Hollyweird's support of the child rapist: Roman Polanski.

reply to post by Hefficide


I believe that he did actually plead guilty to these allegations, and he then fled to Switzerland !

I'm a firm believer in ''innocent until proven guilty'', but I believe that Polanski actually pleaded guilty to these charges.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Being unfamiliar with the majority of the details of this case, I Wiki'd it and came across the following:

On 11 March 1977, Polanski, 43 years old, was arrested for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. The crime was reported by Geimer's mother and was perpetrated the previous day at the Hollywood home of actor Jack Nicholson. The girl testified before a grand jury that Polanski gave her both champagne and Quaalude, a sedative drug, and despite being asked to stop, he performed oral sex, intercourse and anal sex upon her. The grand jury returned an indictment charging him with "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor". At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In an effort to preserve her anonymity, Geimer's attorney arranged a plea bargain which Polanski accepted, and, under the terms, five charges from the indictment were to be dismissed. On 8 August 1977, Polanski entered a plea of guilty to Charge III of the indictment, "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, in violation of California Penal Code § 261.5", a charge which is synonymous under California law with statutory rape. The judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, received a probation report and psychiatric evaluation, both indicating that Polanski should not serve jail time. In response, the filmmaker was ordered to a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison.

On 28 January 1978, Polanski was released after undergoing the in-prison psychiatric evaluation, serving 42 days. Despite expectations and recommendations that he would receive only probation at sentencing, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys" that more jail time and possible deportation were in order. Upon learning of the judge's plans Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has mostly lived in France, avoiding countries likely to extradite him. Because he fled prior to sentencing, all six of the original charges remain pending.

(emphasis in color mine)

Source

From this I can gather that a plea bargain was offered. This is not an admission of guilt. In many, many cases attorneys will advise that plaintiffs take plea bargains, regardless of the plaintiffs position, as a means of finding the most painless and expedient resolution to a case.

If Polanski is guilty of having sex with a 13 year old girl then I will happily be first in line to kick him in the crotch. Child abuse is, in my opinion, the most vile of offenses. But I do stand by my assertion that due process happen before I allow myself to believe him guilty. His flight and his plea could be the result of issues other than guilt, IMO, and are not necessarily adequate proof of a guilty conscience.

But let me be clear... the evidence so far does suggest to me that something inappropriate could have occurred. I just like lynch mobs I join in to be well informed lynch mobs. If there is to be justice, it needs to be found in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

~Heff

Another case of misinformation, or worst, lack of information.
First, there was no rape involved, it was consensual sex, and Roman didn't even know her age. But even if he did, since when is a 15 year-old a child? Well, I guess in this rotten society, ruled by the masses growing ignorance, lack of information, stupidity, and petty nosing into other people's lives; on account of not having a life of their own that's worth living, one could consider most people in the so-called "conspiracy movement" as being childlike...

Second, he wasn't running away from any trial. The trial had taken place long ago. He left the USA because he didn't agree with the process, and thought, rightly so, that it would be impossible to get justice, in the paranoid, religious-driven American "Witch-Hunting" judicial system.

I supported, and continue to support Roman.

reply to post by Aeons


Shes not a child anymore.

Why are we still discussing this?

Besides there are statutes of limitations in regards to these crimes.

~Keeper

Look I don't mean to endorse or condone what he did in anysense of the word, but this is over.

It's been over for decades and talking about it isn't going to change anything. And as far as Hollywood supporting him, when did they ever claim to be a moral group of people?

Are all of you joking? Hollywood is the most indecent, corrupt and ridiculous place on earth if you ask me and has been the cause of many societal problems that plague our youth and our adults.

Don't fool yourself into thinking these people actually care what we all think, cause at the end of the day there are more people who care about the next Harry Potter film than human rights and justice.

~Keeper

reply to post by CerBeRus666


Consensual sex huh? Have you read the Grand Jury testimony?

Doubtful - you didn't even get her age right.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Aeons

 

Shes not a child anymore.

Why are we still discussing this?

Besides there are statutes of limitations in regards to these crimes.

~Keeper

It's relevant to the big picture Keeper... this case may be "old news" and will not be re-opened, but there are undoubtedly many other cases that are similar. Focus on child predators is never outdated.

reply to post by LadySkadi


Ofcourse I agree that child predators should never be looked over, but using Roman Polanski is kind of a piss poor example considering the time frame and what not.

