Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Swiss sets Rapist Roman Polanski free

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:02 PM
Original message
Swiss sets Rapist Roman Polanski free
Fuck the Swiss!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am SO ****ING SICK of hearing celebrities stick up for that guy
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 12:05 PM by Recursion
:banghead:

I could give a shit how good his movies are (and they are good), doesn't change what he did.

That said, I watched Chinatown the other day, and I just realized he's the short guy that cuts Jake's nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Classic scene...
You're a very nosy fellow, kitty cat. Huh? You know what happens to nosy fellows? Huh? No? Wanna guess? Huh? No? Okay. They lose their noses.

Then he says something about next time he'll cut it off and feed it to his goldfish...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. UH OH
:popcorn:

and it's only Monday...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Boycott the Swiss...
Say no to the Swiss Army knife...

Dump the Swiss Miss...

Repudiate Swiss Cheese...

Burn Heidi...and tell that little swiss girl to get a job...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Make sure Roman doesn't get to meet Heidi, though...
...Just sayin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. And no more of those watches, either!
Hell, we shouldn't even buy Swiss NAVY knives!

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. navy watches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. I cancelled my 3 week vacation in the Alps
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
108. suurre ya did, uh, me too, yea!! but i was going for a month
and i was going to spend 1 million dollars!
that will teach those swiss bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #108
123. Okay, maybe I'll see you in Aspen instead :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. LOL
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
91. lol..no thanks. Although, I do think the Swiss are po'ed that the Justice dept ro
wants to open all of the books in their private banks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Im burning my watch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. In the public square at high noon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. No, in my microwave at 1124 :)
Youtube video to follow...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
66. And shooting more holes in my cheese!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #66
118. Better Yet...Plug The Holes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Strike up the Band!
Hey, let's start a war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. no more yodeling for me.
ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. But could you yodel before? Is it that much of a sacrifice LOL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. But he's a sophisticated European artist.
I mean, if anyone's going to rape children, it should be an artist with a certain set of sensibilities, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. And Americans haven't even arrested their war criminals
Bush and Cheney.
Fuck them too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
80. And what's with the Greater Antilles thinking they're better than anybody else?
Fuck them, too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Probably says more about what they think about America than about Polanski.
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 12:28 PM by jobycom
Dude comes over here and becomes a celebrity, his wife is horrifically murdered by a religious cult, he's arrested for something that wouldn't have been a crime when and where he was born and raised, he serves the sentence given him, and then they decided to throw out the agreement and try to make him serve more time, then thirty years later when the Swiss arrested Polanski and asked to see the private details of his sentence and why he was still considered a fugitive, America refused to let them see the evidence.

Meanwhile, our overall image is of a backwards nation with too many sex laws, too few personal liberties, a religiously-based oppressive justice system on par with Iran or Saudi Arabia, and a need to arbitrarily persecute criminals based on public political motivations rather than any objective sense of measured justice.

Also, remember that the perception of the rest of the world is that Polanksi seduced a 13 year old Lolita, not that he drugged and raped a child, and even the victim seems to hint at that interpretation with her claims that Polanski has been punished enough and the issue needs to be dropped. The world sees the arrest and attempted extradition as a publicity-grabbing move on our part.

This wasn't about Polanski, it was about arrogant, childish behavior of a nation the world sees as a prudish, overbearing boor with an uncivilized legal system. You know how we see Iran over their obscene stoning-for-adultery sentences? That's how the world sees us these days, with our bloody death penalty, our ridiculously populated and discriminatory prisons, our over-long prison terms, our politically arbitrary conviction and sentencing, and our complete lack of any sense of rights for prisoners and even former prisoners.

To the world, we are backwards and barbarian, and that's what this was about. Who wants to turn over a high-profile celebrity because of a dispute over 48 days of a sentence that happened 30 years ago?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I think the main reason the Swiss dropped the whole thing is that the girl-now-grown-up
did NOT want to be thrashed through the whole process again.. She's surely a Mom, maybe even a grandma, and probably does not want to have to remember what a shitty mother she had when she was young and needed protection.

and by now she may have forgiven her Mom and even Polanski, and maybe she liked the anonymity of her life (sadly now gone again).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. According to Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
you're right on almost all counts. (I don't know if she's a grandma. I don't think so.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. They dropped it because they believe he served his sentence 30 years ago.
Polanski claimed he served his sentence, and America refused the Swiss request to show them documents proving he didn't.

