Polanski to undergo further psychiatric evaluation in a mental hospital for 90 days. After 42 days or so, Polanski was released. He was to appear before the judge again for formal sentencing.

When Polanski agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge (and then so pled) he had a deal with the DA that the time spent in the mental hospital would constitute his jail time (along with an earlier stint in a mental ward). However, Polanski received word that the judge (apparently rather famous for spouting off when he should not) had told people that he didn't like the deal and planned to send Polanski to prison.

Now, if what I have read in the various newspapers is correct, there would not be a 'new trial' that would involve the victim. Polanski has already pled guilty to that lesser charge, and the others were dismissed.

If he is brought back, he would appear before a judge for two reasons, I believe: 1) to receive sentencing on the original charge; and 2) be held over for trial (depending on how California does this) for breaking his bond/bail by fleeing the jurisdiction.

 

[jodifla]

It is my understanding that Polanski had already pled guilty to the lesser charge, and the others were dismissed. The judge then ordered Polanski to undergo further psychiatric evaluation in a mental hospital for 90 days. After 42 days or so, Polanski was released. He was to appear before the judge again for formal sentencing.

When Polanski agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge (and then so pled) he had a deal with the DA that the time spent in the mental hospital would constitute his jail time (along with an earlier stint in a mental ward). However, Polanski received word that the judge (apparently rather famous for spouting off when he should not) had told people that he didn't like the deal and planned to send Polanski to prison.

Now, if what I have read in the various newspapers is correct, there would not be a 'new trial' that would involve the victim. Polanski has already pled guilty to that lesser charge, and the others were dismissed.

If he is brought back, he would appear before a judge for two reasons, I believe: 1) to receive sentencing on the original charge; and 2) be held over for trial (depending on how California does this) for breaking his bond/bail by fleeing the jurisdiction.

The only way the victim gets her justice here is if Polanski is not dragged back to the States.

If he is, then the spotlight will blaze on her for months and months. I wouldn't want that as a victim OR the parent of a victim. These families have most likely healed and moved on. All the wounds will be reopened in the circus that will ensue if Polanski comes back.

The other thing is, with how the American minds work, is that the victim and her mom's choices will be analyzed -- and criticized -- to death.

You see it already happening on this thread.

So yeah.... If I were the parent in these shoes, OR the victim, no way wouldn I want Polanski back here if I'd found a way to put it behind me and move on.

 

[TurboKitteh]

I do think it's interesting, how much society has changed since 1977.

Back then, this wasn't seen the same way it is now. I mean Scorsese's Taxi Driver had only come out the year before, with a character who was a 12 year-old prostitute. There were rock songs about "young girls". Almost a totally different world. Back then, wasn't a rape victim's past sexual experience and clothing at the time of the attack considered evidence that could be used essentially against the victim herself?

I was 10 years old when this happened. I also lived in California at the time. If my friends and I played at being adults, it didn't make us so. We really didn't have any concept of sex, but I am sure we did the typical little girl flirtation, that is part of growing up. We wore short skirts. We tried to act sophisticated. We were raised not to question authority, and accepted "because I said so" as a reasoning to shut up and be docile. We also didn't talk about bad or nasty things that happened in the family with anyone. We were typical California girls, who had done some work in the acting field.


I don't think the laws have changed much then until now, but it stikes me, as a society, how differently we see this than our parents must have 30 years ago.

 

[Geoff_M]

If he is, then the spotlight will blaze on her for months and months. I wouldn't want that as a victim OR the parent of a victim. These families have most likely healed and moved on. All the wounds will be reopened in the circus that will ensue if Polanski comes back.

If the victim had faded from the public eye, and had expressed a desire to remain so, I might buy that line of reasoning. But apparently she didn't think that the spotlight of appearing in and showing up for the paps at the red carpet premier of the HBO documentary about the rape and the flight from justice, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired", would reopen such wounds.

The other thing is, with how the American minds work, is that the victim and her mom's choices will be analyzed -- and criticized -- to death.

