News The Polanski dilemma

[Brad]

So as most of you are aware, Roman Polanski was arrested on an outstanding arrest warrant from the LA District Attorneys office for the rape of a 13 year old girl that occured some 30 + years ago.

I am curious, since we have a large international community here, what your thoughts are on this subject and why.

 

[replicant]

It's about time. 13 is unacceptable.


By the way, it strikes me that to call this a dilemna is a misnomer. A dilemna is a situation where one is presented with two or more decisions and none are good. One of the decisions is great, the one about finally extraditing him. I don't think this counts as a true dilemna.

 

[Ark]

I don't really care. I don't see her running through the talk show circuit crying about how 30 years later she's still scarred by having consensual (if drunken) sex with some creepy old guy. In fact, it's just the opposite, she's calling for the case to be dropped. I don't see the point in a witchhunt when the "victim" makes no claim of being victimized, that assertion is being made by people who are completely uninvolved.

 

[tblaxland]

My thoughts are that armchair justice is a dangerous game to be playing...

 

[Moonwalker]

The victim, Sam Gailey, officially asks to stop the lawsuit. She has totally forgiven. The only offence that remains is based on legislation.

But I personally don't feel sorry for Polanski. He is a person, bound on laws and responsibility, than anybody else. He should have known that in his case having sex with a 13 year old girl is not only prohibited by legislation, but also by common sense, especially in case he was taking advantage of his dominance/the situation so that it did not happen mutual. I'm sure that these days it actually happens quite often that younger girls having sex with older guys, but mutual, which is why nobody talks about it. In such cases I don't see an offence. But in case of Polanski it obviously was an offence, especially because he really was quite an old man already. The age difference just was too enormous. When I was 17 I had a girlfriend who was 13 as well. But it's an age difference which I think is still acceptable, especially because I can tell that I was not the one who took the "initiative"...

I say that the usual proceed should be applied to Polanski. Don't make it a difference just because he is Polanski and a great artist.

 

[Shadow Addict]

The victim has forgiven him and wants it to be dropped. He committed this crime over 30 years ago, and hasn't committed a crime since. If the victim doesn't care after all this time, why should anybody else?

(I know this isn't how the real world works, but that's my opinion.)

 

[Ghostrider]

The law doesn't really - and shouldn't really - care about the victim forgiving or not, and with good reason. In most nations, with penal proceedings once the machine is working it will not stop. Even if the victim decides not to pursue, the state will. There are very valid motives to do that, because the victim could otherwise be bullied, bought or threatened into withdrawing accusations which would mean justice would become even more of a joke than it is now.
Right now it's not the rape accusation that Polanski must fear the most, but the fact that he fled to avoid trial. Courts do not like that one bit.

 

[Urwumpe]

Right now it's not the rape accusation that Polanski must fear the most, but the fact that he fled to avoid trial. Courts do not like that one bit.

Exactly. You can get away with rape (otherwise, a few million males in the world would have to fear the worst, since sexual violence is pretty mainstream since primordial times), but running away, that makes things complicated.

 

[Brad]

The law doesn't really - and shouldn't really - care about the victim forgiving or not, and with good reason. In most nations, with penal proceedings once the machine is working it will not stop. Even if the victim decides not to pursue, the state will. There are very valid motives to do that, because the victim could otherwise be bullied, bought or threatened into withdrawing accusations which would mean justice would become even more of a joke than it is now.
Right now it's not the rape accusation that Polanski must fear the most, but the fact that he fled to avoid trial. Courts do not like that one bit.

:goodposting:

I think you nailed this right on the head. It isn't so much a "Statue of Limitations" issue, its more that he ran after he was convicted and was awaiting sentencing. From what I was reading Polanski got wind that his sentence was going to be a long one, hence he bolted from the US to France. (Wondering if a US citizen raped a French girl would the US shelter him for 30+ years?)

At any rate, it is time for Polanski to pay the piper. If I was him, I'd say my goodbye, because to be honest, if he does get extradited to the US, he won't see the light of day again. He'll probably get a life sentence.

 

[replicant]

Precisely. The law must apply to everyone, or it means nothing.

 

[Urwumpe]

And even more important: It would be a very bad world, if the criminals could choose their own punishment...

 

[fort]

And even more important: It would be a very bad world, if the criminals could choose their own punishment...

This deserves consideration.

