Explaining the Polanski issue to a 13 year old

[memnoch]

Hollywood has come to the defense of a man who admittedly drugged, photographed, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl 30 years ago. Guy Benson writes on how you would explain this to a 13 year old girl.

http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2009/10/01/explaining_the_polanski_controversy_to_a_thirteen-year-old

For the record I hope he never sees the light of day again...even better would be if he ended up in the same prison as Charlie Manson.

[Philosophia]

Hollywood has come to the defense of a man who admittedly drugged, photographed, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old girl 30 years ago.

Just to be exact, not all of Hollywood has come to the defense of him (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gOROlB6Asmpe3FGUcW-soUkZAHSA).

[memnoch]

Just to be exact, not all of Hollywood has come to the defense of him (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gOROlB6Asmpe3FGUcW-soUkZAHSA).

maybe not, but a large percentage of those who are vocal are for his release, its kind of like saying Hollywood is liberal, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions

[Philosophia]

maybe not, but a large percentage of those who are vocal are for his release, its kind of like saying Hollywood is liberal, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions

Maybe it is the vocal ones but there maybe a large silent group that may be for his jailing. Hollywood is diverse and there are many that are conservatives in it.

[spiral]

I haven't really been following this, but why exactly are people defending him? Is there not enough evidence that he did it?

[memnoch]

I haven't really been following this, but why exactly are people defending him? Is there not enough evidence that he did it?

He admitted he did it, he plead guilty to doing it (he pleaded down to a lessor charge), the only defenses used are it was 30 years ago and he is "a genius".

[Infinite Grey]

What are the statutes of limitations on this sort of thing?

[Ariste]

statute of limitations only applies ( i believe) if you are not prosecuted in a certain amount of time. Polanski was prosecuted and convicted (or plead guilty) and ThEN skipped town

[Infinite Grey]

statute of limitations only applies ( i believe) if you are not prosecuted in a certain amount of time. Polanski was prosecuted and convicted (or plead guilty) and ThEN skipped town

Hmmm if indeed there are not limitations to "skippin' town", he'll have to face the music.

[memnoch]

statute of limitations only applies ( i believe) if you are not prosecuted in a certain amount of time. Polanski was prosecuted and convicted (or plead guilty) and ThEN skipped town

correct, here is more

http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

[spiral]

He admitted he did it, he plead guilty to doing it (he pleaded down to a lessor charge), the only defenses used are it was 30 years ago and he is "a genius".

*shakes head* What is wrong with some people...

[memnoch]

what is more interesting is his only punishment at the time of fleeing was 90 days and deportation. I'm not sure if that punishment would still apply. I would assume he could also now get a resisting arrest charge which would give a maximum penalty of 1 year in county and $2500 fine. He also owes the victim about $600,000 for a civil suit.

[Djiril]

Jay Smooth on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCpRuxb9cJA

ETA: This may be the first time I've read a Townhall.com column that I completely agree with.

[Lunacie]

Jay Smooth on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCpRuxb9cJA

ETA: This may be the first time I've read a Townhall.com column that I completely agree with.

He's not only cute, he's dead right!

[watersprite]

*shakes head* What is wrong with some people...
Being a "genius" does not excuse such acts. NOTHING does. He is a convicted pedophile. Now we explain to daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, do not talk to strangers or go with them, EVER!

[Lunacie]

Being a "genius" does not excuse such acts. NOTHING does. He is a convicted pedophile. Now we explain to daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, do not talk to strangers or go with them, EVER!

It wasn't a "stranger danger" situation though. Her parents agreed to allow him to photograph her. They should have made sure there would be someone there to chaperone her.

[HetHert]

He pretty much sums up my views on the whole thing. And I have to disagree with the person in his comments who thought his apprehension was "underhanded and flawed". I thought his apprehension was well played.

[Terra Mater]

Being a "genius" does not excuse such acts. NOTHING does. He is a convicted pedophile. Now we explain to daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, do not talk to strangers or go with them, EVER!

Better to explain to them about wrong and right touching instead since the greater number of sexual crimes against children are committed by people that are either knowto them or know to the family. Otherwise you are only protecting them against attacks from strangers and leaving them vulnerable to attacks by teachers, babysitters, friends of the family, etc.