You see it already happening on this thread.

From what I've mainly seen, mostly when based on what appears to be false information.

It was also interesting to read that France has now muted it's support of Polanski's release... It' seems members of their government now realize that the case was something more than Polanski having an "indiscretion" with a minor.

 

[EMom]

I do think it's interesting, how much society has changed since 1977.

Back then, this wasn't seen the same way it is now. I mean Scorsese's Taxi Driver had only come out the year before, with a character who was a 12 year-old prostitute. There were rock songs about "young girls". Almost a totally different world. Back then, wasn't a rape victim's past sexual experience and clothing at the time of the attack considered evidence that could be used essentially against the victim herself?

I was 10 years old when this happened. I also lived in California at the time. If my friends and I played at being adults, it didn't make us so. We really didn't have any concept of sex, but I am sure we did the typical little girl flirtation, that is part of growing up. We wore short skirts. We tried to act sophisticated. We were raised not to question authority, and accepted "because I said so" as a reasoning to shut up and be docile. We also didn't talk about bad or nasty things that happened in the family with anyone. We were typical California girls, who had done some work in the acting field.


I don't think the laws have changed much then until now, but it stikes me, as a society, how differently we see this than our parents must have 30 years ago.

I just keep thinking, "My daddy would have shot him and told God he died." At least in Texas, the grand jury would have no-billed him and we'd have been done with it.

 

[SNylund]

I've been an indy film maker myself (expensive hobby BTW) not doing it at the moment. But I have produced/wrote/directed/edited/wrote soundtrack etc., for all of my films several of which have been full length. Now I don't say this to toot my horn or anything, because all of these "skills" and a token will get you a ride on the subway, but my point is, I always found it fascinating that such a huge deal is made about a movie "Director." "Directing" to me is a fairly easy job that almost anyone could do IMO with a little bit of talent. Maybe its because it comes easy to me I don't know, but it makes me laugh when I hear directors being heralded as "geniuses" or whatever, because to me there isn't anything to it and the whole job is almost a joke.

To me good films are almost always about great stories/scripts and great performances with the actors. A good budget helps and a good cinematographer. But to me these little demi gods that think they are god's gift because they are a director are a joke. With a great script, a monkey could direct and make a decent film, with a bad script, the best director in the world can not make it into a good film.

Why people are heralded and put on pedestals because they are so called great "directors" makes me laugh. To me its the easiest job in film making.

 

[DancingBear]

The "victim" of his crime is no longer a physical victim and wants all this to just go away so she'll have peace again. She continues to be a victim by the publicity that's raised because of these kinds of stories. The only purpose for extraditing RP back to the US is to satisfy the needs of those Americans who have never had anything to do with this case other than seeing a report on TV and are screaming for punishment. Pure and simple.

RP has remained out of the US for decades. Obviously US citizens aren't going to be raped or drugged by him. We are safe from this "heinous criminal".

If/when RP gets back here via extridition and if/when he is tried and if/when he is sentenced to prison time, the bloodthirst of those calling for punishment will be slaked only until the next "outrage du jour" comes along during the next 24 hour news cycle. Then RP and his "horrifying crimes" will be forgotten in favor of a Biden faux pas or a woman having triplets while living on welfare.

Sometimes it's just downright embarassing to be an American. I love my country but good God some of the people here....

FTR, nothing in my comments here is directed at any one poster on this thread. For those who say they're offended by my comments, please review some of the offensive things that were said to me because my opinion is different.

Then take it all with a grain of salt. I'm sure there'll be another scandal tomorrow that will give us an opportunity for righteous indignation that will make this scandal pale in comparison.

You're right! And why should we extradite Manuel Noriega to France? I mean, he's no threat to the French any more. And why did we send Hermine Braunsteiner Ryan back to Germany to face justice for her turn as a Nazi concentration camp guard? The war had been over for almost two decades by then. And why did we keep chasing Bobbie Vesco from island to island, when most of the money was gone for good?

