Roman Polanski

perhaps this could have been discussed in the political thread, but its not really about politics, therefore I created a thread to discuss the issue. 

What do you think should be done with him?  Should have been arrested?  Should we lock him up and throw away the key?   Should we just drop the case against him because it was so long ago? 

Here's my take:  He may be a great director, but he's a child rapist.   This isn't some case where he sleep with a girl who was almost 18 and the girl was consenting.   The girl in this case was 13 years old and from what I know, kept saying no.   He drugged her and raped her.   If he was an ordinary Joe Smoe,  he would have been in jail a long time ago.   Why should he get special treatment?   Yes, it was along time ago but given the seriousness of the crime,  should the passing of time matter that much?   This also isn't case where you aren't sure he did it.  He confessed.   I am deeply concerned by how some are reacting to his arrest.  I've heard complaints about how dare they use an awards ceremony to arrest him?  I say, too bad.  He's a criminal, you use whatever opportunity you can to arrest him.   I think an example needs to be made of him.    Too many people think he should be allowed to get away with crime because he is such a great director.  People acting like it was a minor offense.  It wasn't, it was CHILD RAPE.    The only reason I agree to drop the case is because the girl herself has said she doesn't want him prosecuted  anymore, she just wants to be done with it.   I can definitely sympathize with her, but like I said, I think an example needs to be made with him and this isn't like a civil case where she can just drop the case.  He seems to think he is above the law because he is this cool and great director.   He's not above the law.    Can someone please show me the other side of the issue?  Why shouldn't a confessed child rapist be punished? 

It's a complicated and messy case and I doubt if the full facts have actually been made public, much of the discussion about it seems to based more on gossip.

The law is the law and he should have gone back to court to put his side and face the music if it's not convincing. Though there are compelling reasons why he would not, just as there were compelling reasons for him escaping the country in the first place.

What is more mysterious is why is this all blowing up now.

He has a Swiss home, he's been in and out of the country many times over the years and suddenly this happens when he returns to the country to receive an award.

There are a lot of strange US extradition cases going on around the world at the moment and this is just more noticable because of the fame angle.

Bail jumpers are often tricked into being arrested by being summoned to some kind of award, or prize winning.

I really like "Chinatown" but I'm not sure I see the other side of the issue. He's a holocaust survivor, and his pregnant wife was brutally murdered. For that he has my extreme symptathy. That's enough to drive you mad, but since he's never claimed to be insane, those facts are irrelevant.

Ultimately, F him, he raped a little girl.

Did he?

Was she?

Who really did it?

If you feel very uncomfortable being asked to undress infront of a wealthy film director and tell your parents about it do you go back for another shoot?

What sort of parent sends a choice of two daughters to a big shot director to be photographed un-chaperoned and lets the youngest go back after reporting him wanting her to take her clothes off infront of him?

How much money did everybody make out of the situation?

It's not as cut and dry as everyone on here seems to making out.

Is this a case of child rape or child prostitution with blackmail?

Either way it should go back to court, the full story should come out and all guilty parties should be punished (if they are still alive).

Bingowings said:

Did he?

 

Who really did it?

It's not as cut and dry as everyone on here seems to making out.

Is this a case of child rape or child prostitution with blackmail?

Either way it should go back to court, the full story should come out and all guilty parties should be punished (if they are still alive).

 I beleive Polanski did it... as he did confess to drugging and raping a little girl.

Child prostitution is de facto child rape. Paying to rape a child doesn't change that. I have no idea what the victim's parents were thinking, but that changes absolutely nothing.

Pretty cut and dry.

Perhaps here parents might have been guilty of something too. But if her mom and dad were Huggy Bear and Dolemite, it doesn't in any way shape or form ameliorate Polansky's crime.

Bingowings said:

 

Did he?

Was she?

Who really did it?

I don't know, but he did confess.   What does say about whether he's guilty or innocent if he confesses and then  flees the country?   I doubt an innocent person would do that.

Bingowings said:

 

Is this a case of child rape or child prostitution with blackmail?

 

either way, Polanski is guilty of a crime.  If he had sex with a minor it's statutory rape.  That's the law.  Her parents may also be guilty of a crime.   But unless Polanski was forced to have sex with the girl, or never had sex with the girl, Polanski is guilty of a crime. 

You are right when you say it should go back to court, so how come Polanski didn't let for so long and still seems to think it shouldn't?

if he's innocent, how come he didn't plead not guilty and stand trial? 

C3PX said: really sick of celeb worship. I could honestly care less about these guys, most of them seem to be scum, and it becomes even more annoying when they try to play the role of scum with bleeding hearts who want to adopt a million kids and save the world from the evils of SUVs and cow flatulence.

Polanski is a good example of this over the top celebrity worship, just look at how many people are defending him so strongely. I like how Micheal Vick, a man who mistreated dogs in a rather horrible way seemed to be considered the devil for his crimes, but yet poor old Polanski is obviously being treated quite horribly, after all, all he did was rape the hell out of minor. (Not saying I sympathize with Vick in anyway. But still, I have found that the kind of person who is willing to be cruel to animals doesn't have too far to go to be willing to be cruel to humans. Even my "evil" friends who are big into hunting are the types who absolutely hate to see an animal suffer.)

