PDA

View Full Version : It's OK to be a rapist and a pedophile if you are a celebrity



Igor_Goldenberg
29-09-2009, 02:41 PM
Polanski arrest (http://www.theage.com.au/world/polanski-in-fighting-mood-after-arrest-20090929-g9kb.html)

French and Polish foreign ministers, French culture minister and president, Poland president, Switzerland newspapers, some film luminaries (not mentioned in this article), The Swiss film screenwriters and directors association and others oppose Polanski arrest.

According to the facts listed in the article (not yet disputed) he raped (not just statutory!) 13 years girl more then 30 years ago.

I guess if it was someone else, newspapers would say that justice finally prevailed.

I am not going to discuss whether he must be punished or not. I would just like to point out a double standard.

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2009, 03:08 PM
Another article on this (http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/09/29/la_is_not_chinatown). But double standards towards celebrities are nothing new. E.g. CEOs making millions are evil and greedy; celebrity actors, directors and sports starts making far more millions are fine, as long as they support the Left.

morebeer
29-09-2009, 04:24 PM
Chinatown may be in my top 20 films of all time, but if what he is reported to have done is true then he should be punished. Dog act.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
30-09-2009, 07:08 AM
sounds like the kind of dubious cause sean penn and susan sarandon would probably champion. (those two seem to appear more regularly in american political debate than is necessary considering the output they produce. (which is plop.))
obviously this would be a terrific opportunity for them to employ their highly calibrated social acumen to provide the perspective to this subject only actors can communicate.

furthermore, maybe "inciteful" documentary maker micheal moore could "educate" us, with another one of his incredibly unbiased expose' on the obvious turmoil thrust apon a well loved and respected member of the cinematic fraternity.

surely somebody can profit from this issue.

im thinking big budget film depicting the subhumane incarceration of one of the worlds leading artistic beacons and his valiant quest to strive for justice. (truth is strictly irrelevant, entertainment is paramount).

im thinking exotic landscapes, sean penn as lead actor and possibly a love interest with lets say cate blanchett (to cover the couples demographic). and the rest ill just make up as i go.
maybe ill rewrite the script for junior audiences and include a talking dog called "martin chuzzlewit" and try for a school holidays release, who knows. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

i should be in film. its a doddle.

antichrist
30-09-2009, 01:32 PM
I have read that since being arrested the victim, now 45 years old, does not want the prosecution to take place. So shows two sides of everything. I wonder if she was asked at age 13 years if so also, but her opinion then probably would not count anyway.

i have heard of girls at that age who have had consensual sex with adults, then when the poop hit the fan, not them dobbing in either, the adult went to jail and even deathrow in the case of a overseas chess champ that I know.

The women at 45 years would certainly know if she suffered damage, we presume she realise it.

Basil
30-09-2009, 01:38 PM
AC I can assure that many wronged women do not wish to press charges for a plethora of reasons. That's not to say that many people know their own mind in these affairs - they do. But they also know when they're being pressured/ paid off/ misled.

antichrist
30-09-2009, 01:47 PM
AC I can assure that many wronged women do not wish to press charges for a plethora of reasons. That's not to say that many people know their own mind in these affairs - they do. But they also know when they're being pressured/ paid off/ misled.

I think in this case the woman would not be pressing charges, being 13 at the time she could not have probably decided anyway, would not have been listened to. I could be outrageous and say that "it" has given her 32 years of fame - esp when the venue owner Jack Nicholas' name is thrown in.

Is that barring material?

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2009, 04:07 PM
If he were Father Roman Polanski, AC would be screaming for his balls, as would all his celebutard supporters.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2009, 04:33 PM
If he were Father Roman Polanski, AC would be screaming for his balls, as would all his celebutard supporters.

Well, if he was a clergyman then the act in question would make him a hypocrite.

