Roman Polanski - justice finally caught up or let him go, he's a brilliant film maker

Thirdfox

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/27/movies/entertainment-us-polanski-arrest.html?hp

Roman Polanski has been arrested on a 31 year old US warrant in Switzerland.

He had sex and gave drugs to a 13 year old girl in LA back in 1978 and fled to Britian and then France. He is also a pretty good filmmaker.

So, what say you? The guy is a paedophile who finally is going to meet his comeuppance (though the French may have something to say about that) or due to the 31 years and his celebrity status should he be let go?

Personally I'm with the "send him back to the US" vein of thought. Otherwise it's one rule for the likes of Paris Hilton and her DUIs and another for the ordinary person.

R0ot

No status from pauper to president should prevent you from being jailed (read beaten brutally) for paedophilia.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Is he a director of snuff films? O.o

Rented Mule

He should have the same thing done to him in a 'federal pound 'em in the ass prison'.

They just love paedophiles in the big house.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Oh class. One of these threads. :rolleyes:

super_furry

Gary Glitter made music, Polanski made films.

Thirdfox

Frankie Eager Spanish wrote: »

Oh class. One of these threads. :rolleyes:

- the proper discussion one is the one in the legal discussion forum We'll talk about extradition procedures, prejudicial juries etc.

But hey it's Roman Polanski - not some random uncouth guy who makes it onto the paper for some grisly crime or some lady who has 50 babies at once. People who have watched the Pianist would be interested in knowing I daresay.

jimmycrackcorm

I didn't like the pianist so jail him.

dylano_k

Nice!!!!(not)

Johnnnybravo

Jails too good for the cnut.

Otis Driftwood

Meh,an over-rated artsy film maker and a kiddie fiddler to boot.

Pffft,give him the chair.


:pac:

Coriolanus

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/star4ucker/12yearolds.jpg

Anyway, all seriousness aside, how the hell are they going to give him a fair trial after 31 years of everyone presuming he's guilty?

super_furry

Well hasn't he admitted he's guilty?

Rented Mule

Nevore wrote: »

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/star4ucker/12yearolds.jpg

Anyway, all seriousness aside, how the hell are they going to give him a fair trial after 31 years of everyone presuming he's guilty?

Probably because he admitted he was guilty in a plea bargain and went on the run before sentencing ?

Coriolanus

Ah, fair enough.

orestes

Between this and the Sharon Tate killings the film of his life is gonna be bloody mental.

He should be sentenced/punished the same as any other U.S. citizen would be under the same circumstances, celebrity status should not get you special treatment from the law, end of

pablomakaveli

He's an adult who had illegal sex with a 13 year old girl. It does'nt matter that he's a film director he should be jailed. But given he's famous he'll probably get off lightly.:rolleyes:

Was'nt it Polanskis wife that was murdered by Charlie Mansons brainwashed cronies.

orestes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Was'nt it Polanskis wife that was murdered by Charlie Mansons brainwashed cronies.

Yup, 40 years ago last month actually

Rented Mule

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Was'nt it Polanskis wife that was murdered by Charlie Mansons brainwashed cronies.

Sharon Tate.....and she was pregnant at the time when she was murdered.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Pedant: That he had sex with a 13 year old doesn't necessarily make him a paedophile. Paedophilia is a mental condition, not a crime.

waraf

orestes wrote: »

Between this and the Sharon Tate killings the film of his life is gonna be bloody mental.

It has already been made. It's called "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" It's good too (it's available to watch online). Worth a watch before everyone jumps on paedo bus...

pablomakaveli

Sean_K wrote: »

Paedophilia is a mental condition, not a crime.

The law disagrees though.

pablomakaveli

orestes wrote: »

He should be sentenced/punished the same as any other U.S. citizen would be under the same circumstances, celebrity status should not get you special treatment from the law, end of

Unfortunately the celebrities do seem to get off lightly a lot of the time.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The law disagrees though.

Committing a sexual act on a child is a crime.

Having certain thoughts isn't.

orestes

Sean_K wrote: »

Paedophilia is a mental condition, not a crime.

No it isn't, it's a sexual orientation, but that's probably a discussion for another thread or in humanities cos it's just gonna derail this one

Coriolanus

You can be a pedophile without acting on the impulses, is the point.

What was he formally charged with in the first place? Pedophilia or stat rape?

cheekay

well normally i would agree...give him the punishent he deserves. But apparently the 45 year old woman who was raped by him when she was younger just wants to forget about it and move on.

4zn76tysfajdxp

waraf wrote: »

Worth a watch before everyone jumps on paedo bus...

What, this?

orestes

Nevore wrote: »

What was he formally charged with in the first place? Pedophilia or stat rape?

Paedophelia is not a crime, it is the tecnhical term for a person who is sexually attracted to children. Being a paedophile is not illegal, engaging in sexual conduct with a child is

MizzLolly

His adaptation of Macbeth is amazing.

But what he did to that child is horrific. The man is deeply disturbed (though, a quick look at his past and you'll see why). He certainly needs some kind of help and running from country to country to dodge the law isn't the way to go. It's about time he faces the music.

Shacklebolt

Frankie Eager Spanish wrote: »

What, this?

I always took the train.

Coriolanus

orestes wrote: »

Paedophelia is not a crime, it is the tecnhical term for a person who is sexually attracted to children. Being a paedophile is not illegal, engaging in sexual conduct with a child is

Ya, I know. Doesn't mean the batshít yanks don't have it on their statute books, does it?

Elliemental

Thirdfox wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/27/movies/entertainment-us-polanski-arrest.html?hp

Roman Polanski has been arrested on a 31 year old US warrant in Switzerland.

He had sex and gave drugs to a 13 year old girl in LA back in 1978 and fled to Britian and then France. He is also a pretty good filmmaker.

So, what say you? The guy is a paedophile who finally is going to meet his comeuppance (though the French may have something to say about that) or due to the 31 years and his celebrity status should he be let go?

Personally I'm with the "send him back to the US" vein of thought. Otherwise it's one rule for the likes of Paris Hilton and her DUIs and another for the ordinary person.

He should face justice, its` a disgrace that hes` been evading justice for this long, simply because he has a modicum of talent. The law should be blind to that sort of thing.

Gummy Panda

In before the outraged posters with detailed torture fantasies

waraf

Frankie Eager Spanish wrote: »

What, this?

LOL no I just meant that people should check out the film (which addresses some areas of the case) rather than jumping to conclusions based on tabloid headlines. Even if you're not particularly interested in the case itself, it's a very good film about an extremely talented filmmaker.

Snakeblood

cheekay wrote: »

well normally i would agree...give him the punishent he deserves. But apparently the 45 year old woman who was raped by him when she was younger just wants to forget about it and move on.

I've been reading up on it... While she wants to move on, it's a criminal case, not a civil one. It's the People Vs. Roman Polanski not That Girl He Raped vs. Roman Polanski. She can't stop it, and I don't really think she should be able to.

Polanski did something very bad, but from what I read about the case, the judge seemed to have it in for him too. In short, what the hell do I know.

Jesus Juice

I thought he was dead!!

Thirdfox

Elliemental wrote: »

He should face justice, its` a disgrace that hes` been evading justice for this long, simply because he has a modicum of talent. The law should be blind to that sort of thing.

I think you may have missed a key word there

Spore

Polanski is the greatest living director and one of the very few genuine cinema 'auteurs' left - but he should go to jail.

What he did was repulsive, the drugged rape and sodomy of a child entrusted to him by a naive parent hoping to further her daughter's career.

He's my favourite director by a country mile (though his latter films are shite) still, time to do time...

Earthhorse

There was a documentary on TV (think it might have been last year) about Polanski and specifically this chapter in his life.

What he did was beyond wrong; it was disgusting and abhorrent. There is no defending it, even considering what had happened to Polanski in his own life to that point.

However, he fled the states because the judge whom he'd made a plea bargain with, decided to renege on it. This, I believe, was after someone (I can't remember whom) had a word with the judge and said that Polanski was essentially laughing at him (the reverse was true, Polanski had stayed in the States and spent time in psychiatric facility I believe whilst the trial was ongoing). Essentially he fled the States not because the judge was essentially acting erratically and, importantly, illegally. He should not have been talking to the person in question in the first place.

More importantly than all that, which I'm only posting to give a little context to those who don't know it, is that the victim herself has come to terms with this, reached an agreement with Polanski and just wants the whole thing to be over. A judge offered Polanski an opportunity to have the case closed but (if I remember correctly) only if he agreed to be filmed in court. Given the circumstances, Polanski declined.

Please don't think I'm trying to defend or justify what he did, I'm not. But it is worth knowing the context of all this rather than just the banner headlines.

Handsome Bob

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Unfortunately the celebrities do seem to get off lightly a lot of the time.

Not when it comes to paedophilia, Gary Glitter deservedly got strung up by the balls by the media. To a lesser extent, ditto on Cathal O'Searcaigh.

Ghost Train

Earthhorse wrote: »

There was a documentary on TV (think it might have been last year) about Polanski and specifically this chapter in his life.

What he did was beyond wrong; it was disgusting and abhorrent. There is no defending it, even considering what had happened to Polanski in his own life to that point.

However, he fled the states because the judge whom he'd made a plea bargain with, decided to renege on it. This, I believe, was after someone (I can't remember whom) had a word with the judge and said that Polanski was essentially laughing at him (the reverse was true, Polanski had stayed in the States and spent time in psychiatric facility I believe whilst the trial was ongoing). Essentially he fled the States not because the judge was essentially acting erratically and, importantly, illegally. He should not have been talking to the person in question in the first place.

More importantly than all that, which I'm only posting to give a little context to those who don't know it, is that the victim herself has come to terms with this, reached an agreement with Polanski and just wants the whole thing to be over. A judge offered Polanski an opportunity to have the case closed but (if I remember correctly) only if he agreed to be filmed in court. Given the circumstances, Polanski declined.

Please don't think I'm trying to defend or justify what he did, I'm not. But it is worth knowing the context of all this rather than just the banner headlines.

Yep she said she thinks he's paid for what he'd done. Fleeing the country though might still be looked on harshly

In a 2003 interview,[33] Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it".

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."

In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski will not appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court.[37][38]

That same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family.

Spore

Earthhorse wrote: »

However, he fled the states because the judge whom he'd made a plea bargain with, decided to renege on it. This, I believe, was after someone (I can't remember whom) had a word with the judge and said that Polanski was essentially laughing at him

He was photographed having a ball of a time in some Beer hall in Germany during Octoberfest. It did seem like Polanski wasn't taking the trial seriously. He still gives the impression that he doesn't accept responsibility - he tries to paint himself as the victim in interviews. He has never considered Samantha Geimer's victimhood.

Earthhorse

Spore wrote: »

He was photographed having a ball of a time in some Beer hall in Germany during Octoberfest. It did seem like Polanski wasn't taking the trial seriously.

Yes, I remember something about that being in the documentary. From reading a thread on a different forum I'm also remembering the judge was asking journalists opinion on the trial and orchestrating courtroom scenes with the defending and prosecuting lawyers. Basically, you say this, then you say this, then I'll read this speech I've prepared.

My basic point is people should watch the documentary; without it you just get summary coverage of what was going on. With it, you can come to a more informed conclusion, whatever that might be.

consultech

Thirdfox wrote: »

...or let him go, he's a brilliant film maker

Ehhhhm. No?

OJ Simpson is a brilliant actor; should he have been let off the hook for that reason?

orestes

consultech wrote: »

OJ Simpson is a brilliant actor; should he have been let off the hook for that reason?

Erm, hardly the best example in the world there to illustrate that point

Pygmalion

It's disgusting that anyone would want to give him preferential treatment because he's famous.

It's equally disgusting that the French government have said they hope he can go home to his family. I mean really, he raped a young girl, showed no remorse and now they're basically letting him get away with it for political reasons.

Murder, violent assault, rape, child abuse and torture should be punishable regardless of which country you can afford a plane ticket to, I mean I can understand not extraditing a person for lesser crimes, but what are they really saying, that it's ok to rape a kid as long as she's not French?

Earthhorse

Pygmalion wrote: »

Murder, violent assault, rape, child abuse and torture should be punishable regardless of which country you can afford a plane ticket to, I mean I can understand not extraditing a person for lesser crimes, but what are they really saying, that it's ok to rape a kid as long as she's not French?

They won't extradite for capital offenses because they don't agree with capital punishment.

Crotchety

I hope the hairy bastard gets his dick chopped off. Vile paedophile.

Rented Mule

Sean_K wrote: »

Committing a sexual act on a child is a crime.

Having certain thoughts isn't.

Drugging a child and raping her isn't a crime in your world ?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Rented Mule wrote: »

Drugging a child and raping her isn't a crime in your world ?

That's not what he said.