They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?
Well, i really woundn’t count my chickens before they have hatched in re to whether he has raped other 13 years olds, give it a bit of time and see what else turns up in the wash.
Perhaps there was other 13 years olds that maybe don’t ‘‘have some sort of agreement’’.
Every dog has it day.
[/quote]
If he has some kids in a cellar somewhere I give up on humanity.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(I’ve not read the entire thread, sorry if this has been mentioned)
Anyone been watching many of Hollywoods elite to band together behind Polanski? It’s astounding how low Hollywood can sink.[/quote]
It’s just another case of a group defending their own. Cops do it. Doctors do it. It’s damaged my respect for several actors I’ve heard are supporting Polanski, but it’s human nature.
[quote]orion wrote:
While I do agree that people have a legitimate interests that rapists do not run free who is to say how a victim has to feel after 30 years?
They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?[/quote]
I think rape is one of those crimes where there is no statute of limitation because once the crime has been committed it is less about the victim and more about the rules of our society in a general sense. Why does it matter that it has been 30 years since this took place? What if he made an agreement with the victim 5 minutes after the rape happened, or when she turned 18? I believe the law is good because it sends a clear message rapist will be prosecuted no matter how long they got away with the crime. It’s no different than when a murderer is convicted 30 years after the crime. The crime was still committed and there needs to be punishment. We are talking about a life altering event not something a victim just gets over. I would venture a guess and say the reason this particular victim doesn’t want the douche brought back and thrown in jail is because all of this just brings up bad bad memories she doesn’t want to think about.
Anyone mention the shenanigans the judge presiding over the case was pulling (making back handed deals on rulings, orchestrating court room drama for the cameras, etc.)?
Does the prosecutor of the case think Polanski had a fair trial or that he should go to jail?
Did Polanski actually complete with his plea agreement before fleeing the country?
How about the fact that the victim was not a virgin, had done drugs before and, at the time, had a boyfriend who was 22 years old?
How about the fact that Anjelica Huston, Jack Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, was at the house and didn’t hear any sounds of a struggle during the incident?
How about the fact that the victim’s mother went after both Jack Nicholson and Roman Polanski for money before going to the police?
Anyone mention the shenanigans the judge presiding over the case was pulling (making back handed deals on rulings, orchestrating court room drama for the cameras, etc.)?
Does the prosecutor of the case think Polanski had a fair trial or that he should go to jail?
Did Polanski actually complete with his plea agreement before fleeing the country?
How about the fact that the victim was not a virgin, had done drugs before and, at the time, had a boyfriend who was 22 years old that the victim’s mother was aware of?
How about the fact that Anjelica Huston, Jack Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, was at the house and didn’t hear any sounds of a struggle during the incident?
How about the fact that the victim’s mother went after both Jack Nicholson and Roman Polanski for money before going to the police?
Has Polanski raped any 13 year old girls since? [/quote]
None of this matters.
Polanski plead guilty, he admitted he had sex with a minor. His crime was not staying in the United States to get sentenced. If he had, and then appealed his sentance based off of the factors you just mentioned, he would likely have had the whole thing over and done with in a year and never done any jail time. He was rich enough to afford good lawyers who could have kept him out of prison after his pre-trial time served.
Unfortunately, Polanski flead the country and became a fugitive. His trial now would not consider the rape case at all, he is guilty of rape, the trial now will be for fleeing prior to sentancing.
Poland is very much in favour for their most prominent director. Their highest diplomate asked to pardon him.
On the other hand, they just passed a new draconic law that calls to chemically castrate sentenced pedophiles.
afaik, Polansky may have plead guilty (which today means nothing from a moralic pov) but vehemently denies raping the girl.
Does anybody know what age of consent was at that time?
Also, to be frank, every parent who’s 13 year old daughter went to such a party, should know she is basically dreaming to lose her virginity to a star.
Anyone mention the shenanigans the judge presiding over the case was pulling (making back handed deals on rulings, orchestrating court room drama for the cameras, etc.)?
Does the prosecutor of the case think Polanski had a fair trial or that he should go to jail?
Did Polanski actually complete with his plea agreement before fleeing the country?
How about the fact that the victim was not a virgin, had done drugs before and, at the time, had a boyfriend who was 22 years old that the victim’s mother was aware of?
How about the fact that Anjelica Huston, Jack Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, was at the house and didn’t hear any sounds of a struggle during the incident?
How about the fact that the victim’s mother went after both Jack Nicholson and Roman Polanski for money before going to the police?
Has Polanski raped any 13 year old girls since?
None of this matters.
Polanski plead guilty, he admitted he had sex with a minor. His crime was not staying in the United States to get sentenced. If he had, and then appealed his sentance based off of the factors you just mentioned, he would likely have had the whole thing over and done with in a year and never done any jail time. He was rich enough to afford good lawyers who could have kept him out of prison after his pre-trial time served.
Unfortunately, Polanski flead the country and became a fugitive. His trial now would not consider the rape case at all, he is guilty of rape, the trial now will be for fleeing prior to sentancing. [/quote]
Yeah, I agree with what you wrote. Just bringing in some info for those who didn’t know.
Anyone mention the shenanigans the judge presiding over the case was pulling (making back handed deals on rulings, orchestrating court room drama for the cameras, etc.)?
Does the prosecutor of the case think Polanski had a fair trial or that he should go to jail?
Did Polanski actually complete with his plea agreement before fleeing the country?