There's rather more to it than Igor's title suggests. We don't know if he's a rapist since he was allowed to plea-bargain to a charge of unlawful sex with an underage person and the (more than "statutory") rape charge was dropped. We don't know if he's a pedophile - in many nations sex with a 13-year-old would be legal, and true pedophiles are typically attracted to prepubescent or very early pubescent children rather than to teenagers who might look older than they actually are. And much of the sympathy for him arises not just from his celebrity status but also from his own miserable past and from questions about whether his plea-bargain was set to be overridden by the original judge whose motives may have been suspect. However, perhaps it is only because Polanski is a celebrity that these aspects of the case receive attention.

In my view if he really was a rapist (and then fled from a very lenient sentence under the circumstances) then lock him up and throw away the key, at least until he is too elderly and/or unwell to present the slightest threat. If, on the other hand (which I greatly doubt) the sex act in question was a willing one by both parties, then he's already been punished enough and should be left alone.

The problem is that because of the plea bargain it will never be legally tested which of these statements is true. And this shows both the problems with allowing plea-bargains at all, and the problems with the way in which nations with high ages of consent have tended to treat all sex involving underage persons as tantamount to life-wrecking pedophilic child abuse whether it actually is the case or not.

Ian Murray
02-10-2009, 11:20 PM
The grand jury transcript makes it pretty clear, albeit sordid reading
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/01/yes-hes-talented

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2009, 11:35 PM
Well, if he was a clergyman then the act in question would make him a hypocrite.
Of course, but no less a rapist of an underaged girl. “Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”


And much of the sympathy for him arises not just from his celebrity status but also from his own miserable past and from questions about whether his plea-bargain was set to be overridden by the original judge whose motives may have been suspect.
Or if the judge thought that the plea bargaining was giving a celebrity too much lenience.


The problem is that because of the plea bargain it will never be legally tested which of these statements is true. And this shows both the problems with allowing plea-bargains at all, and the problems with the way in which nations with high ages of consent have tended to treat all sex involving underage persons as tantamount to life-wrecking pedophilic child abuse whether it actually is the case or not.
True enough, say if the consent age is 17, and an 18yo is branded a sex offender for life for having sex with a 16yo. But not when it's an adult and a 13yo.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2009, 12:18 AM
The grand jury transcript makes it pretty clear, albeit sordid reading
http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/01/yes-hes-talented

Yes, assuming it's all true, which I strongly suspect it is.

But all the same, it's the testimony of a witness, and not the finding of a court after hearing both sides. Because of the plea-bargain (struck to protect the girl from the horrendous ordeal of being cross-examined in open court) we don't know what would have happened had all her claims been tested. Whatever we think, he is legally innocent of not-just-statutory rape and entitled to be treated as such by the law, no matter how much we believe him to be an outright rapist. What he is legally guilty of is having sex with a teenager. He is apparently also guilty of fleeing lawful custody.


True enough, say if the consent age is 17, and an 18yo is branded a sex offender for life for having sex with a 16yo. But not when it's an adult and a 13yo.

Then why is the age of consent 13 or lower in Spain, Japan, Phillipines, Argentina, and most of Mexico, and 14 or 15 in much of Europe? There is an extraordinary degree of variation even among relatively prosperous and liberal nations in treatment of these sorts of cases, so that depending on where the behaviour in question occurs, the offence to which he pleaded guilty would get Polanski anything from no penalty at all through a slap on the wrist to a number of years in prison. Developmental differences between ethnicities might have a fair bit to do with it but I suspect the main reason for the huge variation is cultural - as it also is in drug law cases where a similar disparity is observed.

ER
03-10-2009, 06:35 AM
(...) Then why is the age of consent 13 or lower in Spain, Japan, Phillipines, Argentina, and most of Mexico, and 14 or 15 in much of Europe?
a few points on this subject
1) Can you please check the age of concent in Netherlands?
2) Is gender (male rapists / paedophiles vs female (rapists / paedophiles) a factor in deciding severity of punishment?
3) Is the mental condition of the rapist / paedophile a factor in deciding severity of punsishment?

Mokum
03-10-2009, 08:31 AM
a few points on this subject
1) Can you please check the age of concent in Netherlands?

16. Why?

Rincewind
03-10-2009, 09:32 AM
16. Why?

