Polanski

[BarTopDancer]

If you haven't heard by now, Roman Polanski has been detained by Swiss police in conjunction with the warrant here in the US.

Why now? He's been a fugitive for 30+ years, traveling freely through most of Europe even in and out of Switzerland (and aren't they supposed to be neutral?).

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, he was convicted and ran. If it was anyone else (not someone famous) they would have been caught/extradited long ago.

On the other hand, the charges of impropriety during the trial and the victim herself saying let the case drop because she doesn't want to deal with the media attention on her and her family... even if the case is dropped the media attention will never go away.

Thoughts?

[Alex]

No, the fact he was extradited from France was not due to his fame. It was due to his French citizenship. France does not extradite citizens.

As for why now, probably because someone was paying enough attention and pulled the correct levers to get Switzerland to do something when next he entered the country (Switzerland's "neutrality" is not of a form that includes granting asylums to accused criminals, it simply means that they refuse to participate in any outside war).

My view is that he got screwed (bad pun unintended) in the '70s when he reached an extremely lenient plea agreement and the judge decided he would not go along with it (whether that decision was for good or bad reasons I believe it is is entirely within his purview to reject plea agreements). At that point, Polanski should have revoked his guilty plea and gone to trial or negotiated a new plea acceptable to the judge.

Running was the wrong decision. Most of what has happened since is his fault for doing so. Should it be a priority case? Not really, but then I doubt it took much effort. You don't get to choose the life of a fugitive and then say that the stress of having been a fugitive was punishment enough.

I have no real strong feelings on how strongly he should be punished at this point for the original rape but as a matter of precedent it shouldn't be dropped simply because he successfully ran away for long enough.

[katiesue]

I read something yesterday to the effect that it was his own lawyers who kind of started this. They'd pointed out that the warrant has been out there for years and no one has ever acted on it - so they did.

[BarTopDancer]

I don't think it should be dropped because he ran away for long enough, or that the stress of living as a fugitive was punishment enough. That was his choice to make.

I do think that consideration should be given to the victim and what she wants, since she is going to be dragged through the media again.

I heard something - and I don't know how true it is, but that his lawyers tried to get the case dismissed brought the spotlight back on it prompting the action.

It seems odd that he was up for an award, in a country that he's been to many times, and had residence in is arresting him *now* instead of years ago.

[Strangler Lewis]

Now that the Swiss are giving us Polanski, maybe we'll ease up on the pressure for them to make their banks open their books.

[Alex]

Yeah, I'm sure the Department of Justice will soften up because Switzerland helped the Los Angeles district attorney.

But stranger things have happened, I suppose.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

I thought that after that HBO special on Polanski there was a move to dismiss the charges for a number of reasons including the victim's disinterest in pursuing any charges. But, and this is IF I remember this right, Polanski had to actually come HERE for this move to take effect. If he came here he would be arrested for jumping bail..and so on and so on.

I can argue both sides of this one with myself at this point.

[Alex]

Yes, the judge who reviewed the recent case for dismissal said he was troubled by aspects of the original judge's behavior but that to rule on the issue, Polanski would have to appear in court.

Which, obviously, he was unwilling to do unless he knew beforehand the outcome.

[BarTopDancer]

Yeah, I'm sure the Department of Justice will soften up because Switzerland helped the Los Angeles district attorney.

Of course the DoJ will soften its stance. You know the USA revolves around supporting and promoting celebrities and their antics. Duh!

This is being set up for the next reality TV show: Celebrity Fugitive.

[RStar]

This case aside, it's interesting what people will do for a few moments of sexual pleasure. His whole life was [drastically altered/ruined] because of that few minutes.

[BarTopDancer]

Yes, it was statuatory rape, but was it consensual (as in she didn't say no)?*

Not that there is anything acceptable with a man having sex with a 13 year old (or really, any 13 year old having sex period). Just curious.

*I could look up the case details but I'm at work and don't really want to be Googling that here. I can do it when I am home but I am curious now ;)

[mousepod]

He allegedly gave her alcohol and drugs, so the consensual aspect wouldn't really apply.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, i knew plenty of 13 year-olds who had sex at that age. And I was two of them!




And there were plenty of alcohol and drugs involved, if you must know.

[Stan4dSteph]

In addition, the victim reported saying no several times, then stopped.

He should go to trial and receive punishment as deemed by the court.

