Thread: Roman Polanski...

Originally Posted by xman

I agree. I'm just saying it's not cut and dry and you should maybe call off the lynch mob.

David Lynch has a mob? I reckon he's as good a director as Polanski, no?

Originally Posted by xman

& ionthejester

I agree. I'm just saying it's not cut and dry and you should maybe call off the lynch mob.

It's certainly not cut and dry. Polanski himself has been his own biggest hurdle as far as closing the issue.

This whole giant snowball has been of his own creation. And now that he's old and she's grown, we'll get to finally finish the process to close the book on it.

We can't have a double standard in the courts. Can not. If he doesn't like the outcome, he can do what everyone else does--make use of the appeal process.

Who knows? Maybe the judge will cut him slack and that'll be the end of it. Or maybe he'll die in isolation. But either way, it's time to face the music.

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

I'm not really sure where I stand on this one. On the one hand, he broke the law. And teh law is the law, and it's the law for a reason.

On the other hand, the victim filed to have charges dropped, and I think that counts for something. The crime would never be known of if the victim had not reported it, and, to some extent, I think this crime is between the perpetrator and the victim. A possibly parallel example is assisted suicide. Technicly, I suppose it's murder, but if you can be 100% certain that the person who dies wanted to die in the way that they died with the help of the person who killed them, should the person who killed them be punished?

I guess my point is, it's a crime against an individual, not the public, and since the laws are in place to protect the individual, I think the individual should have the right to wave that protection. At least I think that's what I think...

I've given this issue a fair amount of thought since the thread was first posted. At the time it happened I was boiling mad and would have recommended death by baseball bat. I remember thinking at the time that the girl's mother must be a piece of work to leave her kid with Polanski unsupervised.

Anyway, he gave a 13 year old girl drugs and alcohol and then he had sexual intercourse with her as well as committing sodomy. Even if 'consent' by a 13 year old could be rationalized the drugs & alcohol negate that.

It was a long time ago but it is not excusable IMO regardless of what the victim of the abuse says today. In no way should society condone the behavior and letting him off the hook would be tacitly saying that it wasn't that big a deal.

I think it's interesting that Woody Allen is demanding his release. Didn't Woody Allen have a "relationship" with his adopted daughter behind his wife's back. I'm all for creative flakey personalities, but the sexual predation on young girls thing doesn't fly - if you can't score with someone that can make a conscious decision to say no, rent a movie.

And Polanski apparently drugged and raped a 13 year. So I'm in the let him rot camp, as long as they torture him first. And they should protect the victim from continued intrusion by the press. She shouldn't have to relive this.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

She shouldn't have to relive this.

Generally victims of abuse live with the memories and some of the effects for the rest of their lives even if the abuse never comes to light.All the more reason to punish the perpetrator if possible.

As much as I think Woody Allen is a scumbag, she was 18 and not his blood relative. It may feel / be wrong, but it was not illegal.

Originally Posted by Bruno

As much as I think Woody Allen is a scumbag, she was 18 and not his blood relative. It may feel / be wrong, but it was not illegal.

He was her default step father from the time she was 7 years old though. Mia Farrow found nude photos he had taken of her when she broke up with him and the press got hold of it. When he began having an inappropriate relationship with her is unclear but I agree that his behavior was reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Bruno

As much as I think Woody Allen is a scumbag, she was 18 and not his blood relative. It may feel / be wrong, but it was not illegal.

He had to be less shady because his movies aren't that good. I'd cite them as a reason to increase enforcement vs. a defensive statement.

Interesting...France has dropped it's release calls.

Good. Now, this could be because

a) they see that it is futile and don't want to champion a lost cause.
b) they see that he actually deserve what is coming to him
c) they see that he is going to get free, and don't want to be seen as the reason that he did.

Hopefully, the reason is somewhere between 1 and 2.