Perhaps skeletons in the closet... :lol:

deanhogg
03-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Roman Polanski has shot him self in foot by fleeing to France in those
days when he was charged for rape . Now his whole career has been turn
upside for not facing music . He probably expected this to blow over
and never haunt him again how things can turn around and bite you on bum
With mounting pressure on Polanski will this be Justice for Polanski or women
in question ? given no extradition agreement with countries and
on France soil . l hardly see this being fair hearing especially for women .

Igor_Goldenberg
04-10-2009, 09:19 PM
There's rather more to it than Igor's title suggests.

Post about hypocrisy, not rape/paedophilia (where laws are not always just and accusations sometimes frivolous - here is a recent example (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25979273-1246,00.html?from=public_rss)).
It was actually mentioned in the very first post:


I am not going to discuss whether he must be punished or not. I would just like to point out a double standard.

ER
04-10-2009, 09:37 PM
Perhaps skeletons in the closet... :lol:
you have not such fear, just keep on manicuring your ... girlfriend! :lol:

ER
04-10-2009, 09:40 PM
16.
There was talk in the EU that at some stage it was 12 but I wasn't sure

Why?
Why fkn not?

arosar
08-10-2009, 07:17 AM
In Polanski's defence, Whoopi Goldberg even invented a whole new concept: "rape rape" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0OOcg9sPEE).

"It was something else", she said but that it was not "rape rape".

AR

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2009, 04:46 PM
In Polanski's defence, Whoopi Goldberg even invented a whole new concept: "rape rape" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0OOcg9sPEE).

"It was something else", she said but that it was not "rape rape".

Goldberg has been harshly ridiculed for those comments. All she appears to mean by "rape rape" is that the other party is unwilling, as opposed to so-called "statutory rape", where the other party is just legally underage. And it is only the latter (though it's not called "statutory rape" in that jurisdiction, and seldom still called that in any) of which Polanski is formally guilty.

It is interesting (and I was not aware of this when I made my comments above) that the medical examination found no evidence of forcing or trauma. That is not necessarily conclusive, but the plea-bargain system is very conducive to charge sheets that go well beyond what actually happened; the idea is that if you get someone who is guilty of an offence charged with everything under the sun including some far more serious offences that might stick, they are much more likely to plea-bargain to guilty of whatever they actually did.

Incidentally, Polanski settled out of court and agreed to pay the girl half a million dollars to kill off a civil case, though it is unclear to me whether he ever actually coughed up.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-10-2009, 06:17 PM
Goldberg has been harshly ridiculed for those comments. All she appears to mean by "rape rape" is that the other party is unwilling, as opposed to so-called "statutory rape", where the other party is just legally underage. And it is only the latter (though it's not called "statutory rape" in that jurisdiction, and seldom still called that in any) of which Polanski is formally guilty.


The girl claimed that she was unwilling (even though I realise that those claims often, so say the least, frivolous). I even read somewhere that Polianski admitted that, even though can't be sure.

Goldberg was rightly ridiculed because she did look ridiculous on the show.
Mostly important, would she defend him that passionately if he wasn't a Hollywood celebrity?

Maybe she'll succeed and he will not go to "jail jail", just a jail.

flukey
08-10-2009, 06:37 PM
Maybe she'll succeed and he will not go to "jail jail", just a jail.

OK! This made me choke on my drink with laughter!

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2009, 07:30 PM
The girl claimed that she was unwilling (even though I realise that those claims often, so say the least, frivolous). I even read somewhere that Polianski admitted that, even though can't be sure.

I would be interested to know if that was the case, because in his probation report (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html) (see p 16 onwards) he indicates otherwise. Also of interest given your thread heading is the unequivocal finding by one examining psychiatrist that "He is not a pedophile" (p. 23-4).


Mostly important, would she defend him that passionately if he wasn't a Hollywood celebrity?

If he was not a Hollywood celebrity it is unlikely his case would come into the public arena in a way that gave her the opportunity to do so. In any case, if the answer is "no", that still doesn't mean she is wrong to do so. An alternative is that there are some whose similar cases are treated dubiously who are not defended because they are not celebrities.