Remember, Polanski served his time under a plea deal, then the prosecutor decided to renege on the deal because the psychiatrists had let him out after 42 days instead of 90 days. Their argument was that the 90 days wasn't a punitive sentence but a period for psychiatric evaluation. The evaluation, not the length of time, was the punishment, and it was finished in 42 days. The prosecutor was going to use the shortened time to throw out the whole agreement, hold Polanski in jail for the time it took to prepare a case, and then try him on all charges, based mostly on a political reaction to the public outcry. That's when Polanski fled.

So the legal issue for the Swiss wasn't really about the rape, it was about Polanski fleeing while under indictment. That's what made him a fugitive. Polanski argued he had served the sentence the courts gave him, and there was evidence to prove this. America refused to provide the requested evidence to contradict it.

Thinking more about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecutors refused just so the Swiss would have to release Polanski. They were facing an expensive trial that they would probably lose, and this lets them blame the Swiss (America loves to blame people in other nations for all its problems).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Really, the US fucked up the first time. They deserve no second chance.
Case closed. Tough shit, America, you fucked up, tight-assed weenie of a country. Tough. Shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. How, precisely, did the US fuck up?
Polanski pled guilty, agreed to psychiatric eval pursuant to his guilty plea. When the eval was over, and prior to sentencing, he skipped town because he realized he was going to jail.

Tell me exactly how the US fucked up? He pled guilty, but has not been sentenced.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. The fuck up is what occurred in the judge's chambers.
That's not reflected in this transcript or in any transcript.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. Invisible evidence? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #75
84. See Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
You'll see how this "evidence" could be invisible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. I don't use movies to solve legal issues.
Mr. Polanski, had he been disatisfied with his treatment under the law, had legal recourse to appeal. Just like everyone else. He chose to run, and had the money to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Switzerland solved the legal issue for both of us.
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 02:57 PM by BurtWorm
;-)

PS: However, if you want to understand my point, see the movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #84
113. You might want to check Marcia Clark's interview with David Wells
You'll see that one-sided documentaries are quite often completely full of shit.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #70
83. .
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 02:43 PM by BurtWorm
.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. This is a complete and utter fabrication. Polanski had not been
sentenced when he fled.

He agreed, pursuant to his plea, to psychatric evaulation. That took 42 days. Prior to sentencing, he fled, fearing that the judge would give him jail time.

Here is a link to his plea testimony, where he acknowledges that he is facing a jail term.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091...

Polanski, when he fled, was not 'under indictment.' He had pled guilty.--read the link to the guilty plea.

He was facing sentencing. He skipped because it finally occured to him that he would be spending time in jail. That's what criminals do.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #41
93. No it isn't, and you are wrong on what you think you read.
The letter immediately after the transcipt at your link is from the victim's attorney, and clearly states that they had agreed that he wouldn't serve time. The formal requirements of the plea deal don't prove that all involved had not worked out the agreement commonly stated in the press and stated in the victim's attorney's letter of acceptance of the deal.

Also, you claim he acknowledges he is facing a jail term. That's not accurate. He acknowledged that the maximum jail term for unlawful sexual intercourse was "one to 15 ... 20 years," but he does not acknowledge he could receive that. The next question proves that. "Do you understand that it's possible for you to be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to one year in county jail?" He answered yes. That's the only place in your linked transcript he acknowledges his opinion of the sentence he can expect. He then answers questions showing he knows the judge might sentence him to probation, and that if he is found to be a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender under evaluation, that he could be forced to register as such in every community.

Following that, he acknowledges that the judge hasn't decided what his sentence will be, that it will depend on the findings of the evaluation. This doesn't prove Polanski was expecting jail time, nor does it prove that they had not promised him no jail time. It only proves that Polanski agreed that the sentence hadn't been handed down yet, and given the preceeding discussion, it's clear they are talking about probation and his possible status as a MDSO. Looking at the victim's attorney's letter, it's obvious that the commonly reported and accepted interpretation of the agreement is the right one, and that's what the Swiss alluded to in their statement about releasing Polanski.

Also, note that Polanski was allowed to leave the country after this agreement before serving his time (which he served in Chino State Prison, btw, not in a private psychiatric ward). He was comfortable enough with the agreement to return and then serve. If Polanski had expected even the possibility of jail time after signing the agreement, he could have simply not returned when he left the country before.

Notice from the testimony and from the victim's attorney's letter that Polanski had the right to retract his confession and force a jury trial, and that the victim did not want that. It's not clear what the judge actually planned. The facts are that the judge was going to make him serve the rest of the 90 days, but there have been witnesses claiming the judge was planning to make him serve longer, contrary to the plea agreement.

My point isn't and hasn't been about Polanski at all. It's about why the Swiss let him go. In their opinion, Polanski had served his time and the prosecution's attempts to deport him were not defended. Here's more on what they said:

"The Swiss government's main argument concerned confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. The Swiss asked for the transcript, but Washington rejected the request.

Based on references to Gunson's testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it "should prove" that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing the diagnostic study.

"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said.

The Justice Ministry said its decision reflected the spirit of the law, as U.S. authorities hadn't pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously, even though he's often visited the country and bought a house here in 2006. It also cited the wishes of the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself and has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. "

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38201135/ns/today-enterta... /

As I stated at first and every other place, my point isn't about Polanski's guilt, it's about how the rest of the world views us and our justice system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. The vicitm's attorney doesn't set the sentence. Only a judge does.
Which is what Polanski testified to understanding.

As for the Swiss, I'm hardly surprised that a country that aided and abetted the Nazi's would tell themselves they had obeyed the "spirit of the law" and let a pederast free. How ironic for Mr. Polanski.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
63. The judge screwed the pooch under pressure from the media.
Polanski served time for pshcy observation as was part of his guilty plea deal. After the time was served, the judge decided the deal was not severe enough and was going to sentence Polanski to more time DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEAL HAD BEEN FULFILLED!

You can hate Polanski all you want, but the California government was at fault and in violation of the law...this was the most politically expedient way for California to handle the situation without looking like they were condoning the crime.

This way, they get the Polanski haters votes and get out from under any taint from the case, all with little effort on their part - a perfect politician's solution-publicity and votes for nothing.


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. The actual testimony from the plea hearing refutes your post.
The linked pages, 7, 8, and 9, detail that Polanski knew, and agreed, that the psychiatric eval was prior to sentencing. In fact, he testfied that he knew that he was facing 15-20 years....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091...

If the CA government was in violation of the law, kindly cite it. I mean, the actual law they were breaking. In fact, can you cite the sentencing hearing that only gave him 42 days????

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

Look, Polanski did what criminals do--they run when they are facing real jail time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. Well, I'm refuted again by the sharpies on GD.....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #69
99. the judge promised Polanski all the time he'd do would be in psychological evaluation.
He went back on his word when he saw the media storm in store against *him* (the judge) if Polanski got out after serving just 40-something days. The judge was playing god, making up rules as he went along. He fucked up and now, from the grave, he still has a lot of people who wanted to see justice in this case hanging and fuming because justice was not served, nor will it ever be served.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. He, and the judge should have been hung.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Of course, there's no evidence of that promise, is there?
But's let's go with what you say. There was a promise. Well, the judge can't make that promise because psychological eval is not to be used for penalization. So it was an abuse of discretion to substitute it for incarceration. Which is an appeal of sentence.

This does not mean he should not have had psychological evaluation. Nor does it mean that he escapes incarceration.

At most, it means that Polanski gets his sentencing, under a new judge. But he chose to flee rather than appeal.

What is sounds like, to me, is that Polanski and his lawyers agreed to chicanery that ultimately bit them on the ass.

But that's the gamble you take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riftaxe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
94. Considering she got a large sum of money
Are you a believer that criminal punishment should depend upon whether or not the victim has received remuneration from the perpetrator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. I know/knew nothing of any money that changed hands
but as a woman who has been raped , and who endured childhood molestation, I can tell you that no good comes from regurgitating the circumstances past the recovery process, and often leads to more trauma.

Obviously, I was not consulted for my input, as to what the appropriate punishment should be, so I can only offer why my particular take on it is.. When I am made judge, and am handed this case, I will study it and get back to you :)

Sometimes "punishment" takes different forms.. Polanski is obviously a famous person, but his forever-bio will have this nasty piece of business as an integral part of it. and the woman's mother will have to (or did, if she's dead) carry the knowledge that she offered up her young teen to a lecherous man. If she grew a conscience, she was probably punished too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #97
103. She sued him civilly, won, and he refused to pay the judgment.
There has been some speculation as to whether her current "let him go" stance is the product of a settlement.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Well said.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. extremely well said.....
might I add? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
49. Bewteen you and me...
what is it with the preponderance of males who are so agitated over this case in these threads? :wtf:

It's kind of remarkable how many who are expressing anger toward Europe and Switzerland for not giving the Americans a second chance to punish Polanksi are men. It's weird. Could be the punitive daddy rearing up in them? Who knows? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. How about a first chance to punish him?
He skipped before sentencing. He has not spent a single day in jail for his crime.

He did spent 42 days in a psychiatric unit, for evaluation, but that was not his sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #51
73. They had it and blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
62. oh
they will get over it.

either that, or develop ulcers :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #49
95. What would happen if Courtney Cox slept with a 13 year old boy?
Many of these same people would be high fiving the kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #95
104. Then Courtney Cox raped a child. Like Roman Polanski did. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. where he was raised it's legal to drug and rape minors? who knew...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Europe is so much more advanced than us when it comes to child-fucking
I think their laws go something like, if you plan to rape a child, you are REQUIRED to drug them.

We Americans...so puritanical, so provincial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
109. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Where he was raised a 13 year old could consent to sex with an adult.
That changed later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. right, but she didn't consent, even after he drugged her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Prove it.
According to her, she said no a few times, then let him, based on her statements to police at the time. That could be perceived as a normal seduction. If she had claimed she continued to say no after he started, then it would be rape. But that's not what she said. That would make a conviction hard--under the imaginary circumstance of us allowing a 13 year old to consent, I mean.

I'm not defending Polanski. I'm just explaining why Europe isn't as outraged over this as we are, and why they don't accept our outrage. The age of consent in most of Europe is still 15. In Spain it is still 13. I believe I read that the penalty in France even now would be something like 2-10 years in jail. We just have a very different opinion of sex than other nations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. she said no a few times. wtf are we thinking to have a problem with boozin up, druggin and ignoring
a few no's.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Well she was doing drugs and hanging around an older, powerful man - doesn't this mean
she was asking for it?

/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #40
77. Or at least different views of rape...
We just have a very different opinion of sex than other nations..."

Or at least different views of rape...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #40
121. Twighlight Zone
In what kind of twilight zone do we think 13 year old's should be able to give consent to sleep with grown men? We are talking about an 8th grader right. We're not talking about some kid's risky moment with with another 13 year old or a 14 year old.

What man in his right man thinks a 13 year old is a suitable match? That's ludicrous. In what version of reality do men of conscious ever feel good when 13 year old girls are victimized. I don't give a flying rat's petuey (sp) what works in other countries.

In other countries, females are cut to make sex hurt. In this country, we still treat crimes against children as if it's no big deal. After the big debates of when Roman ran...he's still a grown man having sex with a child. My bad...it's wrong when Priests do it, but acceptable when Roman does it.

To me...it's just wrong.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. In much of the world
I could sell my 6 year old daughter to some old perv if I needed the money. Doesn't make it okay in the United States. (Doesn't make it "okay" anywhere.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
57. I never argued that it did or should.
So what's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #57
82. You have mentioned the "age of consent" in various countries in which Polanski might have lived or
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 02:35 PM by uncommon
taken a piss at the airport numerous times in this thread, with no regard for the fact that the crime was committed in the United States.

The age of consent in France in 1943 is not relevant here.

In the 1960s in the United States a man could not be charged with raping his wife. That doesn't mean that a man who came of age in the 60s and rapes his wife tomorrow cannot be charged with rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:35 PM
Original message
Prove your claim.
Prove that "where he was raised" an intoxicated 13 year old could consent to rape and sodomy.

Cite the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
58. Read the thread instead of just responding to whatever catches your eye
and you will see that I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. You proved nothing, except your basic ignorance of law and geography.
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 01:53 PM by msanthrope
Polanski did not grow up in France, joby.

Nor does it matter---the law at the time he anally raped a 13 year old was pretty clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Raping and sodomizing a 13 year old that you have drugged was not a crime
where Polanski was raised???? WTF?

And FYI--he did not serve his sentence. He fled before sentence was pronounced. He was briefly held for a psychiatric report, and when he thought he would not get the recommended probation, he skipped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Nope.
The age of consent was 13, therefore it wasn't a rape. The drug was voluntarily taken. Where's the rape? The victim said she decided to let him because she thought it would be over with sooner and she could leave. That alone would make it consensual.

By the time of his actions in California, she would have been below the age of consent, but the point is that Europe wouldn't have perceived the crime the way we did. I wasn't talking about how we see the crime or even about what Polanski did, I was talking about why Europe doesn't see the crime the same way we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBGLuthier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. I think the mistake was made years ago. He served his time. But
if you think acquiescing is the same as consenting I hope you never date any of my daughters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. He didn't serve any time--he skipped before sentencing.
Pursuant to his guilty plea, he spent 42 days in a psychiatric ward for evaluation.

Before the judge could sentence him, he split.

He hasn't served a single day pursuant to sentencing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Kindly cite the law you are referring to, please?
Please cite the actual "European law" that would have allowed Polanski to drug, rape, and sodomize, a 13 year old?



And FYI--in statutory rape, there is no element of consent. A 13-year old cannot legally consent--nothing she says can make it consenual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
45. Ugh, and frankly that kind of coercion
is rape regardless of alleged consent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
67. I hope you never serve on a jury for a rape trial.
"The age of consent was 13, therefore it wasn't a rape." She took the drug "voluntarily". She "let him because she thought it would be over sooner and she could leave". "By her testimony, the victim claimed she didn't resist, which would have been considered consent, therefore it wouldn't have been rape."

Good grief. It's not really a rape unless you never give up fighting. "despite repeated protests and being asked to stop" is not enough because eventually she gave in and "let him". Even if you are 13 which was below the age of consent to have sex, take drugs or alcohol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Actually, he is precisely the juror most of my clients would love to have.
But I'll discuss my profession another time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
107. This post has my vote for the best rape apology yet
In 1977, the age of consent in California was 16. Some uninformed people think the age of consent was 14 (which you have subtracted 1 year) since Polanski was charged with a lewd act on a child under 14, but that has just about dick to do with the age of consent. It wouldn't have really mattered much if she had been 90 because she DIDN'T CONSENT in the first place. The fact that she was 13 just made his crimes that much more evil.

The drug also wasn't "voluntarily taken", Polanski got her drunk first (which is also illegal, btw), but even if it had been, how in the fuck do you make the quantum leap from there to 'because she took the drug she must have wanted to have sex'? She was telling him "no" several times, begging him to take her home, and crying the whole time. Does that sound like consensual sex to you? Jebus Fucking Christmas on a popsicle stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #107
116. Well, if you'd bothered to read the thread instead of pulling shit out of your ass
you'd see that I said about a bazillion times that I wasn't commenting on whether Polanski raped a girl in California. I was commenting only--and I said this enough times that if anyone missed it or misunderstood it isn't my fault--on how the case has been viewed elsewhere. I never said the age of consent in California was 13, and never commented on it at all, and never said Polanski wasn't guilty of rape. I commented only on how the rest of the world sees this case, and why. You can keep being a dickhead and misrepresenting me for whatever orgasmic thrill you get out of lying about people, but it still doesn't make anything you said valid.

Nothing else you've said has one little bit of anything to do with anything I said. If you don't get that, reread the damn thread and figure it out. Or don't, I don't care. I'm tired of idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. Sweet Jebus, you can't even read your own posts
Since you didn't bother to read your own post, or you simply wish to be duplicitous, here it is again:
The age of consent was 13, therefore it wasn't a rape.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now here's what you say on your next post:
I never said the age of consent in California was 13, and never commented on it at all, and never said Polanski wasn't guilty of rape.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I read your other rape apologies upthread, but there is no way any reasonably literate person could have inferred anything differently from your post and the one to which you replied. YMMV.

