Roman Polanski

[CHAOTROPIC]

Not at all! But I wanted to put in the correct word for what we're talking about because paedophile usually gets used in the absence of knowledge of the word for heebies, and Polanksi isn't a paedophile. I get kinda pedantic around it.

I wouldn't have known the term myself unless Chaotropic hadn't told me one day, and I never forgot it.

Yeah, it goes: pedophile (kids), hebophile (early teens), ephebophile (mid to late teens), gerontophile (Irish physicians).

Dunno what the word is for fancying babies. Is there a word for fancying babies??

 

[mistersloane]

Yeah, it goes: pedophile (kids), hebophile (early teens), ephebophile (mid to late teens), gerontophile (Irish physicians).

Dunno what the word is for fancying babies. Is there a word for fancying babies??

foetophile? I think that's a bit earlier in the developmental stages though.

 

[nomadthethird]

Rape is a crime against the state, not just the individual. She has no say.

Really? In stat rape cases usually charges need not be formally "pressed" by the victim his/herself, but can be pressed by the state or the parents on behalf of the victim. Statuatory rape charges are actually sexist though in more ways than one, wildly so, and I think they need some serious revision.

Otherwise, rape is not a crime against the state, it's a crime against people/a person. I think as an adult, I should get to decide when I've been raped, or when I want to press charges for rape (because pressing charges is hardly always a straightforwardly "good" thing for the victim)...

 

[nomadthethird]

But R Kelly is still roaming around free as a bird isn't he? Which, come to think of it, means he has no excuse for not releasing the next part of Trapped In The Closet - so where is it?

R Kelly had a good case, though.

 

[crackerjack]

Really? In stat rape cases usually charges need not be formally "pressed" by the victim his/herself, but can be pressed by the state or the parents on behalf of the victim. Statuatory rape charges are actually sexist though in more ways than one, wildly so, and I think they need some serious revision.

Otherwise, rape is not a crime against the state, it's a crime against people/a person. I think as an adult, I should get to decide when I've been raped, or when I want to press charges for rape (because pressing charges is hardly always a straightforwardly "good" thing for the victim)...

Sure it might not be "good" for the victim, but anything else produces a situation where the rich can commit rape and buy immunity.

 

[nomadthethird]

Sure it might not be "good" for the victim, but anything else produces a situation where the rich can commit rape and buy immunity.

The rich can already buy immunity to most crimes because they can afford the best legal representation. It doesn't matter whether you force women to press charges--which you can't do, since unless a woman presses charges or gets a rape kit done in the first place, how will the authorities know a rape occurred?

Anyway what about the black men who get wrongfully accused of rape every day? What about the hundreds of men who were convicted of rape who've been exonerated by DNA evidence since (most of them black or ethnic minorities)?

The whole angry mob with a pitchfork thing is sort of...eh...emotional and doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

[crackerjack]

The rich can already buy immunity to most crimes because they can afford the best legal representation.

So why make it easier for them? The idea that justice belongs solely to the victim is a very dangerous principle IMO.

Anyway what about the black men who get wrongfully accused of rape every day? What about the hundreds of men who were convicted of rape who've been exonerated by DNA evidence since (most of them black or ethnic minorities)?

You've lost me here. How is this relevant?

 

[you]

Has anyone seen the documentary about the trial? I can only faintly recall it, however I cant help but feel that if the judge had acted in the interested of justice ( and not his own thirst for notoriety ) -there were a few comments recalling how the judge felt he could further his career by making an example of polanski - then the plea bargain would have gone through and polanski wouldnt have felt the need to run away to europe and justice would have been served, a punishment given and taken.

I dont understand the issues people have with the time lapsed since the crime or the fact that the victim has since forgiven him. Nazi's are still being hunted.

There is something odd about the whole thing. Has polanksi pissed off the freemasons? Its strange that after years of owning a house in switzerland, with years of opportunities to catch him, it suddenly occurs now...

That said, the man committed a crime. So he has to be punished. Thats life. like.... innit?

 

[baboon2004]

I dont understand the issues people have with the time lapsed since the crime or the fact that the victim has since forgiven him. Nazi's are still being hunted.

On this note, did anyone see the recent BBC documentary about meeting with the most wanted living Nazis? naturally one was in Austria, and one in Budapest. Very interesting subject, but shockingly uncombative on the part of the interviewers, to the point that it was very uncomfortable viewing.

 

[mistersloane]

There is something odd about the whole thing. Has polanksi pissed off the freemasons? Its strange that after years of owning a house in switzerland, with years of opportunities to catch him, it suddenly occurs now...

Word down the pub is that he got taken out cos his imminent film about Blair and Iraq; i.e. he was getting a bit political so he had to go.

 

[scottdisco]

did anyone call bush a nazi? i think people had perfectly valid criticisms of bush that simply don't apply to obama at this stage.

yeah a lot of people actually.

i also think a lot of criticisms of Bush were very valid and you'll see me on the GOP thread in Politics rightly joining the chorus of all disgusted w the dicks currently attacking Obama, but, for the purposes of a little cut and thrust message board banter, the point stands

the below is from the Wiki. (so caveats abound re accuracy but i'm taking it as accurate for now.)
he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge (his plea bargain got rid of the worst stuff), and got released from a psych-eval after forty-two days. then he went on the lam.

Polanski was initially charged[43] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[44]
Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[45] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.
Polanski fled initially to London on February 1, 1978, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens, and an extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government could have requested that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities.[46] Polanski has never returned to England, and later sold his home there. The United States could still request the arrest and extradition of Polanski from other countries should he visit them, and Polanski avoided visits to countries (such as the UK) that were likely to extradite him and mostly travelled and works in France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland.

so, bottom line, he got away with it. but hey he's made some great films.

Normblog (i know a lot of us don't like Norman Geras, but the following point seems very fair) has a fine reflection on something the Holocaust can teach about the statute of limitations

P.S.
his lawyer at the time was probably quite good. i mean, unlawful sexual intercourse w a minor. that almost makes it sound as if he's a 16 y o lad sleeping w a 15 yo girl or something..

 

[nomadthethird]

So why make it easier for them? The idea that justice belongs solely to the victim is a very dangerous principle IMO.





You've lost me here. How is this relevant?

It's relevant because you're making an argument from an ideal world that doesn't exist and can't--it's a common emotionalist sort of argument.

Rapes happen. Wo/men can choose to report these to the authorities or not. Based on these reports, it's often the case that the authorities themselves suggest to the victims that pressing charges is simply not worth it--especially if the authorities cannot build a strong case. The sad fact of the matter is that it can be very difficult to convict a white, middle class man of rape. It can be very difficult with forensic evidence, but without any, there's no hope whatsoever. (Unless he's black/latino, she's white and middle class, and it's stranger rape/home invasion. Those are the open and shut cases.)

In the former sort of situation, all that happens if the victim presses charges is s/he gets dragged through a lengthy, difficult process that costs time, money, and energy; s/he is also forced to "come out" as a rape victim in public, which has serious costs socially. What is the point of wasting all of that time, not to mention tax payer money, potentially ruining a victim's life and psychological health just so the damn rapist can get away with it anyway? In cases that will be difficult or impossible to prove in court, especially where child molestation/rape is involved, many experts would recommend that charges not be pressed.

But anyway, the fact that THOUSANDS of black men have been exonerated from death row/lengthy prison sentences is relevant because when "the State" is allowed to go willy nilly prosecuting whomever they please for whatever "crime" they imagine has occurred, power is inevitably abused and you end up with a bunch of innocent ethnic minorities in jail. We had these in the U.S., they were called lynch mobs. It's already been scientifically proven that white people have a very difficult time "identifying" non-whites in line ups, etc. So as far as most legal experts are concerned, eyewitness testimony is basically on its way out as a valid form of legal evidence...

 

[nomadthethird]

We also have this thing called "double jeopardy" here...so if you're found innocent, you can't be retried. So it's best to wait until a very strong case can be built against a rapist, so he can actually be put in jail, instead of trying him prematurely when he's going to get acquitted and let off each time.

It would be nice, I suppose, if we had a neutral entity called "the State" that could fly around mediating every legal problem without creating more social injustice in the process...but we don't.

 

[crackerjack]

It's relevant because you're making an argument from an ideal world that doesn't exist and can't--it's a common emotionalist sort of argument.

You're using the institutional racism of the legal system to defend a rich white man from drugging and raping an underage girl. But I'm the emotionalist. Uh huh

I don't have faith in an ideal state. I just think what we have is a better defence against crime than this kind of baby-with-the-bathwater nihilism.

She called rape. Isms and ists don't come into it.

 

[nomadthethird]

WTF. I did not defend anyone.

What are you talking about?

I think Polanski should be extradited and serve his sentence.

What I took issue with was your claim that the State has a right to force people to press charges in presumed cases of "rape"...

 

[IdleRich]

"We also have this thing called "double jeopardy" here...so if you're found innocent, you can't be retried. So it's best to wait until a very strong case can be built against a rapist, so he can actually be put in jail, instead of trying him prematurely when he's going to get acquitted and let off each time."

Had that here until, I don't know, last year. Up until then you could walk out of the trial after being found not guilty and then merrily own up, or worse, write a book about how you committed the crime with no fear of being re-tried. I'm not sure how people who did that are affected by the removal of the double jeopardy law.

 

[crackerjack]

I think Polanski should be extradited and serve his sentence.

OK, fair enough, apologies if I misconstrued, but that's the first time you've said that and you were talking about pitchforks...

What I took issue with was your claim that the State has a right to force people to press charges in presumed cases of "rape"...

But presumably it's not the victim pressing charges, but the State?

 

[nomadthethird]

Had that here until, I don't know, last year. Up until then you could walk out of the trial after being found not guilty and then merrily own up, or worse, write a book about how you committed the crime with no fear of being re-tried. I'm not sure how people who did that are affected by the removal of the double jeopardy law.

Is this a joke or are you serious?

O.J. tried to write that book, but it never flew.

There's a law here about how you can't profit from your crimes that's supposed to keep convicts from selling novels and merching the shit out of their "bad luck"...only works if you get convicted though.

 

[nomadthethird]

But presumably it's not the victim pressing charges, but the State?

Right, but here's the issue--the victim has rights, too, and those need protecting. Just like the accused has rights. I get wary of this idea that the State should be able to overstep certain rights not because I think government is bad, but because if you look at the states that exist, they have pretty terrible track records when it comes to social injustice. Extending the power of the State legally usually means that you will increase the net social injustice in the world, instead of decreasing it.

I understand where you're coming from and I'd probably agree on a really broad theoretical level, it just ends up being a little bit too simplistic a theory to account for the more complicated/complex reality of rape cases. Just knowing enough rape victims personally makes me wary of saying anything too strong about how every case should go to trial. Were the state to step in and force some of them through the legal system, that would essentially be a sort of "re-victimization" or second rape of sorts...a serious trigger...and without a strong case, a complete waste of time...

 

[crackerjack]

Is this a joke or are you serious?

It could be done in theory, though I don't think anyone ever put it to the test?

They'd almost certainly be hit by a civil prosecution, which would sequester any earnings from life story product.

But double jeopardy was considered an important principle (and the basis for this Agatha Christie book/film) until they just decided it wasn't, and junked it. Was it cos of the Stephen Lawrence case?