Need to vent-All the Polanski apologist make me want to fucking puke!

[proteus_lives]

He raped a 13-year old girl. Got that? He drugged her and raped her. Any confusion?

It doesn't matter that he lived in a Nazi ghetto.

It doesn't matter that he lost his wife to the Manson Cult.

It doesn't matter that he has made great movies and is an Oscar winner.

He's a child rapist. He fled the county and lived the high life in Europe. (Where he found time to sleep with a 15 year-old Nastassja Kinski, charming fella huh?) How many other young European girls has he raped? People like him don't stop.

I hope he gets sent back to the States and gets the prison sentence he so richly deserves. I hope his money, fame and international connections will fail to protect him this time.

He's a rapist! Why are people defending him??? :puke: :mad: I've lost respect for those DUer's who are playing the role of rape apologist. Could someone please explain why people are defending him? Does it really just come down to him he being a famous and talented artist?

Roman Polanski is a rapist and he should be in prison. :rant:

[mike_c]

1. who will be helped by imprisoning him?

Seriously. What good-- other than exacting revenge on behalf of people who cannot seem to forgive after forty years-- what good would come from imprisoning Polanski?

I think what he did was reprehensible. But punishing him now, forty years too late, serves no real purpose other than to demonstrate just how puritan we've remained. Maybe we should flog him and cut off his hands while we're at it, huh?

[proteus_lives]

3. Wanting to punish a rapist is being a "puritan"?

Well then get me a buckle hat!

Punishing a child rapist isn't revenge, it's the right thing to do. I don't care how much time has passed. What good? I think not allowing a person to get away with rape is a very good thing.

Ask yourself this, if someone drugged and raped your daughter and wasn't punished for 40 years, you would be all, "It's ok man, ancient history."???

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

9. No, he wasn't punished. He had a psych eval and bailed

before he was sentenced.

He spent 42 days being evaluated.

He drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old.....

[Pavulon]

21. The state gets the final say. victims of crimes do not get to pick

their attackers disposition. That is what juries are for.

[rug]

24. No, judges determine the disposition. And then, only after a jury says it needs a disposition.

In this case, the judge was an ass and pretty well bungled a prompt disposition.

[Pavulon]

27. Nope, the judicial error was never settled here.

so roman also has to pony up for felony flight. Not quite what he deserves for drugging and raping a 7th grader but 5 - 10 will do.

[rug]

30. He won't do a day more. The State bungled it beyond repair.

[Pavulon]

36. I bet a guy who raped a kid

does more than a day. The book will and should be thrown at this guy. He can go die with bernie at butner federal prison, on our dime. The state has never gotten a crack at the felony flight or the other felonies he is now exposed to by his actions. His defunct plea only covered one of four felonies.

[quiller4]

255. Actually at one point he had a plea deal worked out and he

would have served less than a year.

[pinto]

35. Good point.

:hi:

[proteus_lives]

41. The victim's wishes aren't the only thing.

He has to answer to the state/society for his crimes and fleeing.

[Odin2005]

101. 42 days isn't punishment.

To not punish him sends a message that rich rapists can buy off their victims, like Polanski did.

[Name removed]

401. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

434. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

159. +10

[dsc]

17. How about deterring the next rich, famous, pederaist

Polanski is a fantastic director but also a felon.

[Odin2005]

96. Punishing a RAPIST is "puritanism"? WTF?

:wtf:

[tavalon]

113. Rape is not about sex and it is a crime

[Recursion]

379. I've never understood that meme -- rape is an instance of sex

Specifically, a criminal instance of non-consensual sex.

[LaydeeBug]

444. I can help you to understand...Rape is an act of VIOLENCE

and not really about sex at all.

[Recursion]

445. That's like saying "water is blue; it is not wet"

You say that like "sex" and "violence" are disjoint sets. There is violent sex and non-violent sex; consensual sex and non-consensual sex; good sex and evil sex (and indifferent sex). If rape isn't sex does that mean it's not a sex crime?

[LanternWaste]

162. What is the precise and relevant amount of time

What is the precise and relevant amount of time that must pass which turns the punishment for a reprehensible act to a punishment of mere puritanism? On what objective measure is this based?

Do you apply this same standard to those catholic priests who were guilty of this also?

[Shell Beau]

194. I think your last point is right on.

[mike_c]

200. yes, as a matter of fact I do....

And before the inevitable accusations begin to fly, yes, I too was sexually molested as a young boy. But the comments in this thread disgust me-- I'm so tired of revenge as justice and our sick societal focus on punishment, NO MATTER WHAT THE CRIME. Polanski has lived his life. If anyone is proof that someone can work through or around their demons, Polanski is. The crime has gone unpunished for forty years. What will change in the world if Polanski is hauled in for punishment now?

Nothing will change. No justice will be advanced. Only revenge will be exacted. If that's what American "justice" is really about-- revenge, at any cost-- it is little better than the crimes it punishes, IMO. I'm just sick of our national obsession with revenge against people we demonize for crimes they've committed.

[Dorian Gray]

331. You keep repeating that no good....

only revenge... will be exacted if he's punished.

People keep saying why that is untrue. There are a number of reasons, repeatedly stated, why his incarceration is a just punishment and not just revenge.

You keep ignoring that and saying "PUNISHMENT AS REVENGE! Puritanism!"

[spiritual_gunfighter]

437. This person either didn't read all of those responses

Or doesn't comprehend how the justice system works. If you are convicted of a crime you pay a penality, whether it is jail time, probation or a fine. It is not "revenge" as he puts it. I sometimes wonder how people who I have something in common with politically can be so dense.

[seabeyond]

165. no she says. i was afraid. told him no, stop. lets go home. no

no lets go home

why dont we forgive?

why doesnt he pay the price for rape

[paulsby]

204. what utter crap

"how puritan we've remained" = wanting a scumbag rapist (who raped and drugged his 13 yr old victim) to want to face justice?!?!?

cool. then, i;m a puritan. a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, puritan!

he has lived the high life, been feted by the hollywood ignorati and never faced any punishment for his crimes.

fuck him

[hedgehog]

208. Maybe every 13 year old girl within 15 miles of him?

[Whisp]

212. wtf does 'puritan' have to do with raping a kid?

wtf are you trying to say here. you sound ill.

[CalvinandHobbes]

316. Sooo.

If someone raped a loved one of yours and got away with it for 20 yrs you would say that its all ok now? Really?

[raccoon]

356. In that case, why should any Nazis have been tracked down after the war and tried for war crimes? nt

[Skidmore]

368. Well, jeez, lets just clear the prisons of child rapists now. Save some taxes while at it.

C'mon go for it. He committed a CRIME against this young girl and should be punished for it. Has nothing to do with puritanism but has a lot to do with preying on a vulnerable person.

[closeupready]

370. Yes - Release the Rapists! Compassion! Who is being helped, after all?

What a bunch of unadulterated BULLSHIT. :mad: so yes, I agree with your sarcastic reply.

[cynatnite]

431. Most definitely not the young girls that are preyed upon by rapists...

they're not being helped at all. :puke:

[roguevalley]

385. the idea that there is accountability. How about Rumsfeld? Should

we give up on getting him behind bars too. This isn't about puritanism. There is nothing wrong with being ultra pissed at someone boffing a child. There is no statute of limitations on the idea that they owe a debt.

[Zix]

386. Erm... It's the rule of law? Kinda thing?

Ya know? Rape's illegal?

tap, tap

[JuniperLea]

400. Deterring other would-be rapists...

Even if it's a slim chance, is well worth it.

Also, as a deterrent to those who might run from justice.

You are really coming off as an apologist here... argue all you want about revenge, you are looking more and more like an apologist.

Your revenge meme is bullshit.

[cynatnite]

430. So you think society is puritan because it abhors the raping of a 13 year old girl?

:wtf:

Also, if a person accused of a crime remains free long enough...then there is no reason to punish him?

:wtf:

[theNotoriousP.I.G.]

2. Maybe I missed something

I don't have a clue what particular posts you are talking about. Of course Mr. Polanski is a rapist and has hidden out in Europe for the last 40 years, dodging the American justice system. Who the hell is defending him?

As an aside, what are the statutes of limitations on his particular crimes? I've always wondered about that.

[proteus_lives]

4. Check the the threads in LBN and GD.

There are plenty of people defending him.

And the statue of limitation doesn't count because he fled before he could be punished.

[quiller4]

258. He accepted a plea deal then fled when it appeared that the

judge was going to throw out the deal. Last year his attorney filed for a re-sentencing hearing and the victim volunteered to appear in his stead. Among considerations in the original deal the victim and/or her mother were the source of the drugs that Polanski consunmed along with the victim.

[Hepburn]

417. The statute tolls while someone flees the jurisdiction of the court. n/t

[rug]

5. The victim filed an affidavit to dismiss the case. Is she an apologist?

[Call Me Wesley]

6. I was thinking the same.

Sad, isn't it?

[Pavulon]

42. Remember social studies.. The system does not

revolve around the victim criminal court. The crime is against the state. She has her say in civil court. The state handles criminal trials, so roman owes time to the state, seems he already paid the victim..

[msanthrope]

10. No. But she isn't who prosecutes. n/t

[rug]

11. The OP was about aplogists, not prosecutors.

[Maru Kitteh]

218. No. The OP was about apologists on DU.

[merh]

23. The state represents her, the victim.

If she doesn't want to prosecute him who are you to say she is wrong and he must be prosecuted and she must be dragged into this?

You want to keep making her a victim?

[Pavulon]

38. No the state does not.

her opinion on the matter is not relevant. The prosecutor did not take money from roman. The system is designed so rich scum cant go fuck little kids and then buy their way out of crimes by paying victims for their trouble. This goes back to the magna fucking carta.

[paulsby]

206. false

her statement is RELEVANT, it is not DISPOSITIVE.

i arrest domestic violence offenders all the time where the victims don't want prosecution

the prosecution is perfectly reasonable in considering what she has to say, as PART of their decision process.

but she does not get the final say.

iow, her opinion is not IRRELEVANT , it is merely not the only thing to consider

that is not how the criminal justice system works

[msanthrope]

51. The state does not represent the victim.

The state represents the people of the state.

She doesn't get a say in who gets prosecuted.

The only one who made her a victim is her rapist. Mr. Polanski. Not anyone else.

[paulsby]

205. the majority of domestic violence victims fwiw also don't want prosecution

that's been my experience. but the state still has the final say. i've arrested tons of DV abusers and had their wives, girlfriends, etc. decline prosecution. happens all the time

do i think the state sometimes goes overboard? sure.

do i think a rapist who drugged and raped a 13 yr old should get away with it, because his victim 40 yr later now has come to terms with it?

absolutely 100% no.

[merh]

210. After 40 years of having to live with this

She has the right to have her feelings respected.

[paulsby]

300. she does not have the authority to make the decision though for the legal system

the prosecutor can and should take what she wants INTO CONSIDERATION, but it should not be dispositive.

imo, just the fact that polanski thumbed his nose at the justice system and fled the jurisdiction ALONE should get him jail time, and given the fact that he is a piece of shit child rapist predator, he should DEFINITELY get prison time.

and like i said, MANY domestic violence victims don't want prosecution either. the prosecution takes their wishes into consideration, but their desire is not THE decisive factor. i had a woman once whose boyfriend told her to put her head down on a chopping block, then said "i could kill you this easily" (or words to that effect... i am quoting from memory), then swung the axe a few inches above her head.

the facts were not in dispute. he admitted it. she admitted it. there was even a nice notch on the fence where the axe landed when he swung it above her head.

she DID NOT WANT PROSECUTION!!

should the prosecutor have dropped the case? imo, fuck no. and she didn't. the guy was convicted.

[merh]

395. Yes, she does.

Go look at California's Victim Rights laws.

Any prosecutor who tries a case knows you can't get a conviction if the victim is not willing to testify.

Domestic violence laws had to be changed over the last couple of decades to allow the officers on the scene to arrest without the victims cooperation.

[MellowDem]

392. Ummmm... 40 years of living I'm guessing quite well...

on her rape payoff money. This isn't about her, it's about all rape victims and having rapists having to face justice equally. What you are advocating is that as long as a rapist is powerful and rich enough to placate their victim, they should get off scott free. What fucking idiotic bullshit.

[merh]

398. I've advocated no such thing.

The idiotic bullshit would be those who are ignorant of the facts. He plead guilty and fled, what happens now would be his appearance before the court for sentencing on that plea. Under the California Victims Rights law, she has a say.

Deal with it, it is what it is.

I don't support it, I do understand it and have only explained it to you and others.

What is disgusting is your alleged concern while badmouthing a child who was victimized and has had to live with this - you have no idea what she has gone through in her life. Stop damning her and posting about her as if you do.

[MellowDem]

404. I'm not damning her...

I'm just stating the truth. It's not a judgement; she took the settlement. And it just highlights that justice is not about her, it's not about the individual victim. That's why this isn't vengeance. It's not about a personal vendetta and it's all about fairness and justice.

