So what do you think of Roman Pulanski?

LauraMax

Cathlete
Oh it just keeps getting better & better. Or worse & worse I guess I should say. Yeah, Whoopi defended him & then backtracked. I just cannot believe any woman or parent would say anything other than "string the pig up by his short hairs." :mad:

Where are all the women's groups right now? I have to wonder why I'm not seeing organizations like NOW coming out & coming out strong against this self entitled hollywood bull$hit. If it's b/c they're worried about losing donations, well.........then it's time for them to fold & hand over the reins to someone who truly cares about our place in society.
 

sparrow13

Cathlete
Oh it just keeps getting better & better. Or worse & worse I guess I should say. Yeah, Whoopi defended him & then backtracked. I just cannot believe any woman or parent would say anything other than "string the pig up by his short hairs." :mad:

Where are all the women's groups right now? I have to wonder why I'm not seeing organizations like NOW coming out & coming out strong against this self entitled hollywood bull$hit. If it's b/c they're worried about losing donations, well.........then it's time for them to fold & hand over the reins to someone who truly cares about our place in society.

Here's a great piece by feminist blogger Kate Harding at Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
 

BuffyR

Cathlete
Not excusing him or anything but just wanted to set the record straight. Evidently, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to one of the charges in exchange for a mental evaluation for 60 days. After 42 days the facility agreed his evaluation was done. The judge, fearing public upheaval, decided not to honor the plea bargain and indicated he was going to give Polanksi jail time. When Polanksi got the news that the judge was not going to honor the terms of the plea bargain, Polanski fled.
 

Shelshula

Cathlete
Not excusing him or anything but just wanted to set the record straight. Evidently, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to one of the charges in exchange for a mental evaluation for 60 days. After 42 days the facility agreed his evaluation was done. The judge, fearing public upheaval, decided not to honor the plea bargain and indicated he was going to give Polanksi jail time. When Polanksi got the news that the judge was not going to honor the terms of the plea bargain, Polanski fled.

Even if he came back, he would be sentenced under 1978 guidelines, not current guidelines.
Which is kind of interesting, when you look at how things have changed in the last 30 years.

He was initially 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.

Those charges were dropped when he plead guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor. A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime.

The Plea agreement was that Polanski would only get probation after completing the psych evaluation. The Judge made it clear that he was going to reject the plea agreement and sentence Polanski to prison. I believe the judge made this statement to Polanski's attorneys prior to the sentencing hearing and after having had conversations regarding the matter with the district attorney without the defense attorneys present. Both conversations were "ex parte" communication, and this is why Polanski's attorneys are now trying to appeal on the basis of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The Judge should not have been having discussions concerning the case without both parties present.

I am really kinda of torn on the judge. On the one hand, he seems to have understood that a 13 year old girl was raped and that Polanski committed a sex crime and should be in prison. Although his concern seems to have been motivated by how he would look if he accepted the plea and not whether it was a just punishment. If he is an elected official, it might have gone badly in the next election. BUT he warned Polanski's people, like he was giving them a wink and a nod, so Polanski could skip town before the sentencing. (Why else would he have given them the head's up? And that is further evidence of judicial misconduct).

In 1978, juries found rapists "not guilty" because the woman was asking for it if she wore a mini skirt. (True story, out of Florida, I'll find the reference if anyone really wants it.)

In 1978, apparently sex with a child under 14 was a lesser offense then rape, and was punishable with probation. Technically, and only in the 1978 legal sense, he is not a rapist because he was not convicted of rape and did not plea to rape.

Under 2009 legal guidelines, not only is he a rapist, but he probably would have been charged with child pornography (he took pictures of her in various states of undress), providing alcohol to a minor (he gave her booze), drug possession, and sodomy. He would go to prison and have to register as a sex offender. (He won't have to do that even if he comes back and deals with this, as the sex offender laws are not retroactive and will not apply to him.)

Also, the extradition order has been outstanding since 1978. It's just that no one had tried to enforce it until 2002 when he was nominated for the Oscar. The DA has been actively trying to get him extradited ever since then.

I think it is very interesting how much things have changed in the last 30 years in terms of how rape is defined, how it is punished and how much better victims are treated today.

And just in case there are any doubts, I think he is a repugnant child rapist who should be flogged to death on Public Square, the mother was nuts for allowing the child alone with anyone during a photo shoot, and that people who claim it wasn't his fault because 1) he didn't know she was only 13 (like that's really hard to tell when your 44 looking at 13 year old) or that she was a seductive tramp trying to entrap him are insane. Even if that last bit were true, which if it was he wouldn't have had to drug her, it doesn't change the fact that he had a responsibility to say no to a 13 year old girl. Whether she said no or not, even under 1978 California law, she was incapable of providing consent.
 

BeethovenRocks

Cathlete
The whole scenario is so vile I can barely put it into words. Makes me wonder if we've had any progress AT ALL in women's and/or children's rights or if it's all been an illusion to appease the masses.

In a way it puts me in mind of Mr. Letterman and his current woes, being threatened by extortion and all - the poor thing. He seems to be looking for sympathy as well. Yep, he's contrite for sleeping around with some of his female staff. But I remember years ago when Janet Jackson had her wardrobe malfunction and she gave him her first TV interview afterwards. I distinctly remember him saying to Janet '...he was concerned over his young son seeing a man rip off a woman's clothing so inappropriately...' So I'm guessing it's appropriate for his son to know his Dad's cheating on his Mom with employees. One by one I hope all these fakes no matter how wealthly - will be exposed...later if not sooner.
 

LauraMax

Cathlete
The latest I've heard about the judge is that he's a pretty sleazy guy too. A CNN report said that he was a major suck up to celebs & the reason why he backtracked on Polanski's verdict (BTW, please forgive my butchering of his name in the title & inability to edit it :eek:) was he was taking a lot of heat over the fact that it was too lenient & it was yet another demonstration of his star-struckedness (not asking for forgiveness on this one--a made up word but entirely appropriate IMO). Yes, even 32 years ago people recognized that Polanski's behavior was disgusting, criminal & deserving of severe punishment. As you alluded Shelshula, there was likely misconduct on the part of the judge & certainly a clear willingness to go easy b/c the POS was famous. :rolleyes:

Shelby, while I agree that what Letterman did was wrong, it didn't rise nearly to this level since it wasn't illegal, all partners were adults & was most likely consensual. Someone pointed out in another thread that he might even have been the one hit on, rather than the other way around.

There's that star-struckedness again. :mad:
 

BeethovenRocks

Cathlete
Oh for sure, point taken, Laura.

Shelby, while I agree that what Letterman did was wrong, it didn't rise nearly to this level since it wasn't illegal, all partners were adults & was most likely consensual. Someone pointed out in another thread that he might even have been the one hit on, rather than the other way around.

There's that star-struckedness again. :mad:[/QUOTE]
 

Beavs

Cathlete
I think it is very interesting how much things have changed in the last 30 years in terms of how rape is defined, how it is punished and how much better victims are treated today.

And yet one thing remains the same, different rules applied to the privileged. I am left to wonder how much has changed when women like Debra Winger defend him.
 

Gayle

Cathlete
And yet one thing remains the same, different rules applied to the privileged. I am left to wonder how much has changed when women like Debra Winger defend him.

My bet is that some of these Hollyweird dip-wads that are defending him are doing it so they might get the chance to work with him. :mad:
 

tobermory

Cathlete
I think that what motivated Whoopi's remarks are her own life experiences -- her daughter had a baby at 14. She must just accept that 13-year-olds have sex and therefore, she did not see any coercion because a 13-year-old sleeping with a man over 40 seems normal, or at least not really unusual and problematic, to her.

Tobermory
 

Beavs

Cathlete
I think that what motivated Whoopi's remarks are her own life experiences -- her daughter had a baby at 14. She must just accept that 13-year-olds have sex and therefore, she did not see any coercion because a 13-year-old sleeping with a man over 40 seems normal, or at least not really unusual and problematic, to her.

Tobermory
Heh? When I was thirteen I had a crush on a really hot (well, I thought so at the time) sixteen year old. A 44 year old would have been a creepy and terrifying thought. I realize that stranger things have happened, but for the most part cannot imagine a 13 year old child encouraging Old Man Rapist. So I what I am trying to say is that Whoopi's supposed logic doesn't wash with me.
 

BeethovenRocks

Cathlete
Just call me a last word freak… ;)

True, the rape of a child is an act that can not be compared to infidelity between consenting adults. One’s a horrid crime the other’s a case of irresponsibility, inconsideration etc. I was just thinking the reason WHY some people (who you’d normally think better of) are arguing points like this child’s rape was not ‘rape- rape’ or that child and mother were both using any means necessary for her advancing in her modeling/acting career by going unaccompanied to a meeting with an adult film director, is a reflection of a deeper psychological and societal issue relating to people and their power trips. Sadly, amongst way too many people, it is still seen as ‘a part of life’ or ‘just one of those things’ when those with authority act/feel like they should not be confronted when they act inappropriately with others, whether it be an older man and a child, employers and employees, husbands and wives, teachers and students, or whatever.
Again, I’m with you totally, Laura, that Letterman’s act was not illegal. (Of course it goes without saying that a married employer who even accepts employees’ advances shows poor judgement, unprofessionalism…and, bottom line, is just real tacky!!). However, at the very least, misappropriation of power seems to be a common factor in both cases.


The latest I've heard about the judge is that he's a pretty sleazy guy too. A CNN report said that he was a major suck up to celebs & the reason why he backtracked on Polanski's verdict (BTW, please forgive my butchering of his name in the title & inability to edit it :eek:) was he was taking a lot of heat over the fact that it was too lenient & it was yet another demonstration of his star-struckedness (not asking for forgiveness on this one--a made up word but entirely appropriate IMO). Yes, even 32 years ago people recognized that Polanski's behavior was disgusting, criminal & deserving of severe punishment. As you alluded Shelshula, there was likely misconduct on the part of the judge & certainly a clear willingness to go easy b/c the POS was famous. :rolleyes:

Shelby, while I agree that what Letterman did was wrong, it didn't rise nearly to this level since it wasn't illegal, all partners were adults & was most likely consensual. Someone pointed out in another thread that he might even have been the one hit on, rather than the other way around.

There's that star-struckedness again. :mad:
 

Liann

Cathlete
Only playing devil's advocate here because if I was a parent there is no way I would leave my child alone with some old man but... It seems like people just assume that they can "trust" celebrities. We see them on tv and in the magazines and think we know them. R.P. was very famous and well thought of person in his field. He was a professional and I'm sure the mother thought she could trust him. That was obviously very naive, but not totally knowing how the whole "business" works, I think it probably was not all that out of the norm, especially in that time period.
 

BeethovenRocks

Cathlete
ITA.....................

Only playing devil's advocate here because if I was a parent there is no way I would leave my child alone with some old man but... It seems like people just assume that they can "trust" celebrities. We see them on tv and in the magazines and think we know them. R.P. was very famous and well thought of person in his field. He was a professional and I'm sure the mother thought she could trust him. That was obviously very naive, but not totally knowing how the whole "business" works, I think it probably was not all that out of the norm, especially in that time period.
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top