Roman Polanski taken into custody - Page 2

lol @ this thread.

Better thirty-one years late than never.

Finally, after 30 long years one of history's greatest monsters will answer for his crimes.

Non jokingly now, this is going to be just a media circus. Thirty years after the fact, with the victim asking for the case to be dropped, justice will be the least thing extracted from this. Expect months of lurid descriptions of what happened, moral indignation at godless, liberal Hollywood and the media digging up every titillating story from the super gangbags of the '20s to Lindsey Lohan. There was a way this would be handled properly and it didn't involve neither the dogs nor the ponies that will be paraded for this.

I think that in terms of justice, it can not simply be dropped. Living well with little regret as a fugitive does not serve justice.

I'm in two minds over this.

On the one hand, I don't care what he wen't through he still raped someone and should be punished for that. Harsh life does not equal free pass.

On the other,

This trial is going to cost a hell of a lot of money, drag the whole ordeal up again for the victim (who just want's to get on with her life) and do no real good.

From Devin's article, this part is the most relevant aspect of the case at this point:

"I was the 13-year-old girl Roman Polanski took advantage of on March 10, 1977, wrote Samantha Geimer, now a 45-year old mother of three.

"I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges."

"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother. I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney," she wrote in a brief filed with the court.

Geimer continued: "My position is absolutely clear. Let us deal with the harm and continued harm that the pendency of this matter visits upon me and my family, and waive the legal niceties away, and cause it to be dismissed."

Speaks for itself, I think.

Warren,

From page 1. There's two sides to the argument, but saying that Ms Geimer's statement speaks for itself is just not true. This is a very complicated situation and the victim's wishes are NOT the only ones that count.

He raped a 13 year old girl, and has avoided criminal prosecution for 31 years.

Speaks for itself, I think.

It only "speaks for itself" because it supports your opinion. If she were to say "I want him drawn and quartered....literally, I want his body to be torn apart", I doubt I'd see anyone getting the rope ready.

I only posted the victim's statement and now people are making all kinds of assumptions based on that. Interesting! At this point, people's reaction to this case fascinates me more than the case itself.

No, you posted your opinion, cloaked behind her opinion. The fact that it represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system is why people are taking shots at you.

He raped a 13 year old. He was arrested. He then pleaded guilty and the idiot judge gave him less than a slap on the wrist. After he had served his ridiculous sentence the idiot judge changed his mind and wanted to prosecute him for enough stuff to put him away for life. THEN he fled the country.

It's not like he pounced on some girl on her way home from school and was on a plane to France two hours later. Of course he should have served an appropriate sentence and I think there had to be a way for that to happen even as late as now. But as it happened there are only two options for this. He'll either get an inordinately big and absurd sentence or another slap on the wrist. In either case no one comes out better.

Truth.

Well said, good sir.

Why is this even an argument?

ETA - Not taking into account the fucked up judicial process back in '78. Yes, that was wrong. Yes, it needs to be re-visited and something needs to be officially said by the court system about that.

No, that doesn't, in any way whatsoever, excuse the child-sodomizer.

I find it funny how this ongoing saga occurred because a judge changed his mind at the last minute.

I like to imagine him at the edge of the airport shaking his fist and yelling 'WE'LL MEET AGAIN, POLANSKI'

Yeah, Jared's opinion is probably the closest to mine regarding this, but regardless of the case or your feelings on it, it doesn't change the fact that Chinatown is one of the greatest movies ever made.

Rosemary's Baby is better. And that has a scene where Mia Farrow is drugged by her husband and then Satan rapes her. This must have been Polanski's favorite party game until that broad dropped the dime on him.

Polanski didn't serve his sentence. He was imprisoned for 42 days to undergo "psychological testing", and then fled the country the night before the actual sentence was to be imposed.

One thing that tends to go underappreciated in "the artist vs. the art" discussions is that this philosophy not only suggests that it's okay to enjoy Chinatown despite the fact that its creator raped a child, but that said creator is subject to the same ethical standards as everyone else, despite the fact that he made Chinatown.

I'm not sure anyone's doing this here, but it's hard to believe that this whole thing would even be a debate (it certainly wouldn't have merited a documentary) if it were some Joe Average who finally got picked up for the same crime after decades in self-imposed exile. His artistic output is absolutely a factor in how this is being treated.

But the point is it should not be a factor.

It's actually kind of sickining to see people use his artistic merrit as a defense.

Okay, fine, if you're going to bring my personal past into this, I'll bite. Yes, as a matter of fact, I almost did beat the shit out of someone less than a week after my brother's funeral. Now, that's not me - I'm not a violent person. But the reason I say I "almost" was because before it went too far, I got a hold of myself and thought better of it. Which is what you do - you take a few deep breaths and think about whether or not this is going to solve anything, or cause a lot of trouble for you in the long run, and ultimately be the wrong thing to do. And I get what you're saying, I see your point about how grief can make you do crazy things. But let's not cloak this in "The poor guy was so distraught, his dick just boned on out of his pants in the presence of that 7th grader. He was just so sad!"

As for if he's a great artist, don't be ridiculous - of course he is. I'll be going with my "Rosemary's Baby" avatar again this October for Halloween. Doesn't make it okay for him to fuck a kid.

And just so I don't have to make this post even longer by quoting Kung Fu Monkey Mike's whole entire post, I'll just say - yup.

Well, yeah. Like I said, this is a case that I've been interested in and kind of conflicted about for a long time, especially since rape and sexual abuse issues are something that concern me very deeply. There were years where I wanted vengeance against Polanski, and there were no shades of grey to the issue. I was outraged when he won the Oscar and even though Chinatown was one of my all-time favorite films, I wouldn't buy it on DVD. I didn't want to run the risk of putting money in his pocket.

I don't know when my feelings on him re: artist vs. art changed, but over time, as I got older and learned more about how fucked up some of my other favorite artists/filmmakers really were, I found myself mellowing on the issue. I think for a lot of people, especially film fans, Polanski is Exhibit Number 1 in whether you can separate the artist from the art, which is why this case is getting the publicity it is -- here's a man who has made some of the most influential and widely regarded films of the seventies, maybe ever, and he did this horrible, heinous thing. Reconciling that is tough.

Then again, I reevaluated when I saw the documentary, which brought to lights the facts of the case in ways I hadn't considered, or didn't really know. I came away with it a little bit more enlightened, but also of the opinion that he got screwed by the justice system. And yet, still, by running, he broke the law and the whole thing has never been resolved. I still don't know how I feel about that, because I do agree with you -- just because you made Chinatown and your whole family died in the Holocaust and your wife was murdered by Sharon Tate and your art was used against you in tabloid sensationalism doesn't mean you get a pass.

I'm rambling. However, that doesn't change the fact that he ran, and, like I said, part of me is glad he got arrested, because it means this whole thing will (hopefully) be resolved. A lot of the articles have said that the L.A. Prosecutor's office has never really given up trying to extradite him, and Polanski's attorneys have never stopped trying to get this resolved, while also trying to make sure that he's not extradited. And I completely agree with the DA's office when they say "If he wants to get it thrown out, he has to come back to America and do it like everybody else." That's part of our justice system, too, and he doesn't get a pass just because he's Roman Polanski.

If I had to guess, I'd say that he'll probably be back in France in a couple of months, and the case will continue. But this is a moment for him, if he wants it, to say "all right, fine", come back to the States, and get closure on it. He is pushing eighty, and he obviously wants to get this resolved -- he wouldn't be trying to get the case thrown out, or the venue changed. He's said he'll fight extradition, which maybe makes me think he's not all that sorry to begin with. Nothing in the documentary makes it seem like he is, and although Samantha Geiner says she forgives him and that there was a settlement, she hasn't said he apologized to her.

I don't know.

Personal opinion and appeals to emotion play no part in determining Polanski's fate. The only thing that matters here is the letter of the law. He is accused of a crime, and like every other person accused of a crime, he should deal with these charges through the proper legal channels.

That is just absurd. People on the side of wanting someone to face a court of law and a jury of their peers is the same as being on the side of "lynching". Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

California used to be pretty death penalty crazy. Also, commit a crime while being black or Mexican used to be enough reason for the state of California to want to put you to death.

That older interview segment with him leads you to believe that he truly sees nothing wrong at all with having sex with younger (13-15) girls. He seems to imply that a society such as ours is only repressing our "true desires" by not fucking little girls just as soon as they develop more womanly traits.


Personally, I could never forgive him for such horrible behavior. Fucking/raping a little girl like that is unforgivable and inexcusable.

That said, I TOTALLY see why he fled. Justice took a distant back seat the moment that fucking judge decided to play around with it. From Polanski's perspective, I can totally see why he has nothing but distrust for our legal system.

What he did was gross and very wrong, but like it or not, there's some degree of difference between what he did and say, violently kidnapping/raping a child. The shades of gray (i.e. the Mother's complacency in the act, etc) surrounding the actual rape itself make assigning some sort of "danger level" to Polanski difficult.

Basically what I mean is, I think he deserves/deserved a much lesser sentence than a really violent counterpart. And I can totally see why he'd be worried that he'd be treated as something far worse/more dangerous than he is.

Well seeing as how our nation and people like my father liberated concentration camps and administrated the Nuremberg Trials, I'd hope he then in turn would have enough respect for our legal system not to run away the minute he realizes we're also against rape.

He drugged a 13 year old girl he was working with and raped her. Then went on to make other movies, and work with other kids. I'm not going to try and debate the justice system aspect of the case, but the "Allowing a pedophile to work around more innocent kids" aspect is pretty crazy.

Oy. I'm going to have to bow out early on this one. Suffice to say, Polanski may be a pedophile in the legal sense, but certainly not in the psychological one.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure someone accused of a crime isn't allowed to flee the country because the judge is a meanie. No matter what reasoning Polanski used to rationalize his flight from the law, it doesn't make it any less a crime.

Actually I think the correct term is something different. There is a classification difference between people who are attracted to children and people attracted to adolescents

Ephebophile.

Attracted to pre-pubescent children = pedophile
Attracted to post-pubescent children = ephebophile

The latter classification was dropped by the APA because its a little too broad a category. It would apply to cases of sex sanctioned by law, there isn't necessarily anything psychologically pathological about a person attracted to a 16-year-old who looks like a 20-year-old and so forth.

Edie: Jake beat me to it.

But that's just it, why should he have any respect for our "precious legal system" when we, ourselves, treated it like a joke in regards to his case.

He didn't run away because he disagreed with our laws against rape. He ran away because he was being toyed with, and because the judge was flagrantly abusing our judicial process.

If I were him, I wouldn't view our legal system any differently. He got an inside look at just how fucked up it can be, all based on the whims of one crazy media-whore.

I fully agree, Chris. I never said that he should be allowed to be doing what he's been doing this whole time. It isn't really "justice."

No, he isn't "allowed" to leave. Never said he was. But, I understand why he did. If I were in his creepy, child-fucking shoes, I would've done the same thing.

The man has NO REASON to trust our legal system to do "what is fair and just."

It does not matter. You go to court and argue your case. There are innocent people sitting in our jails today who could have run but had the guts and the courage to take the oath and tell the truth and put their faith in the system, and continue to appeal and argue. The same same "messed up" legal system he had to flee from was aparently working just fine when it convicted and sentenced to death the people who killed his wife. But when it came time for those same courts to turn their eye towards HIS crimes, he chickened out?

This guy raped a 13 yr old, and ran away because he thought it might turn out poorly for him legally.


I am sorry, you're not going to be able to convince me that is OK.

Our courts convicted and sentenced Manson to death. The Nuremberg Trials established mostly by our government and chaired by a former Supreme Court Justice charged, convicted , and executed men who helped perpetrate the holocaust on his family.

What on earth are you talking about?

He's referring to the Polanski case itself.

Did you watch the documentary, and pay close attention?

You're totally missing the point.

Let's say you were accused of something you didn't do, or, you did something like shoplift. You then come to find out that you have a maniacal judge who's going to try to give you a unjustly harsh sentence like, oh, LIFE IN FUCKING JAIL. You're telling me that if you had the means, you wouldn't flee to somewhere "safe" (i.e. that wouldn't extradite you)? You think the right thing to do, in the face of a corrupt judicial process/system is just stand there and take it, then try to conduct appeals within the same fucked-up legal system?!


There are almost two issues at hand here.

1) Yes, he's a very fucked up man for raping that girl, and he DOES deserve punishment/justice.