I suspect now that it wasn't "rape" at all and that the whole "rape" angle is a beatup.

flukey
08-10-2009, 07:59 PM
Kevin, your "plea bargain" comments are a bit offbeam. Whether formalised or not, most countries feature negotiations between prosecution and defence. The idea that you would "overcharge" a person in Polanski's position in the first place just isn't plausible. Moreover, the US has the quaint system of grand jury's essentially being the filter for an indictment (rather than JPs in NZ and I presume and equivalent in Oz).

Mr Polanski is nothing more than a person who has absconded before being finally dealt with by the Courts. His problems are entirely self inflicted - it is beyond argument he would have been better off not fleeing in the first place - all the years of stress and worry and now he will have to spend more time in jail than the possibility of the extra 50 days or so after his realise from psychiatric evaluation back in the 70s.

Incidentely, initial criticism of the Swiss was wide of the mark, as Igor was getting at. A country that is a signitory to an extradition process can't pick and choose whether to action a warrant. Mr Polanski is in need of good legal advice and I can assist - consent to the extradition ... get back to the US, and with luck some of the time in cutody in Switzerland can be deducted from his sentence.

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2009, 08:59 PM
The idea that you would "overcharge" a person in Polanski's position in the first place just isn't plausible.

Why not? Are you familiar with the charges served on Hunter S Thompson in 1990, in which he was investigated for an alleged sexual assault, but it was seen fit to turn his house upside down for several hours and charge him with numerous offences that were not even related to the main accusation?


Mr Polanski is nothing more than a person who has absconded before being finally dealt with by the Courts.

He certainly is an absconder, although it is a little more complex given that the judge (now deceased) may have held unethical onesided discussions about his treatment with the prosecution.


His problems are entirely self inflicted - it is beyond argument he would have been better off not fleeing in the first place - all the years of stress and worry and now he will have to spend more time in jail than the possibility of the extra 50 days or so after his realise from psychiatric evaluation back in the 70s.

I strongly suspect it was indeed not in his interests to flee and that his behaviour in doing so was irrational, paranoid and panicked. What interests me though is the way in which he is now made out, in threads like this, as a "rapist and a pedophile" when both these things are far from clear.


Incidentely, initial criticism of the Swiss was wide of the mark, as Igor was getting at. A country that is a signitory to an extradition process can't pick and choose whether to action a warrant.

I completely agree with this.

By the way I am not a Polanski fan; can't really think of any of his films that I like much offhand.

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 01:21 AM
Moreover, the US has the quaint system of grand jury's essentially being the filter for an indictment (rather than JPs in NZ and I presume and equivalent in Oz).

Meant to reply to this as well. Isn't the grand jury system one in which the prosecution tries to convince a grand jury that there is enough reason for a case to go to court based on some level of reason for suspicion that the offence in question happened, but the defendant and defence aren't there to argue to the contrary? If the defence aren't there to raise objections, is it really all that difficult to convince a grand jury to indict in the case of an offence that relies so heavily on the word of one witness against another (and the other isn't there)?

Indeed, the reaction to this case I have seen on many threads across the internet bears this out. So many people commenting have read the grand jury testimony, decided he's a definite rapist on the basis of that alone, and not even bothered looking to see if another side to the story even exists.

Rincewind
09-10-2009, 07:24 AM
By the way I am not a Polanski fan; can't really think of any of his films that I like much offhand.

Of course his best known films are Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. But his Macbeth is also pretty good and he was reasonably successful with Frantic, a more mainstream but well made thriller where Harrison Ford plays a doctor try to track down his missing wife in Paris.

Desmond
09-10-2009, 08:41 AM
In Polanski's defence, Whoopi Goldberg even invented a whole new concept: "rape rape" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0OOcg9sPEE).

"It was something else", she said but that it was not "rape rape".

ARI haven't seen the context or delivery but on its face it doesn't seem to weird a concept. In comparison there are various shades of black available as hair colours, these are know as blue black, red black, purple black etc, and naturally true black is affectionately called black black.

