Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I don't think that someone who finds a seventeen year old attractive is a demon. I think a forty year old who finds a thirteen year old attractive and plies her with drugs and alcohol is a demon.

You are dehumanizing a man who has a family, friends, and has been a law abiding citizen for over thirty years. He and his victim were caught up in the Hollywood lifestyle over 30 years ago. She went to Jack Nicholsons house to MODEL for crying out loud.

We know he was conviced.....but that conviction came by way of a plea deal which the judge was in on.....get it?

The guilty plea was ill-gotten and the judge did not honor his word to Polanski.

YOU are demonizing another human being to JUSTIFY YOUR hatred.

I think your hatred is misplaced.

Your stand against rape is not the issue. I agree with your stand on that issue.

But it's your hateful mean-spirited stand against Polanski that I take issue with.

It makes you look no better then a rapist.


[edit on 2/10/09 by John Matrix]

I wonder if Whoopi would say what happened to Elizabeth Smart wasnt "rape-rape."

She wanted to go home but her rapist wouldnt take her. She was given drugs/alcohol. She was 14 years old.

Seems like the only difference was that her rapist wasnt some Hollywood Lord out to impose his manhood on the anus' of the children of us simple peons.

Celebrity and or money sugar-coats everything, doesn't it? That's why they'll continue to rape our children with impunity. From Hollywood, CA to Washington D.C.. At least farmers dont rape their cattle. Well, most of them don't.

Originally posted by John Matrix
She went to Jack Nicholsons house to MODEL for crying out loud.

Based on a phony model shoot. Polanski told her he was doing a photo shoot for the french edition of Vogue. He did the shoot and asked her to change in front of him. She was uncomfortable about it and the shoot ended. He asked her to come back for a second shoot and he took pictures of her drinking champagne.

If this was a real shoot, with an adult who was looking out for the welfare of a minor, the champagne would have been a non-alcholic substitute, such as ginger ale. Vogue would never condone a photo shoot that involved serving real alcohol to a minor.

He lured her there to take pictures of her, he brought quaaludes, mixed them in a drink and gave them to her. He planned this. In advance.

Maybe he'll get lucky and some ginormous con will do to him what he did to her. Convicts tend to dislike pedos and child abusers. He's going find out what its like to be small, alone, afraid and unable to protect himself.

While he's lying on his stomach, staring at the pillow, trying to will the pain away, he'll, hopefully, discover that he didn't beat the system and maybe, as he lies there, the pain of being incarcerated and, possible, physically assaulted settling into his bones, he'll realize that Justice has been served.



[edit on 2-10-2009 by Crakeur]

Originally posted by space cadet
I don't think he should just get away with it, but I also don't think this should have taken this long either. I am not suprised that those of hollywierd think he should go free either.

Just to clarify. He didn't just get away with it and go free.

He spent time locked up in custody.
He faced public ridicule and scorn.
He endured humilliation and embarassment.
He lost relationships and friends.
He went through a stressfull trial and suffered anxiety.
He agreed to a deal and plead guilty(the judge promised him credit for time served, and that he would send him to a psychological evaluation center, and give him probation with no further jail time).
He spent the last 30 plus years in exile because the judge decided to back out on the deal....AFTER he plead guilty.

He has lived a law abiding productive life since, demonstrating that he is rehabilitated.

He paid money to the victim and her mother.

One aim in punishment is rehabilitation. He's obviously rehabilitated, and he has most definately been punished.

What the Hell more do you want? Blood?

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I don't think that someone who finds a seventeen year old attractive is a demon. I think a forty year old who finds a thirteen year old attractive and plies her with drugs and alcohol is a demon.

You are dehumanizing a man who has a family, friends, and has been a law abiding citizen for over thirty years.

I have friends from my hometown (anyone familiar with Mt Elliot, Doremus, and Brockton area of the Motor City??) who have gone to jail for crimes they did, in fact, commit. I have visited them in jail. They are still my friends because they have been good to me. One or two made a prison conversion and really seem changed men. They still have to serve their sentence because that is the law. Equal justice means equal application. There are laws here that he broke. These are not "secret" laws. They didn't bait and switch him with propriety American style.

Breaking the law means you pay the consequences, or else let's let everyone out of prison who has family and friends and a skillset we find valuable.

BTW, "law abiding"? He has had a string of Lolitas over the years, meaning if he was back in the US he would be in the same spot over and over. Fifteen, fourteen, etc is against the law. Natassia Kinski was jailbait.