 

[Mermaid02]

She continues to be a victim because the offender ran. If he had stayed and faced his punishment, like a man (but we all know he is not) then she would not being going through this again. HE is at fault for the fact that this is being drug through the news again. HE is the reason she is unable to put this behind her. HE is the one raping her all over again in the media. HE is the reason it won't go away. HE is the reason she will not have peace. SHE CONTINUES TO BE A VICTIM BECAUSE ROMAN POLANSKI HAS MADE HER ONE AND IS MAKING HER ONE OVER AGAIN. By refusing extradition HE is guaranteeing that this will be all over the news for months to come.

No, the purpose for extradition is because he is a fugitive from justice. He was never sentenced for his crime that HE PLEAD GUILTY TO! We the public have no say in the matter.

So, as long as the US citizens are safe, then it's okay? Who cares if he happens to be doing this same thing to children in other countries?


I agree. Especially when people are signing petitions and are supporting the drugging and rape of a child. Sickens me.


And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as are we.


That is the sad thing about this world these days. There are alot of sick and twisted people out there.

See, I was thinking sickens and disgust is more appropriate.

I like those too Heidi!

 

[rie'smom]

Let me just say having been a victim of sexual abuse that if anyone had "consensual" sex with my daughter when she was 13, the law would be his smallest concern. I would be what he'd have to watch for and my justice would be also be "consenual".

 

[Planogirl]

I found this quote in a news article cbsnews.com

Polanski fled the U.S. as he awaiting sentencing, convinced the judge would renege on his plea bargain deal. A judicial review this year did find there was misconduct on the part of the judge (who is now dead), but the charges could not be set aside as long as Polanski was a fugitive.

They are saying that the statute of limitations doesn't come into play because Polanski was already convicted. If they set aside the charges due to judicial misconduct, could the statute of limitations be used?

Sorry is this has already been addressed. I missed it if so.

 

[MaumeeMom]

Here is a very good article by Judge H. Lee Sarokin regarding why Polanski should be extradited.

The Defenses to the Polanski Arrest Are Irrelevant - http://shar.es/1G4ip

 

[horseshowmom]

I just keep thinking, "My daddy would have shot him and told God he died." At least in Texas, the grand jury would have no-billed him and we'd have been done with it.

When this came up again, I thought about my daughter. I don't know that there would have been any way to stop my husband from what he did after something like this happened, and I would have backed him up 100%.

How anybody can say that a 13 year old child who has been intoxicated and drugged can be making a choice to have consensual sex with a 40 year old man is beyond me.

I hope they lock him up, and he should get more time for being on the run all this time.

And for those who say it's just between him and the victim, I disagree. This is a crime against society and children in general, and somebody needs to stand up and say it won't be stood for. I'll be watching for the list of "celebrities" who support him, and I will NOT support them in the future.

 

[Footnotegirl]

How anybody can say that a 13 year old child who has been intoxicated and drugged can be making a choice to have consensual sex with a 40 year old man is beyond me.

How anybody can say this when the court transcripts show that it was by no means consensual is even more beyond me. She said No. She said No over, and over, and over again. Even if she had been a fully grown woman it was still rape. Even if she had slept with three other people consensually that night, it was still rape. That she was 13 just makes it that much sicker. That many of the news articles gloss over the fact that she said no (and the fact that she was drugged, and the fact that she was sodomized) and call it "he seduced her" and "he had sex with her" makes.. flames come out of the side of my head.
As for those who say that "well, he never did anything like that again" that's up for serious question. We don't know for sure if he did.. famous rich people get away with quite a lot. As well, it is public knowledge that he carried on a 'consensual' relationship with Natassja Kinski that began when she was 15.
gahr, sorry, rant over. I have a dear friend who's daughter was raped at 13, and though luckily her attacker didn't get away, he used a lot of these same defenses as did his friends. "He's a nice guy." "He never did anything like this before." "the 13 year old wanted it." Grr. ARgh.