Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Ditto.
Roman Polanski arrested by Swiss police on 32 year old US sex charge
- Thread starter Nigel Tufnel
- Start date
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
He probably would have been treated more leniantly had he not ran away. We'll see though. Considering his age, I don't see him being punished as strongly as when he was younger. But we'll see.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
The point is that I don't see a reason why you guys should be emotional. Or afraid. Polanski has nothing to do with your children.
You know what is dangerous? To stigmatize. When you loathe a group of people, your view on an individual can be influenced, blended, prejudiced. The world won't become a better place when we project our hate so much. History has shown this.
Think what you want but I know I am not going to add extra hate to this case when I want to look at it.
This is my point, Onhell.
You know what is dangerous? To stigmatize. When you loathe a group of people, your view on an individual can be influenced, blended, prejudiced. The world won't become a better place when we project our hate so much. History has shown this.
Think what you want but I know I am not going to add extra hate to this case when I want to look at it.
This is my point, Onhell.
Ok, when it comes to 'hate', I don't necessarily agree to that. I don't believe in the persecution of someone for their religion, race, color, sexual preference or other. However, saying that, someone that fucks kids has no place in a normal society. That is predatory, and it is wrong, and I'm gonna hate the hell outta that guy for it. I have a friend who is a probation officer for sexual offenders, and the shit that these people do is WRONG on so many levels.
____no5
Free Man
I agree with Foro here...
The reason is that I had the change to meet Polanski personally, and I didn't saw a monster in him at all, only a real human.
But apart from my personal view to him, I find ridiculous to be arrested in a foreign country after 32 years
-even the woman in question has forget about it, and says that for her the story is over.
The reason is that I had the change to meet Polanski personally, and I didn't saw a monster in him at all, only a real human.
But apart from my personal view to him, I find ridiculous to be arrested in a foreign country after 32 years
-even the woman in question has forget about it, and says that for her the story is over.
Whoa whoa. France should have expedited him years ago, really.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Hard to disagree with that.
Let's check this point of view:
Those who arrested Roman Polanski have ignored his victim
The woman sexually assaulted as a child will suffer even more if the case comes to court. Only the lawyers will win.
Duncan Campbell / Monday 28 September 2009 21.30 BST
The most important person in the story of Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland at the weekend is Samantha Gailey, a middle-aged bookkeeper living quietly with her family in Hawaii. In 1977, as a 13-year-old in Hollywood, Gailey was given champagne and drugs by the director, who then had sex with her.
Polanski, who was then aged 44, pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, spent 42 days in prison in Chino, California, and was due to be sentenced to time served when it became clear that the deal his lawyers had negotiated with the prosecution was not to be honoured – and he would have had to spend much more time in jail than had been agreed. He fled the United States in 1978 and has never returned.
Seven years ago, after Polanski had won an Oscar for his film The Pianist, the case came once again under scrutiny in the US. Gailey was tracked down to her home in Hawaii where she had settled with her husband and three children. In a television interview, she did not exonerate Polanski for the way in which he had taken advantage of her – "what he did to me was wrong" – but she did say that she had felt more damaged by the media's subsequent handling of her case than by what had happened to her at the time.
"What happened that night, it's hard to believe," she said at the time, "but it paled in comparison to what happened in the next year of my life … He did something really gross to me but it was the media that ruined my life." As to what punishment she felt Polanski should now suffer, she said: "He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it."
Gailey, who waived her anonymity when she gave the interview, has made similar comments whenever the case has been discussed. Last year she repeated her comments when she attended the New York premiere of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. She was and remains the victim in this case; and no amount of mentions of the fact that "it was the 70s" and people did things differently then can excuse the fact that a man three times her age had sex with a 13-year-old when she was under the influence of drink and drugs.
But, as Gailey has said herself, Polanksi has been punished. He lost what was, at the time, a glittering career in Hollywood. He has been publicly humiliated. His name is associated by many people as much with that sex offence as with all his cinematic achievements, from Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown to Tess and The Pianist. He has also suffered separately in ways that few people who stand in judgment of him can understand, in that his then wife, Sharon Tate – who was eight months pregnant with their child – was murdered in vile circumstances by the Charles Manson gang in 1968.
What will be served by Polanski being extradited to the US to stand trial? Gailey will have her privacy invaded once more as the details of the case, already posted in prurient detail around the world, receive more coverage. The case itself is already mired in confusion as a result of allegations of judicial misconduct at the original trial and is unlikely to have a swift conclusion. Some lawyers will benefit, but who else?
Of course there are many cases of offenders who have evaded the courts for years and who should still be forced to face trial, even if they are old and the decades have passed. War criminals (whether Nazis, or torturers from Latin America), predatory sex offenders and murderers should always have to live in fear of the tap on the shoulder and answer to their crimes. There are countless occasions when the extradition laws can and should be used.