[Djiril]

Better to explain to them about wrong and right touching instead since the greater number of sexual crimes against children are committed by people that are either knowto them or know to the family. Otherwise you are only protecting them against attacks from strangers and leaving them vulnerable to attacks by teachers, babysitters, friends of the family, etc.
Not to mention that they might be in situations where their best options are to go to strangers for help, say if they have gotten away from someone who is trying to do something bad but are still in danger and are far from anyone they know who might help. I think a randomly chosen stranger in that situation is more likely to help than hurt them.

[TuathaSidhe]

My family and I went back and forth with my daughter for years. Everyone was her friend, she just hadnt met them yet. She had no problem striking up a conversation with someone she just met. Shes almost 13, still doesnt have a problem, but I taught her the difference between right/wrong good/bad.

My family thought that her talking to strangers would get her into trouble, bah!

Once in the mall when she was about 4, in one of the stores we were in, we got seperated. We werent far apart, but I heard her go up to one of the women working there and go.

"HEY, my mom lost me, can you help me find her?" and then proceeded to have a conversation of what she had for breakfast. :lol:

[sarabethv]

It wasn't a "stranger danger" situation though. Her parents agreed to allow him to photograph her. They should have made sure there would be someone there to chaperone her.

Sure, parents probably dropped the ball; however, that doesn't in the least excuse what he did. And make no mistake HE did it, HE chose to hurt the child. Also, remember 30 years ago people were not as paranoid as they are today.


My family and I went back and forth with my daughter for years. Everyone was her friend, she just hadnt met them yet. She had no problem striking up a conversation with someone she just met. Shes almost 13, still doesnt have a problem, but I taught her the difference between right/wrong good/bad.

My family thought that her talking to strangers would get her into trouble, bah!

Once in the mall when she was about 4, in one of the stores we were in, we got seperated. We werent far apart, but I heard her go up to one of the women working there and go.

"HEY, my mom lost me, can you help me find her?" and then proceeded to have a conversation of what she had for breakfast. :lol:

I was one of those children. My mom carefully taught me what was NOT okay, but pretty much let me talk to whoever I wanted to.

[Lunacie]

Sure, parents probably dropped the ball; however, that doesn't in the least excuse what he did. And make no mistake HE did it, HE chose to hurt the child. Also, remember 30 years ago people were not as paranoid as they are today.



I was one of those children. My mom carefully taught me what was NOT okay, but pretty much let me talk to whoever I wanted to.

Did it really seem like I was saying that Polanski had no responsibility for what he did?

I know that parents weren't as paranoid 30 years ago. My own daughter just turned 36. I wasn't paranoid - we lived in a small town and we knew everyone, knew pretty much who could be trusted and who couldn't. I'm much more "paranoid" or careful about my grandchildren, but that's in part because we live in a bigger suburb where we know almost no one, and only a couple of those people very well at all.

But I was not stupid then either. I would never have been influenced by a famous name and left my naive young daughter alone with an older man. Even then I'd heard what went on at some "photo shoots".

Polanski was absolutely wrong - an evil person - for what he did. But the parents were idiots. Neither of those things invalidates the other.

[sarabethv]

Did it really seem like I was saying that Polanski had no responsibility for what he did?


Yeah, it kind of sounded/read like you were saying he should get off because it was the parents fault. I do agree that parents need to be careful of their children, but they are not always otherwise we wouldn't hear about molesters and children being murdered.

[Lunacie]

Yeah, it kind of sounded/read like you were saying he should get off because it was the parents fault. I do agree that parents need to be careful of their children, but they are not always otherwise we wouldn't hear about molesters and children being murdered.

I just don't see how you got that from my post. :huh:

[Sun_and_Saturn]

Personally, I hope the guy's pecker rots off. Bastard.

[DoktorSick]

What's the point of putting him in jail now ?
It's been 30 years and it's obvious he's not a repeat offender.
Why waste time and money trying to bring him to justice now after 30 years.10 years maybe now it's seems a bit redundant.

[Sollie]

What's the point of putting him in jail now ?
It's been 30 years and it's obvious he's not a repeat offender.
Why waste time and money trying to bring him to justice now after 30 years.10 years maybe now it's seems a bit redundant.
Because then other people will commit crimes, run away and not get caught for 30 years, and then be allowed free. People who still do bad things.

[Lunacie]

What's the point of putting him in jail now ?
It's been 30 years and it's obvious he's not a repeat offender.
Why waste time and money trying to bring him to justice now after 30 years.10 years maybe now it's seems a bit redundant.

