Thread: Roman Polanski...

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...

ofcourse the victim would rather have this behind her at this date. but kiddy diddlers are at the very bottom of my list . and hes got it comeing. lock him up and throw away the key.its abought time that "freedom and justus for all" appplys to all not just to those who are nameless and dont have mega bucks to buy off the system.

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.

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...

In that example, if you slipped the person a qualude and some drinks before getting them to sign off on the assisted suicide proceedure, would that still be above board?

Add to that the person in question is in 8th grade or so. Capable of making such a big decision?

I just took the time to read the transcript of the victims testimony, (the smoking gun has it posted).It leaves me with a few questions, one of which being, where was this girls parents? However, it didn't change my opinion one bit, I still believe, as most on here have stated, that he needs to do the original time, 45 days (the time he was in jail) was NOT enough to pay for his crime. He should also do extra for fleeing.

he is a sick man, he had sex with an underage girl and should rot in jail or maybe