I will say that I personally find her feelings to be disgusting because they come across as selfish. It is that kind of attitude that makes it hard for other rape victims to come forward, even years after the fact, and bring the perps to justice. It's also another disgusting instance of wealth coming before justice. I don't have any idea what Roman went through either, doesn't mean I can't state my opinion on his actions.

I never said she doesn't have a "say". She can literally address the court, but she doesn't get to decide the ruling, that's what I am talking about.

[merh]

406. did she, or did her parents take that money on her behalf

I don't know the answer or the circumstances - do you?

I never said she had the right to determine the sentence, I said she had a say and her wishes should be respected, her say considered.

[MellowDem]

408. No, I don't know the circumstances...

but regardless of them, I still disagree with her statement. One can fully forgive another and still wish them to be brought to justice and serve their time. The idea that because time has passed and she has forgiven him doesn't really make sense as to why he shouldn't face the same consequences anyone else would have to face. And it does smack of inequality, because Roman is a rich and famous man who, whatever the circumstances, was able to reduce his sentence in part because of being able to "settle" with the victim or her parents because of his wealth and his citizenship in France and a country that was willing to harbor him when he ran. The fact remains that had he been a poor man, he would have had a much harsher sentence and it just seems rather sad that the victim would push for more preferential treatment to a man who has already gotten off relatively well.

[tammywammy]

411. She took a settlement, she was 25, I believe, when she filed a civil suit. n/t

[Mimosa]

322. Good for you, Paulsby!

Not that it really matters but I'm wondering what the male/female split on this issue is.

[paulsby]

333. male/female split on what?

on being offenders?

well, iirc about 85% of DV arrests are male perpetrators.

i have read one study out of canada (and my experience coincides with this) that when one includes ALL DV assault (to include minor shoving, etc.) women are as likely (or maybe slightly more likely) to offend.

iow, if one includes slaps and pushes, women are as likely as men to commit dv.

heck, personally (i'm a male) i was the victim of such DV assaults at least 3 times when i was younger.

did i call the police? of course not.

most men think similarly. very few men are going to call the police because their girlfriend shoved them. i don't know anybody who would (that i have posed this question to)

so the statistics on reported DV aren't going to include the umpteen times that woman shoves man, and man doesn't call police.

heck, i once saw a girl knee her boyfriend violently in the balls (talk about aggravated assault) in front of me and about 20 witnesses (at a party in california). did ANYBODY call the police ? of course not.

if he had done the same thing to her (i realize she doesn't ahve balls, but i mean similarly assault her), the police certainly would have been called.

is that a double standard? sure. but it's reality.

my wife is a kickboxer. she could do serious damage. but most women generally don't do much damage. there are exceptions, like phil hartman's wife, but those are exceptions to the rule
when it comes to the more violent stuff - punching that results in tissue trauma, bloody noses, black eyes, bruising, etc. men are much more likely to be the perpetrators.

a common pattern is a woman shoves a guy, and the guy roundhouses her in the face. if we responded to that, in my jurisdiction, the man would be arrested. he would be the "primary aggressor" (note that primary does not equal INITIAL aggressor).

most men (i was taught this) were taught to NEVER hit a woman. most women are not taught to never hit a man, in the same way. it's a taboo, and a GOOD taboo (never hit a woman). it's one I had to overcome in martial arts training. i HAD to hit a woman, but it just felt icky and wrong. hitting a guy felt good :)

i've had many women ADMIT to me that they would TRY to goad their boyfriend by name calling, or shoving him, etc. to GET him to hit them. that is twisted and sick, but DV *is* twisted and sick.

i've had other women try to explain away "it's my fault that he hit me" and that is similarly twisted and sick.

so, in brief. when it comes to garden variety pushing and shoving, i think women and men are about equal in terms of frequency, with women arguably more likely to do it than men.

when it comes to the more aggravated assaults, it is VERY disproportionately men who are the offenders.

[Mimosa]

334. I meant the M/F split re: Polanski should or shouldn't face extradition/prosecution

But thank you for the information.

[paulsby]

336. lol

well, now i feel like a horse's ass :)

in answer to that question... i have no idea. i just know that *i* think he should face extradition/imprisonment (he's already been prosecuted).

i'm not a "throw away the key" guy at this point.

i think a couple of years would suffice.

i also think he should be fined heavily, and proceeds should go to rape/sexual assault prevention/treatment/counseling, etc.

[Mimosa]

339. You make a lot of sense, Paulsby. n/t

[paulsby]

391. i try. thx nt

[LisaL]

225. No the state doesn't represent the victim.

As far as I understand it, the state represents the interests of the state (general public).
Thus, the victim might say she/he doesn't want prosecution, but the state can proceed regardless.

[paulsby]

410. i don't know why this is hard to understand

the state DOES represent the victim. they ALSO represent the state.

those aren't mutually exclusive.

of course, as i have said, the prosecution will often go forward AGAINST a victim's wishes.

however...

they do take those wishes into account, and are less likely to go forward when a victim is nondesirous.

as i said, what the victim said MATTERS, but it is not DISPOSITIVE

i have personally spoken to prosecutors on this issue. they WANT to know, in any criminal, case if the victim is or isn't desiring prosecution.

but it's not dispositve

[spiritual_gunfighter]

438. The victim has nothing to do with the state

prosecuting someone that has broken the law. Even now that she wants him to be forgiven he broke a Federal and state law. The state of California has chosen to pursue prosecution. She has nothing to do with it at this point. That is how the law works.

[proteus_lives]

16. She has her reasons.

I can see why she wouldn't want the past dredged up. But it's not about her.

How about you? I saw your poll in the lounge. Is that the reason you're giving him a pass on rape, because you like his movies?

[rug]

19. Actually, there's only one, maybe two, of his that I like.

Your rant, however, would be more accurately directed at French extradition laws.

[Odin2005]

106. Polanski bought her off, that's why.

[eShirl]

135. Yep, just like Michael Jackson bought off those young boys. n/t

[Pavulon]

18. She took money for her suffering, the state has not yet squared away

the legal aspects. So she will not sue him for civil damages, but he still has his jail time to serve.

[rug]

20. I see. This is about The State.

[Pavulon]

22. Yep, that is who prosecutes people who fuck 7th graders..

lets be clear here, 7 th graders are not able to consent. Just because he is a rich , creative guy does not cover that crime.

[rug]

26. That former seventh grader wants the case dropped.

Do you want The State to dredge it up over her objection? Because, after all, The State must get its cut.

[Pavulon]

29. That is how the whole system works. The crime is against the STATE as well

the victim can have reasons to refuse to prosecute. The state loses money in jailing the dirt bag.

[rug]

31. Do you feel this way only about celebrity rapists or do you think it applies to Goldman Sachs?

[Pavulon]

33. The independent prosecutor prevents rich rapists

from buying their way out of crimes. I believe goldman guys are about to be indicted in ny. This is judicial precedent, and not feelings. I feel a scumbag rapist should serve time. Luckily the law backs me on that feeling.

[rug]

48. How long for Goldan indictments? 24 business hours or more?

Don't you worry about indigent defendants. The State has had them covered for decades.

[tavalon]

128. Rape is not about sex and it is a crime

Don't sensationalize a non sexual battery with fucking.

[Pavulon]

170. Just wanted to be clear scum was 44 and she was 13

all the apologists cant seem to understand this complex issue. His motives, be them control, or just sex are terrible. The act is what will put him in prison.

[paulsby]

207. and he drugged her too

he did not just rape her. he drugged her so that he could be able to overcome her resistance more easily.

it's disgusting and predatory.

[Hannah Bell]

275. just to be clear: he offered her a glass of champagne & she accepted it.

he offered her a qualuude & she accepted 1/3 of it. he did not then say, "no bitch, take the whole thing," he gave her the 1/3 & took the rest himself.

he may have offered to lower her resistance, & it was definitely predatory given her age, but he didn't force the drink or drugs on her, or give them to her secretly, which is what your phrasing implies.

[paulsby]

298. offering a 13 yr old a quaalude is DRUGGING her

by any reasonable definition of the word.

ditto for offering her drinks.

you don't do eithe with a 13 yr old. if you do , you are drugging them.

i don't want to quibble over the meaning of the word "drugging", and you may have thought i meant "drugging" in the surreptitious sense (such as slippin' a rohypnol in somebody's drink), but i was well aware of how he did it. i read many of the case documents on this case years ago, and imo and ime polanski is a CLASSIC predator. i've seen them, i've interrogated them, and they are scum.

[Hannah Bell]

307. yes, & i've seen your other policely judgments, & disagree with most of them as well.

if you offer me heroin & i say "ok," we don't describe that as "you drugged me". the phrasing is used to imply the drugging was forcible or surreptitous.

the gray area is that even though teens take drugs rather frequently & apparently of their own will with peers, it's different when an adult is the one offering. i don't consider that gray area enough to use the phrasing "he drugged her."

[paulsby]

311. you aren't a 13 yr old

if you offer them to a 13 yr old, who has neither the education, the ability to consent to recreational drugs, or the maturity to do same, you are DRUGGING them.

he softened her up with promises to make her a star, and by drugging her

but again, it's what i refer to as a semantic wank

we don't disagree on what he did (it's a matter of public record), we merely disagree on whether it meets the definion of "drugging" somebody.

so, it's really a useless argument. what he did is what he did - gave quaaludes and alcohol to a 13 yr old in order to help his ability to rape her.

that meets my definition. if it doesn't meet yours, that's perfectly gr00vy. it's still the same act, regardless of what we call it

hth

[Hannah Bell]

318. yes, implied promises she'd be a star were the reason she was there, obviously.

she posed topless for him quite "undrugged," & returned to do it a second time, despite knowing it wasn't kosher. because she was willing to do it to be in the movies. as are many people, including stupid kids.

i've been a 13-yr-old. they do recreational drugs quite often. and have sex, too. that doesn't excuse polanski in any respect, but the picture is more ambiguous than you paint it.


To drug:

(transitive) To administer intoxicating drugs to, generally without the recipient's knowledge or consent.
She suddenly felt strange, and only then realized she'd been drugged.

(transitive) To add intoxicating drugs to with the intention of drugging someone.
She suddenly felt strange. She realized her drink must have been drugged.

[paulsby]

319. and again

it's a wank about word definitons

and look at yer dictionary definition of "to drug"

first of all, it says GENERALLY (iow not always) w/o knowledge or consent

and second of all, i have already said a 13 yr old cannot "consent" to sex (legally) nor can they (imo) consent to quaaludes and alcohol given them by an adult.

if i responded to a scene where an adult gave a kid quaaludes and alcohol, who would i arrest?

the adult.

they drugged the kid.

and yes, i am well aware 13 yr olds have sex and do drugs. that's not really the point, and you know it.

i explained why it meets the definition of "drugged" and you posted a definition that does not refute my definition, and in fact supports my point

nice one

again, though. why even argue this? arguments about word definitions are silly. call it a bad thing. that's what it was.

[Hannah Bell]

326. i know how the word is used. your phrasing is deliberately chosen to

indicate the use of drugs was non-consensual or covert, to make the rape appear more heinous.

words mean something, & your word choice distorts the reported facts, which are:

1. at nicholson's house, he offers her wine; she refuses.
2. he offers her champagne; she accepts because it "sounds interesting". he "keeps refilling" her glass.
3. he asks her to pose topless in the jacuzzi with the champagne: she does.
4. he gets in naked & she gets out & says she wants to go home.
5. he offers her a qualuude & she accepts 1/3 of it. he takes the rest.
6. he tells her to lie down for a minute.
7. she does, knowing he wants sex: "I just let it happen" because she's woozy & scared & thinks "he won't take no for an answer".
8. angelica houston comes to the bedroom door; he goes to talk to houston; she gets up & starts to dress.
9. when houston leaves, he tells her to lie down again.
0. she does & he then "takes off my underwear" & "finishes".
1. he goes out & talks to huston again.
2. she gets dressed & goes to his car to cry while he's talking to huston.
3. he takes her home. he tells her not to tell her mother.
4. she calls her boyfriend to tell him what happened.

[paulsby]

329. my choice of words

fits what i think most people would agree with...

that a person who engaged in the following acts in regards to a 13 yr old - DRUGGED her

i note that what you are doing is attacking my motives, my reason FOR using the word. the reason i use the word is that i think it is accurate. but you assign the motives that i want to skew the argument and make what polanski did sound more heinous.

i encourage people to research exactly what polanski did. the facts speak for themselves. nobody needs to make his acts sound more heinous. they were heinous as fuck. exaggeration is overkill

i am pleased that you are well versed in the basic fact patterns of this case. i find that many, if not most apologists for polanski (and i am NOT saying you are an apologist... quite the opposite) are pretty ignorant of the case facts.

i think the fact pattern is consistent with "drugging" her, as well as (obviously) raping her.

i wouldn't be surprised if he was smart enough to realize that the effects of the jacuzzi can actually intensify the intoxifying/impairing effects of both quaaludes and alcohol (heat, dehydration, etc.)

but to put it briefly, return to my example.

i respond to a scene where an adult man had offered and given a 13 yr old champagne and quaaludes.

