This may not be a popular opinion, but why is CA so insistent on getting Polanski??

[Toad_Passenger]

Isn't he still an American citizen? How could he be deported? To where would he be deported? You are generally deported to the country of your citizenship.

I think he holds French Citizenship which is why he will not be extradited from France. They do not extradite their own citizens.

 

[merryweather20]

Actually, your post to me here constitutes a personal attack on both me and my DH, who IS a PO and is sick and tired of the whole RP debate. His views and mine are exactly the same: it's been 30 years, the courts flubbed it, and the only reason it's brought up ad nauseum is for personal gain on the part of the DA and the media.

There is no "justice" to be served in this particular case. He hasn't been serial raping children for years (I'll address the 16 y/o below) and no one in the US needs to be "protected" from this 76 y/o man because he hasn't lived here for over 30 years. DH's first concern has always been the safety of the public - ALWAYS. Justice is the DA's and the Judge's jurisdiction.

Insult my views all you want. But when you question my DH's honor and integrity, a man who puts his life on the line every single day to protect the people he's taken an oath to serve, you've gone too far.

Wrong. The story is a nice standby on a slow news days because it hits the easily tripped hot buttons of those who are so quickly and easily led by their emotions instead of their logic.

Exactly, but not surprising. Those who are rending their clothing and demanding blood nearly always take this POV. If you don't agree with them, you are wrong and are not making sense. It's almost not worth it to have a conversation with them because, until they grow, they won't see that there are always several sides to a story and "my" side (whoever "my" is) isnt always correct.

Congratulations. In the 30 year span of a 'pedophile's life, you found one 16 year old who says she was sexually abused by Polanski in 1985 or 1986 right before she starred in one of his films:

Sorry, but one medocre actress (who, at 16, perhaps had sex with a director to get a part) does not a pedophile make. I still maintain that if Polanski was a pedophile, there'd be a plethora of people who were abused as children by this man coming forward to help support the DA's case.

THIS is the crux of the matter, where many people's personal feelings are trumping the rights of the victim to live her life free of this kind of scandal. Polanski has not been proven to be a child molester and, so far, there have been no facts brought up to prove that has done it or has been doing it to any other child (the 16 y/o woman, who did a Playboy photo spread less than 10 years later, notwithstanding).

The whole thing smacks to me of a man who likes (or used to like) young women. While I cannot excuse the 13 y/o 30 years ago, I can say that a 16 y/o can easily give consent to enter into sexual relations. Many do every day. If she's now changing her mind, it's likely because even bad publicity is still free publicity.

Polanski is not a danger to society. The only thing served by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that the State of California doesn't have to 'bring him to justice' is a DA's run for office and a public's need for blood. I guess we, as a people, haven't evolved from the whole guillotine, hanging or burning people at the stake in the public square as I'd hoped we'd have by now.

Curious why you aren't counting 15 year old Natassja Kinski? He very definitely has a history of this sort of thing.

 

[undertheradar]

Interesting points but the bolded part particularly stood out to me. They decided that the original sentence was satisfied? Was he ever actually sentenced?

All I know is that he will likely never be back in the United States. All of the arguing in the world won't change that.

Polanski was serving 90 days in Chino State Prison for a psych evaluation. He was released after 42 days with the evaluation declaring that he would not be a repeat offendor. The judge did not like that Polanski was released before 90 days and the hearing that Polanski skipped was to send him back for the remainder of the 90 days. The Swiss court found that lacking trial transcripts that they requested from the US and the State of California, Polanski had served his sentence.

Honest, if the Swiss, French and Polish governments are fine with him, they can keep him!

 

[merryweather20]

Polanski was serving 90 days in Chino State Prison for a psych evaluation. He was released after 42 days with the evaluation declaring that he would not be a repeat offendor. The judge did not like that Polanski was released before 90 days and the hearing that Polanski skipped was to send him back for the remainder of the 90 days. The Swiss court found that lacking trial transcripts that they requested from the US and the State of California, Polanski had served his sentence.

Honest, if the Swiss, French and Polish governments are fine with him, they can keep him!

Have you not read the court documents? The psych evaluation was mandated because the victim was so very, very young. It was never a portion of the sentence.

It's very black and white in the court documents with the judge saying things like "you understand the court doesn't have to accept the plea bargain" Polanski saying yes. "You understand you could be deported, or serve jail time" Polanski saying yes.

 

[undertheradar]

Have you not read the court documents? The psych evaluation was mandated because the victim was so very, very young. It was never a portion of the sentence.

It's very black and white in the court documents with the judge saying things like "you understand the court doesn't have to accept the plea bargain" Polanski saying yes. "You understand you could be deported, or serve jail time" Polanski saying yes.

With the judge choosing to ignore the findings of the probation report and the presentencing psych evaluation. Had the judge followed the plea deal, we would not be debating a 33 year old case!

 

[FireDancer]

Have you not read the court documents? The psych evaluation was mandated because the victim was so very, very young. It was never a portion of the sentence.

Very very young? She was 16 not a toddler. Heck, in some states that is old enough to consent to sex. I'm not defending him since obviously in CA (at least at that time) she wasn't old enough but to describe her as "very very young" just isn't accurate.

 

[okeydokey]

Very very young? She was 16 not a toddler. Heck, in some states that is old enough to consent to sex. I'm not defending him since obviously in CA (at least at that time) she wasn't old enough but to describe her as "very very young" just isn't accurate.

She was 13 and she was drugged before she was raped. I don;t think a drugged 13 year old can consent.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

She was 13 and she was drugged before she was raped. I don;t think a drugged 13 year old can consent.

Yes.

Also, a drugged 16 yo can't consent to sex.

 

[FireDancer]

She was 13 and she was drugged before she was raped. I don;t think a drugged 13 year old can consent.

I thought she was 16, my mistake. I still wouldn't describe it as very very young (that makes it sound like a 5 or 6 year old to me) but that does make it a lot worse than 16. I'm not saying it wasn't completely wrong but don't see a reason to exaggerate either.

 

[sunnyday123]

I thought she was 16, my mistake. I still wouldn't describe it as very very young but that does make it a lot worse.

Wait until you have a daughter.

 

[okeydokey]

Wait until you have a daughter.

Amen. Mine is 12 and it makes me crazy that people think he should be allowed to just walk away from this.

 

[sunnyday123]

Amen. Mine is 12 and it makes me crazy that people think he should be allowed to just walk away from this.

I know logically I wouldn't have done anything, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the Sally Field movie, "An Eye for an Eye." Doubltfull he woudl've made it to a courtroom. I have too many Italian relatives in NYC.

 

[rie'smom]

I wonder how Polanski would have felt if CA let Charles Manson off the hook for killing his wife and baby? Maybe the state should release him. After all it's been 41 years. Can you imagine how much money CA has spent on both his incarceration and that of his followers?
I think to save money CA should let all the criminals go who have served 1 year. Who cares about justice? The state needs to save money.

 

[merryweather20]

I thought she was 16, my mistake. I still wouldn't describe it as very very young (that makes it sound like a 5 or 6 year old to me) but that does make it a lot worse than 16. I'm not saying it wasn't completely wrong but don't see a reason to exaggerate either.

The psych eval was required for small children, those 14 and under.

I'm not sure why anyone wants to sugar coat the rape of a child

 

[merryweather20]

With the judge choosing to ignore the findings of the probation report and the presentencing psych evaluation. Had the judge followed the plea deal, we would not be debating a 33 year old case!

As I said in my post the judge was not obligated to accept the deal and Polanski knew this.

I wonder how Polanski would have felt if CA let Charles Manson off the hook for killing his wife and baby? Maybe the state should release him. After all it's been 41 years. Can you imagine how much money CA has spent on both his incarceration and that of his followers?
I think to save money CA should let all the criminals go who have served 1 year. Who cares about justice? The state needs to save money.

I agree! After all Manson hasn't killed anyone in years! Its no big deal! No worse than say, drugging a small child and raping them, and then running from the law for decades.

 

[Magpie]

I was molested when I was 11. It went to court and the guy got off. The prosecutor told my mother there would be no point in appealing because I would be 13 by the time it got back into court and by then I'd have breasts, I wouldn't look like a child any more, and no one would believe I wasn't capable of consenting.

This was the early eighties, and people believed stuff like that back then. Heck, until recently Canada's age of consent was 14. And in Mexico the age of consent can be as low as 12.

FWIW, I was NOT permanently damaged by the experience. I am NOT living a life-long nightmare. I'm quite happy in my life, with a wonderful husband and two great kids, thank you very much.

And my personal sympathies are with the woman who was raped. I think that if she wants them to drop the prosecution, then they should drop it, and look into prosecuting him for something else. I hope to God they don't drag that poor woman into court to testify against her will.

As for "what if it was YOUR daughter"? MY 14 year old daughter wouldn't be spending the night in the company of any man more than twice her age, much less Roman Polanski. My daughter also wouldn't be palling around with Jack Nicholson, hanging out at his home, and going to Hollywood parties where people are drinking and doing drugs. This is pre-AIDs Seventies when drug use, alcohol use, and sexual activity was rampant!

Her parents had to have known exactly what was going to happen. They probably either encouraged it, or looked the other way, because they were seeing dollar signs over the child's head. Think 15yo Traci Lords, with her stepfather oh-so-helpfully providing her with a fake ID so she could star in porn films in the early 80s.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Honest, if the Swiss, French and Polish governments are fine with him, they can keep him!

I'll give an amen to that.

I don't think the guy's a saint or that he makes especially good movies. I liked The Pianist, but not because it was a Polanski film. The actors were good, the story was well told and I considered it to be a very good movie.

I don't condone what Polanski did 30+ years ago. But it happened, the courts had their chance and they screwed it up. What I say, what I have always said, is that I refuse...absolutely REFUSE...to contribute to the suffering of another human being. In this case it's Polanski's victim who has said time and time again that she just wants this old case dropped. It victimizes her all over again each time it's brought up.

Polanski hasn't proven himself to be a danger to our society. If/when God wants him punished for what he did to a 13 y/o girl, then God will punish him. Our chance to do so has passed and any further action in this case simply continues to hurt the victim, which I consider to be just as great, if not a greater, sin as the original act because the DA does this for his own glorification with full knowledge of how the victim feels about it.

 

[merryweather20]

I was molested when I was 11. It went to court and the guy got off. The prosecutor told my mother there would be no point in appealing because I would be 13 by the time it got back into court and by then I'd have breasts, I wouldn't look like a child any more, and no one would believe I wasn't capable of consenting.

This was the early eighties, and people believed stuff like that back then. Heck, until recently Canada's age of consent was 14. And in Mexico the age of consent can be as low as 12.

FWIW, I was NOT permanently damaged by the experience. I am NOT living a life-long nightmare. I'm quite happy in my life, with a wonderful husband and two great kids, thank you very much.

And my personal sympathies are with the woman who was raped. I think that if she wants them to drop the prosecution, then they should drop it, and look into prosecuting him for something else. I hope to God they don't drag that poor woman into court to testify against her will.

As for "what if it was YOUR daughter"? MY 14 year old daughter wouldn't be spending the night in the company of any man more than twice her age, much less Roman Polanski. My daughter also wouldn't be palling around with Jack Nicholson, hanging out at his home, and going to Hollywood parties where people are drinking and doing drugs. This is pre-AIDs Seventies when drug use, alcohol use, and sexual activity was rampant!

Her parents had to have known exactly what was going to happen. They probably either encouraged it, or looked the other way, because they were seeing dollar signs over the child's head. Think 15yo Traci Lords, with her stepfather oh-so-helpfully providing her with a fake ID so she could star in porn films in the early 80s.

This is perhaps the attitude that confuses me the most. I don't care what the conduct of the parent is, it does not permit or excuse the rape of a small child.

I can certainly see ringing the authorities, but rape? Its okay to drug and rape that child, because their mother isn't the best?

A normal human being would not be "partying" with children.

 

[Carly_Roach]

This is perhaps the attitude that confuses me the most. I don't care what the conduct of the parent is, it does not permit or excuse the rape of a small child.

I can certainly see ringing the authorities, but rape? Its okay to drug and rape that child, because their mother isn't the best?

A normal human being would not be "partying" with children.

It's likely confusing you because you're just not getting it or you're choosing not to listen. NO ONE HERE HAS SAID IT'S OK TO DRUG AND RAPE CHILDREN. I'm appalled that I even have to say that because I like to think that we're a pretty decent bunch here.

But you'll continue to be confused as long as you continue to engage in hyperbole. And if you read our posts about standing up for the victim's rights or questioning whether or not the money would be better spent elsewhere instead of on a lose/lose action taken in a bankrupt state and keep telling us that we're endorsing a pedophile's act of drugging and raping a small child (which is pretty insulting), then I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can say that will clear up your confusion.

 

[merryweather20]

It's likely confusing you because you're just not getting it or you're choosing not to listen. NO ONE HERE HAS SAID IT'S OK TO DRUG AND RAPE CHILDREN. I'm appalled that I even have to say that because I like to think that we're a pretty decent bunch here.

But you'll continue to be confused as long as you continue to engage in hyperbole. And if you read our posts about standing up for the victim's rights or questioning whether or not the money would be better spent elsewhere instead of on a lose/lose action taken in a bankrupt state and keep telling us that we're endorsing a pedophile's act of drugging and raping a small child (which is pretty insulting), then I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can say that will clear up your confusion.

They did indeed. Look at the post I quoted. In fact I bolded the appropriate section for you. It was OK, because the Mom did x y and z.

I'm not "engaging in hyperbole" I'm responding to a specific post. One that you apparently didn't read. If the other poster can sugar coat Polanski's crime, than I can reply and say it shouldn't be sugar coated.

I didn't discuss money or victim's rights in my post, because I was responding to a specific poster, and I conveniently bolded the part to which I was replying. Pretty simple really. I hope I helped "clear up your confusion".