You make a very interesting observation. NO ONE defended Vick a damn bit (except one other black football player, who then had to apologize, his name eludes me).

 Could it be "sad old white jew who makes Oscar winning art" vs. "tough looking black guy from the projects who plays lowly sports" in the general perception and portrayal?

Could it be that qualudes and expensive champagne use to rape a young girl has some kind of less stigma attachech than having dogs fight, because dog-fighting is a low-class (Black/Southern US) crime?

Although I'm not sure animal-fighting correlates with human cruely. There was a lot of cockfighting in the neighborhoods I grew up in, and lots of the guys who raised those birds were oddly loving to them, and generally not violent dudes.

Your comparison of Vick to Polanski does a have a little sense to it.    Its one of the reasons I want an example made of Polanski.    What both of them did sickens me.    There are many in the black community that defend Vick.    Many have played the race card.  Meanwhile Pete Rose whose only crime was gambling, can't get into the hall of fame. 

When Tyson came to London he got a hero's welcome.

C3PX said:

I personally wasn't trying to make a comparison between a black man who has done something bad and a Jew who has done something bad. I was merely contrasting their crimes and the current public opinion to them without even considering race in the matter. Though you may make a relevant point, Boost. Though I think the difference is more due to the fact that he is a Jewish man with an extremely high level of status in the Hollywood machine. I have no doubt a black football player who rapes a thirteen year old girl would be burnt at the stake, but I also feel the same treatment would be given to a white football player who committed the same crime. Likewise, had a white football player been involved in dog fighting, I am pretty sure he would receive the same treatment as Vick.

I guess the real question is, what would the general public reaction be if Polanski had been caught fighting dogs?

 I didn't mean to imply YOU were the one unfairly comparing the two. Just contrasting the two men's treatment in the general media.

I'm not sure you can point to their 'status' without somehow considering race and perception. Vick wasn't just a footbal player. He was a guy from the projects, doing dirty, project crime. I'm not sure if the backlash would have been quite as heated if Brett Favre was caught doing something cruel to animals with less of a social/racial stigma, for example fox hunting illegally or the Victorian sport of ratting (of course, this is impossible to test objectivly).

As for Hollywood, I think there would be a very different mood of Spike Lee gave a girl malt liquor and raped her as opposed to Polanski with qualudes and champagne... a difference in perception based on both race and perceived economic class.

But I do beleive you and I are in agreement that Polansky and Vick are both scum who should have the book thrown at them.

If he was lucky enough to be able to prove that some of the investigating police were a bunch of racists he could get away with a lot more.

Jay said:

TheBoost said:

You make a very interesting observation. NO ONE defended Vick a damn bit (except one other black football player, who then had to apologize, his name eludes me).

 Could it be "sad old white jew who makes Oscar winning art" vs. "tough looking black guy from the projects who plays lowly sports" in the general perception and portrayal?

I think it's more likely that people are very quick to scream about animal cruelty, but cruelty towards other humans is just par for the course.

 A disturbing observation, but not at all short on truth.

TheBoost said:

 I didn't mean to imply YOU were the one unfairly comparing the two. Just contrasting the two men's treatment in the general media.

I'm not sure you can point to their 'status' without somehow considering race and perception. Vick wasn't just a footbal player. He was a guy from the projects, doing dirty, project crime. I'm not sure if the backlash would have been quite as heated if Brett Favre was caught doing something cruel to animals with less of a social/racial stigma, for example fox hunting illegally or the Victorian sport of ratting (of course, this is impossible to test objectivly). As for Hollywood, I think there would be a very different mood of Spike Lee gave a girl malt liquor and raped her as opposed to Polanski with qualudes and champagne... a difference in perception based on both race and perceived economic class.

you make a good point here  the situation might not have been as heated if Brett Favre was caught fighting dogs.  But, on the other hand, Favre  couldn't play the race card and he would have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the NAACP to defend him.   Spike Lee would have all those to defend him.   I suspect if Lee was the one who raped a 13 year old girl and fled the country and was then caught, I suspect the outcry injustice would be much larger and would include cries of racism.    Another example: would Pete Rose still be banned from baseball if he were black?

But I do beleive you and I are in agreement that Polansky and Vick are both scum who should have the book thrown at them.

I agree as well.

Warbler said:

 

But, on the other hand, Favre  couldn't play the race card and he would have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the NAACP to defend him.  

 

 

 Not that I have any love for Shapton, but he came out strongly opposed to Michael Vick IIRC.

whoops!   I apologize.  I just assumed.   Well, you know what they say when you assume something.   *hits self on forehead*   I'd post an embarrassed emoticon here, if we had emoticons.     

If Polanski had two children fight to death and not paid off the family perhaps he would not be able to play professional football either.

I'm sure he wouldn't.