1) would i arrest the 13 yr old? (in my jurisdiction, one can arrest a minor for having consumed alcohol). of course not
2) would i arrest the adult? absolutely.

did the adult "drug" her?

i think that most people would agree with the statement "polanski drugged and raped the girl" if they knew the fact pattern as you presented it.

but again, it's a silly definitional wank over the meaning of the word. i refer to these as "semantical wanks". they are everywhere on the internet.

if it makes you feel more accurate to say "he provided her with drugs and alcohol" vs. "he drugged her" then knock yourself out.

we both know what he did, we just disagree on a precise term.

i will give you props for being familiar with the case facts, though. again, i find that refreshing.

[Hannah Bell]

330. The adult offered her alcohol & drugs, which she accepted & ingested herself.

He did not, according to her testimony, physically force them on her. Nor did he secretly administer them.

Those are the facts, per her own testimony. There's no need to embellish it with misleading turns of phrase. It's criminal as it stands.

The only reason for embellishment is to demagogue it.

[paulsby]

335. again

we agree on those case facts.

imo, it is an accurate word, to refer to what he did as DRUGGING her, most specifically because of her age.

just as if he gave those drugs to a 20 yr old woman, i would NOT refer to it as "drugging" her.

and also with the realization that when you give somebody drugs and alcohol with the INTENT to use it to help diminish their resistance to an act of rape, that makes it more of a "drugging", than to offer them a cocktail at a party.

i think you've made an intelligent argument, and i can simply agree to disagree on whether using the phrase "he drugged her" is appropriate or inappropriate.

i can certainly agree that saying "he provided a 13 yr old girl with drugs and alcohol prior to raping her" is less likely to lead to false assumptions than saying "he drugged her", so i gotta admit you have a point.

i'll repeat that.

YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT.

all i want is for people to know the case facts. i don't want them to make false assumptions, and the use of "he drugged her" is pretty likely to often lead to false ASSUMPTIONS, and that's bad.

[Hannah Bell]

337. "imo, it is an accurate word... specifically because of her age."

imo, it's not. specifically because it creates an impression counter to fact, & leaves no vocabulary to distinguish the case in which someone really *does* 'drug' the victim by force or stealth.

nor do all the people here ranting about how he *forcibly*!! *raped*! & *drugged*!! her leave any indignation to spare for cases in which physical violence & forcible drugging is actually employed.

sticking to the facts makes better criminal justice. demagoguery is always evil. thank you for taking my point.

[paulsby]

338. you're welcome

let me say this. i do not think my choice of words are inaccurate. i do think that they could result in people who are UNFAMILIAR with the case facts, in making false assumptions, and that's bad.

[NashVegas]

351. IIRC, Her Court Testimony Also Mentioned Use of the Word 'No'

Which is missing from the above list.

[Hannah Bell]

359. the above list is from her published interviews. if you have access to the court testimony, please

link it.

however, i doubt you do, since there was no trial, & since she was a minor, any testimony she made would have been sealed.

[NashVegas]

361. In Spite of the Rudely-Worded Request, An Answer

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

[Hannah Bell]

365. my error. the "no" isn't the only difference between her testimony

& her public interviews.

15 minutes v. 1 hr at house 1
maid v. huston answers door at house 2
maid disappears v. huston sits & drinks with them up to the moment he starts taking photos
he offers her qualuude v. he asks her "is this qualuude"?
she'd never used qualuude v. she had

etc.

[geek tragedy]

372. Wow, another 'blame the victim' response from the

anti-woman, anti-girl contingent at DU (and, yes one can be a woman and be anti-woman).

You are absolutely disgusting.

[Maru Kitteh]

412. +1. Of all the repellent posters . . . .

[Hannah Bell]

419. "blame the victim" = your spin. those are the facts. he didn't forcibly drug her,

by her own admission. *you* seem to think even mentioning it constitutes blame, but that's not what *i* said.

[whopis01]

381. Where do your definitions come from?

Just curious because neither the OED, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com nor the Cambridge dictionary define "to drug" as having anything to do with knowledge or consent.

(from the OED)
1. trans. To mix or adulterate (food or drink) with a drug, esp. a narcotic or poisonous drug.
2. trans. To administer drugs to (a person), esp. for the purpose of stupefying, poisoning, or nauseating him or her.
3. intr. colloq. To take or be in the habit of taking drugs; esp. to indulge in narcotic drugs.

(from Merriam-Webster)
transitive verb
1 : to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug
2 : to administer a drug to
3 : to lull or stupefy as if with a drug

intransitive verb : to take drugs for narcotic effect

(from dictionary.com)
–verb (used with object)
6. to administer a medicinal drug to.
7. to stupefy or poison with a drug.
8. to mix (food or drink) with a drug, esp. a stupefying, narcotic, or poisonous drug.
9. to administer anything nauseous to.

(from Cambridge)
drug verb
/drʌg/ v (-gg-)
to give someone or something a chemical which causes a loss of feeling or unconsciousness


I don't doubt that you were able to find definitions that supported your point somewhere on the web, but it appears that the widely accepted authoritative sources do not support your argument.

[Maru Kitteh]

415. Intellectual honesty is not too high on the priority list of that particular poster

[Hannah Bell]

420. here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drug


Let's test your definitions:

1. trans. To mix or adulterate (food or drink) with a drug, esp. a narcotic or poisonous drug.

e.g.:

"John drugged Mary's drink."
"The doctor drugged the patient's milkshake."
"Mary drugged the martini, then drank it."
"I drugged the meat, then fed it to the dog."

Which sentences sound odd?


2. trans. To administer drugs to (a person), esp. for the purpose of stupefying, poisoning, or nauseating him or her.

e.g.:

"The doctor drugged the patient."
"The vet drugged the cat."
"John drugged Mary."
"Mary wanted to get high, so John drugged her."
"'Would you like a qualuude, Mary?'" She nodded, so John drugged her."
"'Let's get high,' Mary said. 'Drug me.'"
"They drugged each other."

Which sentences sound odd?


3. intr. colloq. To take or be in the habit of taking drugs; esp. to indulge in narcotic drugs.

e.g.: "John drugs a lot." "John's out drinking & drugging."

Which sentences sound odd?



We can play little competing dictionary games, or you can concede the normal usage of "to drug" (transitive).

[Odin2005]

341. Uh, that's why 13 year-olds are considered JUVENILES, not adults.

[justiceischeap]

347. Whether she agreed to the alchohol & taking the quaalude doesn't matter

It was still rape. That's akin to saying, well, that woman wore slutty clothes, flirted with the guy and invited him home. She deserved to be raped, she got what she asked for, etc. Kids do stupid things to fit in... I know I did fortunately for me it didn't lead to rape.

What do we tell kids when a stranger approaches and offers candy or puppies, etc? We tell them to say no and get away. Obviously, there are still children whom we give this lesson that don't listen or we wouldn't have to repeat this lesson through the generations. Polanski, a 44 year old man who shouldn't have been spending time with a 13 year old (even if she did look 16) offered this CHILD candy and a puppy. He's the predator, he's the rapist. She said no when it came to sex. Nuff said.

[Hannah Bell]

421. wow, thanks for the lesson. gee, i'm so stupid, unlike all you clever people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6642376&mesg_id=6645051

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6647785&mesg_id=6651975

[justiceischeap]

426. Since you have such issue with her being raped, how about giving drugs & alcohol to a minor

That in itself is illegal, whether the child accepted or not.

And I'm happy to provide the lesson that states that a 13 year old CHILD was raped, whether she said "no" and then went along with it. How does a CHILD fight off a 44 year old man? But hey, let's not blame Polanski for what he did 'cause the CHILD didn't fight him off or didn't say no enough or didn't fight... Let's see, what are women told if they find themselves being raped? Oh that's right, do what you need to to survive, which often means, don't fight back.

Why anyone would even begin to paint this CHILD in a bad light is beyond me, no matter her actions. Some folks here are painting her to be some damn lolita that wanted to be raped.

[HamdenRice]

378. Just to be clear: You are repeating your WSWS "marching orders" on this issue

Your bullshit rationalizations of Polanski's behavior and the girl's responses seem to leave out one over-riding fact:

CHILDREN DO NOT LEGALLY HAVE MENTAL CAPACITY TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT SHE ACCEPTED THE DRINKS OR DRUGS

How fucking difficult is it to get that through your skull?

[Hannah Bell]

423. try to keep up, hampton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6647785&mesg_id=6651975

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6642376&mesg_id=6645051


& as you well know, since we've discussed it (if you can call your schtick 'discussion') many times before:

1. i am not, nor have i ever been, a member of wsws, sep, or any other political grouping but the democratic party, & in fact have speculated in numerous posts that they're a psy-ops formation to defuse legitimate dissent;
2. i post their articles mostly to annoy you, due to your red-baiting, &;
3. your repetition of the same lying bullshit tells me who you are.

[LisaL]

227. Criminal justice generally is.

[inna]

183. could you please provide a link?

thanks.

[LisaL]

226. It's not up to her.

The state doesn't represent her interests. The state represents interests of the state (general public). It's not Samantha vs. Polanski. It's the state of Ca vs. Polanski. See the difference?

[blondeatlast]

229. It's a simple concept, really, yet so many don't understand it. nt

[quiller4]

260. One of the reasons for the original plea deal was the fact that the victim refused to cooperate

with investigators

[Paladin]

7. Prepare Yourself For A Huge Disappointment. (n/t)

[Haole Girl]

12. Why did you bring this into the Lounge?

:shrug:

[proteus_lives]

13. It's a rant, I didn't think it belonged in GD.

Was I wrong?

Edit: It's been moved to GD, so I guess I was.

[flvegan]

14. Classic Lounge to GD move.

w00t! Now let the real flamewar begin!

:popcorn:

[Crabby Appleton]

25. There should be a special award for getting thrown out of the lounge

into GD.

[flvegan]

28. Agreed. It's a rare high honor, I think.

[seabeyond]

44. i know. this is only the second time i have seen it. lmao the first time i saw it. to be kicked

from lounge is an awesome thing. lmao.

[proteus_lives]

191. Can it be a ribbon?

I like ribbons. ;-)

[Shell Beau]

32. Haha! Has that ever happened before?

[seabeyond]

45. once not long ago. a thread on iraq i believe. was so funny. i thought no way

when i saw post locked in lounge, no way it was kicked to gd. but sure enough. i laughed.

[petronius]

34. It's fun to watch, isn't it? Like a firework that sparks and sputters until you

think it's a dud, but then... BOOM!

:)

[tavalon]

189. I'd like to use the 4 letter acronym, IBTM

but I saw it after.

[flvegan]

389. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[anonymous171]

15. Agreed. nt

[Shell Beau]

37. I personally don't care what anyone else thinks.

His ass should have been in jail long ago. He lived free for too long. He raped a 13 year old. On what planet would anyone not want someone to go to jail for that? And I don't care if she wants the charges dropped. Was she the only child he raped? She was abused. He abused her. He should go to jail. Not everyone can afford to hop from country to country to avoid jail time. Anyone else would have served jail time. What good will it do for him to serve jail time? I don't know and you're damn right, I don't care. He can pay for what he did. Just like most all other rapists do.

[Texasgal]

59. What's ineteresting is that no one

has brought up the issue of him doing it again!

THAT'S why his ass needs to be in JAIL!!! How do we know he is not a predator in Europe??? How do we know he hasn't done this to countless of other little girls?

Yes this asshole, scum needs to be in jail!

I agree SB.... seriously...wtf?

[Shell Beau]

74. I have a hard time thinking she was the first and last girl this happened to.

I could be so wrong there, but it would be more odd for that to be the case than not!

[Texasgal]

78. oh absolutely!!!

He is a child rapist!!! he most likely HAS done it again!

[msanthrope]

190. I brought it up--his relationship with a 15 year old Nasstaja Kinski....n/t

[MilesColtrane]

241. +1

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. Let's face it, the only way to get unanimity here is if he was also a Republican nt

[proteus_lives]

43. Sad but true.

[pinto]

40. Good points. Yet, I don't think it helps your points in casting some DUers as "rape apologists".

I've seen a lot of mention of the victim's stated wishes posted here - not as condoning what Polanski did, but as part of the current reality of the situation. (disclaimer) I'm clueless to the legal intricacies in all of this - the plea bargain, the flight, etc

[Pavulon]

46. Some really did.. The victim's say is in civil court, the crime against the state

is handled in criminal courts. This prevents rich people from raping the weak and poor (say illegal immigrants) and than paying or threatening them not to testify. This goes back to magna carta and is the foundation of the judicial model.

[proteus_lives]

49. I'm calling it like I see it.

It makes me angry. I know that posters are claiming it's about the victims wishes but if it were Rush, Beck or another DU acceptable target instead of Polanski, most of DU would be sharpening the pitchforks and readying the torches.

