Thread: Roman Polanski...

Oops. Not exactly. Forgive my typos, I'm a bit spacey sometimes.

I'm saying that he only pleaded guilty to one count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" (statutory rape) which by default means that he's guilty of having had sex with a minor under the age of consent, which is between 16-18 years old in the US (18 in California, state in which I believe the acts occured) - not rape.

I'm not saying that she consented or not to anything.

He has been charged with five other felonies for which he hasn't been convicted so there are no conclusions to have in that regard.

I think it's an open and shut case, if it weren't someone famous. I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be two separate sets of rules for the famous (or for congress for that matter). He fled so he wouldn't have to serve out a sentence that he should have already served, now he should face the original sentencing and an additional charge for the fleeing portion. I think if it were any one of us, that is exactly what would happen.

He was convicted for the crime. He should do the time.

As a father of 2 daughters, I think he should rot in jail, after being castrated with a rusty spoon. Twice. And treated with alum afterwards.

Looking at it more objectively: Yes, he should do his time. He is a sentenced man who fled the country before he got locked up.

They can't really sweep it under the rug because statute of limitations does not apply. He still has to do time no matter what anyone thinks. The only legally significant way for this to end without him doing time is to issue a pardon. No politician would be willing to sign it, because it would be political suicide for various reasons.

The only thing they could have done was turning a blind eye to him being stupid and going to a country that extradites to the US. Even repealing the arrest warrant would have been a sensitive matter (political suicide). Apparently, it was known more than a week in advance that he would be in an extraditing country at a given time, which gave the US prosecutors enough time to prepare. Once he crossed the border and the issue of the arrest warrant came up, the wheels started turning. His own damn fault.

And while I understand the plight of the victim, we can't discard sentences just because the victim asks for it. It wouldn't take much imagination for convicted criminals to put the pressure on their victims to make them forgive them in public and asking to let the criminal run free.

Originally Posted by v76

I'm saying that he only pleaded guilty to one count of "unlawful sexual intercourse" (statutory rape) which by default means that he's guilty of having had sex with a minor under the age of consent, which is between 16-18 years old in the US (18 in California, state in which I believe the acts occured) - not rape.

You are incorrect. He is guilty of rape. "Consent" is irrelivant becasue she was under the age at which was legally able to give consent. He had sex with a 13 year old girl, and therefore raped her. It is that cut and dried.

As far as his sentence, he should rot in jail, after he is forced to castrate himself with a rusted spoon.

Matt

Originally Posted by Bruno

As a father of 2 daughters, I think he should rot in jail, after being castrated with a rusty spoon. Twice. And treated with alum afterwards.

I was typing my response when you were posting yours. Great minds think alike!!

Originally Posted by mhailey

I was typing my response when you were posting yours. Great minds think alike!!

You two must have watched some twisted movies!

I agree, he shouldn't be let off. I have read so many explanations about the case: that it was consensual; that the judge was about to renege on his plea bargain and that's why he fled; that he went through terrible things as a child and during the trial there was a case of mental instability put forward, etc.

But I have also read what he admitted doing. To a 13-y-o girl. Any way you look at it, it is more important that the law is upheld. Or I shudder to think what others who would harm children might start thinking they could get away with!

Originally Posted by majurey

You two must have watched some twisted movies!

Nope, I think it is just two fathers, each having two daughters.

[edit]

I'm out of this one now. Go talk about murder amongst yourselves if you like.

Originally Posted by xman

Typical ... say "rape" and the worst, most vengeful, aspects in our natures rear their ugly heads.

As Gugi mentioned mentioned that the 'victim' has long ago settled out of court with Polanski and considers the matter finished? Also, Polanski plead guilty for a plea bargain which the judge was about to renege on and that's why he fled the country. He has clearly displayed that he is no threat to the public in the last four decades. This case is far from open and shut.

X, I don't think it's about whether he's a threat anymore. Even putting aside the debatable issue of whether he has paid his debt to society, there are strong arguments for making him see out his sentence.

- "it happened a long time ago": never a reason not to see it through. To whit: Nazi war criminals hunted down half a century after the war ended.
- "he's been a successful director and has had a massive cultural impact on a global scale": success and money should not mean get out of jail free. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And for me the deal-breaker: what would others with similar despicable plans think of their chances of getting away with it?