How about the fact that the victim was not a virgin, had done drugs before and, at the time, had a boyfriend who was 22 years old that the victim’s mother was aware of?
How about the fact that Anjelica Huston, Jack Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, was at the house and didn’t hear any sounds of a struggle during the incident?
How about the fact that the victim’s mother went after both Jack Nicholson and Roman Polanski for money before going to the police?
Has Polanski raped any 13 year old girls since?
None of this matters.
Polanski plead guilty, he admitted he had sex with a minor. His crime was not staying in the United States to get sentenced. If he had, and then appealed his sentance based off of the factors you just mentioned, he would likely have had the whole thing over and done with in a year and never done any jail time. He was rich enough to afford good lawyers who could have kept him out of prison after his pre-trial time served.
Unfortunately, Polanski flead the country and became a fugitive. His trial now would not consider the rape case at all, he is guilty of rape, the trial now will be for fleeing prior to sentancing. [/quote]
I’m not sure that’s technically correct. The judge threw out the plea agreement didn’t he? If the plea agreement was tied to the time served sentence and the judge decided he was not going to honor it, perhaps this goes back to square one? Unless of course the sentence was to be “recommended” by the prosecution and Polanski and his lawyers were willing to take the risk that the judge would accept it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
While I do agree that people have a legitimate interests that rapists do not run free who is to say how a victim has to feel after 30 years?
They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?
I think rape is one of those crimes where there is no statute of limitation because once the crime has been committed it is less about the victim and more about the rules of our society in a general sense. Why does it matter that it has been 30 years since this took place? What if he made an agreement with the victim 5 minutes after the rape happened, or when she turned 18? I believe the law is good because it sends a clear message rapist will be prosecuted no matter how long they got away with the crime. It’s no different than when a murderer is convicted 30 years after the crime. The crime was still committed and there needs to be punishment. We are talking about a life altering event not something a victim just gets over. I would venture a guess and say the reason this particular victim doesn’t want the douche brought back and thrown in jail is because all of this just brings up bad bad memories she doesn’t want to think about. [/quote]
There is a SOL on rape. None on murder. And that’s just the way it is.
[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Anyone mention the shenanigans the judge presiding over the case was pulling (making back handed deals on rulings, orchestrating court room drama for the cameras, etc.)?
Does the prosecutor of the case think Polanski had a fair trial or that he should go to jail?
Did Polanski actually complete with his plea agreement before fleeing the country?
How about the fact that the victim was not a virgin, had done drugs before and, at the time, had a boyfriend who was 22 years old?
How about the fact that Anjelica Huston, Jack Nicholson’s girlfriend at the time, was at the house and didn’t hear any sounds of a struggle during the incident?
How about the fact that the victim’s mother went after both Jack Nicholson and Roman Polanski for money before going to the police?
Has Polanski raped any 13 year old girls since?
[/quote]
And why does any of that matter? The ONLY question is, did he have sex with a 13 year old. One by one, I’ll refute your “points”.
If there was judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, it’s grounds for an appeal of conviction. He wasn’t convicted so it’s somewhat moot;
What does it matter what the prosecutor thinks? He has discretion to enter into plea agreements and recommend sentences. The judge has the ultimate discretion, in the interest of justice, whether to ACCEPT those recommendations and pleas. The judge is the final arbiter in that instance;
How in the world does it matter she was not a virgin. If you’re not a virgin, you cannot be raped?
What does it matter she did drugs before? YOU give her drugs, and you’ve got problems. She procures them on her own from persons unknown, it’s HER problem. He was charged with having sex with an underage girl. Drugs were merely the lubricant;
And so her “boyfriend” was also guilty of having sex with a minor. How does this exculpate Polanski?
It doesn’t matter whether the sex was consensual. It is still a crime. Go find someone 13 to have consensual sex with, get caught or reported, and report back to us as to how that works out for you. Not even her lying about her age and looking older is a defense;
What do the actions of the victims mother have to do with Polanski having sex with an underage girl? Are you expecting, given all the facts, that she was a candidate for mother of the year?
And so, if you murder someone, flee, and never murder someone again in over 30 years, does that make you less of a murderer and less responsible for your crime?
Your “logic”, if you want to call it that, is tortured to say the least.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
While I do agree that people have a legitimate interests that rapists do not run free who is to say how a victim has to feel after 30 years?
They have reached some sort of agreement, he does not run around raping 13 year old constantly so what good do laws like that do?
I think rape is one of those crimes where there is no statute of limitation because once the crime has been committed it is less about the victim and more about the rules of our society in a general sense. Why does it matter that it has been 30 years since this took place? What if he made an agreement with the victim 5 minutes after the rape happened, or when she turned 18? I believe the law is good because it sends a clear message rapist will be prosecuted no matter how long they got away with the crime. It’s no different than when a murderer is convicted 30 years after the crime. The crime was still committed and there needs to be punishment. We are talking about a life altering event not something a victim just gets over. I would venture a guess and say the reason this particular victim doesn’t want the douche brought back and thrown in jail is because all of this just brings up bad bad memories she doesn’t want to think about.
There is a SOL on rape. None on murder. And that’s just the way it is.
Also, to be frank, every parent who’s 13 year old daughter went to such a party, should know she is basically dreaming to lose her virginity to a star.
[/quote]
Age of consent = 18.
But I totally agree with you about the parent, and probably kid at the time of the party. Fucking stupid to let her be there. I still don’t care. The reason there’s age of consent is that people below this age are not considered legally to be able to make their own rational decisions.