I believe they're giving him a pass because he's an artist and they like his work. It's two-faced and it pisses me off.

[seabeyond]

47. i am not surprised anymore. i have heard the worst too many times on du. nt

[romantico]

Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss

GREAT ARTICLE!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html

I recommend this film to anyone who has not seen it. There are two sides to every story people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaONz9n08hU&feature=

[seabeyond]

52. drug rape sodomize a 13 yr old. nt

[proteus_lives]

64. That article makes me want to puke too.

So you think it's ok to fuck a 13-year old girl?

[Luminous Animal]

250. What?! The author of your GREAT ARTICLE is a liar.

Age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 in 1897. From 16 to 18 in 1913.

[charlie]

252. Oooops

:thumbsup: :D

[proteus_lives]

274. Nice catch.

And less ammo for the rape apologists.

[Thickasabrick]

50. Puke away dude. I still am not convinced it was rape.

He has maintained all along that it was consensual and that is what the psych evaluation stated that he said. How do you know that the girl didn't tell him she was 14 or 15 or 16?

If a man has sex with an underage girl that lies about her age - is that rape? Maybe legally it is but we are not born with our birth dates branded into us.

Angelica Huston was in the house at the time this happened and said she thought the girl could have been 25.

He only pled guilty under the terms of the plea bargain. He has never admitted he raped her. Many people admit to things they actually didn't do under plea bargain arrangements.

I don't apologize for rapists, I just need to make sure they indeed are rapists.

[tammywammy]

54. When he plead guilty to "unlawful intercourse with a minor" that's your admission

that he committed rape.

[Thickasabrick]

55. Like I said, people admit to things that didn't do all the time in

plea bargains. He had 6 indictments and 5 were thrown out. I think the DA knew he might not win in a trial.

[msanthrope]

58. They were not thrown out. That is a flat out misstatement.

He was charged with 6 counts, he was allowed to plead to 1.

No one threw the other 5 counts--they would have been brought had he stayed for a trial.

[Thickasabrick]

62. Exactly, the fact that he was allowed to plead to 1 makes me think

the DA didn't have a very strong case. "Thrown out" was a bad choice of words.

[quiller4]

264. Not necessarily. Charges can be reintroduced when a plea is

rejected but it is highly likely that none of the drug counts would have been since by then it had been established that the 'ludes came from the victim's mother.

[tammywammy]

63. Well, now he can go on trial for all 6 counts, PLUS the flight. n/t

[Thickasabrick]

65. Yes, and since the "victim" probably won't testify against him, it

should be interesting.

[tammywammy]

67. That tends to happen when you "settle" for money.

The rich can always seem to pay their way out of trouble.

[Hannah Bell]

278. & if he'd been poor, the girl wouldn't have been with him in the first place.

her mother's motives were as predatory as polanski's.

[LisaL]

213. I wouldn't be so sure. Even if she doesn't want to testify,

I presume there are legal ways to make her do so.

[tammywammy]

220. Or just use her previous grand jury testimony. n/t

[LisaL]

245. He has a right to cross-examine if he were actually put on trial.

Of course since he already plead guilty to having sex with a minor, why should he have a trial?
He probably won't be put on trial, unless he somehow withdraws his guilty plea?

[quiller4]

265. There are not. That is one reason why many rapes aren't

prosecuted. You cannot compel victim testimony.

[Luminous Animal]

251. Under subpoena, she can't refuse without invoking contempt.

[msanthrope]

75. He might not be allowed to. Plea withdrawal is not an automatic

right.

[Thickasabrick]

92. I think with all the issues about misconduct on the side of the

prosecution, he wouldn't have a problem getting a new trial...if he wanted it.

[Pavulon]

172. he dont wanted...or he would not have hid

like a scumbag for so long. Hey now he may get to die in prison by himself.

[seabeyond]

thrown out, or bargained. there is a difference. nt

[msanthrope]

56. 13 year olds can't consent to anything by virtue of being 13.

You wrote

"If a man has sex with an underage girl that lies about her age - is that rape?"

Yes.

To repeat, Yes.

"Maybe legally it is but we are not born with our birth dates branded into us."

Well, 'legally' is all that matters in this case.

"Angelica Huston was in the house at the time this happened and said she thought the girl could have been 25."

So why did Polanski think she was young enough that he called her mother before he took pictures of her?

I cite the grand jury testimony....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia17.html

[quiller4]

262. He called her agent before he took pictures. Her mother was her

agent. Her mother also admitted to investigators that she had misrepresented her daughter's age.

[TorchTheWitch]

285. doesn't matter under the law

Besides, regardless of her age it was still rape as she told him no repeatedly.

[Hannah Bell]

332. link? that's kind of an important point.

[tammywammy]

342. It's in her grand jury testimony that they called her mother. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

403. the issue is not whether he talked to her mother, but the representation of her age.

there's no indication in the testimony of what was said.

[skygazer]

70. Yes, it is rape

Because a child of 13 is not old enough to consent to sex. So whether he said it was consensual and whether he thought she was older and whether Angelical Huston thought she could have been 25 are all immaterial details. As is your opinion. Under the law, it's rape and I fully agree with that law.

[proteus_lives]

71. Thick as a brick is right.

You're really jumping through hoops for him. You are a rape apologist.

[seabeyond]

72. "that it was consensual". daddy tells 8 yr old, if you love me you will let me do. 8 yr old says ok

there you go, consensual. no problem

[Odin2005]

93. He forced a girl to have sex with him, that's rape. She said "NO!" to his face.

You sound like the swell fucks that stuck of for the fucker that raped my friend. Disgusting.

[Nye Bevan]

192. "Not convinced it was rape"? She was THIRTEEN!!!!

That is one of the most nauseating posts I have ever seen on DU. Why has Roman Polanski brought so many apologists for child rape out of the woodwork here?

[WildEyedLiberal]

269. You should post that in every one of these goddamn threads

I can't believe I'm reading fucking APOLOGIES for child rape on DU. Well, actually, I sort of can, which is sad.

[seabeyond]

354. the thing

the people that defend the rapist strongest are the very people that debase females regularly. absolutely no surprise to me.

[Maru Kitteh]

418. And at least one female poster who clearly thinks that rape is acceptable as long as the rapist

adheres to the approved political persuasion. Besides, you and I could never understand, you see, "Mr." Polanski and the poster reside on a higher plane of cultural and artistic understanding than we do. :puke:

Yeah. Someone posted earlier today that rape apologists should earn an automatic pizza the way Freepers do. I agree with that sentiment.

[geek tragedy]

202. Yeah, the little 13 year old whore was asking for it

:sarcasm:

You are a misogynist ass.

[Odin2005]

Ugh, the misogyny is thick, isn't it?

:puke:

[geek tragedy]

360. Thick

as a brick.

[MilesColtrane]

243. She said NO.

Even if she was of age, she didn't consent.

Read the grand jury testimony.

Then I suggest getting out a Junior High School yearbook, and looking at what a 13 year old girl looks like.

[quiller4]

267. She recanted her grand jury testimony years ago. Then settled a civil suit

that was sealed.

[colinmom71]

397. Whoa!!! He KNEW she was 13...

His acquaintance with that girl was through her mother, and yes he was quite aware of her age at the time the rape happened. Go back to the victim's witness statement and you'll see that there was no ambiguity as to Polanski's knowledge of her age when he drugged, raped, and sodomized her.

BTW, most states in the US declare the act of drugging a person for the purpose of having sex with them as an illegal count of sexual assault/rape. Why? Because the ability to freely and fully consent to a sexual act has been impaired by the ingested substance (drugs and/or alcohol).

I don't care at all what Polanski now claims. He's just trying to justify his wrongful actions after the fact. He knew she was 13 and he still raped and sodomized her...

[Zebedeo]

432. "Could have been 25?" Take a look at her pic when she was 13

She sure looks like a child to me

Any man in his 40s who would look at this young girl and even think about raping her is pure evil. Tell me, what do you think when you see this picture? Does she look like a 25 year old woman to you?

[supernova]

53. I'm amazed Polanski managed to put it off this long

what a jackass.

I refuse to watch his movies because of this. Frankly, the man creeps me out. And I hope he will serve the sentence he was originally supposed to.

Hey Pauvulon, I don't really want him at Butner. :P But, I understand there may be no where else to put him.

[romantico]

57. I do not believe it was rape either

If anyone saw the film WANTED AND DESIRED they for the first time showed the actual police transcript. According to the victim Polanski asked her if those were Quaalude's. If they were his drugs and he drugged her,why did he ask her what they were? I think he took the rap for her drugs personally. How come no one has mentioned the victim's story has changed over the years?

[msanthrope]

60. 13 year olds can consent to sex now? 'Romantico', indeed..... n/t

[supernova]

68. That's exactly the crux of it

What was the age of consent in CA at the time? 14? 16?

Legally, that's what matters.

And I've always wondered what was up with that mother, but still doesn't excuse the event.

[romantico]

76. No

But Warren Beatty, Mick Jagger, Jack Nicholson, and 99% of Hollywood of that generation did what Polanski did.WHy single him out? Because he got caught? Not saying what he did was okay. However, even the victim and her lawyer said what the judge did to the victim was far worse than what Polanski did. I find it interesting that Mia Farrow, ex wife of Woody Allen and women's rights advocate defends Polanski. Many people here are truly ignorant and refuse to brush up on the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uyGLFqM-68&feature=related

[anonymous171]

79. OMG MIA FARROW! NOW I AM CONVINCED!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msanthrope]

98. Yes. That is precisely why you single him out.

Because he got caught.

Just like when I tell people not to use the "but everyone speeds" or "everyone drives drunk" defense in a court, the "everyone was raping 13 year olds back then" defense does not work.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thickasabrick]

154. I agree but I need to bow out of this because the righteous rage is

freaking me out. I just want everyone to have their day in court. Remember that gang bang case recently? Everyone was so quick to jump on the guys and it turns out she was lying? This reminds me of that kinda. I think he was wrong but I think he paid for it already and we have more important things to waste our energies on.

[tammywammy]

164. How did he pay for it?

By giving her money? By living a lavish lifestyle overseas for 30 years? And this doesn't compare to the fake gang rape, because at no point has she said "oh no, I was just kidding about that anal rape, it never happened." She may have forgiven him, but she never said it didn't happen.

[Texasgal]

188. He should not have fled then.

He should have stayed and proved his innocence.

[Shell Beau]

187. Yep, you love the personal attacks. Shows how shitty your argument

is when you have to reside to that.

We should forget about all crime that happened years ago. Edgar Ray Killen conspired a horrific crime many years back. He is old as dirt. He got convicted a few years back, but he is old and is not a threat and there are terrorist running amuck. He should have been let go? Because if you use the same logic you are using for Polanski towards Killen then I guess so. Now Killen did have people killed, but he is old, and raping a 13 year old is no biggie.

[proteus_lives]

201. And you're a rape-apologist.

You're the freeper in this thread.

[ovidsen]

214. A waste of time and money

Polanski is most definitely a rapist. A pederast. A perv. What he did was, and is, inexcusable. And he's a whiny coward to boot. How he can stand looking in a mirror without heaving baffles me.

But I see no "greater good" in throwing him into a prison. Not now. Not unless you thirst for vengeance at any cost. That's an obsession I do not share. I'd just and soon see the criminal justice system not spend the time and money incarcerating him when California (including it's penal system) has far more serious problems that demand immediate action.

That's just my opinion, and I won't lose a minute of sleep no matter how this turns out. C'est la vie.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

236. Wow, what a pathetic post!

:puke:

[Thickasabrick]

Torches and pitchforks are so much more fun. Oh...and righteous

indignation - get's people off.

[Shell Beau]

112. And raping 13 year old girls gets some people off.

Excuse me, drugging and raping 13 year old girls.

[Thickasabrick]

118. They were her drugs.

[tammywammy]

So that makes it okay that he had sex with a 13 year old then? n/t

[Shell Beau]

This is just disgusting. I can't believe some of the things

I have read.

Basically it was the 13 year old girls fault. That seems to be the gist of it. :eyes:

[tammywammy]

150. Yep, thats exactly it

She tricked him. She forced him to have sex with her vaginally and anally. It was all her fault that she was only 13 at the time and it was against the law. Besides, he makes MOVIES! He's famous! He's got an Oscar!

[Shell Beau]

130. Oh ok. He offered her wine, champagne, and quaaludes that were all hers.

:rofl:

You really need to stop. Seriously. YOu are looking grosser and grosser.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shell Beau]

177. You're funny. Because yeah I said all of what you wasted your time

writing. :rofl:

Seriously you need to calm down. And assface is a lovely word to describe someone. Someone you don't even know. Count to 10, breathe, it will be ok. We weren't the ones raped.

Good God are you for real?

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

228. It. Is. Against. The. Law. To. Have. Sex. With. A. 13. Year. Old. Child.

Whether one "knows" the case or not, some things don't change. You, I, and the neighbor down the street would have been tossed in jail because we haven't the money, nor the connections. 13 years old. That's all the story one needs.

and...

