Baby raper or poor judgement?
Jail or retrial?
Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Polanski
PolanskiFollow
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Jail him. He's already been found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Fleeing the country for over three decades to escape your sentence doesn't absolve it. He's done some great things in film, but we're not judging him on his career; he should be jailed for his crime. His character and his age don't really come into play. Prosecutors says he drugged and raped a 13-year old, and while he plead the charge down, he is still guilty of it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Jail him. He's already been found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Fleeing the country for over three decades to escape your sentence doesn't absolve it. He's done some great things in film, but we're not judging him on his career; he should be jailed for his crime. His character and his age don't really come into play. Prosecutors says he drugged and raped a 13-year old, and while he plead the charge down, he is still guilty of it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
If there is a retrial the victim says she'll drop charges.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
If there is a retrial the victim says she'll drop charges.
I'm not sure she has that option. It's the state's case, right?
She could, of course, obfuscate and deny.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Elinda wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Jail him. He's already been found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Fleeing the country for over three decades to escape your sentence doesn't absolve it. He's done some great things in film, but we're not judging him on his career; he should be jailed for his crime. His character and his age don't really come into play. Prosecutors says he drugged and raped a 13-year old, and while he plead the charge down, he is still guilty of it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
An interesting fact is the rape victim doesn't think he should be jailed. Not sure how that would factor into it.
If there is a retrial the victim says she'll drop charges.
I guess there's the issue. He's already been tried and convicted. His only real chance to get away is a retrial or clemency granted by the president. And while I'm not sure about those claims, there is the fact he gave the girl drugs and alcohol and did all sorts of things to her... when she was 13. I know normally in the US that would be at least a decade in jail plus sex offender status. I think it is kind of sickening that he should get away with it just because he fled the country for thirty years. The woman who was raped said she would drop the charges simply because of the ongoing trauma when the case keeps coming up; she wants it over one way or the other, although she thinks "he made a mistake."
I'd say go with the original verdict.
Apparently he was originally charged with "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor." (So sayeth the wiki, amen). Sounds like the book was thrown at him, but as he eventually pled guilty only to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, I don't think it matters much whether the book was thrown or not.
Imprison him in a fully furnished film studio with a dedicated crew, a rotating cast of actors, and an unlimited budget. We can satisfy justice and art at the same time.
Isn't there a statute of limitations on rape cases? Or not in the case of minors?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Tare wrote:
Isn't there a statute of limitations on rape cases? Or not in the case of minors?
He confessed. He has never served his term (or been granted a pardon or parole, etc.). Basically he confessed and then did a scarper.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Ahhh, I see. Didn't know the history, really.
Too bad....he's a brilliant director.
Too bad....he's a brilliant director.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
From what I heard, the victim doesn't want him to be tried & imprisoned. It seems a bit vindictive to go after him, after all these years, especially through some extradition procedure. Had he set foot in the US directly, it would've been different.
Having said that, if he gets extradited, tried, and convicted, I don't think he'll have too much to complain about. There will have been much worst miscarriages of justice, and it's not because he's a brilliant film director that he should be immune to prosecution.
Having said that, if he gets extradited, tried, and convicted, I don't think he'll have too much to complain about. There will have been much worst miscarriages of justice, and it's not because he's a brilliant film director that he should be immune to prosecution.
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Having said that, if he gets extradited, tried, and convicted, I don't think he'll have too much to complain about. There will have been much worst miscarriages of justice, and it's not because he's a brilliant film director that he should be immune to prosecution.
This.
No special treatment because of his great movies.
Bertuz the Irrelevant wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Having said that, if he gets extradited, tried, and convicted, I don't think he'll have too much to complain about. There will have been much worst miscarriages of justice, and it's not because he's a brilliant film director that he should be immune to prosecution.
This.
No special treatment because of his great movies.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I only know what i've read in the news but I read somewhere the victim had a settlement with him and that sounds suspiciously like he paid here off to me.