He and his victim were caught up in the Hollywood lifestyle over 30 years ago. She went to Jack Nicholsons house to MODEL for crying out loud.

Oh, so let me get this straight and please correct me if I am wrong... is "going to Jack Nicholsons house" a euphemism for "sex me up, please?"

We know he was conviced.....but that conviction came by way of a plea deal which the judge was in on.....get it?

Please, look up "plea bargains". First, and a lawyer can correct me on this (I asked a friend who is a lawyer for the FBI so...) a plea deal is comprised of these things:

1) the "charge" (that was underage sex with a minor versus the six counts of felony rape) and agreement to the charge, and 2) a "recommendation" for sentencing (time at a mental facility for evaluation as "time served").

A judge may rescind the recommended sentencing if/when the individual proves that he has violated the spirit or terms of the agreement, OR he may keep the "charge" and throw out the recommendation for sentencing and give the individual the maximum for the charge.

Part 1 was not rescinded upon until he "fled". Now, he may (or may not) be charged with all counts. Part 2 was not reneged upon. Polanski received the recommended sentencing and asked for time to film a movie. During this time he had "terms" of behavior that he did not adhere to. When photographic evidence was presented to the judge of Polanski consuming alcohol and being in the company of young women, the judge gave him the maximum for the "charge" (underage sex with a minor, not sodomy, rape, etc).

How is this a reneging on the part of the judge? Polanski had terms of behavior as other convicted individuals do and did not adhere to them. Therefore, his sentence reverted.

EDIT: And how many black men do you think in the same set of circumstances would have been given time off prior to their sentence fulfillment to go overseas?

The guilty plea was ill-gotten

Ill gotten? Explain how it was "ill gotten"? They had forensic evidence (read the file) that she was forced upon, they had victim testimony, and his lack of denial that there was sex (meaning even before the deal he confessed to at least sex). He would have at the very least gotten the charge he got even without the plea deal.

and the judge did not honor his word to Polanski.

Polanski violated his release therefore it is not incumbent upon the judge to keep to the minimum sentencing.

YOU are demonizing another human being to JUSTIFY YOUR hatred.

What hatred? Whom do I hate?

I think your hatred is misplaced.

Wanting criminals to serve their time is not hatred. I have friends in jail that are serving their time as they ought to. It is a slap in the face to poor people when rich people have an altogether different system of justice.

Your stand against rape is not the issue. I agree with your stand on that issue.

But it's your hateful mean-spirited stand against Polanski that I take issue with.

It makes you look no better then a rapist.

Hateful. Mean-spirited. No better than a rapist.

Okay. I can live with that being your opinion of me.





[edit on 2-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by Crakeur


Sooooo....the heavy hitters are weighing in on this topic. Thank you for your attention...I feel honored in a strange way.

I can assure you I have read about what went down back in the day, and I am still looking for more articles...as well as following the story in the news.

I can also assure you that I do not advocate any of his conduct. Did you think I did?

Perhaps I send the wrong message without knowing it. I have a young daughter and I hate to say what I would do to any Polanski types that pulled this conduct on her.

But I do not believe he has gotten off without being punished(see my post above).

He's rehabilitated, the woman holds no animosity, he's suffered punishment, he's made some financial restitution.

Reviewing the circumstances, I say enough is enough. He should be left alone.

I don't see how a 70 something year old man being sodomized in prison would serve any justice in this case.

I personally think justice has been served and we should all move on.


[edit on 2/10/09 by John Matrix]

I only have one more post to make to this thread as I can see it is getting hit with those who have no issues with rape.

Make no question that is what it is.

Let’s leave out age for a second and look at what took place.

He drugged the girl and got her liquored up. Quite frankly he is lucky she did not die. It is common knowledge that you do not mix alcohol and Quaaludes. Many people have died from doing so.

Secondly and most importantly she said no not only once but many times. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks no mean no, it really is that easy to understand.

Even if the parents knew what was going on and this was planned as an audition once the girl says no you stop and that is all, it stops there. Even if the girl comes on to a guy and then at the last second backs out and says no it means no, it really is that simple.

Third and final point yes age will come to play in this one. The guy was 40 and she was 13. Even if he felt an attraction to her and she might have been such a beauty that many a man would stare and think things they should not, he should have known better than to touch her the way he did. If he cannot be trusted around this girl at this time what is to say there are not other victims in other places. There are counties people go to just to get underage children for sex because they are easy to come by for a rather cheap price.