It's against DU rules to post personal attacks. "Assface" would be a personal attack. Find a way to debate without resorting to that and maybe you'd be credible.

Take care.

[anonymous171]

132. Nonconsensual sex = Rape.

Every time, no matter what the conditions.

[Texasgal]

133. So that makes it okay

to rape her???

[Shell Beau]

139. Apparently it does. Notice how every thing this poster says

puts the blame on the gal. Disgusting.

[charlie]

156. Where'd you get that?

Not from her testimony. Is that what Polanski said?

[Luminous Animal]

256. No they were not. The quaaludes were his.

He coyly asked her if she recognized the drug that was in his possession and she said yes.

[seabeyond]

353. gets some people off..... i swear that is what it is. with too many. nt

[Texasgal]

122. I'm sorry that I am disgusted

by a grown man that analy raped a 13 year old girl. :eyes:

[Thickasabrick]

129. You do not know that. There was no trial. He pled to having

sex with an underage girl. That is it! Everything else is conjecture.

[Texasgal]

149. You need to read her grand jury statement

"Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Why are you defending this asshole scum?

[Thickasabrick]

160. Excuse me? Again, you are assuming that everything she said

was the truth. I don't ever assume that. Everyone lies. Even teenage girls. She may in fact be telling the truth but I don't know that because their was no trial.

[Texasgal]

168. Well lets see..

She says this to the grand jury and he flees the country... hmmm... who should be believed?

[tammywammy]

169. There was no trial because he pled guilty

Then he left the country. He could have come back and asked for a new trial at any time, but he didn't. He wanted to do this all from overseas and they told him he'd have to surrender himself in the US and go through the appropriate legal procedures here. He chose to not do that.

[LisaL]

232. He didn't have to plead guilty either.

He could have plead not guilty and gone to trial. Why didn't he face trial back then?

[tammywammy]

234. Exactly n/t

[blondeatlast]

235. Grand jury testimony is evidence, no less so than a smoking gun.

She testified he penetrated her anally. She was 13 (provable) and unable to consent. RAPE.

Your own pointy-headed assholery aside, you are wrong.

[LisaL]

238. Yea and Mr. Polanski could have plead not guilty, gone to trial,

argued his case. Instead he plead guilty to having sex with a minor, and then took off instead of facing sentencing.
I guess it's all well and good. He should just be left alone because he has gone to France.
:eyes:

[tammywammy]

61. I refer you to the Grand Jury Testimony

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia17.html

A 13 year old CAN'T CONSENT to sex.

[Thickasabrick]

77. Yes, but she can lie about her age. nt

[tammywammy]

81. It doesn't matter. She was 13. n/t

[blondeatlast]

237. And if he thought she was lying, he should have sworn off. There is no

"excuse" for what he did. It is rape by any reasonable definition--and certainly legally.

[Thickasabrick]

69. I agree. Everyone automatically accepts the girl's account as the

absolute gospel. It's kinda weird. Teenagers have been known to lie.

[tammywammy]

73. Did he have sex with her? Was she 13?

She couldn't consent to sex. Period. It was rape.

[Thickasabrick]

83. Not if she lied about her age and it was consensual. I would be

curious to see how old her other partners were at the time. By her own testimony, she admitted to having sex before.

[tammywammy]

88. Oh, so because she has sex before she couldn't have been raped?

You disgust me.

[Thickasabrick]

97. Whatever - I just want to know all the circumstances before I'm

ready to burn someone at the stake.

[tammywammy]

100. I don't want to burn him at the stake

But he raped a 13 year old. He deserves to go to jail for it, just like any other person that rapes a 13 year old. He'll also do time for fleeing the country as well.

[Thickasabrick]

102. We'll see. nt

[msanthrope]

131. Wait a minute---she wasn't a virgin so she couldn't be raped? WTF?

[Texasgal]

99. whew!

That's good to know eh??

Sometimes I wonder about DU...

[tammywammy]

107. She was asking for it apparently

And then when she said "no" she really meant "yes, please anally rape me."

[supernova]

105. It's the legal standard that matters

Not, how "old" the girl felt or looked.

She was underaged and therefore by the legal standard she was at the time not able to give consent because 13 year olds aren't deemed by the law adults fully in control of themselves.

[msanthrope]

109. Why did Polanski call her mother for permission to take pictures?

If Polanski really thought he had someone who was of appropriate age, then why did he phone her mom?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia17.html

[blondeatlast]

239. In the eyes of the legal system, even if she lied, it is still rape.

She was unable to give consent. she can't give consent to buying a car or employment either--and even if she lies, it doesn't excuse anyone who entered into a contract with her any more than it does Polanski.

Obtuse much?

[Odin2005]

240. WTF? is if she had sex before it's not rape?

You are a misogynist freak.

[Zix]

376. Apt username.

[skygazer]

80. Yes, but adult directors who have a history of sex with little girls never lie

Jesus. :banghead:

[Texasgal]

82. Why did he flee then? n/t

[Thickasabrick]

87. He was told the judge was not going to honor the plea bargain and

he was going to be locked up again. He had issues with prison because of Auschwitz.

[Texasgal]

94. Why plea bargain

if he was so innocent?

[charlie]

125. Auschwitz?

Good grief, now you're really reaching. I imagine he's got problems with gas appliances and showers too, then. NOBODY wants to go to prison if they can avoid it. It doesn't take speculative fishing for some childhood scar on his psyche to understand that.

[Thickasabrick]

134. I'm not reaching, someone else brought that up. I can see where

someone would have issues with prison after going through that though.

[charlie]

153. You're reaching

It's just an embellishment on the tormented victim narrative. You have no idea whether Auschwitz had anything to do with his desire to stay out of PRISON.

He was in a Krakow ghetto, BTW. His mom died in Auschwitz.

[Pavulon]

178. another great reason not to rape a 7th grader. after the fact

well he may just get a chance to die in jail. Guess that backfired.

[charlie]

195. "Being in jail was an interesting experience."

"To be honest, I found life as a convict fascinating. I got a much stronger understanding of why the people we call re-offenders, once released, look for new ways to get back behind bars. Since then, like those guys, I've found myself feeling nostalgic for the time I spent in there."

-- Roman Polanski: Interviews; Edited by Paul Cronin, 2005

http://books.google.com/books?id=D1qE7ikaBQcC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22being+in+jail+was+an+interesting%22+polanski&source=bl&ots=IUaLLvkJo8&sig=OPGARRSflJtV-pNItLN_ZNbTG-s&hl=en&ei=3AvASvzxKIvSsQOw0rAh&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

So much for your romantic notion of the fragile auteur haunted by the horror of his past.

While you're at it, read the preceding page. Polanski is utterly unrepentant for having fucked that girl. He only regrets the resulting storm it caused in his life.

[renate]

428. wow, nice find!

:applause:

I'm impressed!

Oh, and I couldn't agree with you more.

[proteus_lives]

142. Pathetic.

You're reaching. So he gets a pass on rape because of his childhood?

[Thickasabrick]

163. If she lied about her age and it was consensual, I do not believe

it was rape.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

217. News flash -- it doesn't matter what you believe.

Sex with a 13 year old girl is rape. I am wondering why you think sex with a 13 year old is ok.

[proteus_lives]

291. It was a 13-year old girl.

What's with your desperate apologies?

:puke:

[Odin2005]

119. Ugh. Call the rape victim a liar, oldest trick of the rape apologist in the book.

:grr:

[proteus_lives]

157. Wow.

DU's #1 rape-apologist.

[Texasgal]

171. Yeah...disgusting huh.

Really fucking disgusted.

[LisaL]

233. So why hasn't Mr. Polanski gone on trial?

Explained all of it to the jury and such?
Do tell.

[inna]

66. link(s)?

[proteus_lives]

211. To what-the threads?

Just do a DU search. They should pop up at the top.

[Odin2005]

84. Thank you. The apologizing for rape is making me sick!

People defending him deserve a slap in the face.

I wonder how many more girls he has raped that we don't know about?

[Texasgal]

89. That's my point exactly

for all the people that hemming and hawing about what good it would serve 30-40 years after the fact.... how about preventing it from happening again???

[proteus_lives]

114. Probably a lot.

"I'll make you famous/a star." That scum-bag probably has used that line many times on teenage girls.

[theHandpuppet]

209. Ditto that!

All the child-rape apologists are making me SICK!

:puke:

[inna]

85. what's the time frame WRT Sharon's gruesome murder, i wonder.

apparently, it was pretty darn close.

[Shell Beau]

104. Does that matter? People go through ugly shit all of the time.

All day every day. It never excuses any gross behavior.

[msanthrope]

138. You call 8 years "pretty darn close?" n/t

[proteus_lives]

143. Years before.

And it's no excuse.

[inna]

148. i was not looking for "excuses", tyvm.

[Shell Beau]

155. Ok, so what was the reason to make that point?

[inna]

176. it was a question, not a point.

please, relax already.

i detest rapists as much as you do, if not more.

[Shell Beau]

184. Relax? I didn't realize I was in an uproar.

[Dreamer Tatum]

86. There is an undercurrent to the equivocation

and it's that Polanski, by dint of being a European film director, is so artistic and bohemian that our bourgeois and provincial little laws can't possibly apply to him. Why, he makes FILMS, you heathen! Go watch your Michael Bay blockbusters in your strip malls, and take your child rape laws with you! Those who exist on such rarefied planes as Polanski can't be bothered with our quaint social constructs.

I smell a lot of that here.

[seabeyond]

90. seems like. nt

[anonymous171]

95. Me too. .nt

[proteus_lives]

108. Excellent post.

I see that here too.

[msanthrope]

111. Yep. Laws about fraking 13 year-olds are so bourgeois. n/t

[Shell Beau]

120. Yep, if this was some rethug that did this and fleed, I would love

to see the responses here. I am just guessing they'd be a whole lot different. That is just as sick as any damn thing.

[supernova]

121. I agree with you

It's sickening. My ignore list will grow from this thread. :puke:

[Odin2005]

127. You got it.

It confirms what I posted a few days ago that people want to deny rape incidents that are not of the "random guy grabs a woman/girl off the street and rapes her". It's pathetic and disgusting.

[supernova]

136. Yea, a rough-edged sicko grabs a girl from the shadows on a street corner

it's a crime.

Expensive, artiste director has playtime with an underaged girl, it's "art."


Blech.

[Odin2005]

141. Yep, and having sex with a passed out drunk woman is not rape, according to some DUers.

That old thread was my first indication of this BS. :puke:

[rollin74]

146. very true

no amount of wealth or fame should absolve someone from facing the consequences for a crime like this

[petronius]

185. Well said! (nt)

[WildEyedLiberal]

277. +1000

There is one poster in another thread who has hijacked the entire discussion into a blanket condemnation of "barbaric bloodthirsty Americans lusting for vengeance." I guess child rape is legal in whatever bourgeois paradise he's from.

[Mimosa]

308. LOL! Dreamer, you nailed it. n/t

[babylonsister]

103. Woman named as victim ... urging dismissal...

The woman named as the victim in the 1977 case has joined defence lawyers in urging the dismissal of the case.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYy5AePzp7MIRMGs3lDCoxFzeupA


I think he sucks, too, but check this out.

[tammywammy]

110. Yes, I'm sure that the money she settled for with Polanski didn't have any effect on her. n/t

[babylonsister]

115. Do you mean recent money, or the initial payoff?

I'm sure money was involved, but she's moved on, why can't everyone else, especially after the victim thinks it's the right thing to do?

Why is this even news, so we can all get gigantically pissed off?

[Texasgal]

124. How about the issue of prevention???

I am so surprised that no one is picking up on that!!

[Pavulon]

151. Stupid parents, and a 7th grade girl

unsupervised with chester the molester led up to this but the child could not avoid the problem, the parents did not anticipate it.

[Texasgal]

158. I'm talking about having him locked up

so that he can offened again. Sorry that I was not clear.

[Pavulon]

166. I missed it, yep he should have

done his full time. He bought his way out and then fled.

[MilesColtrane]

244. Even beyond that, what about deterring other felons from fleeing before sentencing?

[tammywammy]

The initial money

And it really doesn't matter, it's the state vs Polanski, not her vs him.

It's news because he fled the country 30 years ago in order to not go to jail for his crimes, he's now coming back. I think a fugitive on the lam for 30 years is kind of big news, as well as the fact that he's a famous person.

[Shell Beau]

126. Do we know she was the only one?

The victims don't get to make the choice. Why is it fair for him to get off because the victim is ok with it, but others in maybe less gross situations don't feel the same, and that person should pay. MAkes no sense. You either pay for the crime or not. Not every rapist has a huge pocekt book.

[seabeyond]

147. how many others did he rape? nt

[CocoaBeachCoco]

175. Oh dear, are you suggesting punishing him for others he MAY have raped?

I know better than to step into venom but that's a little pre-emptive!

[Texasgal]

179. Or how about ones that he MIGHT?

He's a predator!

[seabeyond]

180. no. i am not. nt

[Shell Beau]

196. No, but many child molesters have a history.

It is a cycle. They have a beginning and hopefully the ending is in jail. I hope she was the only one. I am afraid she wasn't.

[babylonsister]

181. I don't know. Do you? nt

[seabeyond]

152. testimony. she said no. stop it. lets go home. i was afraid. no stop

no, lets go home

why are we still missing with it. why not let it go?

rape

a crime

should go to jail

[msanthrope]

116. I'd like to see that settlement agreement---

what it has to say about disclosure.

[anonymous171]

117. I don't care what she says. I want that rich fuck in jail. nt

[proteus_lives]

123. +1

[BlooInBloo]

137. What did I miss? Wasn't this like a brazillion years ago? Why is this making the rounds now?

[seabeyond]

140. he was arrested in switzerland? nt

[BlooInBloo]

145. Ah - roger that - thanks!

[msanthrope]

167. Jeez Bloo.....Keep up......

;-)

[BlooInBloo]

173. Football, naps... Not really paying much attention to anything today. :)

[msanthrope]

182. I managed to watch my Yanks clinch and post...no excuse for you! n/t

[seabeyond]

174. bah hahah. take a break from du and see what happens. nt

[SpartanDem]

186. Yeah it's shocking

People are seriously arguing that because of his personal tragedies he's already endured enough in his life and that he doesn't need to face more. Some people here are confirming the soft on crime stereotype of liberals isn't completely baseless.

[Odin2005]

193. It's disgusting, just disgisting.

[proteus_lives]

198. I hate that stereotype.

I'm a liberal but I'm not soft on crime and sure as hell not on rapists. But some seem to go out of their way to make excuses for people who choose to hurt other people. I've never understood that.

[TorchTheWitch]

197. you and me both

Sometimes I can't even believe the shit people say on here. The fact that they think that shit is bad enough but to actually SAY it... ugh.

[troubledamerican]

199. All the Pelosi / Reid / Feinstein / Harmon apologists make me want to puke.

[Babel_17]

203. Is the liability of the mother

a possible factor here? I'm reading in this thread that the 'ludes might have been the girl's. Plus the mom seems derelict in ways beyond the question of who had the drugs.

I can understand the girl not wanting to grow up after being the centerpiece of a rape trial, to forever be the girl Polanski raped. I can understand her not wanting to shine a bright light on her mom.

So I take her statements, regarding letting the matter drop, with a grain of salt.

I'm too lazy to google but the timeline of when Polanski made the cash settlement might be interesting.

I don't think we can easily overstate just how far out on a limb the mom might have been.

I do need to google the Kinski connection. That could be troubling (if true) as it implies a possible pattern.

Hopefully wiser heads who are up on all the details will have input on what happens next.

P.S. I remember reading ages ago that Polanski's movie Tess was in part a reflection by Polanski on his own nature. Am I misremembering?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080009/

Huh, stars Nastassja Kinski.

[LisaL]

242. I think she is really tired of all the publicity.

It's also been reported she settled civilly with him. But it's not up to her.

[quiller4]

268. The victim filed the civil suit when she was in her mid-twenties and

it took several years before it was settled.

[Matariki]

215. go puke then.

who cares.

[proteus_lives]

216. Why are you posting?

Are you one of Polanski's apologists?

[Matariki]

219. Why are you more upset about this than Geimer is?

In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

[proteus_lives]

224. It's not just about her.

It's him being a rapist and what he owes society. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with rape no matter how long ago it was.

Why do you want to give him a pass?

[ScreamingMeemie]

230. Because he's FAMOUS... I mean, come on, don't you get it???

and his wife was killed and, and...


...and I'm sorry... The Pianist sucked... a lot...



This was all sarcasm BTW :sarcasm:...well... except for that last part. :hi:

[Romulox]

222. They act like it's a matter of opinion--either there's a SOL on the crime or there's not.

In this case, there is not, so prosecution is entirely appropriate. Nor is the statutorily defined victim's cooperation required; the crime of statutory rape is intended to protect the interests of the broader society (e.g. society's interest in having children supported by financially responsible adults,) not just the interests of the "victim".

[Fastcars]

231. Leave the old man alone...

Why bother with going after someone who committed a crime decades ago. While we are at it let's stop all this nonsense of chasing the few remaining Nazis that may have escaped Europe over SIXTY years ago. What's the point? We all know they aren't very likely to participate in genocide at their age.

By his own admission he drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl. He then fled to Europe and had a relationship with a 15 year old Kinski. Is there any reason one should believe that there aren't other very young girls in his past? Lock him up!

[depakid]

246. Frankly- your self righteousness on this and many other threads makes me sick

At times, it amounts to much of what that makes me ashamed to be from America.

/rant

[Maru Kitteh]

247. People who believe child rapists should be prosecuted make you ashamed of America?

I'm proud to say I can't relate to that at all.

[depakid]

248. This was 30 years ago and the woman's moved on and said that she's done with the matter

but other Americans? Nope- they HAVE to have THEIR pound of flesh for their OWN ugly, self-centered reasons. Has nothing at all to do with justice, healing or protection of the public.

Indeed- what you've just said has a lot more in common with the sort of hyperbole and demagoguery one can hear on American hate radio than reasonable resolution.

[Maru Kitteh]

249. It's OK to rape little kids as long as you did it a long time ago?

Again. Proud to say I cannot relate to that kind of thinking at all.

[eShirl]

254. So long as you're a sensitive artiste, and not a Catholic Priest.

Jeez, I thought you liberals were supposed to be enlightened!
:sarcasm:

[depakid]

259. More hypebole

An almost 14 year old girl is not "a little kid" -its a statutory rape case, not pedophelia (although being an American these days- facts don't matter so much as emotional reactions). Chalk it up to your media, I guess.
e
Moreover- you seem- like others, not care one whim about the woman's own wishes in the matter- but only for your own self centered need for vengeance (which by the way, has brought the US the world's largest and most expensive prison system and put many states into near bankruptcy- while defunding your kids education).

All so people like you can have your pound of flesh in this and many other sorts of cases.

Wow. I'm glad I don't think like that- and I'm most in nations beyond America don't either.

[proteus_lives]

266. This isn't about the US. It's about rapists and their apologists (you)

It's about bringing a rapist to justice.

"Wow. I'm glad I don't think like that- and I'm most in nations beyond America don't either." So you think a 40something man fucking a 13 year-old girl is kosher? Is that how they roll in OZ and other nations?

Well, in that case....GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[depakid]

279. hardly an apologist!

Just not some jerk who rants dishonestly and emotionally about a 30 old case that's already had plenty of consequences and which the woman involved wants dropped.

But that's not good enough for some Americans- in fact- NO amount punishment is enough, because not only have you lost all sense of proportionality- but it's become personal for you. It's YOUR need for retribution here- not society's (which won't be helped or protected) nor anyone else who's involved in the case.

It's THAT sort of twisted self centered emotion that's caused the nation to build and support the world's largest prison system and launch a war on a people who didn't even attack the US!

Because someone had to pay. That's all it's about- so long as someone pays.

[proteus_lives]

284. You're reaching.

Sometimes your "America and everything about it is bad" one-trick pony show doesn't do the job.

He was never punished, he ran away to Europe before that could happen and he's been sheltered by his fame, fortune and international friends. I believe that's wrong and I want that to end.

Yes, he has to pay. Because he raped a 13 year-old girl. I really don't see the gray area in this. This is for the good of society, rapists shouldn't be allowed to get away with their crimes.

What am I being dishonest about? Did he not drug and rape that girl?

[Maru Kitteh]

286. She was 13 and yes13 year olds are little kids. Your defense of rape on any basis is reprehensible

But your given reasons make it all the worse.

[WildEyedLiberal]

287. So raping a 13 year old isn't "real rape" according to depakid

By the way, statutory rape applies to consensual sex with a minor. THIS GIRL SAID NO, and she 13 and he was 40something. That is under no definition "statutory rape." I mean, since "facts matter" and all. Speaking of those ignorant "emotional reactions," your ravings on all these threads are more emotionally loaded and irrational than anything I've seen on DU in a good long while. Not only are you woefully off-topic, you've allowed your searing self-hatred to take you dangerously off the rails in the whole "critical thinking" department. I doubt you are sophisticated enough to grasp the rich irony therein; you're too rabidly obsessed with your HATRED of all things "American". It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

[Odin2005]

345. Yep, punishing rapists is so bourgeois and proof of right-wing American evil, doncha know?

:eyes:

[suzie]

293. The world's largest prison system overimprisons drug offenders, not

sex offenders.

And if most nations beyond America don't believe in locking up sex offenders, then too bad for them.

[Odin2005]

344. It's not about "vengeance" it's about punishing a man who raped a 13yo girl.

Good god, you are sounding like the "soft on crime" caricature of liberals the right-wing has. You are pathetic. What the victim says now is irrelevant, especially because he paid her off. He needs to be punished for what he did. Rapists are exactly the kind of people we NEED prisons for, that prisons are wrongly filled with harmless pot-users is IRRELEVANT.

[SpartanDem]

253. yeah I'm ashamed that sickos like you and others are in this party

that would justify the rape of 13.

[depakid]

263. Typical Republican response- Limbaugh et al would be proud

to know that so many people have become simple minded and emotionally driven JUST LIKE THEM.

[SpartanDem]

276. Yeah I'm not the freeper troglodyte justifying rape

the fact remains he never served he sentence the whether the girl consented then or forgives him now does not absolve of his crime.

[depakid]

280. Again- that's the Limbaugh rhetorical deal

I'm not "justifying" anything about the case- just noting the dysfunctional obsession with punishment (that serves no one's interests) after 30 years.

Gotta have that pound of flesh. It's the national past time in a country full of inspector Joubert's

[SpartanDem]

283. Who cares that if was thirty years ago

you don't have problem saying that if you hide out long enough that they're are no consequences?

[depakid]

292. There have been plenty of consequences

both for his family- himself and his career.

And sorry for the misspelling above- it was inspector Javert from Les Miserables -not Joubert. LOL That came from an old (yet topical to the Bush era) Robert Redford film.

Inspector Javert is nearly as renowned a character as Jean Valjean, perhaps due to the dramatized versions of Les Miserables, which have tended to present the novel as more of a detective story than a morality tale. Javert serves as Valjean's nemesis throughout the novel, continually threatening to expose his past and bring him under the control of the law. In his exaggerated, nearly fanatical devotion to duty and his lack of compassion, Javert represents a punitive, vengeful form of justice.

[Odin2005]

348. Punishment serves society's interests.

It's called deterrence. It sends the message that no matter how long you try to get away you will be made to serve your punishment.

But I guess deterring RAPISTS is just right-wing "bourgeois ideology" to your enlightened self. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

349. Dupe

[MilesColtrane]

371. Is this case a "dysfunctional obsession with punishment"?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/jail-for-parents-who-allowed-daughter-to-die-20090928-g8x2.html

After all, I'm sure those folks feel really bad about neglecting their child to death, and locking them up for six years isn't going to bring her back to life.

Let's see what other crimes you can dismiss so casually.

[proteus_lives]

261. Snideness from you?

What a fucking shock! I just fell out of my chair! :eyes:

Explain, oh wise one, how is it self-righteous to want a rapist to be brought to justice?

You're from America? I thought you were an Aussie. So all that US-hate is self-hate huh? That's even more pathetic.

[depakid]

270. delete- dupe

[depakid]

272. delete- dupe

[depakid]

273. You started the rant and false attributions

and yep- I'm from America- but choose to be abroad where people haven't become so focused on their need for vengeance at any cost- over any time- for whatever reason.

It surprises me not one lick that America's become a nation of torturers- because that goes part and parcel with punishment obsession. If it's not this- it would be something else on another criminal justice thread. Or some accused terrorist. Or something. Seems there's end to it these days.

And it surely does make me sick to see what this nation has become. Because frankly it is sick- or perhaps more to the point- pathological and a major drain on society both morally and economically.

[proteus_lives]

281. What false attributions?

It's not vengeance, it's justice. Justice that he has evaded for far too long.

I'm sorry you think bringing a rapist back to face his crime is "torture" and "obsession."

You're very confused. I think your self-hate and your "I hate America" persona has confused you on this.

Once again, please explain how bringing a rapist to justice is a bad thing.

[depakid]

288. Spare me the psychobabble

I'm not an "apologist" for statutory rape- though I did live through the 70's (and it was a different time than today- though many of the loudest screamers for vengeance very likely didn't live through it).

What I'm saying is that the obsession is pathological at this point- and quite frankly, among the nations I've lived in- America's pretty well unique both in the prevalence of this sort of deal- as well as in its magnitude. Which in turn has led to many more and much greater harms.

Those are rational conclusions based on observations and events- as opposed to emotional reactions that short circuit people's reasoning processes and cause them to react as if this guy's a serial rapist or a danger to society.

