How do you feel about Roman Polanski?

[Amelia G]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind... with the exception of the last sighted man on earth who is smart enough to realize that when he cuts out the eyes of the 2nd to last person there is no one left to inflict the punishment upon him.

I believe that expression goes: "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king."

Take that moralistic rhetoric!

Thanks for that.

[Amelia G]

Well, that depends.

In an abstract sense, we designate certain things as crimes, and punish people who commit them, because we believe those acts represent a harm to society.

In that light, I don't think it's unreasonable to factor in the positive contribution the criminal made or makes to society.

In the case of most folks, however, their contribution is of limited magnitude, so they're effectively a baseline citizen.

Maybe I'd have a different view if I really loved his work, but I find it hard to believe that so many people are such huge fans of a guy who barely even made any movies in English. I enjoyed Chinatown, but it is hardly high art.

The photo assignment this happened on was one where Roman Polanski was so known for liking the young stuff that he was assigned to shoot a story on wild sexy youth. I realize it was the 70's, but, if a man who can give a thirteen-year-old glamourous fame plies her with champagne and qualuudes and attention and she still says no, then that is seriously a case of no means no. If he puts it in her ass anyway after that, he is in the wrong. I can't even believe whether he is in the wrong is something that say the LA Times can debate. I don't care if the 70's were a different time. To me, there is no time when anal **** of drugged 8th graders is okay.

I think our laws about sex with minors may be overly draconian and prudish. I was thoroughly capable of saying no when I was say 14, so I think, had I wanted to say yes, I was capable of doing so.

But force is force. Given Polanski's history before and after the incident and the nature of the crime, this probably was not the only time he ***** a young girl either, just the only time he got caught.

All that said, I think my state can save some money in its budget by just letting Polanski stay in France. We do not need to extradite or incarcerate him. What if he gets released in California? We don't need the expense or any more sexual predators, thanks. The notion that anyone thinks Polanski should get to come back to America, at least for awards ceremonies, suggests that people think a textbook sexual predator should get a pass because he made some movies. And I just don't think he contributed enough to society for that to be a-ok.

[macslut]

Have you ever heard of anyone getting 50 years for unlawful sex with a minor? If that were true, our neighborhoods wouldn't be littered with sex offenders.

Well it was up to 50 years under common law meaning that in fact a sentence of 50 years had been given elsewhere. It's currently 48 months as a maximum.

But whatever the maximum is, that's the upper bound with which to fear while hoping for the minimum. In other words if he faced up to 30 days in jail, it wouldn't have been a big deal since getting less than that is pretty much not doing real time. If on the other hand a crime has the death penalty associated with it, you're not going to expect a small fine and a few hours of community service.

According to the Associated Press, the typical sentence back then was 16 to 36 months.

Being a famous "child molester" in prison for that long could easily have been perceived by him as a death sentence, thus the incentive to flee where he'd live free in France living the good life, making films, marrying an even younger woman, getting awards and recognition, and incorrectly thinking he wouldn't be pursued after 30 years.

[Wickedanima]

Well, that depends.

In an abstract sense, we designate certain things as crimes, and punish people who commit them, because we believe those acts represent a harm to society.

In that light, I don't think it's unreasonable to factor in the positive contribution the criminal made or makes to society.

In the case of most folks, however, their contribution is of limited magnitude, so they're effectively a baseline citizen.

Sorry, as much as I love the movies, no film-maker, no matter how great, should be let off a crime just because someone thinks his movies are great.

You are getting into an extremely murky grey area that involves elevating the rules according to someone's supposed contribution to society.

What you contribute isn't the point. The point is Polanski has a buttload of rich important people pulling for him. If this was yon normal poor person who'd actually contributed a great deal of society, their actions would not be taken into consideration, only their crime.

Also btw, its down right redonkulous to intimate that Polanski is somehow more than a citizen because he made some flicks.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I think part of the problem is all of the assumptions about what polanski did or did not do.