Postalmo wrote:
I only know what i've read in the news but I read somewhere the victim had a settlement with him and that sounds suspiciously like he paid here off to me.
Not really. It's not like a settlement in the civil suit was stipulated with "but you'll never let me go to jail for raping you".
Quote:
No. However, special treatment for an incurable disease seems to pass muster. He can surely claim colon cancer or something.
Didn't work for Susan Atkins. /shrug
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Majivo wrote:
yeah cause celebrity's NEVER buy off their victims right?
Quote:
Postalmo wrote:
I only know what i've read in the news but I read somewhere the victim had a settlement with him and that sounds suspiciously like he paid here off to me.
Not really. It's not like a settlement in the civil suit was stipulated with "but you'll never let me go to jail for raping you".
I only know what i've read in the news but I read somewhere the victim had a settlement with him and that sounds suspiciously like he paid here off to me.
Not really. It's not like a settlement in the civil suit was stipulated with "but you'll never let me go to jail for raping you".
yeah cause celebrity's NEVER buy off their victims right?
Postalmo wrote:
yeah cause celebrity's NEVER buy off their victims right?
It happened once, so it must happen all the time!!!!!
Elinda wrote:
Baby raper or poor judgement?
Jail or retrial?
Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown?
Jail or retrial?
Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown?
He should face his sentencing or whatever stage he was in--it's always funny when everyone says that they should drop it. It's like "SURE, if you run away and live in France for 30 years, you shouldn't have to deal with it."
Oh and Rosemary's Baby.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
I wonder why he was only arrested after 31 years. There must have been previous opportunities. He has a house in Switzerland and France is part of Interpol. So why wasn't he nabbed much earlier?
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Baby raper or poor judgement?
Jail or retrial?
Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown?
Jail or retrial?
Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown?
He should face his sentencing or whatever stage he was in--it's always funny when everyone says that they should drop it. It's like "SURE, if you run away and live in France for 30 years, you shouldn't have to deal with it."
Oh and Rosemary's Baby.
Maybe after living thirty years in France they think he's suffered enough?
Professor Turicus wrote:
I wonder why he was only arrested after 31 years. There must have been previous opportunities. He has a house in Switzerland and France is part of Interpol. So why wasn't he nabbed much earlier?
The way the extradition treaty between France and USA works the country can decline to extradite its citizens. Polanski was born in Paris.
Also the case was originally supposed to be commuted to time served with his guilty plea but Polanski had word the judge was going to renege on his bargain so Polanski fled.
(Source) Well one of the few articles I read after hearing the news.
Hellbanned
idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
Postalmo wrote:
yeah cause celebrity's NEVER buy off their victims right?
Let me get this straight: He paid the victim publicly, in a well-known settlement, not to file charges (illegal). He also stipulated in this settlement that if she does testify, he'll somehow take back the settlement. Which presumably, according to you, is why she wants to drop charges: because after thirty years, he'll renege on the settlement that, in your version of events, is illegally set up to begin with.
You're an idiot. Her motive here is entirely unrelated to any settlement she received.
Quote:
You're an idiot. Her motive here is entirely unrelated to any settlement she received.
Honestly I dont believe that one bit. there are numerous cases of rich/famous people paying off and bribing people over crimes they have committed that you almost have to think that's the case here as well. By almost all accounts he did some pretty awful things to her and even though it's been 30 years he has yet to face justice for it in any form. now the vicim "just wants it over with"? nah it dont add up in my book. he's run from this for too long already.
Postalmo wrote:
now the vicim "just wants it over with"? nah it dont add up in my book.
Have you ever had anything traumatic happen to you in your life? At all?
Quote:
Have you ever had anything traumatic happen to you in your life? At all?
nothing that I would try to compare to what that girl went through no. but again when you see victims in the news on major cases their "normal" reaction is they want to see the criminal face justice for their crimes.
again all my views on this are colored by what I see in the news and such so maybe i'm way off base here but I dont think so.
#26REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 7:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're way off base and you should probably shut up.
Recent Visitors: 228
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Polanski
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC