BS: Polanski Arrested

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 01:02 PM

As to the actual age of the girl I mentioned, all bets are off; I'm sure the "manager" was slimey enough to tell any lie imaginable, but also slimey enough to market a 13 year old if he could. I didn't see her; I was just "out of there", trying not to vomit, when I heard the offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 12:55 PM

Thanks, Richard; maybe now I'm at least on my way out of the woods; I thought you meant that Polanski had a possible defence of having been intrapped into the act. Were you speaking in regard to Polanski having been manipulated, in a manner that constitutes entrapment, into his confession and/or the guilty plea?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Oct 09 - 05:16 AM

I bet you she was 35 in bad light!

You fail to understand - entrapment can only be committed by agents of the state.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 09:03 PM

"entrapped"? I once had a pimp offer me a girl with the promise that she wasn't more than 13. If I had taken him up on the deal, and the girl was willing, could I have claimed entrapment?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:36 PM

It's the principal adage of the criminal common law, that one must be guitly (of the specified charge) beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted.

Moreover, one must not be entrapped (to use the colloquialism) into the act nor an admission.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Michael S
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 02:08 PM

"Allegedly"

Spare me. In all the verbiage I can find, I've never found where Polanski, his lawyers, or friends deny the material underlying facts. They've impugned the girl and her mother. They've raised the girl's past experiences (alleged?) with drugs and sex. (It's hard to see how those matter if Polanski's innocent and didn't subject her to drugs and sex.) I don't care how hardened (or deadened) this girl had become. That's why adults should act like adults. Did he say, "adults have already failed this kid, it doesn't matter anymore what I do." Great defense, Roman.

I gotta stop. There is a willingness to apologize for this guy that I won't silence.

--Michael Scully

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:54 PM

Maybe this:

"Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown. No doubt if marriages between children had become common, there would have been public pressure to raise the legal minimum age of marriage earlier than 1929. The Age of Marriage Act 1929 (applying in Scotland, England & Wales but not in Northern Ireland) made void any marriage between persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen. Sixteen remains the lower age-limit today, contained in the current legislation, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. Scots law still has no requirement for parental consent. *Source: Vital registration: a manual of the law and practice concerning the registration of births, deaths and marriages. (G T Bisset-Smith. 1st edition. Edinburgh: William Green & Sons, 1902)"

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:50 PM

Interesting page. I wonder what it means by saying that UK marriage laws may vary from province to province.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:46 PM

Allegedly

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Michael S
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 01:35 PM

I don't know how accurate or up to date this is, but here is an itemization of state marriage laws with respect to age. In Tennessee, if you are under 16 a court needs to first approve the marriage. I'd be interested in how many such applications are made, and how many are approved. Some laws just hang around because nobody's using them.

As far as Polanski goes, this is all beside the point. As I said earlier, I'm surprised at some of the things I'm seeing here. I think we've lost some perspective. He was not her husband, nor her fiancee, nor her suitor. He was a grown man. She was a little girl. (Yep, 13, a little girl.) He asked her to undress for photos, gave her alcohol and drugs, and then had sex with her, utilizing various options on the usual sexual menu. That just doesn't pass the smell test with me.

Michael Scully

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 12:56 PM

Wasn't this girl introduced by her mother?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 11:22 AM

But wouldn't a 12 year old in Tennessee need her parents permission to marry at that age?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 10:32 AM

I was very surprised a few minutes ago while talking to another lawyer to hear him argue that Polanski's cultural contributions outweighed his societal transgressions referred to in this thread.

He also pointed out that in many jurisdictions consensual sex with a 13 year old is not per se unlawful, and that in the USA there are states (his example was Tennessee) in which women can be married at 12, so if they can consent to sex inside marriage it is absurd to argue that they cannot consent to sex outside it.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 06:01 AM

"It was half a century ago, MthGM--ain't it funny how time slips away? "

Blimey, Ted — was it really?! Where does the time go indeed!?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Sep 09 - 03:37 AM

About 5 to 8 years

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Skivee
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:57 PM

I liked several of his movies, but I don't see much difference between Polanski and Gary Glitter in this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Janie
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:53 PM

Well said, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Michael S
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:26 PM

I've been hesitant to add one more voice to this back and forth, but I'm so surprised at some of the things I've read here that I'd like to go on record.

Politically, I'm pretty much a leftie and often suspicious of authority and the US legal system.
I have great affection for artists.

The material facts here (meaning, the only facts that I think matter) are these:
Polanski was 44 at the time of the underlying event.
The girl was 13.
Polanski offered her champagne and a partial quaalude, which she consumed.
Polanski had sex with her.

I've looked, but I don't see that Polanski has ever denied any of these points.

Roman Polanski should be brought back to the US. He should be given whatever opportunity others get to seek to withdraw his guilty plea. If he fails, he should be sentenced.

He should be prosecuted for his unlawful flight.

Sympathy on account of unfortunate circumstances in his background? How about sympathy for every unfortunate ghetto dweller who's never caught a break in his life. Polanski is not Jean Valjean.

Elsewhere on the web is an opinion piece, with which I agree, which argues, in essence, that if Polanski were "Father Polanski" instead of "French film director Polanski," his only apologist would be his Archbishop.

-Michael Scully
--Austin, TX

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:02 PM

Sorry, I did not see the post in which you noted that. However, your likes aside, it is a precise legal term over here. It means that any sexual congress with a person below the age of legal consent is rape. So even if the child in question is 'experienced', she (generally it is a she) still cannot give a legal consent to subsequent partners. She can't sign a legally binding contract either, and she can't vote, even if she is more politically astute (from a theoretical standpoint) than Obama or Brown.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:37 PM

Yes taking a child, consent or not, is indeed rape where I live, and it's legally called stautory, to differentiate from the different legal provisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:35 PM

As I said I don't like the edxpressoin "stautory rape". It conflates two very different things.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:30 PM

Ed T--

You missed the most important scenario---
Taking a child, even with consent, is statutory rape!!!

Is that not the case where you live?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:04 PM

If you are an adult, and their is no romantic relationship, regardless of your position in society:

Taking a person against their will, especially when no is clearly stated, is rape.

Taking a child against their will, especially if you are an adult, and no is clearly stated, is statutory rape.

Subjecting a person to a noxious substance to take a person against their will, when no is clearly stated is rape, plus.

Subjecting a child to a intoxicant to take a them against their will, to subjecting them to indecencies is clearly rape and child abuse.

Admitinmg to rape of a child, and then denying it was wrong, adds to it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM

MtheGM: Before the law came interfering, men without morals were raping girls wantonly. Of COURSE the age of consent is a man-made construct... but, based on information we know now about brain development through the teenage years into early adulthood, the age should probably be raised to at least 21.

Problem is, if we raise it to 21, too many young men and women will object (and, besides, the government would never do the comparable thing -- raise the minimum age for signing up in the military to 21! They WANT kids who don't have their full powers of reasoning!).

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:13 PM

Some 13-yr-olds have enough judgment. Some 16-yr-olds haven't. So what? Make them all wait till 18? or 25? Or 40? When I say age of consent is a man-made construct, I mean it is going to be arbitrary one-size-fits-all whatever age you choose unless you make the lower limit an absurdity. The menarche, before the law came interfering, was generally regarded as nature's way of making the judgment — even if mental development doesn't always keep up with physical, the attempt to establish hard & fast rules is going to be flouted by those whose bodies tell them so. I refer back to Romeo&Juliet again...

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM

As evidenced by Mr. Polanski's behavior, Kendall, some people have no judgement at any age.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: bankley
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:35 PM

at least Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 yr. old cousin...
'Goodness Gracious.....'

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:21 AM

Man made or no, there is no way a 13 year old child can give consent. She could not possibly for see what that would do to her down the road. They have no judgment at that age.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:57 AM

It was half a century ago, MthGM--ain't it funny how time slips away?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 02:18 AM

Personally, I have no use for child molesters, no matter how talented they are. I am also appalled by the idea that something that happened in Jack Nicholson's appartment 31 years ago should be the concern of European and American heads of state today. That's just me, though--

My prejudices in the matter aside, it seems like this is actually good for Polanski--and he may have precipitated it deliberately.

Keeping in mind that he has a good case for having the proceedings dismissed, but was afraid to return to the US to pursue the case because of the fugitive charges, he can agree to allow extradition if the fugitive charges are dropped.

This will spare France, Switzerland, and the US a very embarrassing high profile legal process, and it will mean that he can move ahead with the hearing that he has already requested.

Since he hasn't been actually sentenced, he could even withdraw his guilty plea, which would mean that he'd have to be given a new trial. Since we know that the victim has no interest in pursuing the matter, he'll walk away, as clean and pure as the driven snow.

It will be a great disappointment for some of the more vindicative Mudcatters, but some of us are pretty disappointed already, and feel like, no matter what happens now, it will be wrong on some level.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:37 AM

Without taking any sides in this controversy, I think it worth pointing out that the idea of an 'Age·Of·Consent' is not a Law·Of·Nature, but a man-made legal construct of mid-19C provenance: settled here in UK at 16 at a time when young women's average age of onset of menstruation [the menarche] was higher than at present, or than it was in warmer climates — Shax's Italian Juliet was 13, remember, & told by her mother, who appears to have had her about that age, that 'younger than you ... ladies of repute are made already mothers'. There is no suggestion of Romeo's being any sort of child-molester: indeed, they are a most moral young couple, making sure to marry at Friar Laurence's cell before they consummate. In Elizabethan England this would have stirred no controversy.

As I understand it also, the 'age' varies in US from state to state; it is not many years since a visiting US rock-star was warned he had better sleep separate from his [at home perfectly legal] 14-year-old wife if he was not to fall foul of our 'age-of-consent' laws. What happened at home if the couple ever crossed state lines was not well understood here.

As I understand the matter, the 'child' in this case was fully sexually mature at the time, & practically thrown at Polanski by her mother who wished a film career for her. {OK — so perhaps I haven't quite kept the promise implied in my first phrase above, but...}

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:59 PM

The judge is hardly at fault in this case. Plea deals are worked out between the the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney; judges are not bound by the deal, although they usually go along, and can refuse to accept it. This happened in a case just a couple of weeks ago, although I can't recall the particulars.

"He claimed she was a willing and experienced participant..." There is no such legal concept in the United States as a thirteen year old willing participant in sexual matters, even an experienced one.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Janie
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:34 PM

Nothing archaic about age of 13, which is well below the age of consent. archaic or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Janie
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:55 PM

And adult is an adult. Polalanski was a middle aged man when this occurred. I have no ambiguity about this case whatsoever. A 13 year old is not an adult-not even close to it.   I can have empathy for him in terms of what he had been through, but that empathy does not mean I hold him less responsible. I can have empathy for a sex offender or person with antisocial personality disorder when I understand enough about their history to understand what shaped them. Nonetheless, they are accountable.

There is apparently no controversy regarding whether he did indeed have sex with a 13 year old. The legal process may have been f*cked, bt that doesn't change the fact that an adult, well beyond the legal age of adulthood, had sex with a 13 year old child. (Had she been of the age of consent it may not have been a crime, but may still have been exploitation.)

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: vectis
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:08 PM

He Plied a child with alcohol, drugged her and then raped and sodomised her. Throw away the key, he's vermin, talented vermin, but still low life.
She has rebuilt her life in the last 30 years but it probably took her a couple of decades to do so.
He should have had the guts to do his time or get treatment, he didn't. He may even have repeated his crime with someone elses daughter in a different country for all we know..
Hope he rots in Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: DougR
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:29 PM

On this we agree, Kendall.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: kendall
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:21 PM

He broke the law. He, from a legal standpoint, raped a child. It is illegal. All else is commentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:07 PM

"Should it be up to her whether to pursue it or not? She's, what, 13 in 77 ==> 45, now?"

               Yeah, maybe, but that option would not have been available to anyone who didn't have the money to skip. So probably not.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:24 PM

(It IS interesting to see that the 'victim' no longer wants him prosecuted)

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:55 PM

I am not one to avoid expressing an opinion, but this case baffles me.

I really don't think I have an answer to what 'should' be done. It seems as though the only real purpose now is 'punishment' and 'upholding the rules of the justice system'.... but maybe that's enough.

I will lose no sleep, no matter which way it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:09 PM

Thanks for the link, Wesley. When this story first broke someone on NPR commented that the only reason he plead guilty was due to a plea bargain, and that the Judge then ignored it. Otherwise he'd have plead not-guilty and gone that route.

"Abominable celebrity" or not, the judge's bait and switch was the crime that went unpunished.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:08 PM

He claimed she was a willing and experienced participant but resorted to chamoagne and Quualudes tio get her to submit. - old news, I know.

The case is still open because he fled and made sure not to enter a country with a reciprocal agreement with the US.

I too heard interviews with the man on the street. "How dare they arrwest an old man!" "How dare they arrest such a talented man!"

So what do you do? Make a seprate set of rules for old talented people? At the same time there are a lot of Catholic priests living comfortably who would be in the same position had the church hierarchy protected them. Do two wrongs make a right?

The victim says "Let it go" but it is not her call. She did have a civil suit against him which he tried to stop by claiming that he wasn't there to defend himself. It didn't fly. Was there a settlement? Anyone know?

My personal opinion based on his confession is that he should be extradited and dealt with fairly in a US court of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:53 PM

I agree Sharon. His problems would probably be over by now if he hadn't run. But I can understand his thought process. He was looking at the possibility of entering the same prison system as Charles Manson. Skipping out must of looked like a pretty good option.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: SharonA
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:39 PM

Quite true, Wesley, but Polanski needed to go through the US legal system to make the case that the judge was wrong. If he had done so, who knows -- the judge might have been sanctioned or dismissed. Anybody know whether that judge kept on working and reneging on other plea deals?

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:24 PM

I wish everyone had a chance to see this film:

HBO Documentary Wanted and Desired

The judge in this case was way out of bounds. Even the prosecuting attorney said that he fould have skipped the country too. Polanski was wrong. But so was the judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: SharonA
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:10 PM

Mrrzy asks: "Should it be up to her whether to pursue it or not? She's, what, 13 in 77 ==> 45, now?"

No. There's more to this case than the fact that he raped the 13-year-old. The case has not been dismissed, and he fled the country and has been avoiding extradition instead of going into LA court to face sentencing or to try to have the case dismissed. He did more than rape the girl; he flouted US law and has continued to flout it for decades. IMO he should be treated like any other fugitive from the law. Throw the book at him, I say!

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:52 PM

Caught a little NPR coverage this morning, with several "man on the street" comments. Some of them were obviously Europeans, not sure if all Swiss or what as I wasn't listening under optimum conditions. But I was taken aback at how many people said essentially "He's a great director; they should be ashamed of themselves for picking on someone like him". I guess Americans aren't alone in excusing abominable behaviour by celebritites.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Gedpipes
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:12 PM

I love that post Gnu
'I don't want to go into details but
"that he performed oral sex on her, fucked her and fucked her up the ass... "

Go on go into details

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM

Sure.. Difficult one. It must be stressful to have all this stuff raked over and placed in the public eye once more.

Subject: RE: BS: Polanski Arrested
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:23 PM

Should it be up to her whether to pursue it or not? She's, what, 13 in 77 ==> 45, now?