[Alex]

He pled down to unlawful sex with a minor. The original charges (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/polanski/capolanski31977ind.html) (which he'd have gone to trial on if he hadn't plead down to lesser charges or rejected the deal instead of fleeing jurisdiction were:

1. Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. He gave her quaaludes.
2. Lewd or lascivious act upon a child under fourteen. He touched her in illegal ways even if he didn't have sex with her.
3. Unlawful sexual intercourse. He also had sex with her.
4. Rape by use of drugs. Even if she were old enough to consent he rendered her incapable by giving her booze and quaaludes.
5. Perversion. He performed oral sex on her. Ok, not a crime in itself these days but she was unwilling and 13.
6. Sodomy. He performed anal sex on her. Ok, not a crime in itself these days but she was unwilling and 13.

Whether one feels that time has ameliorated things somewhat or that Polanski was mistreated by the original judge, it is very much worth keeping in mind that he did an awful thing. That he has not denied doing the awful thing, and that he hasn't ever really expressed remorse so much for having done an awful thing as for how the awful thing has ruined his life.

She was in no way a willing participant in what happened to her. And even if she had been, she was of an age almost universally regarded as being incapable of giving consent to a 44 year old man.

[Not Afraid]

I think all perverts should go to jail. We would all have a pretty good time together.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I'm not defending anyone, but did he know she was 13 at the time? Was it obvious to all that she was underage?

(not that that absolves him of anything, since he drugged her)

[BarTopDancer]

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

I really didn't know if she was all for it and then he got nailed by statuatory laws or what actually went down. I also didn't know about the drugs.

I hope my previous posts didn't sound like I was condoning his behavior. This case isn't something I've followed closely in the past, but it's all over the news now and it doesn't involve missiles coming from Iran so I'm paying a bit more attention to it.

Since the victim is going to be in the media spotlight regardless of what he does he should serve his sentence.

[Alex]

Yes, he knew she was underage even if he didn't know she was 13. She was not a virgin and she had done drugs and alcohol before (but claims not at the same time).

And even if he didn't, the victim at the time testified to the grand jury (you can read it here (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html)) that he refused to stop at her request. So even if she had been 44 as well it would have been rape.

Here's a recap of her grand jury testimony. Never really been denied and worth keeping in mind when deciding how much sympathy he deserves.

Spoiler in case you don't want to read it.


First session he took photos of her topless. She was uncomfortable enough with this that she didn't want to do it again but not so much that she protested, refused, or told anyone. But when he asked her again she did go. First to a house with other people, then to Jack Nicholson's house where the one woman present left shortly after they arrived.

She did not protest when he gave her champagne. He had her pose topless again. He then gave her part of a Quaalude after calling her mother to say he'd be bring her back late. She did not protest the Quaalude. By this time she's down to just her panties.

He then asked her to pose for him in a jacuzzi, completely nude. She still hasn't yet protested. She's still drinking champagne as well.

He then said it was too dark for photographs. So he got naked and joined her in the jacuzzi. This is when she starts to protest. She moves to the opposite side and he tells her to come over to him.

She says no, lies that she has asthma and needs to get out. Finally he coaxes her over and he puts his arm around her waist. She finally gets out.

He moves to the larger swimming pool and coaxes her into that as well though she quickly exists and goes to a bathroom to dry off and dress.

He follows her. She asks to be taken home so she can take her asthma medicine (lying). He demurs. She says she wants to go right now. He tells her to go into the other room and lie down.

At this point she says she is afraid of him and really wants to go home. She refused to go into the bedroom and goes into the living instead. He follows, she's still in just underwear.

She asks to be taken home again. Instead he kisses her. She tells him to keep away. She says she asks again to go home, she's afraid and realizing they're alone. He then performs "cuddliness" on her (the word in the transcript), meaning cunnilingus. She says while he is doing this she is saying "No. Come on. Stop it." She doesn't know what he says at this point. She was blocking him out.

He then began vaginal intercourse. She again says "No, stop" but says she wasn't fighting hard because she was alone and had nowhere to go. He asks about her period, when she says it was a week or so earlier he then asks if he should perform anal sex instead.

She says she said no. But he did it anyway.

Then someone came to the house. He stopped to deal with that person. She took advantage of that to start getting dressed again but he returned, resumed sex and ejaculated.

She then dresses, leaves the house and sits in the car crying until he came out and took her home.


So, even if she had been legal, was she raped? I'd say by most definitions, yes.

[Gemini Cricket]

Since Halloween is coming up, I want to watch Rosemary's Baby.

Hmm. He raped a 13 year old. Yeah, I'm thinking he should go to jail for that.

[Gemini Cricket]

Filmmakers are demanding Polanski's release. I don't agree with them.

Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/index.html)

[wendybeth]

I'm sure Woody should be able to effect his immediate release.:rolleyes:

[€uroMeinke]

I still hope he beats extradition