We know he had sex with a 13 year old girl. If you say he should be punished for that in and of itself, well you are right.

We don't know that he forcibly drugged and ***** the girl. He was accused of that, he said he did not. If you want him punished for that, and a lot of people do, then you may be hanging an innocent man. There is, especially 30 years later, a tremendous lack of evidence. there were no witnesses and the report was made 2 weeks after the fact. Whether polanski was 100% guilty or 100% innocent, there are reasons for the plea bargain.

That is why I give Chris Rock's and Whoopie's opinions little merit. They are based on what these people believe about the case, but they are presented as fact.

[Amelia G]

I think part of the problem is all of the assumptions about what polanski did or did not do.

Read the testimony and tell me you think there is a shadow of a doubt. Heck, tell me what part you think he denied. He didn't plead not guilty; he plead to a lesser charge.

[Amelia G]

Sorry, as much as I love the movies, no film-maker, no matter how great, should be let off a crime just because someone thinks his movies are great.

You are getting into an extremely murky grey area that involves elevating the rules according to someone's supposed contribution to society.

What you contribute isn't the point. The point is Polanski has a buttload of rich important people pulling for him. If this was yon normal poor person who'd actually contributed a great deal of society, their actions would not be taken into consideration, only their crime.

Also btw, its down right redonkulous to intimate that Polanski is somehow more than a citizen because he made some flicks.

I agree that Polanski's contribution is insufficiently fabulous, but, just for the sake of discussion, what could someone contribute which would be big enough to be extenuating while being both poor and unknown?

[Raza]

So what's your answer to the problem?

I understand this old guy's interest in young girls.
Assuming she's attractive, sexually mature, etc.

But when the girl says NO, and does not want it, and you do it anyhow, that's ****, and it's not cool if the woman is any age, but we generally consider it worse if it's a minor. So if someone like Polanski forces sex on a 13 year old girl, what do you do? You don't want to punish him, right?

So what is your answer?

Well, you can't set one universal response to every case characterised by the same labeled 'crimes', for starters. You need to view the case in psychological depth and decide what's a reasonable measure to stop it happening again.

I mean, the guy was drunk and drugged - I've no experience with the pill thing he took, but enough alcohol and another downer is a pretty intense mind fog. I'm pretty sociopathic, but even I experience sex as awkward and un-fun when somebody's clearly not in to it, even with drugs and exceptional horniness involved. From the court transcript, it sounded more like he was kind of oblivious to the information than that he really placed himself in a violent predator's role. Sounds like something was clouding his mind big-time.

I also know the rationale of what little internal culture pedosexuals, ephebosexuals and the few other people that are critical of of age-discriminating sexual morality share quite well, and none of it would OK the apparent events of this guy's story. It's really not likely that he thinks that what he did was fine, not unless he's capable of believing it without any external validation or fueling it with strong mysogyny or a similar hate of children or the girl in question. No signs of that.

So my take is that he would not have acted that way without the sedatives, and that he probably didn't intend for the sedatives to allow him do that either. My bet is that he just wanted to shoot some half-naked pics of the girl to feel naughty, and got lost on where to stop down that road because of the drink and drugs. Of course, he's responsible for having taken those sedatives - but if you approach the issue with the question of what needs to be done to stop him repeating himself, rather than whether or how much he 'needs to be punished', the fact that he probably wouldn't do it without drugs does make the matter a lot simpler.

So. What needs to happen is for him to want to not put himself in that kind of position again. After sobering up he probably already blamed himself a little before any of it even got out, but lessons can kind of pass you by if you get off too easily. So rub it in, make the event memorable. Not in an 'external force punishing you' sense where you come to resent the people doing it to you, but in a personal sense where he knows he's suffering from his own mistakes.

So (and by my standards, this is already pretty cruel) publicize it. Make him give the girl most of his money, maybe (but please not so much that she'll be hawked by charities reminding her of the presumed horrors she went through and how well they could use her money to stop this happening to others) - this is trivial, but if you have a sitting I suppose you should have a verdict, and at least the girl gets something out of this.
All of you complaining about how he's getting undeserved support for having made good movies are, I think, caught up on one side of a very double edged story. You don't know what people get like when they hold you responsible for the sexual violation of Children, or what they consider that to be - I've seen a little of it, if only for criticising their views. It's the single worst stigma possible in todays' world, with a tangible, omnipresent threat of violence behind it even in 'civilised' western countries. This guy and his case are apparently world-famous; his life and relationships will never be what they were like before all this came out.

Yes, he still has people speaking out against jailing him, but from a personal perspective there's a lot of difference between somebody thinking you don't deserve as bad a punishment, somebody saying they like your movies in spite of what you did (or even saying they believe you innocent when you know you're not), and somebody willing to be personal with you without the issue even coming up. And fuck, chances are there's maybe 1 person out of 100 with a pronounced opinion saying 'leave him alone' that just get reported on ten times over because their position is such an outrageous one to the other 99.

He will never forget this mess. So check up on him a few more times, see if your psychological assessments still hold up and that he's staying away from overly mind-numbing drug cocktails, but leave it at that. Save him a life in jail, save the girl the repeat court sittings, give his fans a shot at more of his work - but screw the angry mob screaming blood and vengeance, please.

[TheDeathKnight]

I think the problem most Americans have with the incident, is that he did not deny it. He pled GUILTY. He admitted to doing it. He simply agreed to plead guilty to the lesser "sex with a minor" charge, so that he would not be charged with forcible sex. So judging from the girl's testimony, he at the very least got a 13 year old girl drunk, and then had anal sex with her. So even if he didn't hold her down and beat her up, or anything like that, most people here feel like what he did is NOT ok. Because anyone who has a child of their own, would not want some older guy to get their kid drunk and have forcible anal sex with them. And if the kid did not want it, then it's not cool. There are indeed situations where an older guy and a younger girl are caught having sex, or sometimes even older women with younger boys. So when it's voluntary, and the teenager *wanted* to have sex, then I don't think it's the same kind of thing. So if this was one of those kind of situations, I might have more sympathy for the guy. But since he admitted to doing it, and then ran, I don't have much sympathy, and I think he should be punished for what he did. The main reason is because some of these kind of people think that they can get away with things like this because they are in other countries. People think they can go to Thailand or Cambodia, and do whatever they want, and then run back to their home countries and avoid prosecution. Polanski did essentially the same thing. Did a crime, then ran off to a country where he would not be extradited. To me, that's getting away with a crime. And it's good to show people that no matter where you run, you will eventually get caught.

[inox]

You are getting into an extremely murky grey area that involves elevating the rules according to someone's supposed contribution to society.

...and I don't have a problem with this.

What you contribute isn't the point.

It is for me. Let's take a ridiculously extreme hypothetical example to illustrate the point.

Say you have a brilliant scientist who's already cured a number of previously incurable diseases, and is now on the verge of something even bigger.

However, her husband is cheating on her, and one night she comes home to find it in progress and shoots them both.

Do we really want to put this person away where she can't finish her life's work?

For me, that person has value far, far above and beyond an ordinary citizen.

[inox]

I agree that Polanski's contribution is insufficiently fabulous, but, just for the sake of discussion, what could someone contribute which would be big enough to be extenuating while being both poor and unknown?

Probably not, but by accomplishing something that affects a great many people for the better, you are no longer unknown and frequently not poor, either.

[Amelia G]

Probably not, but by accomplishing something that affects a great many people for the better, you are no longer unknown and frequently not poor, either.

Exactly. Might be poor or might be unknown, but the chances of both -- if someone genuinely contributed a lot to society -- are kinda nil.