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2009, 03:36 PM
Of course his best known films are Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby. But his Macbeth is also pretty good and he was reasonably successful with Frantic, a more mainstream but well made thriller where Harrison Ford plays a doctor try to track down his missing wife in Paris.

I watched his "Macbeth" in year 8 English. We generally thought it was pretty good at the time but a fair bit of the enjoyment probably came from the fact that we were actually allowed to watch it at all instead of some boring version.

ER
10-10-2009, 08:55 AM
year 8? wow! I saw that film when I was about what? 25 maybe, and still have nightmares! Having said that, it was a great film from a cinematographic point of view! "Knife in the Water" also one of his very good ones!

Desmond
28-09-2014, 11:06 AM
"Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying, delighting in, the beauty and goodness of these young people ... rather than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds."

The new Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, during World Youth Day in 2008 – recalled this week – on victims of priestly sexual abuse. Fisher was a one-time solicitor at a Sydney law firm.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/all-things-arent-equal-in-politics-20140926-10me6f.html#ixzz3EZGl7J5F

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2014, 02:59 PM
Meant to reply to this as well. Isn't the grand jury system one in which the prosecution tries to convince a grand jury that there is enough reason for a case to go to court based on some level of reason for suspicion that the offence in question happened, but the defendant and defence aren't there to argue to the contrary? If the defence aren't there to raise objections, is it really all that difficult to convince a grand jury to indict in the case of an offence that relies so heavily on the word of one witness against another (and the other isn't there)?
Pretty much. The common quip is, "a good prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (http://columbialawreview.org/ham-sandwich-nation_reynolds/)."

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2014, 04:27 PM
Pretty much. The common quip is, "a good prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich (http://columbialawreview.org/ham-sandwich-nation_reynolds/)."

Though curiously I have been following another grand jury case recently, that of former NASCAR champion Tony Stewart. Stewart, who has a bit of a past rap-sheet for bad tempered incidents, was involved in an unusual incident in sprintcar racing in which a young driver who had crashed out of the event was out of his car remonstrating while the race was still going; Stewart's car then hit the other driver and killed him.

Debate then sprang up about Stewart's blame level for the fatal collision and you could get every view on it including: that it was a complete accident, that Stewart should have slowed down but didn't, that Stewart accelerated to intimidate the guy without meaning to hit him (hence manslaughter), even a few people calling it murder.

The DA could have cleared Stewart but decided to send him to grand jury. The grand jury cleared him.

However it did seem in that case that the DA was not setting out to prosecute, but rather to handball his decision to someone else.

Adamski
08-10-2014, 11:26 AM
Though curiously I have been following another grand jury case recently, that of former NASCAR champion Tony Stewart. Stewart, who has a bit of a past rap-sheet for bad tempered incidents, was involved in an unusual incident in sprintcar racing in which a young driver who had crashed out of the event was out of his car remonstrating while the race was still going; Stewart's car then hit the other driver and killed him.

Debate then sprang up about Stewart's blame level for the fatal collision and you could get every view on it including: that it was a complete accident, that Stewart should have slowed down but didn't, that Stewart accelerated to intimidate the guy without meaning to hit him (hence manslaughter), even a few people calling it murder.

The DA could have cleared Stewart but decided to send him to grand jury. The grand jury cleared him.

However it did seem in that case that the DA was not setting out to prosecute, but rather to handball his decision to someone else.
I saw this on the news. I am surprised that Stewart was cleared. Expected manslaughter charge, though only had the "facts" as per a short tv news segment. Surely he could have slowed down....

Kevin Bonham
08-10-2014, 12:32 PM
I saw this on the news. I am surprised that Stewart was cleared. Expected manslaughter charge, though only had the "facts" as per a short tv news segment. Surely he could have slowed down....

There may have been a factor that influenced the grand jury more than it should have: It was disclosed that the deceased had marijuana in his bloodstream.

There are some arguments that Stewart likely would not have even known or anticipated that the guy was on the track. He may well cop a civil suit which has a lower standard of proof.