[suzie]

295. Many of us also lived through the 70s, and what you're saying is

simply apologist garbage.

There have always been those who molest kids--and those who defend them.

[depakid]

301. You're missing the point

lots of teens did drugs- especially in LA and the culture was far different.

That's NOT to excuse the behavior- or- as many seem to want to say "defend" what Polanski did. Just saying that at this point dragging the old man back to imprison him like a Nazi war criminal is not in anyone's interest.

Except those who are obsessed with retribution- no matter what the cost.

[seabeyond]

366. here is one. 1 in 3 female raped in military. not prosecuted. rape, thumbsup. leave this man

alone and is just one more thumbs up to rape in this world

it matters

this is very very public. what does it say, saying meh.... an old man raping a kid, not a to do.

we have a problem with this issue, TODAY. it is not an issue to shrug shoulders and dismiss

[WildEyedLiberal]

296. Adults raping 13 year olds was okay in the 70s?

Who knew?

I hate to burst your ignorant bubble, but America is not the only country which has prosecuted criminals for decades-old crimes.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/10/Alleged-Nazi-loses-deportation-appeal/UPI-89231239395614/

Does this 89 year old man actually pose a threat to anyone now? Are you going to degenerate into a frothing rant about the barbarity of Germany demanding his extradition so they can put him on trial for war crimes he MAY have been an accomplice to? This case isn't even as clear cut as the Polanski case - he admitted raping the girl, after all. So if your howls of outrage are even 1/1000th percent genuine, I certainly expect you to crucify Germany (and every other country which has extradited old people for playing bit roles in decades-old war crimes) as fully as you're crucifying America.

[proteus_lives]

299. What does that mean?

"I'm not an "apologist" for statutory rape- though I did live through the 70's (and it was a different time than today- though many of the loudest screamers for vengeance very likely didn't live through it)."

So you would have taken a shot at a 13 year-old girl? :puke: Well, that says a lot about your character. Nothing good.

Your apologist attitude is plumbing new depths.

[depakid]

304. There you go again

Look my the post above re: 70's in LA.

As to character: read Les Miserables, as you seem both here- and on other threads very much like Javert.

You can judge for yourself whether that's accurate or desirable.

[proteus_lives]

309. So Polanski is Valjean?

:rofl:

Nice to know you think rape a 13 year old girl is the same as stealing a loaf of bread. So you think the child rapist is a innocent? How so?

As for Javert, I don't think it applies to me or the topic. Because the search for justice in this situation isn't misguided or overzealous.

[depakid]

328. Give me a break- and get a clue about abstract thought

Your posts on these topics have been classic 21st Century versions of Javert. That you can't see it- or recognize where the influences (and the rhetoric you use) comes from is actually sort of sad.

And unfortunately- all too representative.

[suzie]

357. Actually, it's your analogy that's sad.

The character you uphold in the French novel had served his time for a minor crime. And was a defender of children.

The actual human that you're so busy apologizing for skipped out.

And the "blame the victim" apologism which we've heard a gazillion times from child molesters? Dressing it up with references to 19th Century French novels doesn't make it more acceptable.

[Odin2005]

350. If you don't get emotionally enraged by this then you are a SOCIOPATH

Just like the rapist fuck you are defending.

[WildEyedLiberal]

282. Torture is illegal

So is child rape. For someone so filled to the brim with self-loathing insecure faux righteousness, you seem very confused about whether the rule of law is a good thing or not. Torture = bad, child rape = hunky dory.

If putting convicted child rapists who fled the justice system behind bars is an example of why America is such an awful country, then I sincerely hope you move to Thailand or somewhere where you can rape all the 12 year olds you want scot free. Maybe then your self-loathing will abate somewhat.

[depakid]

290. Surely didn't stop America- and Americans from embracing it, did it?

The same very thing that drives you to hunt this guy down and imprison him for the rest of his life is the EXACT SAME set of emotional reactions that caused America to torture those who they thought "deserved it."

It's why you have more people in prison than China, India or Russia!

It's why you have so called "zero tolerance" laws.

Deal with it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

294. Did anyone say anything about "the rest of his life"? I sure didn't

I want him to serve whatever sentence is imposed on him by the judge, commensurate with the crime he committed. Because, you know, that's how it works in countries which have a legal code. Are you opposed to the legal system? Should we embrace an anarchist system and dispense altogether with criminal statues?

I see an extreme emotional reaction in this thread, and it's coming from you, you who are so rabid in your need to insert cheap anti-American pablum into every single post that you've become a slavering lunatic who is incapable of actually discussing the particulars of Roman Polanski's case with anything approaching logic or reason. I'd comment on the irony but I really don't think you're lucid enough to pick up on it anyway.

[depakid]

297. That's what his sentence will be- so deal with it

And yeah- I do see this as a microcosm of many other cases and rants on criminal justice threads that have shocked me- seeing as how this is ostensibly a progressive board. And something else I've noticed- it's gotten worse over the years.

Pardon me for seeing the pattern here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

303. I don't have to deal with anything

If he dies in prison, he does. If he doesn't, he doesn't. His sentence will be within the prescribed limits allowed by California law for his specific crime. I will note that if he hadn't attempted to circumvent the justice system by fleeing the country back when this happened, it would be all over and behind him now.

Sorry, I won't pardon you for the grossly irrational and hysterically off-topic overreactions you've spewed all over this and the other Polanski thread, nor the fact that you've clearly let your emotional issues with "America" overcome your ability to conduct any sort of discussion. Your posts are a prime example of why any kind of meaningful discourse at DU is utterly impossible.

[depakid]

306. Reminds me of jurors who convict and then are shocked

by the sentence- but then shrug their shoulders and walk away.

Not all do of course- some speak out or express remorse (noting that if they'd been allowed to know, they might have voted differently).

If he's extradited, under California law- he'll very likely die in prison. And what purpose will that serve? What purpose do many of the long retributive sentences serve when a person isn't a danger to society?

Who benefits here?

[proteus_lives]

312. Society benefits.

A rapist who thought his fame, fortune and talent would protect from the consequences of his actions dies in jail.

Everybody wins.

[WildEyedLiberal]

313. Perhaps you should've responded to the link I posted about the 89 year old Nazi

As the principle is quite pertinent to the point you're trying to make here. I'm curious whether you believe that this old man should be sent back to Germany to face justice for his bit role in Nazi war crimes over 60 years ago. Link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/10/Alleged-Nazi-loses-deportation-appeal/UPI-89231239395614

Is this 89 year old man a danger to anyone? No. By all accounts he's lived a quiet, law-abiding life in the US since immigrating here. What purpose, then, does extraditing him to Germany to face trial serve? Is Germany as deserving of the scorn you've liberally heaped upon the US in this thread - because what they're doing in this case is exactly the same in principle as what's happening with Polanski. Or is it more important to set a legal precedent that confirms that there is no way to escape justice if you are involved in such a crime - that neither age nor time passed nor international borders can shield you?

What about the old KKK racist who was recently convicted of the church bombing that killed those four black girls during the Civil Rights battles? There was a good 40 year gap between that crime and the judicial punishment there, too. At what point do you think the statue of limitations expires and crimes should go unpunished? After 10 years? 20? 50? Or whenever criminal becomes old or ill?

Laws are meaningless if there is no standard mechanism by which they are enforced. Criminal charges are considered crimes against society writ large; someone who rapes or murders not only violates their victim, but the social contract by which we maintain a functioning civilization. The law must be dispassionate; those who violate it have violated a sacred social trust. If there is no penalty for violating that trust, then the system cannot sustain itself, and all order will break down. Every civilization of note since the dawn of history has recognized this. Roman Polanski violated that contract when he raped a girl, then violated it again when he fled the country to escape sentencing after being lawfully convicted. And this isn't a misdemeanor drug possession charge. Raping a minor does and should carry a serious penalty. And there isn't a reasonable person in any reasonable society in North America, Europe, Asia or anywhere else who would argue with that.

[proteus_lives]

314. Your last paragraph is awesome.

It nails the issue. But he won't listen.

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

315. Apparently, the French didn't look at the crime the same way as you- and certainly didn't

attempt to equate it with genocidal acts during the holocaust. Nor with racist acts of murder in the Jim Crow era. That's something that's pretty well unique to Americans.

Now- before you do the J'accuse- recognize that I think the act in this case deserved consequences- and I think over the years, proportional to the crime, they've largely been had. I don't see how this man dying in a US prison serves any purpose whatsoever except to satisfy certain people's (and not anyone involved's) lust for vengeance.

btw: no statute of limitations applies in this case- although that's for a different reason than war crimes or murder.

As to California law- could be I know a little something about it- and it could also be that the state's completely out of whack as to most places in the world with respect to sentencing. Maybe Islamic nations trump CA. But that's another matter....

And no- I'm buying your argument for a second that a state like California who would imprison someone for life for stealing a slice of pizza should have carte blanche in the world via extradition any more than I'd say California ought to send a girl home to stoned to death in Somalia- or be religiously mutilated in Nigeria based on a custody order.

[WildEyedLiberal]

320. You are, once again, letting your emotional issues cloud your judgment

Because California has the unjust three strikes law, they are not allowed to prosecute or imprison legitimate criminals either? Roman Polanski didn't steal a piece of pizza. Maybe you could stop introducing ridiculous strawmen into this discussion every time you are forced into a corner. And why in the fuck should I care what France thinks about Polanski? I guess if they want to brag about granting asylum to a convicted child rapist, that's their right, but I think his star-studded auteur status had a lot more to do with it.

You committed - predictably - the fallacy of equating the specific CRIMES in the other cases I mentioned with the overriding PRINCIPLE at hand, which is whether or not justice can still be served for long-ago crimes. Your post directly prior to this one claimed that no good would be served by throwing an old man in jail for a crime he committed 30 years ago. If that is the reason that extraditing Polanski is wrong, then the cases I mentioned are very pertinent, as they also involve criminals who are now very old who committed their crimes decades ago. YOU introduced that line of reasoning, so don't suddenly cry foul because you don't like where it inevitably leads.

But that isn't your reasoning, is it? Because you don't really have a logically defensible position about Polanski one way or another, do you? This whole thread is just a venue for you to take cheap shots about "America" regardless of how wildly irrationally off-topic you become. Your defenses of Polanski in this thread have varied from "well France didn't have a problem with it" to "he's old, what's the point of throwing him in jail" to "it was the 70s and everyone was crazy back then!" You're all over the place, spewing whatever apologist garbage seems pertinent at the time so you can continue your jihad against "America." And yes, you're being an apologist - you're blindly defending Polanski not because you're necessarily pro-rape, but because you've decided that it's the anti-American thing to do here, and boy, if you have the chance to take some potshots at the USA, you're not about to pass it up!

Thanks for so thoroughly outing yourself as a blind ideologue. I regret wasting my time trying to engage you in an actual discussion, although at least I'm confident that everyone reading this thread will come to the same conclusion about you in short order.

[depakid]

324. We agree- we're wasting our time

Reducing matters to the absurd by introducing Nazi's (or Civil Rights murders) has long been recognized as the (inevitable?) end of fruitful internet discussions.

It even has a name:

Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And sorry- but in fact, America DOES have a ton of problems based on these types of attitudes- and they will- just as they were with Javert- contribute to your undoing if folks don't come to grips and deal with them.

As much as anything because neither the states nor the federal government can no longer afford to indulge it anymore.

Hint: this was why New Mexico abolished capital punishment.

[WildEyedLiberal]

382. Your inability to see where your own system of "logic" leads is rather sad

But your inability to engage in critical thinking is not my problem.

Your use of "your" and "you people" when referring to Americans is telling. You seem actively eager to see the country fail and hundreds of millions of people plunged into desperate poverty just so you can say "I told you so, you barbaric heathens!" I sincerely hope that if such a day ever comes, you are right here suffering with the rest of us benighted peons. Your cruel disposition and lust for vengeance is ironic and unbefitting of a "liberal."

[suzie]

374. You're defending the group of offenders, sex offenders, that does

continue to constitute a danger to society.

Many felons age out of the system--the older they get, the less they have an interest in going back to prison.

Child molesters keep on molesting children as long as they can find them. They'll be molesting their step-great-grandchildren.

But, continue to make apologizes for the group of offenders most likely to recidivate.

[suzie]

358. Progressives are the ones who have gotten most of the programs in

place that effectively prosecute child molesters.

Perhaps you'd be better served to seek out a more conservative environment--as the right wingers have always opposed legislation and programs designed to help defend children from predatory adults.

[Mimosa]

310. Bye-bye! Which countries do you prefer where kiddie raping is approved?

Ashamed to be from America because many here do not believe a 13 or 14 year old should be having sex with adults? Because there are laws which make rape illegal? Sheesh.


Did anybody click the link to the Google book where Polanski was interviewed? The man raped an underaged girl. Her mother may have been more or less pimping her out but the girl was raped. It was a crime in law.