You sir, are a rape apologist. If you don't like the inference, don't be a rape apologist. It's that simple really.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #32
122. News Flash
Quote: "The drug was voluntarily taken."

If you give a child drugs...or have drugs around a child...and the child takes the drugs, the authorities may not have the view that "the drug was voluntarily taken."
-----------------------

Quote: "because she thought it would be over with sooner and she could leave. That alone would make it consensual"

LOL! Is this what consensual means to you? I mean, maybe if you're a 15 year old boy, this is what consensual means.

I always wondered how in the heck they keep catching those guys on the sex predator shows. I guess I finally get it in a way. They keep justifying the behavior until they believe it. They're so "hopped up" at the prospect of bedding someone's child that they convince themselves that it must be alright.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. Each time I read one of these Polanski threads the apologies get more outrageous
1) In his culture, it's OK to rape kids

2) Her mom offered her up to Polanski

3) She wasn't a virgin

4) Polanski's pregnant wife was murdered

5) His parents were in concentration camps

6) She shouldn't have been there in the first place, so she must have been asking for it

7) The criminal justice system in America is barbaric

I'm sure I'm missing a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. i believe even sophisicated europe raping a 13 yr old is a crime. you might want to check on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. Here's a link:
"French Penal Code

Male homosexual acts were illegal until 1791, when the ancient sodomy laws were dropped from the Criminal Code of that year. This continued to be the case under the Napoleonic Code of 1810. In 1942, the age of consent for homosexual acts was set at 21, while that for heterosexual acts was 13. The latter was increased to 15 in 1945. In 1978, the age for homosexual acts was lowered to 18. In 1981, it was lowered to 15, in line with that for heterosexual acts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#...

"Roman Raymond Polanski... (born 18 August 1933) is a French-born ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Early_life

------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
54. According to the Wiki article you linked yourself:
"On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested for the sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old, Samantha Geimer, that occurred the day before at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson.<46><56> The girl testified that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite repeated protests and being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy upon her.<57><58><59><60> A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.<61> At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.<62>"

Your own link ALSO shows that the age of consent was 15 at the time of the rape.

Also, regardless of the age of consent, rape is still rape even if a woman is of age.

It disturbs me the lengths to which you are trying to make this okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
76. he grew up inPoland
Article 200. 1. Whoever subjects a minor under 15 years of age to sexual intercourse or makes him/her submit to another sexual act or to perform such an act shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 12 years."
" 2. The same punishment shall be imposed on anyone, who records pornographic material with the participation of such a person
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Anally raping a minor wouldn't have been a crine when/where he was born/raised?
We are SUCH a backward nation to have sex laws like being able to anally rape a minor, too few personal liberties like not being able to anally rape a minor, on the par with Iran or Saudi Arabia. How DARE the system arbitrarily persecute criminals based on public political motivations rather than any objective sense of measured justice? I mean REALLY! If you can flee to another country to avoid serving time for long enough, why shouldn't you just be able to then say "it's been long enough since I anally raped a 13 yr old"?

How DARE there be no statute of limitations for criminals who are able to avoid the law for so long? I mean, REALLY! It is just the same as for stoning women for being accused of adultery. What prudes! Anally raping a 13 yr old? Pshaw. Being able to avoid serving time? Of course! I mean, who amongst us wouldn't deep in their little black hearts want to be able to get away with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Rape of a 13-year-old was legal when and where he was raised?
He was raised very middle class in France and Poland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Again, if it was consentual, it wasn't rape.
The age of consent in France until 1945 was 13. Then it was raised to 15. The only reason it was rape in America was because a 13 year old is below the age of consent. By her testimony, the victim claimed she didn't resist, which would have been considered consent, therefore it wouldn't have been rape. She may have testified differently if it had come to a trial, of course, but according to her testimony he kept pushing her and she let him so she could get it over with.

The age of consent in Spain is still 13, btw. In France and Poland it is now 15. I'm not exonerating Polanski or claiming he shouldn't be sentenced here--I'm just not even addressing that question. My only point was that Europe's perception of sex and age of consent is different than ours, and that plays into European perceptions of Polanski and this case. If you want to convince me the act was a horrible thing on Polanski's case, I'll just concede the argument. Okay, Polanski is a child rapist. That has nothing to do with what I posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. he didn't rape her in 45 so 13 irrelevant. time of rape was 15 .ergo, not his country either. rape
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 01:36 PM by seabeyond
never ok. and was not consensual. they merely didn't charge rape so she didn't have to go thru trial, but NO WHERE but defendant said consensual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. He wasn't even raised in France, BTW.....
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 01:44 PM by msanthrope
He was raised in Poland. He was born and lived in Paris for 3 years, then his family moved to Poland for the war's duraton.

In neither country was his act acceptable.....I mean, I would love to read the Polish or French law that makes anal rape of a 13 year old okay....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. It's also irrelevant where he grew up - a crime is judged in the place in which
it is committed. I don't give a shit if he came from some backwater hellhole that had NO rape laws - it doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Completely irrelevant--but interesting that pre-war Poland sex crimes should be
the basis of a legal defense, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. Are you deliberately pretending not to understand what I said, or are you genuinely missing it?
My point isn't about Polanski's actions, it's about the world's perception of them. You want to convince someone that what he did was horrible, don't talk to me. Go talk to Switzerland.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. YOU brought up the argument rape of a 13 year old accepted in the country he was raised. I called BS
then you tried to validate your untrue claim. and i called BS again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #56
106. no i- it;s just we all know better than you that pre 1945 law is totally fucking irrelevant
sad how desperate you are to make this sound like "she deserved / liked it/ asked for it. And you don;t even eem to realise it.
Pathetic pastiche of arguments you cobbled togeher, kind of disgusting actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
61. He drugged her and raped her after she asked to go home
Joby, I am honestly shocked at your stance over this.

Rape was rape in France and Poland, and has been for a very long time.

And, by the time he raped this girl, he was an adult and a very urbane, real-traveled man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
68. she only said no a couple times, before resigning self to rape and just waiting for him to get done
i guess if she doesnt fight and get bloody, it isnt rape
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. exactly. And of course a 13 yr old can consent to taking ludes and alcohol also.
She probably wore a skirt too, the little slut.


:sarcasm: just in case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. I remember a few months ago posters saying she was a prostitute
And "wanted" it. WTF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Um, duh, you can't rape a prostitute.
UGH. I don't know why I even read this thread. I used to be a constant DUer and forgot that it was the blatant and horrifying misogyny that made me leave the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. what is really appalling is she is 13. he is 46. she is a kid. he is powerful. people argue level
playing field here. as if a 13 yr old has any abilities, experience or power even close to the same level as a 46 yr old man. we ignore the SIGNIFICANT difference in abilities between a mere 13 year old KID and a 46 yr old man

absurd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Well, those precocious little girls - they are always out for sex. I know at 13 I knew exactly what
I was doing! And women have all the power in sexual relationships anyway so it's damn near impossible for a man to rape.

/rant

The most surprising thing about this thread is the number of people who aren't defending him and his male privilege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. The "perception of the world" is not a yardstick by which
it is acceptable to judge a crime committed in this country under our laws.

And the "perception of the world" when it comes to rape and child abuse is very different from what it ought to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
90. ITA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
112. "To the world, we are backwards and barbarian"
Call me Conan then, because I oppose child-rape.

Why don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
119. ???
Quote: "Also, remember that the perception of the rest of the world is that Polanksi seduced a 13 year old Lolita, not that he drugged and raped a child, and even the victim seems to hint at that interpretation with her claims that Polanski has been punished enough and the issue needs to be dropped. The world sees the arrest and attempted extradition as a publicity-grabbing move on our part."

-----------------------------
It's a good thing I can think for myself...otherwise, I'd care what the rest of the world thinks about this incident. I have no doubt real parents wherever they exist feel happier when people who think 13 year olds are appropriate sexual partners are incarcerated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uncommon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. Um, didn't you get the memo?
Rape is hardly ever actually considered a crime, in this country or any other. This goes hundred fold if you are famous and white.

Color me unsurprised.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
20. Okay, now let's get the Swiss to "set free" the 52,000 names of American tax cheats...
...currently harbored by UBS Bank.