But extradition should be employed when the case merits it. We are already familiar with the attempts made by the US authorities to extradite the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon for the victimless offence of embarrassing the US military's computer system. Compassion should have come into play there too, both from the US authorities and Britain's home secretaries. As for the suggestion that the Swiss authorities have a reputation for punctilious attention to legal niceties, it has not stopped them in the past from protecting the private bank accounts of many a dictator or financial criminal.
The real victim in this case has called for compassion. But compassion is unfashionable at the moment, so the chances of her voice prevailing may not be great. The desire to exact punishment, regardless of how the actual victim is affected by it, and to justify that punishment with some grandstanding rhetoric, is the fashion of the moment. Child sex, like the Middle East, is a subject where the normal conventions of debate degenerate very swiftly into name-calling and deliberate misinterpretation. There is no reason to believe that this case will be any different. But the victim still has a right to be heard, even if what she says does not satisfy those seeking vengeance.
Let's check this point of view:
Those who arrested Roman Polanski have ignored his victim
The woman sexually assaulted as a child will suffer even more if the case comes to court. Only the lawyers will win.
Duncan Campbell / Monday 28 September 2009 21.30 BST
The most important person in the story of Roman Polanski's arrest in Switzerland at the weekend is Samantha Gailey, a middle-aged bookkeeper living quietly with her family in Hawaii. In 1977, as a 13-year-old in Hollywood, Gailey was given champagne and drugs by the director, who then had sex with her.
Polanski, who was then aged 44, pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, spent 42 days in prison in Chino, California, and was due to be sentenced to time served when it became clear that the deal his lawyers had negotiated with the prosecution was not to be honoured – and he would have had to spend much more time in jail than had been agreed. He fled the United States in 1978 and has never returned.
Seven years ago, after Polanski had won an Oscar for his film The Pianist, the case came once again under scrutiny in the US. Gailey was tracked down to her home in Hawaii where she had settled with her husband and three children. In a television interview, she did not exonerate Polanski for the way in which he had taken advantage of her – "what he did to me was wrong" – but she did say that she had felt more damaged by the media's subsequent handling of her case than by what had happened to her at the time.
"What happened that night, it's hard to believe," she said at the time, "but it paled in comparison to what happened in the next year of my life … He did something really gross to me but it was the media that ruined my life." As to what punishment she felt Polanski should now suffer, she said: "He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it."
Gailey, who waived her anonymity when she gave the interview, has made similar comments whenever the case has been discussed. Last year she repeated her comments when she attended the New York premiere of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. She was and remains the victim in this case; and no amount of mentions of the fact that "it was the 70s" and people did things differently then can excuse the fact that a man three times her age had sex with a 13-year-old when she was under the influence of drink and drugs.
But, as Gailey has said herself, Polanksi has been punished. He lost what was, at the time, a glittering career in Hollywood. He has been publicly humiliated. His name is associated by many people as much with that sex offence as with all his cinematic achievements, from Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown to Tess and The Pianist. He has also suffered separately in ways that few people who stand in judgment of him can understand, in that his then wife, Sharon Tate – who was eight months pregnant with their child – was murdered in vile circumstances by the Charles Manson gang in 1968.
What will be served by Polanski being extradited to the US to stand trial? Gailey will have her privacy invaded once more as the details of the case, already posted in prurient detail around the world, receive more coverage. The case itself is already mired in confusion as a result of allegations of judicial misconduct at the original trial and is unlikely to have a swift conclusion. Some lawyers will benefit, but who else?
Of course there are many cases of offenders who have evaded the courts for years and who should still be forced to face trial, even if they are old and the decades have passed. War criminals (whether Nazis, or torturers from Latin America), predatory sex offenders and murderers should always have to live in fear of the tap on the shoulder and answer to their crimes. There are countless occasions when the extradition laws can and should be used.
But extradition should be employed when the case merits it. We are already familiar with the attempts made by the US authorities to extradite the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon for the victimless offence of embarrassing the US military's computer system. Compassion should have come into play there too, both from the US authorities and Britain's home secretaries. As for the suggestion that the Swiss authorities have a reputation for punctilious attention to legal niceties, it has not stopped them in the past from protecting the private bank accounts of many a dictator or financial criminal.
The real victim in this case has called for compassion. But compassion is unfashionable at the moment, so the chances of her voice prevailing may not be great. The desire to exact punishment, regardless of how the actual victim is affected by it, and to justify that punishment with some grandstanding rhetoric, is the fashion of the moment. Child sex, like the Middle East, is a subject where the normal conventions of debate degenerate very swiftly into name-calling and deliberate misinterpretation. There is no reason to believe that this case will be any different. But the victim still has a right to be heard, even if what she says does not satisfy those seeking vengeance.
I tend to agree with the statement that it will victimize the person further, but I wasn't aware a further trial was needed for someone who had pled guilty?