[depakid]

317. Missing the point...

:eyes:

[Kitty Herder]

257. K&R!

[Missy Vixen]

271. Thank you

"No" still means "No", even if you're a movie director.

A thirteen-year-old is not old enough to offer informed consent, either.

Thanks for saying this. I can't believe some of the crap I've read here today.

:eyes:

[proteus_lives]

289. It was one of those days when I think DU has gone mad.

Defending a rapist? I mean, really? This is not a gray issue. They're defending him because he's an "artist" they like. Not because it's the right thing to do. It's sickening.

[old mark]

302. I support him - Go ahead and fucking puke, jerk. nt

[proteus_lives]

305. Ok, why do you support rape?

Let us in on your reasoning you rude little boy.

I'm guessing it's because he's famous. But I could be wrong. Why are you a rape apologist?

[Mimosa]

321. If the kiddie raper was a Repub enabler or lobbyist?

Proteus, if a Republican senator or lobbyist had been in the same hot water re: drugging and raping a girl or boy kid methinks the Polanski supporters wouldn't be laying out these fine defenses.

I think the beleagured state of CA should make Polanski pay for his own jailing if it comes to it. Taxpayers shouldn't have to be bled to support the old little weasel.

[proteus_lives]

323. You're right, sadly.

If the rapist were Beck, Rush or Shrub they would burn him at the stake. But since it's a famous "artist" they have turned into rape apologists.

It's two-faced.

You're right, rich men should have to pay. It makes a certain amount of sense.

[geek tragedy]

373. You support child rape. You're the jerk, and a mentally diseased one at that.

I certainly hope no one ever trusts you alone with their child.

Pig

[BlueMTexpat]

325. I am not a Polanski apologist, but having a warrant enforced abroad

for a decades-old crime where a deal had been worked out ... and then the judge changed his mind at the last moment ... when we still are not bringing to account the de facto criminals who have been responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, including raping and sodomizing minors, disappearing some people and holding others for seven+ years without ever charging them so that their cases can be heard, allowing one of our major US cities to be destroyed, and closing their eyes to financial excesses and crimes so that they nearly brought down our entire economic system, does NOT reflect well on our so-called system of "justice."

Bad as Polanski's behavior was, and I certainly do agree that it was bad, he settled with the victim long ago and she has gone on with her life. While he also has to deal with his debt to the state, given the totality of circumstances that debt may turn out not to be a big deal.

If even half of the current US outrage and passion towards Polanski could be directed towards getting indictments of the BushCo criminals, the enforcement of a decades-old warrant against Polanski might stop the shaking of many heads over the US tendency to "Puritanical overreaction," because whether we agree with that characterization or not, that's exactly what it looks like from Over Here, given this particular set of circumstances.

[Lagomorph]

327. +1

Following the straight path ain't so easy. That's why the laws are there, to prevent us from exploiting people we're stronger than. Predators are predators.

[Hannah Bell]

340. those who deliberately misrepresent facts in order to gin up emotions

make me want to puke.

the worst crimes in history result from it.

[Odin2005]

352. Those who apologize for rapists make ME want to puke.

My friend's rapist got off with a slap on the wrist because of this goddamn apologist mindset

[proteus_lives]

375. What facts are misrepresented?

Did he not rape that girl?

[Thickasabrick]

387. +1 nt

[cherish44]

343. He should have faced the music a long time ago

He ran and hid to escape his punishment. Now it's time to pay the piper.

[urbanasaurus]

346. "Apologists"

Plural.

[NashVegas]

362. Or Apologia

If we're talking about the posts, themselves.

[snooper2]

355. He fled the "country", not the "county"....

I'm going back to the "lets make the school year longer cause' our kids ain't learning" threads now...

:rofl:

[dugaresa]

363. To be honest, Polanski helped make this situation more theatrical with his actions

all this time has passed, and yet I am betting he could have easily gotten this issue settled but yet it hasn't.

If anything this situation has played well for him, keeps his name in the papers.

Personally I think he is a rich creepy dude who had a penchant for young women but there are a lot of Hollywood types that fit that mold and I find them creepy too.

[ensho]

364. true - he drugged and raped a child

nt

[ismnotwasm]

367. They probably think

Immediately after his escape he had saw a burning bush telling him to sin no more and has spent the last 40 years in loving harmony with all creatures great and small, doing great deeds and walking on water.

Oh, and when he sees prepubescent or barely pubescent child, nary a salacious thought crosses his mind. Of course not. It's been 40 years. It would never happen. Can't happen. Not once. Well not often. Well, only on weekdays.

[Odin2005]

413. I'm certain he has raped more children.

Child rapists don't just stop, they are like serial killers, they keep on doing it untill they are thrown in jail forever and/or are executed.

[bullwinkle428]

369. The apologists are showing the same kind of mentality that

some show when discussing elderly war criminals that have been discovered, hiding out in their little lairs somewhere in South America...

"HE'S JUST A POOR LITTLE OLD MAN, TRYING TO LIVE OUT HIS LIFE! WHAT WOULD IT ACCOMPLISH TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL AT THIS POINT IN HIS LIFE?"

[WildEyedLiberal]

380. Yeah, but if you bring that up, you're guilty of Godwin's Law

Because these fools are unwilling to look at their own system of logic and see naturally where it leads.

[Taverner]

384. GODWIN! GODWIN! Did someone say Nazi? GODWIN ALERT!!

That of course means everything this person has said, or will say, is irrelevant...


oh and :sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

422. because mass murder is exactly like sex with a 13-year-old.

[Rex]

377. Wow, in all fairness he did use the rant icon.

What did you expect? People who like Polanski will alway make lame excuses for him and veil it as sympathy for the devil.

[Taverner]

383. Although I sort of agree with you, its a lot more complicated than that

But I do think a jury needs to decide...a modern jury

[proteus_lives]

388. I want that too.

I think he should be brought to justice not strung up on a lamp-post. I just feel anger about the apologists and the fact he avoided this for so many years because of his fame and fortune.

[Taverner]

390. Again - I ask, what about Bush? Rumsfield? Cheney? Rove? Wolfotitz?

All of those folks ended up walking with not so much as a single charge brought against them...

[proteus_lives]

393. I'd like to see them on the dock for their crimes too.

But that doesn't take away from Polanski's case. Just because Bushco might skate doesn't mean a child-rapist should too.

[Taverner]

394. If he is indeed guilty

He still needs to be tried...

[proteus_lives]

396. If?

The act of having sex with a 13 year-old speaks for itself. There are issues attached but that the core, he's guilty.

[tammywammy]

402. Well, he pled guilty to "unlawful intercourse with a minor" and I don't believe he's ever said he

didn't do it.

[Hannah Bell]

405. "unlawful intercourse with a minor" i.e. statutory rape.

[WildEyedLiberal]

409. Yes. Rape.

Your point?

[JuniperLea]

399. And it's not revenge...

It's justice! I hope it will serve to deter others who might rape.

[scarletwoman]

407. "I hope it will serve to deter others who might rape." Seriously?

Since when has punishment for ANY crime acted as a deterrent to others committing the same crime?

Murder rates in states with the death penalty are generally HIGHER than in states without. And when have people stopped robbing banks because of the punishment meted out to bank robbers?

And how about the War on Drugs(tm)? How's that been working out? After all these decades of incarcerating drug users, you'd think drug use would have been wiped out by now. Why not?

The idea that punishment prevents criminal behavior is a total canard. All punishment accomplishes is societal vengeance, it prevents nothing.

True prevention would require an entirely different level of social evolution. Something along the lines of someone who once said, "Go, and sin no more."

sw

[Odin2005]

414. Oh, what a load of flowery-sounding crap.

[scarletwoman]

425. I'm saying that "punishment=deterrance" is a load of crap.

Look around at the state of the world and tell me that this isn't so.

[JuniperLea]

429. How can you prove a negative?

How can you prove that seeing others incarcerated for a crime you intend to commit isn't a deterrent for some? Not all... of course not... and I never said "all"... in fact, I said "even one" which is where I stand.

Some people do avoid illegal behaviors because of the fear of such things.

[scarletwoman]

440. Thank you for being willing to at least discuss my question. I sincerely appreciate it.

Anyway, here's what I think. Most people have an internal moral compass -- call it a conscience -- that prevents them from ever considering engaging in criminal acts in the first place.

I would never engage in any sort of theft, for example, because I simply can't conceive of doing something like that. In the very core of my being I know that theft is wrong, and for the sake of my own sense of who I am, I would never do it. It has nothing to do with fear of punishment, it has wholly to do with who I am as a human being.

On the flip side, let's look at someone who's embezzling huge sums of money at their place of employment. They are no doubt aware that it's wrong, but they've made a calculation about the cost/benefit ratio and decided that the benefit outweighs the risk. Maybe they're caught up in a gambling addiction and the drive of the addiction has completely erased whatever internal moral compass they might have once possessed.

In any case, one way or another they have convinced themselves that they'll be able to pull this off without paying any price. The fact that embezzlers get caught and punished has been pushed out their conscious minds, they are employing the universal human ability to engage in gross denial.

Let's look at murder. The gang-banger who shoots a kid standing on a street corner is not at all concerned with punishment. He is intent on fulfilling his desire to commit this particular act of violence, for whatever reasons he has rationalized in his own mind. If the possibility of being jailed enters his mind at all, he'll look at it as just another way to build up his street cred. The threat of punishment means nothing in his calculations.

Let's look at psychopathic rapists. Their entire sense of self is wrapped up satisfying their overwhelming urge to satisfy their anti-woman obsessions. It's highly doubtful that any thought of possible punishment enters into their calculations at all. They operate wholly in a state of denial -- denial that their acts are evil, denial that they will ever be caught or suffer consequences. Why would they even consider the latter? They believe that what they do is completely justified.

Those people who have no operational internal moral compass are not deterred by threat of punishment. Maybe some teenage girls decide they'd rather not risk getting caught shoplifting a blouse at Macys and therefore desist from doing so, but I honestly doubt that very few people who have overridden their own consciences -- or who are psychopaths to begin with -- are given any pause by the threat of punishment. They either engage in criminal acts precisely because they are certain they will NOT get caught, or else they already don't care if they ARE caught, as long as they are able to take advantage of an opportunity to do that which they most strongly desire to do before their capture.

I also believe in redemption. William Ayres belonged to a group who committed criminal acts. But unlike the rightwingers, I don't believe he should be condemned for the rest of his life for the lapses of his youth. He has moved on and made admirable contributions to the betterment of society. Why should he be stigmatized forever after when he has atoned for those early days by consciously choosing to act out of his higher self?

Somewhere beyond the notion of implacable punishment there needs to be a space for atonement and redemption. Punishment doesn't deter the worst impulses of those who are inclined to give into their worst impulses. For those who have once given in to their worst impulses, but who have subsequently refrained from doing so again, is there no place for forgiveness, for redemption?

sw

[JuniperLea]

443. I agree with 95% of what you've said here...

I cannot get past violence against women, period. Rape is violence, and what we have here is an admitted rapist.

I don't feel Ayres' situation is a fair analogy. The Weather Underground targeted unoccupied government buildings, being very careful not to harm anyone. There were people hurt, no question, but it wasn't intentional as far as I can tell. What Polanski did was face to face brutal violence. And he admitted to it. What he ran from was his obligation to serve his time. He not only needs to face up to this, but to the contempt of court charges that should be added to those charges.

Allowing him to get completely off the hook sends a horrible message to would-be rapists and to women.

Has your life ever been touched by rape? Have you or anyone you know been the victim of violence?

[Maru Kitteh]

416. That's your answer? Go and sin no more? That's the most naive, simplistic shit I've read on this

entire thread and THAT is saying something.

So. When some 40-something fucking perv comes along and drugs your your 13 year-old granddaughter, feeds her drugs and booze, shoves his dick up her ass while she begs of him "no"...... You're just going to say "go and sin no more."

That is sickening.

[depakid]

424. Is there a difference between the two in America these days?

For most people anymore, I don't think so. The system is based on harsh (and often violent) retribution- and little else.

[Odin2005]

427. If you do the crime you do the time. Don't like that? fuck off.

And read Immanuel Kant's thinking about justice while you are at it.

[Taverner]

433. In prison for how long?

[proteus_lives]

441. I'm not sure.

What's California's average for rape and fleeing?

[Taverner]

442. Hard to say

This one could go anywhere - like I said

[maxpower]

435. I agree

A 13 year old girl for Christ's sake

[redqueen]

436. Ah, pity you don't see the humor and nuance.

There are some very enlightened DUers who can help you see the funny side... and help you to see how this case really isn't so open and shut as you think.

Bunch of fucking geniuses around here, I tell you what.

:sarcasm: of course

[helderheid]

439. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[guappo1]

446. Punishing Polanski

He is a criminal without question, and should be punished for the crime of rape.
With that said, their claim is that he made a deal with the DAs office plead guilty
and the Judge change his mind. If this or any part of this is true which prevents him
from having a fair trail then I not sure what could be done.