Insofar as the crime is an act to which we are all touchy, to varying degrees, to succumb, in mandating, by our votes, our representatives to make laws, including those punishing crime, we choose ourselves awards which we may be submitted tomorrow.It is not sure that we do so in full knowledge of the facts but it is nevertheless what everyone does.

 

[Kyle]

Almost had a cardiac arrest when I read the title, I though 'No! What did Mark Polansky do!?!?!' then I remembered Roman Polanski (which ironically, Marks callsign is 'Roman')

 

[Ghostrider]

The way I see it, it's no legal dilemma at all. The law is pretty clear. I personally think it's shameful to see how many in the industry are clamouring for his release because he's an Academy Award recipient and all. I guess that had he been a janitor, he would have had no sympathy anywhere. So, as far as I'm concerned he's got to face the consequences of his actions like we all do.

However, more than a legal dilemma this is a diplomatic dilemma: the US want him extradited (not all of them, Hollywood is ready to forgive anything as long as you're marketable) but France and Poland want his release. I expect France to put a lot of pressure on the Swiss government (and we all know that the Swiss government couldn't fight effectively against a tetraplegic snail) to have him released to the loving arms of teh Republic. Personally I think that in Bern everybody is praying that he'll be given house arrests in his chalet at Gstaad, from where he'll discreetly flee across the border - it's about 2 hours from there. Some poor unnamed cop will take the blame and everybody will be happy.

 

[Brad]

the Swiss government couldn't fight effectively against a tetraplegic snail.....

:lol: I thought the Swiss Army was actually pretty good.

 

[Ghostrider]

:lol: I thought the Swiss Army was actually pretty good.

The Army, yes. The government is another matter. In fact, our defence minister credited the Army's rank and file for making do and keeping ready and mission-capable despite the civilian authorities' constant meddling.

 

[Brad]

It seems the drama gets better and better with this one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/polanski.prosecutor.admits.lie/index.html

 

[Moonwalker]

"I am astonished that he has now changed his story," Marina Zenovich, the documentary's director, said in an e-mailed statement. "It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens."

Journalists are not the god of all truths. I've seen many documentaries with some failures and wrong allegations in it. Guess how many failures we don't find because somebody is talking about something we have no clue of...

Another good example today happened in a German program. They showed an old Chinese woman which was blinded. It was told that she is a victim of spying by the Chinese government, by at least 8 agents. Well, I wonder how a blinded person knows that. But allegedly her neighbours told her that. Aha. And where were those agents when the German journalists visited her at home and did an interview? Did those agents "hide" from the German journalists?

What I'm trying to say is that anybody can tell and claim almost everything. As long as its interesting and sensation, journalists will broadcast it anyway. Think about the fake Hitler Diaries, published by the German Stern magazine in the early 1980's. Just one famous example. Most peanuts nonense we won't ever know...

 

[cjp]

My thoughts are that armchair justice is a dangerous game to be playing...

:goodposting:

For the rest:
It used to be (I don't know if it's still the case) that in the Netherlands, escaping from a prison is not a crime. So if you escaped, and caught, you'd need to spend the rest of your sentence, but no extra penalty. This way, the law shows respect for the desire for freedom that's in all of us. Because all (or most) of us would have escaped if in the opportunity, it would be unreasonable to punish someone else for doing so.

I think the escape to France can be compared to the escaping from a prison.

When it comes to the crime of having sex with children, I think public opinion is way too much based on opinion instead of rational arguments. It's often based on "it's disgusting, so it should be punished". But guess what: a lot of sexual activities, which are now accepted, or at least legal, in the western world, like homosexuality, used to be judged like that. I think we should recognize that what is disgusting is in the end a matter of taste, and should not be a matter of law.

Having said that, I have to add that there are good reasons to restrict sex with children. But, as far as I can see, there are already more generic laws that cover these reasons (e.g. rape is not allowed). It should be judged whether these reasons apply to the Polanski case.

But it's not up to me to judge that.

 

[SiberianTiger]

When it comes to the crime of having sex with children, I think public opinion is way too much based on opinion instead of rational arguments. It's often based on "it's disgusting, so it should be punished". But guess what: a lot of sexual activities, which are now accepted, or at least legal, in the western world, like homosexuality, used to be judged like that. I think we should recognize that what is disgusting is in the end a matter of taste, and should not be a matter of law.

Gladiator fights has also been suffering of bad public opinion over approximately the last 1,500 years. I believe the western world should recognize that opinion is just a matter of taste and reinstate that brave tradition. Um, what? Do you say people get violated and murdered in process? But that's just someone's opinion!