2) He TRIED to stand there and take what was coming to him. But when it became clear that it was all just a game with him as a pawn, he left. I would've done the same thing. Doesn't make it legal, and it doesn't make it "right." But, in his shoes, you'd be a fucking idiot to expect a "fair trial."

Also, (and again, this is no way excusing what he did, and I don't think the documentary does either) the Tate/Manson murders and subsequent press coverage was pretty goddamn sensationalized. The guy was basically accused of assisting the murders because of his purported orgies and devil worship. It's therefore fair to assume that one of the reasons he fled was that he didn't want to be vilified in the media or continue to go through a trial by media a second time.

But since he has and will continue to, you know, it's a wash.

Edit: The article Cap posted on the first page does bring up an interesting point in that the judge might have wanted to close the loopholes that celebrities had been using for decades to get off for stuff that normal people would serve time for, but went a little too far in his pursuit of that. It's something to consider, even though I haven't seen any other articles to corroborate that's what was on Katz's mind.

I know he is, but my point is that Polanski had many reasons to trust our legal system. I do not care if he was getting a hard time from his judge. If he got convicted he should appeal if he had a problem with it. However, running away, is not ok. Period. You rape a child, deal with the courts, even if you're scared they won't be "fair".

I am going to back out of this thread slowly, like others have already done. I am finding I get too worked up talking about this and if I stay much longer I might have to start typing in all caps.

Exactly. You can't overlook that when examining why he left.

It doesn't excuse jack shit in terms of the rape itself, but it does EXPLAIN a hell of a lot about why he (rightly?) felt justified in fleeing.

Hard time? He was getting blatantly jerked around! He was being told one thing, made a deal, and then had it jerked out from under him. It was being told one thing, having it be guaranteed, and then discovering that he was just being played with like a toy.

I HAVE been accused of something I did not do. I was "busted" for marijuana in HS, and I was dealt with in a manner that violated my constitutional rights (Both Federal and state). I could have taken a deal that would have smeared my name but been less of a hassle, but I stood up for myself and told the truth and would not admit to false charges.

(I was accused of being a drug dealer for trying to buy an 8th. Because according to cops, who know everything, that is "inconsistent with personal use")


So, I ended up getting screwed over. But you know what? It is one of the things I am most proud of myself for. That I would not allow them to lie about me and I would not consent to their lie is to me a source of great pride


So, if Polanski really thought there should have been an outcome in his case other than "go to jail", (Is anyone arguing this? I mean, let's say his judge HATED him and was not going to give him a fair trial. Fine. Would a "Fair" trial result in something other than the rapist going to jail? NO.) he should have done what I did and stuck up for himself in a court of law.




He fled. He is a coward.

I can't talk about this anymore.

Kate out.

She's openly arguing in bad faith. I'd quit while you're ahead, unless you like trying to reason with people whose opinions will not, under any circumstances, change.

I tend not to go personal in these arguments, especially since she's been pretty tolerable as of late and I'm the last guy to throw stones, but once again, Kate proves that in the end, it's all about her.

Man, I saw that movie.



And stop bringing up Nuremberg in the context of the contemporary American judicial system unless you really want to argue. We'll talk Hess, Speer, Biscari and everyone's favorite hot topic, Dresden until you drop dead of exhaustion.


and LOL at JoeyPants driven breathless by folks for doing what ElCapitan does all the time.

I'm done talking about it. You're right, my opinion will not change. That is different from arguing in bad faith though. I made my position clear, and now I'm done talking about it. I know why you feel the way you do, and hopefully you know why I feel the way I do.

Maybe that's helpful, who knows.

Hey, I've got plenty of breath left. I'm just bored at work.

I tried to stay out of this one, as Devin's piece, and the documentary itself pretty well cover it in a fair light, I think.

It just gets frustrating seeing the kneejerk reactions when you try to say anything other than, "GET HIM!!!!"

It's the notion that I can't simultaneously think the guy is a total creep who deserved to serve jail time, yet also by empathetic to him taking flight. It's complicated, I know.

But you can't hold our judicial system up as this paragon of justice, because sometimes it just isn't. Sometimes it's a nasty, horrible machine that you can't be blamed for running away from. Even if you were unashamedly kiddy-fiddling.


ETA: That said, I'm quite curious to see how him fleeing colors the legal proceedings.