[TheDeathKnight]

Well, when you are rich and popular, you can pay for the best lawyers, and get off with a "sex with a minor" charge, instead of a **** charge, a sodomy charge, a drugging charge, etc... So he already got off easy, and had the best defense money could buy. And the same would be true about Inox's example about the brilliant scientist. They would be able to tell the judge and jury that it was a crime of passion, temporary insanity, and maybe get off with a much lighter sentence. Especially if they expressed sympathy and remorse for their actions, and pleaded for leniency. But if you run, it makes you look guilty, and makes it look like you are trying to avoid justice, and are avoiding taking responsibility for your crimes.

[Wickedanima]

I agree that Polanski's contribution is insufficiently fabulous, but, just for the sake of discussion, what could someone contribute which would be big enough to be extenuating while being both poor and unknown?

Well, we tend to have the modern attitude that everyone gets credit for doing amazing things. There are people who bust their ass to end homelessness, rescue abused animals without reward, take in battered women or foster kids, and people who's greatness may not be noticed until long after their gone, like an artists or writers.

These people are making a ton of small differences in many lives, it could be their influence that changes a life, maybe several. If they should get impassioned and murder an abusive spouse to protect a ward, they would be subject to judgement before their peers, and very likely not have a bevy of Hollywood people screaming how they're greatness should be considered.

Someone like Polanski is forgettable in comparison, IMO. There is a ton of ordinary people who contribute to greatness without any credit or remembrance.

Say you have a brilliant scientist who's already cured a number of previously incurable diseases, and is now on the verge of something even bigger.

However, her husband is cheating on her, and one night she comes home to find it in progress and shoots them both.

Do we really want to put this person away where she can't finish her life's work?

For me, that person has value far, far above and beyond an ordinary citizen.

In taking that action, she risked her greatness, and deserves to be called into question for her actions. We have free will, and frankly there are people to replace us in our great works.

Besides :

Well, when you are rich and popular, you can pay for the best lawyers, and get off with a "sex with a minor" charge, instead of a **** charge, a sodomy charge, a drugging charge, etc... So he already got off easy, and had the best defense money could buy. And the same would be true about Inox's example about the brilliant scientist. They would be able to tell the judge and jury that it was a crime of passion, temporary insanity, and maybe get off with a much lighter sentence. Especially if they expressed sympathy and remorse for their actions, and pleaded for leniency. But if you run, it makes you look guilty, and makes it look like you are trying to avoid justice, and are avoiding taking responsibility for your crimes.

This.

[macslut]

@Raza,

There are a lot of good comments and opinions in this thread. I've been thinking a lot about yours today Raza. I respect what you wrote, but disagree with some of it.

One question I have for you though, is when you said, "Make him give the girl most of his money"...what if Polanski had no money?

While I believe Polanski should do some jail time, I wouldn't say I'm part of an angry mob screaming for blood and vengeance. I do see things differently than you in terms of justice though. I also think the drugs/alcohol didn't so radically change who Polanski was. He liked little girls...that's who he was during that time period (if not now as well).

Something serious at the time had to be done to protect others *from him*. Of course, he fled before his punishment could be given. While he may have taken a hard look at his actions and the repercussions and decided not to do anything like that again, it may have been due to facing real jail time that made the impact.

It's interesting to see in the documentary what the friends of his were saying about his state of mind at the time of the arrest. He really seemed to think that it was just something that would be frowned upon. While sure, the film may not be accurate and is certainly not very objective, these are friends of his, trying to speak up for him in general in a film that favors him (his younger-than-the-victim wife sings the song in the end credits).

Another factor here is that there's something that has nothing to do with Polanski or the victim, but rather other potential victims. While some degree of criminal behavior occurs with disregard to the consequences, to some level the fear of getting caught and the punishment if caught does play a significant role.

In this regard, I think it's important that Polanksi be returned and be sent to jail. I believe that it would have an impact on others in terms of knowing that no, you don't do something like what he did and not go to jail, and if you just run off, you'll be found and go to jail for a much longer period of time.