I truly am disgusted that anyone would condone this man’s actions or even try to defend the actions (notice I did not say defend him but his actions). He plead guilty to a lesser charge not because the evidence was weak but because they wanted to go easy on him because his wife had been recently murdered. He plead guilty and admitted to having sex with her, even if he said it was consensual it is right on with the charge he received which is having sex with a minor. But being that he basically immobilized her with drugs and alcohol and she said no repeatedly that qualifies as full out rape.


The man is guilty flat out. He never paid his dues. I would hope he gets reamed by the biggest boys in jail, but really if he goes to jail he will end up in one of the glorious day spa jails for those with money. No matter what happens he will not pay the price that a normal citizen would which is wrong in other ways.

Never has the victim recanted her side of the story and nether has he recanted or denied his actions either. In fact he admits to drugging her and has shown no remorse but as we have seen in repeated postings of his interview made it quite clear he likes to screw young girls.


Raist

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Breaking the law means you pay the consequences, or else let's let everyone out of prison who has family and friends and a skillset we find valuable.

I'm glad you brought up this point. California is releasing 40,000 prisoners because they cannot afford to house them. With that in mind, it makes going after Polanski absolutely 1000 percent stupid.

BTW: Lolita's is a rather derogatory term to use for young teens and girls don't ya think?

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Breaking the law means you pay the consequences, or else let's let everyone out of prison who has family and friends and a skillset we find valuable.

I'm glad you brought up this point. California is releasing 40,000 prisoners because they cannot afford to house them. With that in mind, it makes going after Polanski absolutely 1000 percent stupid.

BTW: Lolita's is a rather derogatory term to use for young teens and girls don't ya think?

Lolita was a precocious girl who never intended to be kidnapped, obsessed upon, dominated, etc by an older man. She attempted to have some "power" but in the end was used and had no power.

How is that not similar? Natassia Kinski was promised a role and didn't get that role. She was "raised" by Polanski more than being identified as his equal. Her power did not equate to his.

Ack. I could go on but its pointless...

Originally posted by John Matrix
I can also assure you that I do not advocate any of his conduct. Did you think I did?

no, I didn't say that.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Perhaps I send the wrong message without knowing it. I have a young daughter and I hate to say what I would do to any Polanski types that pulled this conduct on her.

as do I and that is why this man must go away. letting him off sends a message that, if you skip bail, thumb your nose at the judicial system, live your life in Paris and Gstaad (suffer suffer), after 30 years, we'll let you go.

Originally posted by John Matrix
But I do not believe he has gotten off without being punished(see my post above).

as I stated in an earlier post (maybe it was in another thread), he lived fairly comfortably in Paris with a nice vacation estate in Gstaad. He's been working, even won an oscar for The Pianist (great movie). Judging from the history, he's had little issue making friends or enjoying his life. He couldn't come to the US and, as a result, he couldn't make as many movies or, possibly, all the movies he would have liked to make but, still, he's been working, rather steadily, it seems.

Originally posted by John Matrix
He's rehabilitated, the woman holds no animosity, he's suffered punishment, he's made some financial restitution.

Michael Jackson paid off several young boys, does that mean we should look beyond his fondness for young boys?

Samantha Geimer has said that the press has made this worse, in that the publicity they give it brings it all back to her.

The woman with whom award-winning director Roman Polanski is accused of having sex when she was 13 years old said Monday that she wants the case resolved so she can get on with her life without any more publicity

www.cnn.com...

doesn't sound like forgiveness as much as a desire to be left alone.

Originally posted by John Matrix
Reviewing the circumstances, I say enough is enough. He should be left alone.

letting him walk sends the wrong message to society. he scoffed at the US judicial system.

Originally posted by John Matrix
I don't see how a 70 something year old man being sodomized in prison would serve any justice in this case.

If she were my daughter, I'd tell you that it wouldn't be the justice I'd want. I'd want to see him hang. For stealing her innocence. For taking from her, the very things we, as parents, are supposed to nurture and protect.

Originally posted by John Matrix
I personally think justice has been served and we should all move on.

If by justice, you mean living the high life in Paris and Gstaad, working on films, travelling about, meeting young women, partying, working, playing, skiing, relaxing etc, then, yes, you are correct, justice has been served.

If, by justice, you mean, punishment befitting the crime, than, no, running from your responsibilities, as a human being, is not Justice. It's cowardice.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Uhhhhhhh.....

Have you ever Read "Lolita"?

Your comments make me think perhaps you haven't.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Uhhhhhhh.....

Have you ever Read "Lolita"?

Your comments make me think perhaps you haven't.

Uhhh, I have. I realize Nabokov intentions with the novel but with any author or artist the reader may take a different message from the story than they intended. As a female I perceive Lolita differently and I see the whole novel as a form of mental masturbation and fantasy for men, whether that was the intention or not.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Then begs the question, from an Aesthetics standpoint, if your opinion is a valid one based upon the fact that it is colored by a very powerful traumatic experience in your past.

That taken, on contrast with the intent of the author's writing of the story, seems to indicate that while your opinion is your opinion, it may not be a valid opinion concerning the text as it likely lacks a certain detached objectivity required for review.

I am not defending Polanski or rapists in general and quite frankly I believe justice should be served in this case. There are good reasons why rape is illegal. However I don't think it is as simple as it has been presented here and I know I am not privy to all the information available.

He was offered a plea to a lesser charge which he accepted. A condition of that plea was his confession to a crime. Many of you are ignoring that important fact which could be interpreted as coercion by our judicial system. Again I don't know, but it is a possibility

Generally sex offenders do not stop their behavior even after being convicted and imprisoned. I asked if anyone could provide any other examples of criminal behavior perpetrated by Polanski. All we have is anecdotal evidence of a relationship with Natassia Kinski. Might be true but no charges have been filed.

One more thing...I find it deeply disturbing that all the crusaders for justice on this thread have made no mention of justice against the girls' parents.

If what has been presented is true then the mother should be brought up on charges and imprisoned for her role in endangering a minor. Examples need to be made so that perverted parents will not sell their children for sex. These parents need to realize there are serious criminal consequences for this behavior. I am a parent and I can assure my children would never be alone with any adult for a "photo shoot". I mean really!

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

Then begs the question, from an Aesthetics standpoint, if your opinion is a valid one based upon the fact that it is colored by a very powerful traumatic experience in your past.

That taken, on contrast with the intent of the author's writing of the story, seems to indicate that while your opinion is your opinion, it may not be a valid opinion concerning the text as it likely lacks a certain detached objectivity required for review.

I'm sorry, are you stating that experience invalidates an opinion?

I hope you are not. The very foundation of behavioral science rests upon observation and experience.

Its funny hearing that comment from someone with a dog face like hers that would have to practically rape a goat for any chance at intimacy.
Its the same rationalization she uses on herself so she can sleep at night.

I value her views like I value a piece of gum on the sole of my shoe.

reply to post by Digital_Reality


Thank you for that warm hearted comment. I am certain that we are all smarter now for having read it.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Yeah, I know it was a bit immature but she is someone that I truly despise.
My apolagies...

I still don't see Polanski as having got away with anything. He served time and suffered before and during the trial.

His exile was provoked by what he and many others perceived to be an injustice.

If not for that injustice, he was perfectly willing to accept his punishment and make restitution.

That he was able to work, make a new life for himself, make new friends, live well, and became a productive citizen has nothing to do with whether he should be punished further.....it speaks to his rehabbed character. A criminal that straightens out his life and becomes successful is deserving of merit...IMHO.

Regardless how rich he became, he was still not able to come to the USA. For any man that made his home here....that would be a severe punishment to endure for 30 years.

Justice should serve the public interest, and when California is releasing 40,000 prisoners, it makes no sense to go after Polanski.

As I said in another post, if the guy was a plumber he would be long forgotten and no one would care, but because he is a famous celeb. we have a prosecutor looking to get his face on television.

Once again, I don't condone his actions. I don't say he was innocent.

But in view of all the circumstances, he should be left alone.

OK, I'm done here. Have a nice day everyone.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
He was offered a plea to a lesser charge which he accepted. A condition of that plea was his confession to a crime. Many of you are ignoring that important fact which could be interpreted as coercion by our judicial system. Again I don't know, but it is a possibility

Generally sex offenders do not stop their behavior even after being convicted and imprisoned. I asked if anyone could provide any other examples of criminal behavior perpetrated by Polanski. All we have is anecdotal evidence of a relationship with Natassia Kinski. Might be true but no charges have been filed.

One more thing...I find it deeply disturbing that all the crusaders for justice on this thread have made no mention of justice against the girls' parents.

I agree fully!! Star for you and two thumbs up.

BTW: I'm with you on the comments about no other evidence of criminal behaviour, But Let's say he did have a sexual affair with Natassia Kinski in a country where it's not illegal do do so.....should that be held against him today, in the USA?