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Forostar said:
The Political Correctness police have washed your brain. Not only do I believe that grown men who have sex with young teenage children should be stigmatized, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Let's be brutally honest: Was Nastassja [got the spelling right this time] Kinski great-looking when she was a teenager? Yes. Was Anna Kournikova? Yes. So are lots of teenage girls. Yet I think all of us (well, maybe not the under-20 forum members) would stop short of actually sleeping with teenage girls, certainly 13-year-olds. Why? Because we know it's major-league fucked up.
It's also not uncommon, and thus is worth pursuing. One of the fathers at my kids' school is an FBI agent who investigates child pornography and child sex crimes. He regularly travels to places like Thailand and Singapore to find wealthy Americans who engage in teen sex tourism. It's not just a stigma, it's a crime. Polanski is the highest-profile offender. If the government has an interest in stopping such behavior, why wouldn't it seize the opportunity to bring Polanski to justice?
The French have been protecting Polanski because he is considered a national treasure as a great filmmaker. And he is a great filmmaker. I think Chinatown is an excellent film. That doesn't mean he isn't a child rapist. OJ Simpson is one of the greatest American athletes of the 20th Century. That doesn't mean he isn't a homicidal maniac. If Polanski were a retired lathe operator, no one would be saying a word about this, except "good job" in apprehending him.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Derek Smalls said:
Forgot to mention -- this post is spot-on. Have a praise.
I'm not sure I understand the thinking here. Certain behavior has been "generalized" as unacceptable under any circumstances. Let's take, for example, murder -- not justifiable homicide (e.g., self-defense), but premeditated murder. Every nation in the world today condemns murder. I believe it is safe to say that murder is bad, and murderers are bad people. I believe that all murderers, if convicted as such, should go to prison for a long time, if not the rest of their lives. Same for rapists. Same for armed robbers and kidnappers for ransom. Am I generalizing when I say that ALL such behavior should be punished?Forostar said:
I put the question to you, Foro: In what circumstances is it acceptable for a grown man in his 30s or 40s to have sex with a 13-year-old girl?
I think Forostar is referring to the general sexual orientation of pedophilia, whereas cfh is referring to the act of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor. You're talking about two completely different things.
I'm not sure I understand that. Everything that I read shows that pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation (like hetro or homosexuality). It is a power play, where someone can have control over someone else... more along the lines of a mental disorder.
Wasted CLV said:
No, the act of sexual assault on a minor is. There are people who are geniunely attracted only to young children, and it is a hard-wired orientation. A disorder is another term commonly used - though the causes are not known.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Cornfed, would you calm down a bit and read the article I posted? It's in better English than I can write and it talks about the victim, about punishment and about what Polanski has already gone through. It's also about compassion. It's an unfashionable word, I know, but I don't care a f*ck about fashion.
Anyway, I fully agree with the article, it expresses everything I feel about this case.
I don't compare long sought warcriminals with people who might have done the thing Polanski did. Not when the girl in question leads a happy life (without the media) and seems to think he was punished enough.
None. However, I think we disagree about what should be done now, in the current circumstances, after knowing what the victim had to say.
Anyway, I fully agree with the article, it expresses everything I feel about this case.
I don't compare long sought warcriminals with people who might have done the thing Polanski did. Not when the girl in question leads a happy life (without the media) and seems to think he was punished enough.
cornfedhick said:
None. However, I think we disagree about what should be done now, in the current circumstances, after knowing what the victim had to say.
LooseCannon said:
Hm, maybe its the wording, but it pedophilia still seems like a mental (ok, psychological) disorder. I know it's wiki, but:
I'm sure there are many pedophiles out there that don't act on it, but it seems that it is still considered a mental disorder. The difference a crime or not, is between controlling a mental disorder and acting on it. --now, part of my stubborness comes from my friend; I hear many stories of people that are caught with these offenses, and they don't do it only once-- once they victimize someone, they have a hard time stopping, even after being let out of prison.
Now, as to Polanski, I think the problem is: so what? So what if he was 'punished' by being stuck in France, instead of the US. He committed a crime, and should do the time. Sure, it sucks, but he did it. If I broke into someones house and beat the shit out of them, got convicted and skipped town, I'd still expect that I should do the time-- it shouldn't be his option on how he serves his time (in France or a US jail)... it's the court's choice.
I know a lot about this particular disorder. It may be that it is a disorder, it may be a sexual hardwiring, but it is the same thing - the person doesn't choose to be attracted to minors, he or she just is. It's kinda how it is. You can get help for it, same way you can get help for other mental disorders, but people are so stigmatized by it that they are often afraid to even ask - which is kinda where the offense cycle begins.
Ok, I think I dig what you are saying. Pretty much the same thing-- its a 'wiring' issue that either needs work, or issues will take place.