Finally, it's really hard for me to read the testimony from the victim in this case and not believe it 100%. So while there is a guilty outcome in this case for unlawful sex, there's the very strong belief that it's MUCH more than that. In this regard, there's a part of me that would probably do quiet well on Fox News, because I want to ask the celebrities supporting Polanski:
A) Do you believe the victim lied in her testimony?
B) Do you believe someone who does all of those things listed in the testimony to a 13 year old girl deserves not go to jail?
C) Who else have you supported who have done lesser things to 13 year old children and are now in jail?

I mean, I get Woody Allen, but really for anyone else, I just don't see why this person, who did what he did, is worth supporting/defending.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Read the testimony and tell me you think there is a shadow of a doubt. Heck, tell me what part you think he denied. He didn't plead not guilty; he plead to a lesser charge.

Polanski admitted to having sex with the girl and providing drugs and alcohol. He has so far (at least as far as i have seen) denied forcing or pressuring the girl into taking the drugs or having sex.

Now that is more than enough for him to go to jail for, even in the 70s, but it is still less than what people are accusing him of. He may have done everything the girl said exactly how she said, or he may only be guilty of what he admitted to.

To assume that the girl's testimony is true and accurate is not an incredible leap, but if you were one of his friends who knew the man, it might not be such a leap to assume that it couldn't have happened that way. To assume he has ***** other young girls, without any evidence is a leap.

[Raza]

@Raza,

There are a lot of good comments and opinions in this thread. I've been thinking a lot about yours today Raza. I respect what you wrote, but disagree with some of it.

Cool.

One question I have for you though, is when you said, "Make him give the girl most of his money"...what if Polanski had no money?

Then you give him a bunch of community service hours. The point wasn't that she deserves to be paid for being r4ped or anything - it's that after having the whole court thing do their best to establish his guilt or innocence they'll want some sort of symbolic sentence, and I prefer sentences intended to benefit somebody to ones just intended to make someone suffer.

While I believe Polanski should do some jail time, I wouldn't say I'm part of an angry mob screaming for blood and vengeance. I do see things differently than you in terms of justice though. I also think the drugs/alcohol didn't so radically change who Polanski was. He liked little girls...that's who he was during that time period (if not now as well).

I think your view of human sexuality is somewhat artificial here. Post-pubescent girls just have physical and hormonal attributes that are sexually attractive to those of us naturally inclined to females. Society can frown on this and wish it'd go away all it wants (and gratefully does), but reality trumps morality, and I think it's rather unfair to blame a guy for acknowledging this.

I'm sure it's a scary idea, but there's only a few thin barriers standing between the average sexually active adult and being attracted to people of 'inappropriate' ages. The first is sheer moral peer pressure, which is usually a bad thing to be inhibited by and a sign of strong character to be resistant to. The second is the fact that we're inclined to select potential lovers from the social circles we identify as belonging to, or at least associate ourselves with - this is why pedos are so often social recluses: with no sense of belonging anywhere, you default back to unprejudiced assessment of physical attributes, and reality remains that young teens often have both the hormone levels and sexual characteristics as well as a general pleasant, young look that almost everybody is instinctively pleased by as part of our natural inclination to seek healthy lovers.

I've even experienced this myself, when around age 17 I started going out in the goth scene (before that I was a fairly reclusive gamer/geek). At first I'd always go for younger boys and girls that just looked cute: only over time and exposure did my tastes develop to aim more at people I felt I could identify with culturally and personally. When I was 19 I could still get away with a natural inclination towards 13-15 year olds, even though that stage would probably have started and concluded a couple years earlier if I'd been more outgoing since the onset of puberty. But I didn't know that before it happened. Would I have deserved punishment, or to be locked away for 'others safety', if I'd found out two years later? Five? Ten? Twenty? What if I'd never found out? What's the difference?

The world is not divided between respectable people and malign pedos. It's all circumstance and nurture. History shows this. Many previous child-sex cases where adults that thought they had their sexualities all boxed in and figured out where taken by surprise (and consequently, less capable of controlling themselves) by their attraction to minors show this. You cannot hold it against someone that they're attracted to some forbidden group.