It's called "accountability."

[Sun_and_Saturn]

What's the point of putting him in jail now ?
It's been 30 years and it's obvious he's not a repeat offender.
Why waste time and money trying to bring him to justice now after 30 years.10 years maybe now it's seems a bit redundant.

It's called the JUSTICE system for a reason.

By your logic I can brutally murder someone, be convicted of it, and then skip town for a few decades. As long as I don't do it again, I shouldn't have to do any jail time, right?

In that case, I've wanted to whack my exhusband for a few years now. He's a real douche bag so no one will miss him much. Since I'm pretty well liked by most people, then that makes it ok.

[DoktorSick]

Yeah i agree with that.
If you can get away with killing on person and don't do it again.
Then more power to you.
This so called justice is a joke!
So after 30 years now comes the moral outrage to bring this man to justice.
Yeah if they don't put him way that's really going to cause a rise in people trying to commit crimes and get away with it.This laughable!!.
Whether or not he goes to jail is not going to make one bit of difference.After 30 freakin years it's really time to move on.

[DoktorSick]

It's called the JUSTICE system for a reason.

By your logic I can brutally murder someone, be convicted of it, and then skip town for a few decades. As long as I don't do it again, I shouldn't have to do any jail time, right?

In that case, I've wanted to whack my exhusband for a few years now. He's a real douche bag so no one will miss him much. Since I'm pretty well liked by most people, then that makes it ok.

Sure if you think you can get away with it then do it.And if you think you can lay low for a few decades and not get caught.Then Rock On !!

[Sun_and_Saturn]

My point was, that there has to be accountability for one's actions, otherwise crime would be rampant. He has been found guilty by the legal system, and he should pay for his crime. Just because it has been a few decades since he commited his crimes doesn't lessen the severity of what he did. What kind of message would that send to other rapists if he were not made to pay for his crime? Do you know the impact that rape has on a woman? Do you have any idea how much that destroys her? My guess would be no. You can't possibly fathom how horrible it is to be violated in such a manner.

[DoktorSick]

My point was, that there has to be accountability for one's actions, otherwise crime would be rampant. He has been found guilty by the legal system, and he should pay for his crime. Just because it has been a few decades since he commited his crimes doesn't lessen the severity of what he did. What kind of message would that send to other rapists if he were not made to pay for his crime? Do you know the impact that rape has on a woman? Do you have any idea how much that destroys her? My guess would be no. You can't possibly fathom how horrible it is to be violated in such a manner.

The message is if they wanted to to hold him accountable for his action and bring him to justice they would have it by now.After 30 years all of sudden now they want to bring him.This is BS!!!
Whether or not rape is horrible or the impact it has on a woman has nothing to do with what is happening right now.If so many people had all of this outrage about what he has down.How come no one has said a thing until now.
He's not a repeat offender and he's not a threat to the public so putting him to jail now will serve no purpose.And I highly doubt that whether or not Polanski going to jail will have any impact on the decision of someone who going to commit the crime of rape.
What are they going to go get a passport and plan tickets then rape someone.Then go to europe and start making movies.

[Lunacie]

The message is if they wanted to to hold him accountable for his action and bring him to justice they would have it by now.After 30 years all of sudden now they want to bring him.This is BS!!!
Whether or not rape is horrible or the impact it has on a woman has nothing to do with what is happening right now.If so many people had all of this outrage about what he has down.How come no one has said a thing until now.
He's not a repeat offender and he's not a threat to the public so putting him to jail now will serve no purpose.And I highly doubt that whether or not Polanski going to jail will have any impact on the decision of someone who going to commit the crime of rape.
What are they going to go get a passport and plan tickets then rape someone.Then go to europe and start making movies.

Not every foreign country is willing to extradite criminals to the U.S. Polanski knew this and he chose to return to a country where he would be safe from U.S. justice. If we charged into a foreign country and removed someone who had committed a crime on our soil, that would seriously mess with our religions with that country. In most cases it's not worth the political fallout.

People have had plenty to say over the years. Polanski was a public figure and the story has faded but never disappeared.

And yes, the impact on the victim does indeed have a bearing on whether a criminal should face justice 30 days or 30 years after an assault. The victim needs to know that the criminal will be held accountable. The rest of us need to know that criminals will be held accountable, otherwise we end up living in fear of what any person will do to us at any time.

I would like to hear from Polanski himself why this is apparently the only time he ever assaulted a female, did getting caught scare him straight even though he avoided serving his (very short) sentence?

[Sun_and_Saturn]

Not every foreign country is willing to extradite criminals to the U.S. Polanski knew this and he chose to return to a country where he would be safe from U.S. justice. If we charged into a foreign country and removed someone who had committed a crime on our soil, that would seriously mess with our religions with that country. In most cases it's not worth the political fallout.

People have had plenty to say over the years. Polanski was a public figure and the story has faded but never disappeared.

And yes, the impact on the victim does indeed have a bearing on whether a criminal should face justice 30 days or 30 years after an assault. The victim needs to know that the criminal will be held accountable. The rest of us need to know that criminals will be held accountable, otherwise we end up living in fear of what any person will do to us at any time.

I would like to hear from Polanski himself why this is apparently the only time he ever assaulted a female, did getting caught scare him straight even though he avoided serving his (very short) sentence?

Very well said! My thoughts exactly. You get karma for that one. I would also like to add that I don't fully believe that this is the only instance where he has assaulted a female. There may be others who are too afraid to come forward because the fear the backlash of reporting it.

[DoktorSick]

Not every foreign country is willing to extradite criminals to the U.S. Polanski knew this and he chose to return to a country where he would be safe from U.S. justice. If we charged into a foreign country and removed someone who had committed a crime on our soil, that would seriously mess with our religions with that country. In most cases it's not worth the political fallout.

People have had plenty to say over the years. Polanski was a public figure and the story has faded but never disappeared.

And yes, the impact on the victim does indeed have a bearing on whether a criminal should face justice 30 days or 30 years after an assault. The victim needs to know that the criminal will be held accountable. The rest of us need to know that criminals will be held accountable, otherwise we end up living in fear of what any person will do to us at any time.

I would like to hear from Polanski himself why this is apparently the only time he ever assaulted a female, did getting caught scare him straight even though he avoided serving his (very short) sentence?

Well where is the girl in this particular cast.The last article i read she was quoted saying she has movied on.And beside that I don't remember seeing her or lawyer on the news any previouis years saying that Roman needs to be brough to justice.
Speak for yourself I refuse to live in fear over anything.If the law want do the job there are other options.
At this point in time it really doesn't make a difference what Polanski has to say about the situation.Obviously he doesn't want to go to jail.

[DoktorSick]

Very well said! My thoughts exactly. You get karma for that one. I would also like to add that I don't fully believe that this is the only instance where he has assaulted a female. There may be others who are too afraid to come forward because the fear the backlash of reporting it.

This is purely spectulation.There is no evidence that he done anything since then.

[Sun_and_Saturn]

This is purely spectulation.There is no evidence that he done anything since then.

There may be no evidence, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Usually people like that are repeat offenders. He obviously had no attack of conscience for what he has done. With a lack of conscience (not to mention lack of punishment) who's to say he isn't capable of being a repeat offender?

[Sollie]

Well where is the girl in this particular cast.The last article i read she was quoted saying she has movied on.And beside that I don't remember seeing her or lawyer on the news any previouis years saying that Roman needs to be brough to justice. it doesn't matter if she's forgiven him or not, moved on or not. He stil needs to serve time.


Speak for yourself I refuse to live in fear over anything.If the law want do the job there are other options. You sound like you're contradicting what you said earlier...the law is doing it's job by arresting him and sending him to jail (or trying to)


Obviously he doesn't want to go to jail.Who gives a flying fig tree what he wants? He's a criminal.

[Nox_Mortus]

There may be no evidence, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Usually people like that are repeat offenders. He obviously had no attack of conscience for what he has done. With a lack of conscience (not to mention lack of punishment) who's to say he isn't capable of being a repeat offender?

he may be capable, but unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is a repeat offender, it has absolutely no bearing here.

On the ctual case, the guys an idiot, he got an amazingly good plea bargain and threw it out the window, he should go to jail.

[Kraheera]

Polanski deserves to go to jail for fleeing after he was sentenced. As Nox said, the guy had an amazing plea bargain.

And whether the victim has moved on or not has no bearing on the sentencing and carrying out of said sentencing. If it did, Roe v Wade would be overturned already, since Roe has changed her mind on abortion.

Accountability is a big part of most religious paths, as well as our justice system. How can anyone not advocate this man serving his time?