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

Crotchety

So it alright to think about wiping a child's fanny as long as you don't act on it. What are you trying to say?

DerekD Goldfish

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.

Yeah it was a major stitch up
judge was an egotistical nut case even the prosecution lawyer said he had pretty much no option to do a legger.

Anyone no matter what they are guilty of deserves a fair trial he obviously wasn't going to get one so he ran I would have done the same.

However he did sleep with a 13 year old girl under the influence of drugs which he would have known was below the age of consent in the country he was in. He should in all likelihood have been given a sentence at the time but only after a fair trial.
given he age and health I don't think he is a danger to anyone and while he has never received an actual punishment for his crime it did destroy his career for about 30 years which might not seem a lot to some but bear in mind if he was sentenced at the time he would have received 6-12 months in Jail max

xanthor

Pretty simple, he'll get an expensive Lawyer, who's friendly with an expensive 'doctor' and they'll provide 'Sworn testimony' that he has some sort of condition that means he should get off with a weeks community service.

Personally, i think he should be made an example of, and thrown to the wolves.

Crotchety

xanthor wrote: »

Personally, i think he should be made an example of, and thrown to the wolves.

Literally...


















To take his flute off. :pac:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Crotchety wrote: »

So it alright to think about wiping a child's fanny as long as you don't act on it. What are you trying to say?

It's certainly not illegal.

This is a discussion for humanities but outlawing topics of thought is...unthinkable.

Crotchety

Sean_K wrote: »

It's certainly not illegal.

This is a discussion for humanities but outlawing topics of thought is unthinkable.

Granted it's not illegal BUT it's not right to think about wiping a child's fanny or shaking a small willy. It's just not right.

humberklog

Crotchety wrote: »

Granted it's not illegal BUT it's not right to think about wiping a child's fanny or shaking a small willy. It's just not right.

Have you mixed up paedophilia and toilet training?

BaconZombie

You'd be better off reading the court transcripts :

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

waraf wrote: »

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.

Crotchety

humberklog wrote: »

Have you mixed up paedophilia and toilet training?

No but touching a child's genitals in order to produce an erection is not toilet training - It's abuse.

DerekD Goldfish

Crotchety wrote: »

Granted it's not illegal BUT it's not right to think about wiping a child's fanny or shaking a small willy. It's just not right.

Would it be ok for your husband/wife to leave you because you thought about another man/woman or your boss to sack you because you thought of telling him to **** off when he asked you to do something

While it is a tangent to the thread I cant believe someone is seriously suggesting locking up people for thinking about just thinking about crimes

Crotchety

Child Abuse is a serious problem - not to be overlooked.

Getting sacked or thinking about another nude adult is nothing compared to thinking about crimes against a child whether that be squeezing genitals or other crimes.

I understand though that thinking is not a crime but it still isn't right to think about naked children and small scrotums.