I'm sure there are more productive and current cases we could use as a basis for discussion.

~Keeper

reply to post by Hefficide


If I was wrongly accused of any sex crime I would want my day in court to prove my innocence and I would never, ever plead guilty to sex with a minor if I was innocent.

My own self-pride would not allow me to run away under such circumstances.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Hefficide

 

If I was wrongly accused of any sex crime I would want my day in court to prove my innocence and I would never, ever plead guilty to sex with a minor if I was innocent.

My own self-pride would not allow me to run away under such circumstances.

I completely agree, and said so in my first post in this thread!

Running away is highly suspect, and does not serve as a good representation at all for this man. But, I hesitate to make snap judgments about these things without knowing the whole story - or as much of it as possible. Personally if it were my daughter, and I believed it happened, going to France would not have saved him one iota. It'd just have made me buy a plane ticket in addition to the baseball bat that I'd use to beat him with.

But, seeing that she isn't my daughter - and I don't have a rapport with her which would lead me to know if she was being forthright, or not, instinctively... I just don't have a "baseball bat" level of evidence thus far.

~Heff

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Aeons

 

Shes not a child anymore.

Why are we still discussing this?

Besides there are statutes of limitations in regards to these crimes.

~Keeper

Only, he's already sentenced. The statute is for pressing charges. You don't get to be convicted, and then if you escape from jail suddenly you're golden. It doesn't work that way.

So, do you often drug your sexual partners so they'll have "consensual" sex with you?

Yeah, the guy should do some time for his crimes. Why not make a thread about children being killed by American foriegn policy? You are complaining about some litter while being bombed.

getting a 13year old child drunk and stoned to have "consensual sex" then fleeing the country. Yep roman polanski either he was going to make a film the government didnt like, or he was an absolute d-bag.

I lost so much respect for whoopi, not rape?

This is roofies slipped into champagne at the bar, only ist someones kid, lil girl who just 6 years prior would have received her first communion and still loved elmo.

polanski is a scumbag with an eye for film making.

they say charles manson was a damned musical genius.

-Matt

reply to post by matthewgraybeal


He should have just stayed and taken the consequences.

The guy that directed the Jeepers Creepers horror movies was caught taping himself having sex with a 12 year old boy, served 15 months and a few years later was directing Disney movies!

Victor Salva

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Is it now? Are people who commit such crimes the type to repeat them? By today's standards he would be in a sex offender registry and denied rights after serving his for crimes if he were to have went to jail. "But Polanski made contributions to world culture with his movies." The relevance today is the guy had consentual sex with someone who could not give consent, fled to avoid paying for his crimes and still people get their panties in a bunch defending a guy that if he was not a celebrity they would condemn. The different standards given to those with a high public exposure is the issue.

Originally posted by CerBeRus666

First, there was no rape involved, it was consensual sex, and Roman didn't even know her age. But even if he did, since when is a 15 year-old a child?,,,,,
I supported, and continue to support Roman.

consensual sex with a drunk/stoned 13 yr old ? poor roman ay he was fooled into thinking she was the grand old age of 15 ! and the fact that you think that 15 is anything else but a child...oh that i could lay my hands on you. you and roman are scum.

Originally posted by CerBeRus666
Another case of misinformation, or worst, lack of information.
First, there was no rape involved, it was consensual sex, and Roman didn't even know her age. But even if he did, since when is a 15 year-old a child?

a 15 year old is considered a child just as much as a 4 year old in the eyes of the law.

Children cannot consent to sex, therefore there is no such thing as consentual sex with anyone legally considered a child.

I love the excuse of "great contribution" means that a particular person is ALLOWED to do bad things.

Frankly, if Polanski had never lived, nothing he did was all that important. The retarded idea that a ridiculous troll of a pedophile is "allowed" to do as he pleases because his "art" gives him immunity is disgusting.

I expect that all the people who believe this are lining up for the favour of letting this man or other "great" "artists" stick their dicks into your drugged up children. They DESERVE it.

The thing that really sealed it for me, is that no 13 year old girl asks for anal sex.

What did all his supporters have in common. They believe they are Gods chosen and hence what was done to that girl is ok.

It is the only logical conclusion to their blanket support.