WP

Early last year, UBS admitted that it helped U.S. clients hide money from the IRS, and it agreed to pay $780 million to avert U.S. criminal prosecution.

Separately, the U.S. government sued UBS in federal court, demanding that the bank turn over information about an estimated 52,000 secret accounts held by Americans. It appeared to be the unusual case that the U.S. government was afraid to win: Victory in court could have led to crippling sanctions against Switzerland's largest bank, which has a major presence in the United States. In addition, it could have damaged relations between the United States and Switzerland, which helps the U.S. government in international affairs.

"Once a court order would be secured and UBS not comply with it, all parties understood that UBS would be held in contempt, at which point the <Federal Reserve> would probably be in a position to be required to yank UBS's license," Justice Department lawyer Kevin Downing said in court last year, adding that the two governments settled "to avoid such a situation."


And that's only one bank! How many more?

I pay my taxes...why can't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
47. And we set Dick Cheney, George Bush and a whole host of
murderous criminals free, wait we didn't even slap them on the wrist! Can't help wondering why there is more outrage over this ancient case, where the victim wants it over, than there is about the ongoing torture and RAPE many times of women and children by this country's military in foreign countries.

I bet if someone wrote an OP about the rape of Iraqi women and children it would get far fewer posts, now that we have a Democratic majority and no one is going to be held accountable anyhow, than any post about this old, case.

I think the U.S. went after him now because of the latest movie he made which airc, wasn't very complimentary to us.

I remember one woman from Iraq, her name was Noor. Robert Fisk I believe and a few other independent journalists reported that she was in Abu Ghraib and had been raped, before the tapes were discovered.

I have not seen ONE, not ONE story on the U.S. media about this woman. Some journalists followed up and it was determined that she had been assaulted. She asked from that prison that her 'brothers come and blow it up' because living had become so unbearable for the women there and they did not want to live.

I believe she was released, but her family moved away and we never knew if she lived or died, nor did we care.

America needs to get its own house in order before lecturing the world and pretending to care about the rape of women and children by digging up this old case because we have been told that the War Criminals who are responsible for those rapes, will not be prosecuted and that we must 'look forward, not backward'.

I hope this is the end of this case, at least until we start seeing our own Rule of Law restored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
59. Oh, he WILL
especially the younger ones
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedstDem Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
79. Right back Atcha
Fuck the itsrobrt's.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
87. why did the U.S. courts refuse to provide the requested information?
Is it surprising that a sane government doesn't trust the American "Justice" system? And if that mistrust is misplaced, why wouldn't the court comply?

Italy is a get out of jail free card for murderers and under-aged criminals with the means to get out of the country because of the barbarity of our "justice" system.

And Dog knows that the Swiss are not the "bleeding hearts" of Europe, so maybe we need to take a look at ourselves and our society, no?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
89. He served his time and even his victim said he has atoned for it.
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 03:30 PM by krabigirl
He can't come to the US, so he is still punished (well, to some I guess.)

I think we have more important things to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #89
102. He didn't serve any time--he fled before sentencing.
He spent 42 days in a psych ward in Chino, for evaluation, pursuant to the guilty plea he took. But, when he realized he wasn't going to escape jail, he fled prior to sentencing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #89
120. He didn't serve time, and the victim has no legal standing concerning this
It is the State's decision, because of gaming the system by the defendant, which is what Polanski did. He paid her off about 20 years ago.

I think this is something important: a child rapist who fled using his wealth, continued sexual contact with children after he fled, and has used his wealth since then to escape justice. Sexual crimes against children and women are probably the number one international crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
98. I'm smashing my watch and no more chocolate or cheese EVER!!!!1
Edited on Mon Jul-12-10 04:29 PM by Bluebear
:cry:

Please don't denigrate a whole people because of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #98
110. can't give up cheese dude, it's the best stuff on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
105. He has money...
in their bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
111. I agree! Fuck the Swiss and fuck Polanski!
I wish all the bad things in the world on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #111
115. he Might Like That
But I guess your suggestion could work. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-12-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
114. Ditto! FUCK THE SWISS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
124. She was 13 and drunk! If he had been "Father Polanski" the same celebrities would castrate him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC