Thread: Roman Polanski...

Originally Posted by v76

You forgot a very important word in law... statutory. Statutory rape. Which opens the door to a reduction of the sentences and of the meaning/severity of the act itself. Consent. But I'm away that there are more variables than that involved. I won't work on that case.

I figure after 30 years it would be more damaging to the victim herself, she will have to relive this again, in public, with the usual mediatic harassment that goes with it. The human is very resilient but unfortunately when you sneak into the depth of the selective memory, it can be a very traumatic endeavor. Justice is not always the answer.

I guess I don't understand what you mean; do you believe she consented at the time of the act?

Chris L

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 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!

I think that he should pay for the crime he committed. And I dont think that the fact that he is a well known and much liked celebrity should stand in the way of that.

People do seem to get a bit of a blind spot when it comes to celebrities committing crimes, as if its not actually a crime but just an eccentricity that we should humour. But we need to treat them in the same way as if it were Joe Bloe who did it.

If we were talking about a bin man from the back of beyond we wouldnt even be having this debate, we would all want them brought to justice. The fact that its Roman Polanski we're talking about seems to have muddied the water and it shouldnt have. Crimes against children are inexcusable, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

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...

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