Another factor here is that there's something that has nothing to do with Polanski or the victim, but rather other potential victims. While some degree of criminal behavior occurs with disregard to the consequences, to some level the fear of getting caught and the punishment if caught does play a significant role.

Maybe, but this could be achieved by raising awareness of the personal problems he's already caused for himself - it's not a given that jailtime is the only 'right' consequence for his actions. In fact I would say that it gives the wrong idea if we have to create painful consequences for behaviour we want people to refrain from - it would be much better if people understood why r4ping people isn't going to make your happier even if you could get away with it, and the focus on artificial punishment detracts from that understanding.

[TheDeathKnight]

What you are looking for, is some utopian version of the justice system.

Where people are given counseling, explained the philosophy of their addictions and bad behaviors, and are guided into proper behavior through true understanding and change. But in the real world, there are millions of people like this, and millions of cases, and very few psychologist and people to treat these behaviors. Sure, I think the ideal answer would be to "fix" people who have an desire for sex with young people, and act upon it forcibly. I agree with you that it's not un-natural to have attraction to anyone who's sexually mature, regardless of their age. But the problem is the emotional and mental maturity of a 11, 12, or 13 year old girl. Girls sometimes develop quite large breasts, even at ages that young. So it's understandable for guys to be attracted. But we generally don't think it's ok to force a child to have sex. So since we can't "educate" and psychoanalyze every male in this country, and make sure they all learn it's not ok, the easier answer is punishment. Sure, it does not teach them anything. But it provides a fear-based reason not to do it. And I don't really have a problem with that. I think that many *********s would not care if they got sent to counseling. They'd consider it easy punishment, and keep doing what they wanted to do. So there is a practical side to the justice system as well. You have to figure out the best way to discourage millions of men to not do certain things. So the easy way to do that, is make an example of some of them, so the others think twice before doing something inappropriate.

[macslut]

I agree with you Raza in that we should strive for always having a positive outcome and a justice system that ultimately benefits society, but I also agree with TheDeathKnight in that there's a certain sense of practicality in what can be done and what we're faced with.

A really great example of this was a recent situation where they tried to create a prison where the inmates could do all kinds of work. This would've provided all sorts of training as well as productive results. Unfortunately there were objections on all sides as people were calling it slave labor as well as companies claiming unfair competition. It ended up being turned into just a regular prison.

Regardless, I feel very strongly that we should have radical prison reform in this country. I'm going to sound like I'm speaking out of the other side of my mouth right now, but in reality I'd have a very hard time sending people to prison in the current condition they're in. People talk about prison **** all the time like as if it's some big joke, but really it's messed up when two people guilty of the same crime can have two different experiences...tough guy goes in for a few months, lifts weights, joins a gang, gets out and becomes a hardened criminal, while wimpy guy goes in for the same time period and gets constantly ***** and subsequently dies from AIDS. Neither situation benefits anyone.

As far as the idea of a 19 year old with an inclination towards 13-15 year olds...there's a huge difference between that and the Polanski case...even just the charge he plead guilty to. When ever someone's found guilty or pleads guilty, you can look at the circumstances behind it in determining the actual sentencing...for that matter the circumstances could be looked at before even filing charges. With Polanski, the circumstances don't get much worse than what happened based on the testimony of the victim.

I could see looking at a case with one person being young and the accused being older, and perhaps in general terms it's inappropriate, but in that specific case it could be in circumstances where the younger person wasn't victimized in any way and other people in the same situation wouldn't have become victimized either.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

The famous philosopher Baretta, once said "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time". I stand by that.

No, no, no..Don't do it. And for God's sake, keep your eye on the sparrow!

[macslut]

...No, no, no..Don't do it. And for God's sake, keep your eye on the sparrow!

I thought that was only when the going got narrow?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

i thought that was only when the going got narrow?

:d

[Gollywog]

Most of the people defending Polanski (on whatever grounds) wouldn't think twice about it if he was a priest instead of an art-fag.