Movie-Maker Polanski Arrested in Switzerland (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8684404)
QuoteZURICH (Reuters) - Film director Roman Polanski, whose turbulent life has come close to resembling the violent, perverse world of his movies, was arrested in Switzerland on a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old.
Polanski, 76, had been due to receive a prize for his life's work at the Zurich Film Festival on Sunday evening, opening a retrospective of his film career but was arrested on arrival at Zurich airport on Saturday night.
Calling Polanski, who won Best Director Oscar for "The Pianist" in 2003, one of the greatest film directors of our time, the festival directors said they had "received this news with great consternation and shock."
Polanski's Los Angeles agent and the U.S. embassy in Zurich were not immediately available for comment.
Zurich Cantonal Police spokesman Stefan Oberlin said Polanski's arrest had been carried out on instructions from the Federal Justice Department in Berne.
Polanski was arrested in the United States in the late 1970s and charged with giving drugs and alcohol to a 13-year-old girl and having unlawful sex with her at a photographic shoot at Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.
Maintaining the girl was sexually experienced and had consented, Polanski spent 42 days in prison undergoing psychiatric tests but fled the country before being sentenced.
Considered by U.S. authorities as a fugitive from justice, Polanski, whose films include "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown," has lived in France avoiding countries that have extradition treaties with the United States.
TURBULENT LIFE
Few lives have turned into the macabre public spectacle that Polanski's has, first after the gruesome murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate in 1969 by the Charles Manson murder gang, and again eight years later when he was arrested for the statutory rape of the 13-year-old girl.
But few directors have laid bare their inner fantasies and fears like Polanski in films such as "Repulsion," "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Tenant" -- films of disturbing brutality shot through with voyeurism and dark humor.
From early childhood when he escaped the Nazi holocaust in Poland, Polanski's life has appeared, like his movies, to hover precariously on the brink of tragedy.
Born Raymond Polanski to Polish-Jewish parents on August 18, 1933, he spent the first three years of his life in Paris before the family returned to Poland.
When the Germans sealed off the Jewish ghetto in Krakow in 1940, his father shouted to Roman to run and he escaped. His mother later died in an Auschwitz gas chamber.
His first full-length feature film after graduation, "Knife in the Water," won awards and, most important for Polanski, was his ticket to the West.
As his reputation grew -- first with "Repulsion," his study of a woman terrified by sex who becomes a psychotic murderer, and then with the absurdist masterpiece "Cul de Sac" -- Polanski developed a taste for the high life and beautiful women.
In 1974 Polanski had another major Hollywood success with "Chinatown," a stylish thriller starring Nicholson, but his private life stayed unsettled as he drifted between Paris, Rome and Los Angeles and embarked on numerous short-lived affairs.
In 2003, he won the Oscar for "The Pianist."
"I am widely regarded, I know, as an evil, profligate dwarf," Polanski wrote in his autobiography. "My friends -- and the women in my life -- know better."
HA!
Cant wait to see the so called "cultural elite" go nut over his arrest, demanding he should set free at once, becourse the Americans are nazis and the girl was a tart who deserved it...
Had it been a ordinary 44 year old man who had drug raped a 13 year old girl would the same people be calling for his balls to be cut of...
Ghadafi was right.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 27, 2009, 07:55:58 AM
Cant wait to see the so called "cultural elite" go nut over his arrest, demanding he should set free at once, becourse the Americans are nazis and the girl was a tart who deserved it...
Had it been a ordinary 44 year old man who had drug raped a 13 year old girl would the same people be calling for his balls to be cut of...
Ironically the Languish soft-on-crime poster sympathy this week has already been spent on Susan Atkins. The bleeding heart liberals will get back to you next week.
The Wikipedia- trolls are already on the case... :lol:
QuoteOn 26 September 2009 Polanski was arrested after entering Switzerland, in relation to his outstanding 1978 US arrest warrant for the rape of Geimer. Polanski had hoped to attend the Zurich Film Festival to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award.[40][41]
On 27 September 2009 Polanski, after being arrested and held in a maximum security prison located in Switzerlandeish mountains, has confided in Switzeris authorities about crimes unknown to the public that he has committed. As of today, it has been reported that Polanski received multiple beatings to the rectal area with multiple devices known as "penis" throughout the prison. Reports of Polanski being transferred to a Swedish Hospital in France are unfounded.[
Excellent
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2009, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 27, 2009, 07:55:58 AM
Cant wait to see the so called "cultural elite" go nut over his arrest, demanding he should set free at once, becourse the Americans are nazis and the girl was a tart who deserved it...
Had it been a ordinary 44 year old man who had drug raped a 13 year old girl would the same people be calling for his balls to be cut of...
Ironically the Languish soft-on-crime poster sympathy this week has already been spent on Susan Atkins. The bleeding heart liberals will get back to you next week.
Yup. I'm not gonna take up this cause. I don't even like his movies. Although ironically the Susan Atkins case is sort of related to this. Funny.
Quotedrugs and alcohol to a 13-year-old girl and having unlawful sex with her at a photographic shoot at Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.
Man, Jack knows how to party. Puts Charlie Sheen to shame.
The movie Thirteen taught me that Californian teens only think about drugs and casual sex, so I don't see the big fuzz, really.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 10:02:25 AM
Quotedrugs and alcohol to a 13-year-old girl and having unlawful sex with her at a photographic shoot at Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.
Man, Jack knows how to party. Puts Charlie Sheen to shame.
Didn't Nicholson have sex with one of his daughter's friends?
I would be surprised if he actually got extradited.
Still, I'm all worn out on sex crimes. I can't even pretend to be outraged. Merely displeased.
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2009, 10:05:52 AM
Didn't Nicholson have sex with one of his daughter's friends?
I would be shocked if he hadn't. It's Jack Nicholson. He can score any chick he likes.
I guess USA doesn't have more recent and serious crime to care about, as they seems to have spent a lot of time and effort to snatch him up :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 10:09:16 AM
I guess USA doesn't have more recent and serious crime to care about, as they seems to have spent a lot of time and effort to snatch him up :rolleyes:
Seems to me the Swiss did all the work.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2009, 10:05:52 AM
Didn't Nicholson have sex with one of his daughter's friends?
I would be shocked if he hadn't. It's Jack Nicholson. He can score any chick he likes.
http://www.nndb.com/people/722/000022656/
Nicholson later had a 17-year romance with Anjelica Huston, who repeatedly looked the other way while he wandered, but she finally ended their relationship when Nicholson told her he had impregnated his daughter's best friend, Rebecca Broussard.
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 10:09:16 AM
I guess USA doesn't have more recent and serious crime to care about, as they seems to have spent a lot of time and effort to snatch him up :rolleyes:
Oddly, Polanski had been several times to Switzerland after he fled the U.S., but never had trouble with the police before.
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2009, 10:14:06 AM
but she finally ended their relationship when Nicholson told her he had impregnated his daughter's best friend, Rebecca Broussard.
Fucking awesome.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on September 27, 2009, 07:55:58 AM
Cant wait to see the so called "cultural elite" go nut over his arrest, demanding he should set free at once, becourse the Americans are nazis and the girl was a tart who deserved it...
Had it been a ordinary 44 year old man who had drug raped a 13 year old girl would the same people be calling for his balls to be cut of...
And he likely wouldn't have had his balls cut off but done a few years in jail, and had the possibility of rehabilitation, and putting it behind him. Rapists in the US get less time than copyrighted file downloaders.
Well it was rape because she was underage (and this Does Not mitigate the crime in my eyes) not because he broke into her house and beat her and raped her. He made a really bad judgment gave a kid he knew some grass etc and had sex. He should have done time for those things. He's a creepy Uncle rapist not a predator.
But he didn't. And he wasn't pursued all that hard til now. Why now? He's been to Switzerland tons of times before .
Does Old Man Polanski somehow deserve harsher treatment than the younger Polanski?
No. sentence him, suspend said sentence, move on... your long national nightmare is over.
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
Anyway, wasn't Mary thirteen when Jahweh/God fucked her?
Jesus: a fruit of a statutory rape. Nice religion you've got there. :D
Oh who would have thought, one Polish sexual deviant defends another.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Anyway, wasn't Mary thirteen when Jahweh/God fucked her?
Where did you get that information? Never heard it before.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
You just don't know because, let's face it, you're not really a lawyer.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Anyway, wasn't Mary thirteen when Jahweh/God fucked her?
Jesus: a fruit of a statutory rape. Nice religion you've got there. :D
It couldn't be statutory rape, since there was no law against it. :contract:
Bluebook, I hadn't heard that before either so I googled it. It looks like that was the typical age for jewish girls to get married in that era.
Martinus: Defeated on another point of law. His cover blown yet again.
He should kill himself today.
I don't think the bible said anything about God taking physical form to impregnate Mary.
Quote from: Barrister on September 27, 2009, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Anyway, wasn't Mary thirteen when Jahweh/God fucked her?
Jesus: a fruit of a statutory rape. Nice religion you've got there. :D
It couldn't be statutory rape, since there was no law against it. :contract:
Bluebook, I hadn't heard that before either so I googled it. It looks like that was the typical age for jewish girls to get married in that era.
Oh god, I laughed out loud reading that post.
I thought divine law and morality is absolute and god-given, and does not change, as relativists would have it.
We are not talking here about the misguided and benighted Jews. We are talking about God. Surely he knows a bit more about what is right and what is wrong, even if fallible humans living at the time do not.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 27, 2009, 10:48:48 AM
Well it was rape because she was underage (and this Does Not mitigate the crime in my eyes) not because he broke into her house and beat her and raped her. He made a really bad judgment gave a kid he knew some grass etc and had sex. He should have done time for those things. He's a creepy Uncle rapist not a predator.
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
Was he a member of: seduction community
He's a criminal and should have faced justice long ago.
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 11:42:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
Was he a member of: seduction community
^_^
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So, hundreds of raped 13 year olds would qualify, but not 1, right? Uh huh.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
Oh who would have thought, one Polish sexual deviant defends another.
Hey, it has to be hard when one of your nation's few cultural icons likes to have sex with children.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
Oh who would have thought, one Polish sexual deviant defends another.
Hey, it has to be hard when one of your nation's few cultural icons likes to have sex with children.
The Muslims get bye.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 12:01:57 PM
The Muslims get bye.
Really? I thought the generation notion was that they get really angry and upset.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
Oh who would have thought, one Polish sexual deviant defends another.
Hey, it has to be hard when one of your nation's few cultural icons likes to have sex with children.
He is hardly a cultural icon here. Most Poles consider him a run-away Jew.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:04:22 PM
He is hardly a cultural icon here. Most Poles consider him a run-away Jew.
I've no idea, just noticed that the two Poles here, leapt to his defense.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 12:01:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 11:08:14 AM
Oh who would have thought, one Polish sexual deviant defends another.
Hey, it has to be hard when one of your nation's few cultural icons likes to have sex with children.
The Muslims get bye.
Yeah, but they're still 1-3, and play against the Steelers next week.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:04:22 PM
He is hardly a cultural icon here. Most Poles consider him a run-away Jew.
Hmmm, that's odd, what with Poland traditionally being such a hip place for Jews.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So in Poland you can split the country before sentencing for rape, and then after the a certain period of time it is considered water under the bridge and you can't be arrested anymore? Fascinating--what is the typical time limit on this sort of thing? Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
If you're Russian, and you're victims are military officers, yes.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2009, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
If you're Russian, and you're victims are military officers, yes.
Or if you are a great director, like say James Cameron (not sure Roman Polanski's movies are popular enough to get away with murdering thousands of officers, he could probably only get away with raping them).
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So in Poland you can split the country before sentencing for rape, and then after the a certain period of time it is considered water under the bridge and you can't be arrested anymore? Fascinating--what is the typical time limit on this sort of thing? Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
It's 30 years for murder, 10-20 for other felonies, depending on the type, 5 for misdemeanor. This then gets prolonged (between 5 and 10 years, depending on a type of crime) if during that period proceedings against a person are started.
Only crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide do not get treated that way. Also for crimes committed by the communist regime, this does not start running until communism ended.
I am surprised by your surprise, to be honest. We got this idea from Germany and France. In fact, I think Anglosaxon legal systems are quite unique in not having this kind of statute of limitations (at least in the West).
Are you a lawyer (I forgot). Judging from the surprise some of you guys often express at pretty universal civil law systems' institutions, it looks like you guys get no comparative legal studies at your law school at all. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So in Poland you can split the country before sentencing for rape, and then after the a certain period of time it is considered water under the bridge and you can't be arrested anymore? Fascinating--what is the typical time limit on this sort of thing? Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
It's 30 years for murder, 10-20 for other felonies, depending on the type, 5 for misdemeanor. This then gets prolonged (between 5 and 10 years, depending on a type of crime) if during that period proceedings against a person are started.
Only crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide do not get treated that way. Also for crimes committed by the communist regime, this does not start running until communism ended.
I am surprised by your surprise, to be honest. We got this idea from Germany and France. In fact, I think Anglosaxon legal systems are quite unique in not having this kind of statute of limitations (at least in the West).
Are you a lawyer (I forgot). Judging from the surprise some of you guys often express at pretty universal civil law systems' institutions, it looks like you guys get no comparative legal studies at your law school at all. :huh:
I'm not a lawyer.
We do have a statute of limitations, but there is a difference between starting a fresh trial, and having a resolution of guilt and fleeing before sentencing. Based on what you posted, I could gun down a kindergarten at 20, get convicted, escape before sentencing, live in Argentina until 50, and then return to Poland a free man without consequences. If that is really the case, I think our system is significantly superior.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So in Poland you can split the country before sentencing for rape, and then after the a certain period of time it is considered water under the bridge and you can't be arrested anymore? Fascinating--what is the typical time limit on this sort of thing? Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
It's 30 years for murder, 10-20 for other felonies, depending on the type, 5 for misdemeanor. This then gets prolonged (between 5 and 10 years, depending on a type of crime) if during that period proceedings against a person are started.
Only crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide do not get treated that way. Also for crimes committed by the communist regime, this does not start running until communism ended.
I am surprised by your surprise, to be honest. We got this idea from Germany and France. In fact, I think Anglosaxon legal systems are quite unique in not having this kind of statute of limitations (at least in the West).
Are you a lawyer (I forgot). Judging from the surprise some of you guys often express at pretty universal civil law systems' institutions, it looks like you guys get no comparative legal studies at your law school at all. :huh:
I'm not a lawyer.
We do have a statute of limitations, but there is a difference between starting a fresh trial, and having a resolution of guilt and fleeing before sentencing. Based on what you posted, I could gun down a kindergarten at 20, get convicted, escape before sentencing, live in Argentina until 50, and then return to Poland a free man without consequences. If that is really the case, I think our system is significantly superior.
Oh that's different. You asked about fleeing before trial/sentence (which is the case here with Polanski). Obviously, these rules do not apply to escaped convicts. :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 27, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
So in Poland you can split the country before sentencing for rape, and then after the a certain period of time it is considered water under the bridge and you can't be arrested anymore? Fascinating--what is the typical time limit on this sort of thing? Can you get away with murder and other serious crimes through this method as well?
It's 30 years for murder, 10-20 for other felonies, depending on the type, 5 for misdemeanor. This then gets prolonged (between 5 and 10 years, depending on a type of crime) if during that period proceedings against a person are started.
Only crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide do not get treated that way. Also for crimes committed by the communist regime, this does not start running until communism ended.
I am surprised by your surprise, to be honest. We got this idea from Germany and France. In fact, I think Anglosaxon legal systems are quite unique in not having this kind of statute of limitations (at least in the West).
Are you a lawyer (I forgot). Judging from the surprise some of you guys often express at pretty universal civil law systems' institutions, it looks like you guys get no comparative legal studies at your law school at all. :huh:
I'm not a lawyer.
We do have a statute of limitations, but there is a difference between starting a fresh trial, and having a resolution of guilt and fleeing before sentencing. Based on what you posted, I could gun down a kindergarten at 20, get convicted, escape before sentencing, live in Argentina until 50, and then return to Poland a free man without consequences. If that is really the case, I think our system is significantly superior.
Oh that's different. You asked about fleeing before trial/sentence (which is the case here with Polanski). Obviously, these rules do not apply to escaped convicts. :D
I thought he pleaded guilty--which effectively waived any purpose of a trial only leaving the sentencing. I couldn't imagine that would make any difference as to whether someone gets to be free after spending a certain period of time elluding the authorities.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 01:12:35 PM
Oh that's different. You asked about fleeing before trial/sentence (which is the case here with Polanski). Obviously, these rules do not apply to escaped convicts. :D
Then your outrage is misplace. Polanski pled guilty and escaped prior to serving his term.
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2009, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 10:09:16 AM
I guess USA doesn't have more recent and serious crime to care about, as they seems to have spent a lot of time and effort to snatch him up :rolleyes:
Oddly, Polanski had been several times to Switzerland after he fled the U.S., but never had trouble with the police before.
The past 12 months have seen the collapse of any independent Swiss resolve, and they are increasingly doing whatever we want. See: UBS.
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 01:19:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 01:12:35 PM
Oh that's different. You asked about fleeing before trial/sentence (which is the case here with Polanski). Obviously, these rules do not apply to escaped convicts. :D
Then your outrage is misplace. Polanski pled guilty and escaped prior to serving his term.
I think he screwed up his Plea Bargain when he did that.
Good.
Let no man think he can escape justice.
Mr. Polanski, you are NO Roman. :(
I always found it amusing how many American actors were quite happy to work with a man who was on the run from their own country's justice system.
As for jail-time, I don't think they ever got round to sentencing him 30 years ago, and don't you get time added on for running like he did. It would be ironic if he spent longer in jail because he ran than for the crime itself.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:23:29 PM
I always found it amusing how many American actors were quite happy to work with a man who was on the run from their own country's justice system.
I find it amusing how many American actors do blow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:31:15 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:23:29 PM
I always found it amusing how many American actors were quite happy to work with a man who was on the run from their own country's justice system.
I find it amusing how many American actors do blow.
I must say, you have been in fine form with the crisp one liners recently. :)
By the way, any chance of finally getting that apology that you owe me relating to the Trivia thread on the old Languish board?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:31:15 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:23:29 PM
I always found it amusing how many American actors were quite happy to work with a man who was on the run from their own country's justice system.
I find it amusing how many American actors do blow.
I must say, you have been in fine form with the crisp one liners recently. :)
By the way, any chance of finally getting that apology that you owe me relating to the Trivia thread on the old Languish board?
Get in line, buddy.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
By the way, any chance of finally getting that apology that you owe me relating to the Trivia thread on the old Languish board?
No. Even if I could remember that, it'd still be a fuck no.
You're lucky you're even posting here, what with that Timmay anime avatar.
Quote from: Jaron on September 27, 2009, 04:39:51 PM
Get in line, buddy.
Speaking of avatars, yours sucks as well. Everyone knows the straight guy in it just hasn't had a chance to suck cock yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
By the way, any chance of finally getting that apology that you owe me relating to the Trivia thread on the old Languish board?
No. Even if I could remember that, it'd still be a fuck no.
As expected, but I thought I'd give it another shot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:40:51 PM
You're lucky you're even posting here, what with that Timmay anime avatar.
"Timmay" anime avatar...I am not worthy in myself... :cry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:40:51 PM
No. Even if I could remember that, it'd still be a fuck no.
You're lucky you're even posting here, what with that Timmay anime avatar.
He's referring to the time you posted a very obscure history trivia question and he responded in detail like ten seconds later, and you accused him of Googling it.
Agelastus, the thing is that this is not an uncommon accusation in the trivia thread... I accused Viking of it (half-jokingly) last week because of the way he answered a question. I don't think he got very upset about it, just mildly annoyed. -_-
Ban Cal!
Mildly annoy Viking though is something of a virtue.
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2009, 04:47:37 PMHe's referring to the time you posted a very obscure history trivia question and he responded in detail like ten seconds later, and you accused him of Googling it.
You just Googled that. Fuck you too.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2009, 04:49:48 PM
Mildly annoy Viking though is something of a virtue.
:cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2009, 04:47:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:40:51 PM
No. Even if I could remember that, it'd still be a fuck no.
You're lucky you're even posting here, what with that Timmay anime avatar.
He's referring to the time you posted a very obscure history trivia question and he responded in detail like ten seconds later, and you accused him of Googling it.
Agelastus, the thing is that this is not an uncommon accusation in the trivia thread... I accused Viking of it (half-jokingly) last week because of the way he answered a question. I don't think he got very upset about it, just mildly annoyed. -_-
It was actually related to a gun in the trivia thread - since CdM knows that I almost certainly do not possess a weapon due to the country I live in and thus should not have the sort of knowledge that the question required, he assumed I had cheated.
Since I had used deductive reasoning and was quite pleased that I had got it right, I was extremely disappointed that he had accused me of cheating.
And, of course, like many people I obsess on trivial things...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2009, 04:47:37 PMHe's referring to the time you posted a very obscure history trivia question and he responded in detail like ten seconds later, and you accused him of Googling it.
You just Googled that. Fuck you too.
Is "old Languish" preserved anywhere then? I was looking for it so I could check up a particular thread the other day, and I couldn't even find anything on the internet archive.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:51:31 PM
It was actually related to a gun in the trivia thread - since CdM knows that I almost certainly do not possess a weapon due to the country I live in and thus should not have the sort of knowledge that the question required, he assumed I had cheated.
Since I had used deductive reasoning and was quite pleased that I had got it right, I was extremely disappointed that he had accused me of cheating.
And, of course, like many people I obsess on trivial things...
Geez, and I thought I carried grudges. I have absolutely no recollection of that.
And even if I did, I probably wouldn't apologize anyway.
Seedy, if you apologized for that you would lose some of the massive respect I have for you. If you were to kick him in the nuts for having that anime crap like you suggested, that would only make it better. Your choice.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:53:53 PM
Geez, and I thought I carried grudges. I have absolutely no recollection of that.
And even if I did, I probably wouldn't apologize anyway.
:D
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:52:46 PM
Is "old Languish" preserved anywhere then? I was looking for it so I could check up a particular thread the other day, and I couldn't even find anything on the internet archive.
Oh, it's archived, alright. On vonMoltke's hard drive.
Unfortunately, he's using it as a box matress right now.
Wait, where are you from again, Agelastus? The UK, right? I thought people could own rifles there as long as they kept them at firing ranges or gun clubs or whatever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:53:53 PM
Geez, and I thought I carried grudges. I have absolutely no recollection of that.
And even if I did, I probably wouldn't apologize anyway.
Of course you wouldn't - you wouldn't be the CdM we all know and...get along with...if you did. ;)
And I can carry grudges for DECADES...which is why, for example, I don't shop at Sainsbury's, and I have a little entry in my mind that tells me to take any opportunity that arises to get revenge on a certain Accountancy Firm that I feel "did my mother wrong" a few years ago. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2009, 04:58:31 PM
Wait, where are you from again, Agelastus? The UK, right? I thought people could own rifles there as long as they kept them at firing ranges or gun clubs or whatever.
This is just something I googled quickly. It should be quite illustrative though.
QuoteFirearms law
The sporting shooter in the UK needs to be aware of the main laws that govern our sport and the guns and rifles with which we pursue it. In Britain, the types of firearm that we commonly come into contact with can be split into the following sections (arranged in order of ease of ownership):
Air Weapons
Air rifles with a power output of less than 12ft/lb are available to shooters without the need for a licence. For air pistols, the power limit is reduced to 6ft/lb. On no account should owners try to improve the power output of an air weapon because if they exceed these limits, they are considered 'Section 1' firearms.
There is no security requirement for air weapons but owners are advised to store them securely so that they may not be stolen or misused by another person.
To use an air-rifle or air-pistol on enclosed private land a person must have the requisite permission and must be legally old enough. It is an offence for a person under 17 years old to be in possession of an air weapon, or ammunition for it, except:
a. As a member of an approved club for target shooting.
b. Whilst at a shooting gallery where only air weapons or miniature rifles not exceeding .23 calibre are used.
c. Whilst under the supervision of a person aged 21 years or over, or whilst shooting, on private premises, including land, provided the missile is not fired beyond those premises.
d. From the age of 14 years old, whilst on private premises with the consent of the owner. No supervision is required.
'Section 58' Antique Weapons
The Home Office has a list of 'Obsolete Calibre' rifles, shotguns and pistols. These may be bought, sold and possessed without a licence of any kind, provided that they are owned as curios only. These weapons may not be fired and to possess ammunition for them is likely to invalidate any claim that they are not for use. No ammunition is considered 'obsolete'.
Among the 'obsolete calibres' we find vintage pin-fires, muzzle-loaders, rim-fires (not including .22 and .9mm) and large bore shotguns like 4-bore and 8-bore. The rules only apply to pre-1939 manufactured weapons (so a 1995 Pedersoli 12-bore muzzle-loader is not considered 'obsolete' under Section 58 but an 1840 Manton is).
Pre 1939 rifles, shotguns and punt guns chambered for the following cartridges: 32-bore 24-bore, 14-bore, 10- bore (2 5/8" and 2 7/8" chambers only), 8-bore, 4-bore, 3-bore, 2-bore, 1 1/8 bore, 1 ¼ bore and 1 ½ bore, are all considered 'obsolete'.
Any weapons listed on the 'Obsolete Calibre' list may be hung on the wall or form part of a display, as there are no security requirements. It is important to stress that any attempt to fire a Section 58 weapon is an extremely serious offence, which could lead to a prison sentence.
'Section 2' Shotguns
Most shooters do most of their shooting in the UK with a shotgun. The law defines this as a smooth-bored gun with barrels of not less than 24". If the gun is a semi-automatic or pump-action, the magazine must be restricted to hold no more than two shells, with a third in the chamber. This is quite confusing these days because some modern wildfowling magnums are chambered for 3 ½" shells. This makes it possible to load more than the legal maximum number of shells into the gun if you use 65mm cases. Readers are strongly advised not to do so because the police may construe your shotgun as a 'de facto' Section 1 firearm if it is used in this way.
To buy, sell or possess a 'Section 2' shotgun you are required to hold a valid Shotgun Certificate. You can see the form you need on the Metropolitan
Police website: http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/pdfs/FF103.pdf . This can be applied for through your local police station and is issued by your constabulary. They will ask you to complete a form and provide photographs and pay a fee. They will visit you and check your security before deciding if they will issue you a Shotgun Certificate. It is the right of every citizen to have a Shotgun Certificate granted unless the chief police officer believes there are grounds to stop you from having one. He must make these grounds clear in the case of a refusal. A past conviction for a serious crime may be one such reason.
The security requirement for shotguns is quite stringent. The police will inspect yours and advise you on their requirements. The law says you must secure your guns from theft. This usually means you will need to lock them in a steel cabinet of police-approved design and quality. Try www.safesecurityservices.co.uk to see examples. The cabinet must be secured to a supporting wall by means of coach bolts and be flush with the wall to prevent it being prized away. A SGC holder may have as many shotguns as he wishes, providing he can secure them to the police's satisfaction.
Each shotgun must be entered on the SGC and the police must be informed of each purchase and disposal. A SGC holder may borrow a shotgun from another SGC holder for 72 hours without informing the police.
Some forces advise shotgun owners to have a monitored alarm so that the police are automatically informed if your house is broken into. These cost around £400 for installation and incur a monthly service charge of around £14. See www.its-home-security.co.uk for examples of services and prices.
When travelling with shotguns, try not to leave them unattended in a vehicle. They should be stowed out of sight and the fore-ends should be removed to render them useless should they be stolen. Trigger locks or cable ties are also a wise precaution.
'Section 1' Firearms
Shooters wishing to use a .22 for rabbiting, a .17HMR for vermin control, a .243 for foxing or a .308 for stalking will need a 'Section 1' Firearms Certificate. This enables the holder to possess the exact calibre, number and type of rifles specified on the licence and outlines the purposes for which each may be used. Therefore, if you are found shooting rabbits with your .308 and it specifies on your licence that it is for deer shooting, you will be committing an offence. You can see the application form for a FAC on the Metropolitan Police website: http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/pdfs/FF101.pdf
Unlike 'Section 2' shotguns, a 'Section 1' firearm must be required for a specific purpose (called 'Good Reason') and the police need to be satisfied that the applicant needs it and has good cause to want it for the specified purpose. If you cannot convince the police of your need, they do not have to grant the FAC.
A first FAC is usually restricted and the owner may only use his rifle on land specified or approved by the police for that calibre weapon. An experienced FAC holder may be granted an 'open licence' which means he can use the rifle anywhere he judges it to be safe and appropriate, within the law.
Another type of gun that is considered a 'Section 1' firearm is any shotgun with a barrel shorter than 24" or a semi-auto or pump-action gun with the capacity to hold more than two shells in the magazine, or any shotgun with a detachable magazine. Air rifles which exceed the 12ft/lb power output limit are considered 'Section 1' firearms.
Security for 'Section 1' firearms is similar to that for shotguns except that the police are more likely to insist on a monitored alarm and they also require ammunition to be locked securely (ideally in a separate section from the rifles).
In order to buy and sell 'Section 1' firearms, the police must grant permission in advance for each sale or transfer. Any ammunition purchased must be entered on the FAC by the seller and the amount of ammunition possessed is restricted and specified by the police.
When travelling with firearms, do not leave them unattended and whilst travelling, bolts, magazines and ammunition should be stowed separately from the rifle. Trigger locks and cable ties are also a wise precaution.
'Section 5' Prohibited Weapons
'Section 5' covers weapons that are prohibited unless special permission is granted by the Home Secretary. This section covers automatic weapons, military weapons and modern handguns. Specialist collectors and dealers are able to gain Section 5 authority but is will not be available to the vast majority of shooters and collectors. http://www.met.police.uk/firearms-enquiries/f_prohb2.htm provides full details of the list and restrictions.
In all honesty, its' not worth going through the hassle of buying a firearm in the UK.
Have you not noticed how piss-poor the UK has become in shooting competitions since the "knee-jerk" Dunblane response legislation was brought in. That's because our shooters have trouble even practising in this country.
Pussy countries have no right to participate in firearm competitions.
I have spoken.
Quote from: PDH on September 27, 2009, 05:14:10 PM
Pussy countries have no right to participate in firearm competitions.
I have spoken.
:D
Can that be "selectively pussy" at least, please.
Boy, Martinus is gonna be pissed that yet another film director fave-raved by the gay community thread got derailed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 05:19:09 PM
Boy, Martinus is gonna be pissed that yet another film director fave-raved by the gay community thread got derailed.
Virtually all Languish threads get derailed to a greater or lesser extent - why should threads about criminal film directors be any different? I would have thought he'd be used to it by now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
Speaking of avatars, yours sucks as well. Everyone knows the straight guy in it just hasn't had a chance to suck cock yet.
Why are the straight couple and the lesbian couple, choking each other out?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:43:52 PM
"Timmay" anime avatar...I am not worthy in myself... :cry:
You are covered in taint.
:x :x :x
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:43:52 PM
"Timmay" anime avatar...I am not worthy in myself... :cry:
You are covered in taint.
:x :x :x
I'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PM
I'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Hardly relevant.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 06:01:14 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PM
I'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Hardly relevant.
No? Well whatever you say. If "Timmay" has tainted me in the years I've known him via the internet bulletin boards, its a taint not related to anime.
Actually, if I have been tainted, its by all of you. A decade ago I would only post when I had something serious to say on a subject. Now it feels as if I am approaching the status of a spammer.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PMI'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Fuck you. I was into Speed Racer, Marine Boy and Kimba The White Lion back in 1974 with StarBlazers in the early '80s, but you don't see me walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack. Animetards like you give anime a worse name.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PMI'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Fuck you. I was into Speed Racer, Marine Boy and Kimba The White Lion back in 1974 with StarBlazers in the early '80s, but you don't see me walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack. Animetards like you give anime a worse name.
Nor do you see me in "walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack", for the record. :D
Tim is suprisingly old. 27 or something IIRC.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 06:43:58 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PMI'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Fuck you. I was into Speed Racer, Marine Boy and Kimba The White Lion back in 1974 with StarBlazers in the early '80s, but you don't see me walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack. Animetards like you give anime a worse name.
Indeed.
Anime- there's some pretty good stuff there. Its a medium not a genre afterall.
Anime fans- idiotic swine. How the hell can you have a fan of a medium? Its like proclaiming yourself to love all live action US film....
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 06:51:52 PM
Nor do you see me in "walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack", for the record. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_dnmPzxbBNyU%2FSQfkwLMTWKI%2FAAAAAAAAC1U%2FH7WJpMOB3mo%2Fs400%2Fgalaxy_quest_guy16.jpg&hash=f38c30c0bede5c48ca117725e5cb64e6a15c07ea)
"We don't know!"
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:54:18 PM
Tim is suprisingly old. 27 or something IIRC.
But he's retarded, so he's perpetually stuck at 11.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
This is retarded to arrest someone on a 30-year-old warrant, perhaps with the exception of stuff like genocide or war crimes. In fact, I don't think that would be even legal in Poland.
How long does an escaped convict have to avoid being captured in Poland before he/she is home free?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 06:55:56 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 06:51:52 PM
Nor do you see me in "walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack", for the record. :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_dnmPzxbBNyU%2FSQfkwLMTWKI%2FAAAAAAAAC1U%2FH7WJpMOB3mo%2Fs400%2Fgalaxy_quest_guy16.jpg&hash=f38c30c0bede5c48ca117725e5cb64e6a15c07ea)
"We don't know!"
Of course not - I'm not plastering the internet with pictures of me for crazies, or even worse, future employers, to see. :P
Trust me. The only connection I've ever had to anything furry was reading Sav's story.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:54:18 PM
Tim is suprisingly old. 27 or something IIRC.
I'm 34, approaching 35 far too fast... :(
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:54:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 06:43:58 PM
Fuck you. I was into Speed Racer, Marine Boy and Kimba The White Lion back in 1974 with StarBlazers in the early '80s, but you don't see me walking around in furry ears with a Hello Kitty backpack. Animetards like you give anime a worse name.
Indeed.
Anime- there's some pretty good stuff there. Its a medium not a genre afterall.
Anime fans- idiotic swine. How the hell can you have a fan of a medium? Its like proclaiming yourself to love all live action US film....
Good point. There is, of course, some pretty good stuff, a lot of average to mediocre stuff, and a proportion of generic crap. Most of the best anime I have viewed seem to have been based on Japanese novels (mainly of the "light" type) so you could say it's not even a particularly creative genre/medium.
I also agree that, given its breadth of subject matter, medium is probably a better term than genre. Still it's not completely correct as animation is the medium, with anime as a particular subset of it. I can't think of a word for something between a genre and a medium though.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:54:18 PM
Its like proclaiming yourself to love all live action US film....
Habsburg is going to beat the shit out of you. Insofar as he does that sort of thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 27, 2009, 04:39:51 PM
Get in line, buddy.
Speaking of avatars, yours sucks as well. Everyone knows the straight guy in it just hasn't had a chance to suck cock yet.
It was Marcin's price for peace after I made my avatar one of the shirtless pics he keeps sending me so I can tell him how thin and toned he is. Fireblade called him fat and he was depressed for two weeks.
Quote from: Jaron on September 27, 2009, 07:28:30 PMIt was Marcin's price for peace after I made my avatar one of the shirtless pics he keeps sending me so I can tell him how thin and toned he is. Fireblade called him fat and he was depressed for two weeks.
Jesus Christ, he's still trying to bang you after all these years. Even after AnchorClanker's fag buddy popped your ass cherry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 09:24:11 PM
Jesus Christ, he's still trying to bang you after all these years. Even after AnchorClanker's fag buddy popped your ass cherry.
I think TES did that to FB. Jaron is still a recluse.
Hey Jaron, you still dating Miss Moral Majority?
No, she DUMPED me.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:10:38 PM
Trust me. The only connection I've ever had to anything furry was reading Sav's story.
Not true. I remember some story thing at KAPland.
I must say that after reading reactions of Polish media and filmmaking circles (OMG HE IS A GREAT DIRECTOR HE SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE) and the Polish government (which, nb, on Friday announced its great success in combating pedophilia by adopting one of the most draconic anti-pedophilia laws in Europe, with penalties up to and including "chemical castration), which is now trying to get Polanski released, I am beginning to side with the people who say he should be brought to justice.
Fucking hypocrites.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 05:18:13 AM
I must say that after reading reactions of Polish media and filmmaking circles (OMG HE IS A GREAT DIRECTOR HE SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE) and the Polish government (which, nb, on Friday announced its great success in combating pedophilia by adopting one of the most draconic anti-pedophilia laws in Europe, with penalties up to and including "chemical castration), which is now trying to get Polanski released, I am beginning to side with the people who say he should be brought to justice.
Fucking hypocrites.
Oh, that's right, I forgot you were big on the kiddie-fucking, too.
No, he just finds it..provacative he can fit a childs entire foot inside his mouth and still have enough room to seal his lips around the ankle.
Fuck you, Jaron. It's not funny.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 06:12:33 AM
Fuck you, Jaron. It's not funny.
Well, it made ME laugh. ;)
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 05:31:48 AM
No, he just finds it..provacative he can fit a childs entire foot inside his mouth and still have enough room to seal his lips around the ankle.
:lol:
I'm not sure that should even count as molestation. Creepy and weird, yes, but a foot is not a sex organ.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 06:12:33 AM
Fuck you, Jaron. It's not funny.
Actually it was damn funny.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on September 28, 2009, 02:59:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:10:38 PM
Trust me. The only connection I've ever had to anything furry was reading Sav's story.
Not true. I remember some story thing at KAPland.
I don't. Who wrote it?
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 05:31:48 AM
No, he just finds it..provacative he can fit a childs entire foot inside his mouth and still have enough room to seal his lips around the ankle.
:lol:
QuoteFrance, Poland want Polanski released on bail
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER and ONNA CORAY, Associated Press Writers Bradley S. Klapper And Onna Coray, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 13 mins ago
ZURICH – The international tug-of-war over Roman Polanski escalated Monday as France and Poland urged Switzerland to free the 76-year-old director on bail and pressed U.S. officials all the way up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the case.
Polanski was in his third day of detention after Swiss police arrested him Saturday on an international warrant as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival.
A complicated legal process awaited all sides as the United States sought to secure his extradition for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl and fleeing to France a year later.
The Swiss Justice Ministry on Monday did not rule out the possibility that Polanski, director of such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," could be released on bail under very strict conditions that he doesn't flee Switzerland.
Justice spokesman Guido Balmer said such an arrangement is "not entirely excluded" under Swiss law and that Polanski could file a motion on bail.
In Paris, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he hoped Polanski could be quickly freed by the Swiss, calling the apprehension a "bit sinister." He also told France-Inter radio that he and his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski wrote to Clinton, and said there could be a decision as early as Monday if a Swiss court accepts bail.
Polanski was "thrown to the lions," said French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."
Polanski, who has dual French-Polish citizenship, has hired Swiss attorney Lorenz Erni to represent him in Switzerland, according to the law firm Eschmann & Erni.
Polanski seems most likely to spend several months in detention, unless he agrees to forgo any challenge to his extradition to the United States. Under a 1990 accord between Switzerland and the U.S., Washington has 60 days to submit a formal request for his transfer. Rulings in a similar dispute four years ago over Russia's former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov confirmed that subjects should be held in custody throughout the procedure.
That means the procedure for extradition could also be lengthy for the United States. Its request for Polanski's transfer must first be examined by the Swiss Justice Ministry, and once approved it can be appealed at a number of courts.
The 2005 saga over Adamov's extradition, eventually to Russia and not the U.S., took seven months. The case also sets a possible precedent for France, which may wish to try one of its own nationals in a domestic court rather than in Los Angeles.
For now, Polanski is living in a Zurich cell where he receives three meals a day and is allowed outside for one hour of daily exercise.
Rebecca de Silva, spokeswoman for the Zurich prison authorities, refused to say exactly where Polanski was being held for security reasons, but said cells are usually single or double occupancy and that each room contains a table, storage compartment, sink, toilet and television.
Family and friends can only see Polanski for an hour each week, but that does not include official visits from lawyers and consular diplomats, de Silva said.
The Justice Ministry insisted Sunday that politics played no role in its arrest order on Polanski, who lives in France but has spent much time at a chalet in the luxury Swiss resort of Gstaad. That has led to widespread speculation among his friends and even politicians in Switzerland that the neutral country was coerced by Washington into action.
Polanski's French lawyer Herve Temime told the daily Le Parisien that Polanski stayed in Gstaad for months this year.
"He came here, but I have no idea how frequently," said Toni von Gruenigen, deputy mayor of Saarnen, where the famously discreet community is located.
Von Gruenigen said he was unaware of any attempt to arrest Polanski in the town where Elizabeth Taylor, Roger Moore and Richard Burton have also sought refuge from pressures at home.
"He kept a low profile," von Gruenigen told The AP.
The U.S. has had an outstanding warrant on Polanski since 1978, but the Swiss said American authorities have sought the arrest of the director around the world only since 2005.
Polanski has asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges' refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.
His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.
Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles dismissed Polanski's bid to throw out the case because the director failed to appear in court but said there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case.
In his ruling, Espinoza said he reviewed not only legal documents, but also watched the HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which suggests there was behind-the-scenes manipulations by a now-retired prosecutor not assigned to the case.
Polanski has lived for the past three decades in France, where his career has continued to flourish; he received a directing Oscar in absentia for the 2002 movie "The Pianist." He is married to French actress Emanuelle Seigner, with whom he has two children.
He has avoided traveling to countries likely to extradite him. For instance, he testified by video link from Paris in a 2005 libel trial in London against Vanity Fair magazine. He did not want to enter Britain for fear of being arrested.
Balmer said the difference during Polanski's visit this time to Zurich was that authorities knew when and where he would arrive. The Alpine country does not perform regular passport checks anymore on arrivals from 24 other European countries.
Balmer also rejected any hint that the arrest was somehow aimed at winning favor with the U.S. after a series of bilateral spats over tax evasion and wealthy Americans stashing money at Swiss banking giant UBS AG.
"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming. That's why he was taken into custody," Balmer told The AP. "There is no link with any other issues."
Investigators in the U.S. learned of Polanski's planned trip days ago, giving them enough time to lay the groundwork for an arrest, said William Sorukas, chief of the U.S. Marshals Service's domestic investigations branch.
The arrest prompted angry criticism Monday from fellow filmmakers and actors across Europe.
"It seems inadmissible ... that an international cultural evening, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by police to apprehend him," says a petition circulating in France and signed by artists including Costa Gavras, Stefen Frears and Monica Bellucci.
Oscar-winning director Andrzej Wajda and other Polish filmmakers also appealed for the immediate release of Polanski, a native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child during World War II and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp.
Polanski has already "atoned for the sins of his young years," Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association, told The AP. "He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."
Wow, WTF is wrong with these people? It's disgusting how they stick up for an admitted pervert, and criticizing America for "being sneaky" while catching a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
And asking for bail was the final touch. I wonder what can go wrong (or right, in some people's minds) with granting bail to a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
Kinda reminds me of the Einhorn thing.
How did this girl look?
Everyone is yelling 'pervert!!!' and 'paedo!' and all that but she could well have looked 16.
Not a total defence of course but it negates things a little.
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2009, 09:23:13 AM
Wow, WTF is wrong with these people? It's disgusting how they stick up for an admitted pervert, and criticizing America for "being sneaky" while catching a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
And asking for bail was the final touch. I wonder what can go wrong (or right, in some people's minds) with granting bail to a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
Yep. Polanski had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing, right? This isn't even a case of expiring statue of limitations on a crime, is it? I'm just amazed at some of these outrages over Polanski being caught. And what is up with France not extraditing known and accused criminals?
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:48:49 AM
How did this girl look?
Everyone is yelling 'pervert!!!' and 'paedo!' and all that but she could well have looked 16.
Not a total defence of course but it negates things a little.
Well, the age of consent in California is 18. There is no fucking way you could confuse a 13 y.o. with a 18 y.o., and besides it's not like we have a case of two love struck teenagers here, but a 40 y.o. guy who should just know better and at least make damn sure she is of legal age before he fucks a girl that could be his daughter.
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 09:50:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2009, 09:23:13 AM
Wow, WTF is wrong with these people? It's disgusting how they stick up for an admitted pervert, and criticizing America for "being sneaky" while catching a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
And asking for bail was the final touch. I wonder what can go wrong (or right, in some people's minds) with granting bail to a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
Yep. Polanski had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing, right? This isn't even a case of expiring statue of limitations on a crime, is it? I'm just amazed at some of these outrages over Polanski being caught. And what is up with France not extraditing known and accused criminals?
He is a French citizen, isn't he? Most European countries do not extradite own citizens - in some it is expressly forbidden by their constitutions.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:48:49 AM
How did this girl look?
Everyone is yelling 'pervert!!!' and 'paedo!' and all that but she could well have looked 16.
Not a total defence of course but it negates things a little.
Well, the age of consent in California is 18. There is no fucking way you could confuse a 13 y.o. with a 18 y.o., and besides it's not like we have a case of two love struck teenagers here, but a 40 y.o. guy who should just know better and at least make damn sure she is of legal age before he fucks a girl that could be his daughter.
And then there are the accusations of drugging, which would make the age irrelevent.
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 05:31:48 AM
No, he just finds it..provacative he can fit a childs entire foot inside his mouth and still have enough room to seal his lips around the ankle.
:lmfao:
That is some funny shit right there.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 09:50:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2009, 09:23:13 AM
Wow, WTF is wrong with these people? It's disgusting how they stick up for an admitted pervert, and criticizing America for "being sneaky" while catching a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
And asking for bail was the final touch. I wonder what can go wrong (or right, in some people's minds) with granting bail to a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
Yep. Polanski had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing, right? This isn't even a case of expiring statue of limitations on a crime, is it? I'm just amazed at some of these outrages over Polanski being caught. And what is up with France not extraditing known and accused criminals?
He is a French citizen, isn't he? Most European countries do not extradite own citizens - in some it is expressly forbidden by their constitutions.
Did he become a French citizen after the crime? Which then I guess it could be argued how he was allowed to become a citizen with a felony hanging over him, depending on French laws which may or may not have allowed it.
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
depending on French laws which may or may not have allowed it.
That is some profound incite right there.
Makes your blood boil, does it?
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 09:50:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 28, 2009, 09:23:13 AM
Wow, WTF is wrong with these people? It's disgusting how they stick up for an admitted pervert, and criticizing America for "being sneaky" while catching a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
And asking for bail was the final touch. I wonder what can go wrong (or right, in some people's minds) with granting bail to a guy who was on the run for 30 years.
Yep. Polanski had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing, right? This isn't even a case of expiring statue of limitations on a crime, is it? I'm just amazed at some of these outrages over Polanski being caught. And what is up with France not extraditing known and accused criminals?
He is a French citizen, isn't he? Most European countries do not extradite own citizens - in some it is expressly forbidden by their constitutions.
Did he become a French citizen after the crime? Which then I guess it could be argued how he was allowed to become a citizen with a felony hanging over him, depending on French laws which may or may not have allowed it.
Well, the way such laws usually work, you just can't extradite own citizens, period. So while obvious French law can be different in this respect, I would bet on the timing of his crime vs. his citizenship being irrelevant.
Not to mention the US has no extradition treaty with France, so the point is moot anyway.
The Kinsey- Ponlanski story...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=17027 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=17027)
QuoteThomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.
Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.
Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."
The child "had practically begged him" – "to f--k her," he said. "So I f--ked a chick," he exclaimed. "So what?"
After the charges of raping the unconscious girl were established, and it was clear that Polanski would go to prison, he fled to England. When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting "I love young girls … very young girls."
But...but he seemed such a nice guy... :cry:
Doesnt France have an extradition treaty with the US?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 11:41:39 AM
Doesnt France have an extradition treaty with the US?
Nope. And again, a country that has a constitution banning extradition of own citizens would not normally be able to sign a treaty pursuant to which it citizens could be extradited. For example Poland, while it has an extradition treaty with the US, still couldn't extradite its own citizens to the US because our constitution prohibits that.
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Did he become a French citizen after the crime? Which then I guess it could be argued how he was allowed to become a citizen with a felony hanging over him, depending on French laws which may or may not have allowed it.
He was born in France
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 28, 2009, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 28, 2009, 11:18:00 AM
Did he become a French citizen after the crime? Which then I guess it could be argued how he was allowed to become a citizen with a felony hanging over him, depending on French laws which may or may not have allowed it.
He was born in France
Ok, I didn't know that. I thought maybe he had moved to France because of this case, in order to avoid prison. But obviously, given the lack of extradition between France and the US, of course he'd go there. This all reminded me of another case, of a man wanted for murder allegations who had moved to France and had some kind of celebrity. Like it was heroic for him, among certain circles, to avoid the law while allegations of murder hung over him.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 06:01:14 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:56:42 PM
I'm trying to remember how old "Timmay" is - I have a feeling he is younger than me, so there is a good chance my anime interests actually predate his.
Hardly relevant.
No? Well whatever you say. If "Timmay" has tainted me in the years I've known him via the internet bulletin boards, its a taint not related to anime.
Actually, if I have been tainted, its by all of you. A decade ago I would only post when I had something serious to say on a subject. Now it feels as if I am approaching the status of a spammer.
Your taste is quite evidently atrocious so I had nothing to do with it. Evangelion, seriously? The most overrated anime of all time, and Asuka's a stuck up bitch.
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 27, 2009, 10:48:48 AM
Well it was rape because she was underage (and this Does Not mitigate the crime in my eyes) not because he broke into her house and beat her and raped her. He made a really bad judgment gave a kid he knew some grass etc and had sex. He should have done time for those things. He's a creepy Uncle rapist not a predator.
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
I think on any 30 year old warrant there is pause to be given to make sure that after all this time, things are still wrapped up correctly. I'm not saying he shouldn't do time. But If it was something that was important to anyone they could have caught him any time they really wanted over the years. Why now?
Are US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Bah. too bad this isn't actually about the crime committed. I noticed too that Marc Emery is finally surrendering for extradition. Maybe it's more to do with USA flexing it's muscles in areas that they feel comfortable. Canada & Switzerland. Wow good job catching those guys who pled guilty.
I know Euros are Euros, but it still boggles the mind to see them defending this scumbag.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
I missed that quote. Also people who deny any harm being done to them usually don't accept undisclosed settlements.
QuoteAre US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Either that or there's this little issue of international law that prevents the FBI from arresting someone on the streets of Paris.
Whatever sentence he receives should have 3-5 years tacked on to it for inflicting The Ninth Gate on the world. :mad:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
Thankfully we do not allow that kind of evidence to mitigate the crime. What he did was violate a 13 year old. To the extent that she can tell herself that it wasnt so bad in order to cope with what happened is fine for her but it doesn diminish at all what he did.
Just because he has been able to hide out of the reach of the US for this long does not mean he should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 27, 2009, 10:48:48 AM
Well it was rape because she was underage (and this Does Not mitigate the crime in my eyes) not because he broke into her house and beat her and raped her. He made a really bad judgment gave a kid he knew some grass etc and had sex. He should have done time for those things. He's a creepy Uncle rapist not a predator.
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
She has to "live with" the undisclosed payout she got for her trouble. Whether or not the victim of rape thinks the criminal who has been convicted of the crime should be allowed to escape and live free is really rather uninteresting.
Anyway, the Swiss better not change their minds and release the dude else we'll be unleashing Fall Tannenbaum on their asses. :mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
Thankfully we do not allow that kind of evidence to mitigate the crime. What he did was violate a 13 year old. To the extent that she can tell herself that it wasnt so bad in order to cope with what happened is fine for her but it doesn diminish at all what he did.
Just because he has been able to hide out of the reach of the US for this long does not mean he should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions.
No it doesn't ... and it's not what I'm saying. (READ my posts and you will see where I specifically say it doesn't mitigate the crime... the oh no he's in France and therefore untouchable lie however should mitigate the retarded legal processes of the trial) I'm saying they could have caught him this same way a million times over the years and they didn't.
The whole thing is an exercise in melodrama. He'll likely live out the rest of his life either in a courtroom or a jail cell. And?
Chinatown is still one of the best movies ever made. That's all I care about.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 12:16:46 PM
Chinatown is still one of the best movies ever made. That's all I care about.
:mellow: Stalin really did a lot to modernize the USSR.
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 12:18:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 12:16:46 PM
Chinatown is still one of the best movies ever made. That's all I care about.
:mellow: Stalin really did a lot to modernize the USSR.
yeah pretty much the same thing. at least you had the good taste to go Stalin instead of Hitler.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 12:24:03 PM
yeah pretty much the same thing. at least you had the good taste to go Stalin instead of Hitler.
I intentionally avoided Hitler because I knew there would "LULZ thread has: jumped teh shark" and "all threds devolve 2 Hitler comparisons" if I did. -_-
Caliga is worse than Hitler. Hitler never asked a question about current events in a history thread.
And I bet Hitler used Eva instead of a mug.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Well, the age of consent in California is 18. There is no fucking way you could confuse a 13 y.o. with a 18 y.o., and besides it's not like we have a case of two love struck teenagers here, but a 40 y.o. guy who should just know better and at least make damn sure she is of legal age before he fucks a girl that could be his daughter.
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
The drugging thing though is indeed a factor.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
The day you convince others of your view and have the law changed is the day your personal belief as to the appropriate age of consent has any relevance to this thread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:52:30 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: Why Can't people crop their quotes properly? Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
The day you convince others of your view and have the law changed is the day your personal belief as to the appropriate age of consent has any relevance to this thread.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
Thankfully we do not allow that kind of evidence to mitigate the crime. What he did was violate a 13 year old. To the extent that she can tell herself that it wasnt so bad in order to cope with what happened is fine for her but it doesn diminish at all what he did.
Just because he has been able to hide out of the reach of the US for this long does not mean he should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions.
No it doesn't ... and it's not what I'm saying. (READ my posts and you will see where I specifically say it doesn't mitigate the crime... the oh no he's in France and therefore untouchable lie however should mitigate the retarded legal processes of the trial) I'm saying they could have caught him this same way a million times over the years and they didn't.
The whole thing is an exercise in melodrama. He'll likely live out the rest of his life either in a courtroom or a jail cell. And?
Chinatown is still one of the best movies ever made. That's all I care about.
I did read your post. And I read this one and I still dont fully understand the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that nothing is accomplished by sending him to jail? Are you suggesting his sentence should be reduced because he has not be apprehended all these years?
And as for being able to catch him a million times, do you have some actual knowledge about that or are you just assuming that since it has been so long that they must have had a million chances?
If you do have some knowledge as to how US authorities could have apprehended him a millions times then it would be interesting to know how that could have been done.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:52:30 PM
The day you convince others of your view and have the law changed is the day your personal belief as to the appropriate age of consent has any relevance to this thread.
Of course its relevant.
What else is there to say?
Most comments on the issue follow either:
'Yey the paedo is locked up'
or
'Oh no a great director is locked up based on something stupid in the 70s'
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:52:30 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: Why Can't people crop their quotes properly? Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
The day you convince others of your view and have the law changed is the day your personal belief as to the appropriate age of consent has any relevance to this thread.
I fixed it. :P
For the record, Chinatown = overrated.
Not a big fan of Chinatown either, but I think The Penis is excellent.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
:lmfao:
At least you avoided making a logical argument! Your emotional outbursts are much more fun (and comprehensible).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
For the record, Chinatown = overrated.
For the record, this is false.
Chinatown = one of the ten best films ever made.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 01:01:11 PM
Not a big fan of Chinatown either, but I think The Penis is excellent.
Disagree both about the film, and about your portrayal of Neil.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 11:58:05 AM
Your taste is quite evidently atrocious so I had nothing to do with it. Evangelion, seriously? The most overrated anime of all time, and Asuka's a stuck up bitch.
That's why she's so much fun...
Amyway, I seem to be able to get on the bad side of both sides of the anime debate, which is quite interesting.
As for Polanski.
Does a settlement mitigate the crime - no.
Does the length of time he has been on the run matter - no.
Does an accusation of malfeasance against a judge over a plea bargain matter - no, since as far as I am aware judges can ignore plea bargain agreements in the States, and also this is the first time I've heard the issue raised.
The really interesting question is why it appears that the Americans were not seriously looking for his extradition until 2005, if the article is to be believed. Can anyone think of any reason that the Americans would suddenly move this case off of the backburner in that year?
Quote from: grumbler on September 28, 2009, 01:14:25 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
:lmfao:
At least you avoided making a logical argument! Your emotional outbursts are much more fun (and comprehensible).
:unsure:
WTF?
I can't wait til they haul Polanski back here in chains.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 01:29:39 PM
The really interesting question is why it appears that the Americans were not seriously looking for his extradition until 2005, if the article is to be believed. Can anyone think of any reason that the Americans would suddenly move this case off of the backburner in that year?
Reasonable question. But if you factor in the "we don't extradite citizens" laws in France and Poland, plus the no-passport travel in Europe, it doesn't sound so conspiratorial anymore.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 10:20:54 AM
Well, the age of consent in California is 18. There is no fucking way you could confuse a 13 y.o. with a 18 y.o., and besides it's not like we have a case of two love struck teenagers here, but a 40 y.o. guy who should just know better and at least make damn sure she is of legal age before he fucks a girl that could be his daughter.
I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent and hope that no foreign government would take it seriously also.
The drugging thing though is indeed a factor.
I also think 18 is too high but this is the dumbest argument ever in the context of him actually fucking a 13 y.o. :D
Where is Grallon to argue that 13 years old is very mature and old enough to make decisions about who you are and are not drugged and sodomized by?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 01:45:40 PM
What are you grumbling about?
I'm confused at what on Earth Grumbler is muttering about.
Quote from: MartinusI also think 18 is too high but this is the dumbest argument ever in the context of him actually fucking a 13 y.o. :D
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
Well I think the entire thing is a clusterfuck. On one hand I think the amount of resources the US/California's prosecution is putting into arresting some old guy who had a sex with a 13 y.o. 30 years ago would be probably better spent elsewhere, especially as the Californian prisons are so heavily overcrowded, Californian courts actually ordered the state government to release inmates, and Polanski is clearly not a threat to anyone. On the other hand, the ridiculous hysterics European filmmakers are making over his arrest, demanding a diplomatic action etc. and essentially arguing he should not be tried because he is a great movie director is so retarded and ridiculous. And the stance of the Polish government, which on one hand passes a very restrictive anti-pedophilia law (which actually makes it a crime to advocate the so-called "good pedophilia") and at the same time defends the guy is disgustingly hypocritical and populist.
What is "good pedophilia" ? Like romantic pedophilia or what? like NAMBLA type stuff?
And I disagree with "no threat to anyone". He is clearly a threat if he did this horrible, life shattering thing to that girl and boasted about it afterwards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 01:29:39 PM
The really interesting question is why it appears that the Americans were not seriously looking for his extradition until 2005, if the article is to be believed. Can anyone think of any reason that the Americans would suddenly move this case off of the backburner in that year?
Reasonable question. But if you factor in the "we don't extradite citizens" laws in France and Poland, plus the no-passport travel in Europe, it doesn't sound so conspiratorial anymore.
Except for the fact that according to reports Polanski spends about two months of every year in Switzerland (he owns a house there) and has done so for many years. Does anyone know how long Switzerland and the USA have had an extradition treaty?
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 02:10:26 PM
What is "good pedophilia" ? Like romantic pedophilia or what? like NAMBLA type stuff?
And I disagree with "no threat to anyone". He is clearly a threat if he did this horrible, life shattering thing to that girl and boasted about it afterwards.
Yeah, NAMBLA and stuff. Essentially, arguing that there are types of sex with prepubescent children that could be not harmful.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
Well I do have some sympathy for the man. Growing up in the camps and then having your wife brutally murdered by a group of nutjobs is bound to take a toll. But what he did was illegal and rightfully so; we can't just give him a pass. The fact that he's a film director is utterly irrelevant.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 01:29:39 PM
The really interesting question is why it appears that the Americans were not seriously looking for his extradition until 2005, if the article is to be believed. Can anyone think of any reason that the Americans would suddenly move this case off of the backburner in that year?
Reasonable question. But if you factor in the "we don't extradite citizens" laws in France and Poland, plus the no-passport travel in Europe, it doesn't sound so conspiratorial anymore.
Except for the fact that according to reports Polanski spends about two months of every year in Switzerland (he owns a house there) and has done so for many years. Does anyone know how long Switzerland and the USA have had an extradition treaty?
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
Well I do have some sympathy for the man. Growing up in the camps and then having your wife brutally murdered by a group of nutjobs is bound to take a toll. But what he did was illegal and rightfully so; we can't just give him a pass. The fact that he's a film director is utterly irrelevant.
Actually a pregnant wife with his child in her wombs.
Those Swiss know how to play their cards then. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
Well I do have some sympathy for the man. Growing up in the camps and then having your wife brutally murdered by a group of nutjobs is bound to take a toll. But what he did was illegal and rightfully so; we can't just give him a pass. The fact that he's a film director is utterly irrelevant.
Actually a pregnant wife with his child in her wombs.
How many did she have? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on September 28, 2009, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
For the record, Chinatown = overrated.
For the record, this is false. Chinatown = one of the ten best films ever made.
I agree. I think he has done some very good films.
Off the top of my head I admire Tess, Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac, Knife in the Water and Rosemary's Baby.
But I think Chinatown's just on another level.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:06:17 PMespecially as the Californian prisons are so heavily overcrowded
I can't imagine he'll last long in there. How many butt rapes will he be able to take?
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
It's been suggested that this is true over here, as well. It makes a certain amount of logical sense, I must admit.
However, my question was why did the USA suddenly take this off of the backburner in 2005? I am just very curious as to what happened that year to make them so eager to get Polanski back after all that time.
Could be a general push against child sex criminals. I've heard of other cases in the last couple of years where "bad guys" had heat turned on them out of the blue.
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Not necessarily. The US does occasionally kidnap people and drag them to the US for trial.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
It's been suggested that this is true over here, as well. It makes a certain amount of logical sense, I must admit.
However, my question was why did the USA suddenly take this off of the backburner in 2005? I am just very curious as to what happened that year to make them so eager to get Polanski back after all that time.
My thoughts too.
My guess; someone saw The Pianist, read up on this guy and realised he was still on the run.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
It's been suggested that this is true over here, as well. It makes a certain amount of logical sense, I must admit.
However, my question was why did the USA suddenly take this off of the backburner in 2005? I am just very curious as to what happened that year to make them so eager to get Polanski back after all that time.
My thoughts too.
My guess; someone saw The Pianist, read up on this guy and realised he was still on the run.
Sorry, was that a serious suggestion?
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
You know there can be a very simple explanation as well. We often run into people here that have had outstanding warrants for years and year. They have been working, easy to find, if anyone had ever gone looking for them.
Then one day for some inoccuous reason they deal with a police officer, who runs their name and: wham. They are arrested for a years-old charge.
The EU-Swiss border is pretty loose. I don't think the Swiss ever ran our passport when we were just driving through. It may well be that Polanski just hadn't come to anyone's attention in Switzerland until now.
Quote from: Barrister on September 28, 2009, 02:39:39 PM
The EU-Swiss border is pretty loose. I don't think the Swiss ever ran our passport when we were just driving through. It may well be that Polanski just hadn't come to anyone's attention in Switzerland until now.
:yes: Despite it not being in the EU, I crossed into Switzerland from Italy without having my papers checked. I was kinda surprised by that myself.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
Yes they do, they've got a number of extradition treaties with the US. However according to those treaties extradition is at the discretion of both countries. So the French simply said 'no' to US requests.
QuoteSo a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
No.
QuoteThe EU-Swiss border is pretty loose. I don't think the Swiss ever ran our passport when we were just driving through. It may well be that Polanski just hadn't come to anyone's attention in Switzerland until now.
The Swiss are in Schengen. The Swiss-EU border is no more international than the Franco-German one :)
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
There's also a third train of thought, which is "The entire basis of legal systems is that law is not selectively enforced based on how much we like or don't like the accused."
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
Yes they do, they've got a number of extradition treaties with the US. However according to those treaties extradition is at the discretion of both countries. So the French simply said 'no' to US requests.
Why?
I think it was already mentioned briefly in this thread, but the French refused to extradite that dude Ira Einhorn for decades because IIRC they feared he'd be 'tortured' in the US justice system or something lame. Somehow the FBI tricked him and/or the French in order to nab his murdering ass.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 03:03:52 PM
Why?
Given that there's a diplomatic fuss now over this I imagine they just wanted to protect one of their prominent citizens. But I don't know.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
It's been suggested that this is true over here, as well. It makes a certain amount of logical sense, I must admit.
However, my question was why did the USA suddenly take this off of the backburner in 2005? I am just very curious as to what happened that year to make them so eager to get Polanski back after all that time.
Here is a good article in the online Globe&Mail with some explanations. According to the article the accord between the Swiss and the US was made in 1990 and it looks like this wasnt the only thing taken off the back burner in 2005.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/tug-of-war-over-polanski-escalates/article1303651/
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2009, 10:02:25 AM
Quotedrugs and alcohol to a 13-year-old girl and having unlawful sex with her at a photographic shoot at Jack Nicholson's Hollywood home.
Man, Jack knows how to party. Puts Charlie Sheen to shame.
I just noticed this:
Quote
Slept with: Margaret Trudeau (Canadian First Lady, wife of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau)
WTF? :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 02:49:07 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
As I said its just oppinion as is almost every other comment out there related to this case.
What we say doesn't matter anyway, its all just 'Yey, death to paedos' or 'Noooo Planski!!!!!'
There's also a third train of thought, which is "The entire basis of legal systems is that law is not selectively enforced based on how much we like or don't like the accused."
Silly Cal. You know better than to use logic here. <_<
Did Polanski get charged for child porn too, or was that part of his plea bargain? Or were the pictures he was taking not nude?
Quote from: Caliga on September 28, 2009, 02:42:39 PM
:yes: Despite it not being in the EU, I crossed into Switzerland from Italy without having my papers checked. I was kinda surprised by that myself.
Yeah as Sheilbh said Switzerland is in Schengen now. It is a not really an international border anymore. In the Geneva area at least I have not seen a single person manning the border crosses with France in months. Even Geneva's public transportation system extends into France.
The funniest part is that at the Hyper Champion (grocery store though it is more like the French version of Walmart) in Ferney (in France), you always see tons of Swiss plates in the parking lot because food is cheaper in France. It really is like there is no border. It no different from most of the borders in the EU, except for the currency difference. I cross the border almost everyday (live in France - work in Switzerland), and I have never once had my passport checked.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 28, 2009, 03:23:08 PM
I just noticed this:
Quote
Slept with: Margaret Trudeau (Canadian First Lady, wife of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau)
WTF? :lol:
Good old Maggie. She slept with just about
everyone in the 1970s. :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
And the stance of the Polish government, which on one hand passes a very restrictive anti-pedophilia law (which actually makes it a crime to advocate the so-called "good pedophilia") and at the same time defends the guy is disgustingly hypocritical and populist.
Actually I saw Tusk statement and he was rather reserved about this. Basically said that Polanski should get the same help as every Polish citizen in the same circumstances. It seems Radek Sikorski acted a bit over-zealously on his own.
Quote from: Sahib on September 28, 2009, 04:27:23 PM
Actually I saw Tusk statement and he was rather reserved about this. Basically said that Polanski should get the same help as every Polish citizen in the same circumstances. It seems Radek Sikorski acted a bit over-zealously on his own.
About time. I guess somebody reminded Poles that Polanski is Jewish.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:48:49 AM
How did this girl look?
Everyone is yelling 'pervert!!!' and 'paedo!' and all that but she could well have looked 16.
Not a total defence of course but it negates things a little.
He knew her age, if that's what you're asking.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
I think on any 30 year old warrant there is pause to be given to make sure that after all this time, things are still wrapped up correctly. I'm not saying he shouldn't do time. But If it was something that was important to anyone they could have caught him any time they really wanted over the years. Why now?
Are US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Bah. too bad this isn't actually about the crime committed. I noticed too that Marc Emery is finally surrendering for extradition. Maybe it's more to do with USA flexing it's muscles in areas that they feel comfortable. Canada & Switzerland. Wow good job catching those guys who pled guilty.
So you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
Maybe it could have been done sooner. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the reality is that he did the crime and should pay the time. I feel for the child/woman, but as you said, she's going to have to live with this forever regardless of what happens.
Lets not forget that Buddha is bisexual (quote/unquote) and probably a pervert himself. He probably sees part of himself in Polanski.
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
She didn't deny it in the 1970s. You know, when she was a rape victim.
QuoteAre US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
What are they supposed to do? Invade?
Stop defending kiddiefuckers.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Part of the deal was to keep Gore Vidal over there.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
and essentially arguing he should not be tried because he is a great movie director is so retarded and ridiculous.
It's especially retarded and ridiculous, what with him already being tried. He accepted a plea bargain.
He skipped out on his sentencing, remember.
Of course, I expected this flurry of nonsense from France, land of Gerard "Yeah, we had gang bang rapes when I was younger" Depardieu. The French have always had a soft spot for all types of love. Even kiddiebanging.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2009, 06:39:31 AM
I'm not sure that should even count as molestation. Creepy and weird, yes, but a foot is not a sex organ.
Doesn't always have to involve a sex organ.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2009, 05:44:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:06:17 PM
and essentially arguing he should not be tried because he is a great movie director is so retarded and ridiculous.
It's especially retarded and ridiculous, what with him already being tried. He accepted a plea bargain.
He skipped out on his sentencing, remember.
Of course, I expected this flurry of nonsense from France, land of Gerard "Yeah, we had gang bang rapes when I was younger" Depardieu. The French have always had a soft spot for all types of love. Even kiddiebanging.
To be fair, Depardieu says that was a mistranslation of what he said, and even if it wasn't, he was only nine. Not quite old enough to hold accountable.
He's a dick for any number of other reasons - basically a talented thug - but the gang rape is questionable.
QuoteRoman Polanski's Arrest: Why the French Are Outraged
By BRUCE CRUMLEY
Although the cultural divide between Europe and the U.S. has narrowed over the years, the legal fate of director Roman Polanski shows there are still major differences. Polanski's arrest in Switzerland on Sept. 26 was greeted with satisfaction in the U.S., where authorities hope he will face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Europeans, meanwhile, are shocked and dismayed that an internationally acclaimed artist could be jailed for such an old offense.
"To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history - and as he was traveling to an event honoring him - is absolutely horrifying," French Culture Minister FrÉdÉric Mitterrand said after Polanski was arrested upon arrival in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to receive a lifetime achievement award. "There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face." In comments that appeared to be directed at Swiss and American authorities to free Polanski, Mitterrand added that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy hoped for a "rapid resolution to the situation which would allow Roman Polanski to rejoin his family as quickly as possible." (See the top 25 crimes of the century.)
Polanski, who won an Academy Award in 2003 for directing The Pianist, admitted to having unlawful sexual intercourse with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer as part of a plea bargain in which other charges - including drugging and raping the girl - were dropped. However, fearful that the Los Angeles judge in the case was about to renege on the deal and slap him with a long prison sentence, Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978 and never returned. He has spent the past 30 years in France, where he has raised a family and continued his career unhindered. That is, until Saturday. Swiss police seized Polanski on an international warrant issued by U.S. authorities in 2005 and, under bilateral treaties, will now extradite him to the U.S. unless barred from doing so by Swiss courts. (Read "Redeeming Roman Polanski.")
France never complied with the arrest warrant because its laws prohibit the extradition of its citizens to other countries. At the same time, many people in France have over the years downplayed the gravity of Polanski's crime because of his immense talent and artistry as a director. The 76-year-old, who was born in France, has increasingly been seen as the victim of an obsessive U.S. justice system that is ready to pluck him up and drag him off to prison at any moment. Those feelings were reinforced by the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, in which filmmaker Marina Zenovich argues that the judge and prosecutor in the case may have engaged in legal misconduct in obtaining Polanski's guilty plea. The film also contains an appeal by Geimer, the victim, for Polanski to be pardoned - leaving his European supporters perplexed as to why U.S. officials wouldn't finally close the book on him. (Read "More Sex, Please, We're French.")
"The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people, which just isn't an option in the U.S.," says Ted Stanger, an author and longtime resident of France who has written extensively on the differing public views and attitudes across the Atlantic. "The French in particular, and Europeans in general, don't understand why it isn't possible for American officials to intervene and say, 'Hey, it's been over 30 years and things look a little different now. Let's just forget this thing.' "
Indeed, police in other European countries have turned a blind eye to Polanski's travel across the continent for work and pleasure over the years. The director has even made frequent visits to Switzerland in the past without any problem. His supporters claim that Swiss authorities finally caved in to U.S. pressure to nab the director. But Swiss and U.S. justice officials say they knew where he would be thanks to press releases by the Zurich Film Festival touting his presence to accept the award. "There was a valid arrest request, and we knew when he was coming. That's why he was taken into custody," says Guido Balmer, spokesman for Switzerland's Justice Ministry. Adds Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office: "It wasn't a big secret that he was going to be in Zurich - they had announced it on the Internet."
As Polanski's fans across Europe decry his detention, his lawyers say they're filing appeals of both his arrest and eventual transfer to the U.S. "To the French mind, this has made Polanski a combination of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus - the victim of systematic persecution," Stanger says. "To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law." That's a perception gap as wide as the Atlantic.
Quote from: citizen k on September 28, 2009, 08:15:31 PM
Quote
"To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history - and as he was traveling to an event honoring him - is absolutely horrifying,"
Isn't Nazi hunting because of ancient history?
Quote"The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people,
Pretty funny from the country that coined
"Libertie, Fraternitie, Egalitie".
Lolita fuckery > Bourbons
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:00:27 PM
I'm confused at what on Earth Grumbler is muttering about
I wasn't
muttering, I was
spluttering... with laughter. :lol:
I mean, it is a logical argument to say that "an age of 18 consent law is unrealistic." It is pure emotional hyperbole to say that "I have absolutely no respect for a 18 age of consent." I merely noted that you forwent the former in favor of the latter, and noted that it amuses me when you do this.
Hey grumbler, you work around a ton of uniformed Lolita schoolgirls...you ever feel...you know...Polanski? Romantic?
If you are a male with any kind of sense, these "Lolitas" kill the fantasy the moment they open their fucking mouths and start talking.
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
If you are a male with any kind of sense, these "Lolitas" kill the fantasy the moment they open their fucking mouths and start talking.
THATS NOT THE POINT
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
So you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
You're gonna get shit from the Euros for this. To them, anyone over 4 years old is not a child.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2009, 08:41:35 PM
Hey grumbler, you work around a ton of uniformed Lolita schoolgirls...you ever feel...you know...Polanski? Romantic?
No, I don't. I worried that I would when I started teaching in the high school, but never did. I just don't think of my female students (even the good-looking ones) in anything like that way. If I was younger it might be an issue, both because I was hornier when I was younger, and because I would have more in common with them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2009, 05:44:26 PM
It's especially retarded and ridiculous, what with him already being tried. He accepted a plea bargain.
He skipped out on his sentencing, remember.
I missed most the thread, but I agree with this.
He submitted to the jurisdiction, he voluntarily entered a plea. To the extent that his flight has deprived him of repose, it is entirely a problem of his own making. To complain about the time that has passed when his own unlawful action is the sole cause of that lapse in time is an act of supreme chutzpah.
The criminal justice system often acts disproportionately or unfairly against people. but this is not one of those instances.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Why would I ask him - I have a fine example right here of a convicted child rapist who France apparently thinks should not be punished for raping a 13 year old girl. Is there something Seedy can tell me that will make that seem acceptable?
Is raping a 13-year old actually a big deal anymore?
Yea, finally I agree with Minsky Joan on something :)
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Why would I ask him - I have a fine example right here of a convicted child rapist who France apparently thinks should not be punished for raping a 13 year old girl. Is there something Seedy can tell me that will make that seem acceptable?
No I guess not. I don't really give a shit about Polanski, and I never quite understood why nobody, anywhere, ever sent him to the States. On top of that his movies are terrible. The Pianist sucked.
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
Well he did plea to, and thus was convicted for, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That's pretty close to rape.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Why would I ask him - I have a fine example right here of a convicted child rapist who France apparently thinks should not be punished for raping a 13 year old girl. Is there something Seedy can tell me that will make that seem acceptable?
No I guess not. I don't really give a shit about Polanski, and I never quite understood why nobody, anywhere, ever sent him to the States. On top of that his movies are terrible. The Pianist sucked.
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
OK, a confessed child rapist.
I think Salon has the ultimate piece on this:
QuoteReminder: Roman Polanski raped a child
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.
The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski "as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge." Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and "was utterly charmed by [his] sobriety and intelligence," also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies." Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence."
Wow, OK, let's break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, "Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It's now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn't like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn't count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn't 14." Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There's that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she'd been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story -- most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on "she wanted it" grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it's much safer to focus on the victim's age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny "he said, she said" stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.
Second, Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)
As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.
QuoteThere is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.
But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?
Granted, Roman Polanski has indeed suffered a great deal in his life, which is where Applebaum takes her line of argument next:
QuoteHe can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland.
Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an "understandable fear of irrational punishment," but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment. Applebaum then points out that Polanski was a suspect in the murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, a crime actually committed by the Manson family -- but again, that was the unfortunate consequence of a perfectly rational justice system. Most murdered pregnant women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, so that suspicion was neither personal nor unwarranted. This isn't Kafkaesque stuff.
But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?
In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.
Roman Polanski raped a child. No one, not even him, disputes that. Regardless of whatever legal misconduct might have gone on during his trial, the man admitted to unlawful sex with a minor. But the Polanski apologism we're seeing now has been heating up since "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the 2008 documentary about Polanski's fight to get the conviction dismissed. Writing in Salon, Bill Wyman criticized the documentary's whitewashing of Polanksi's crimes last February, after Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if the director wanted to challenge the conviction, he'd need to turn himself in to U.S. authorities and let the justice system sort it out. "Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case ... Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed."
The reporting on Polanski's arrest has been every bit as "bizarrely skewed," if not more so. Roman Polanski may be a great director, an old man, a husband, a father, a friend to many powerful people, and even the target of some questionable legal shenanigans. He may very well be no threat to society at this point. He may even be a good person on balance, whatever that means. But none of that changes the basic, undisputed fact: Roman Polanski raped a child. And rushing past that point to focus on the reasons why we should forgive him, pity him, respect him, admire him, support him, whatever, is absolutely twisted.
― Kate Harding
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2009, 10:51:03 PMWell he did plea to, and thus was convicted for, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That's pretty close to rape.
It was a plea bargain - which I don't know about, I don't think we have them in the UK - so apparently he either gets that deal (the prosecutor wanted 40 days, the judge was unhappy with that) or he can withdraw his plea and have a trial again.
I'd warn against the section in the Salon article in which the reactions of the French press are discovered via the English press because, well, it involves trusting the English press.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:15:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
So a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
Yes, especially if the crime was committed in the US.
:yawn:
Ask Seedy if we're uncooperative about police work.
Why would I ask him - I have a fine example right here of a convicted child rapist who France apparently thinks should not be punished for raping a 13 year old girl. Is there something Seedy can tell me that will make that seem acceptable?
No I guess not. I don't really give a shit about Polanski, and I never quite understood why nobody, anywhere, ever sent him to the States. On top of that his movies are terrible. The Pianist sucked.
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
He plead guilty to illegal sex with a minor. I think that makes him a convicted child rapist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:01:46 AM
I'd warn against the section in the Salon article in which the reactions of the French press are discovered via the English press because, well, it involves trusting the English press.
Quoted for truth. Trusting British press is just a bit more advisable than trusting tin-hat wearing psywar operatives with an innate hate of everything French other than Alsace-Lorraine (that's Elsass-Lothringen for you).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:01:46 AM
It was a plea bargain - which I don't know about, I don't think we have them in the UK - so apparently he either gets that deal (the prosecutor wanted 40 days, the judge was unhappy with that) or he can withdraw his plea and have a trial again.
I cant claim to much knowledge about Cal state criminal procedure in the mid-70s, but my understanding is that the plea was formally entered, and he was ordered to undergo an evaluation for sentencing. The way pleas usually work is that the prosecutor makes their sentencing recommendation but the judge decides. If the judge decides a heavier sentence than the recommendation you can not revoke your plea. It would be very unusual to be able to revoke your plea at or in connection with sentencing (again Cal state rules at this time might have differed from this).
It does seem that Polanski got fairly favorable treatment that your garden variety sex offender wouldn't ordinarily get: not only did the deal allow him to plea to a lesser offense, but he was given very permissive bail conditions - conditions which facilitated his flight from the jurisdiction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 12:01:46 AM
It was a plea bargain - which I don't know about, I don't think we have them in the UK - so apparently he either gets that deal (the prosecutor wanted 40 days, the judge was unhappy with that) or he can withdraw his plea and have a trial again.
When you plea, you are agreeing to be convicted of that lesser offense...at least I think.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 12:18:18 AMI cant claim to much knowledge about Cal state criminal procedure in the mid-70s, but my understanding is that the plea was formally entered, and he was ordered to undergo an evaluation for sentencing. The way pleas usually work is that the prosecutor makes their sentencing recommendation but the judge decides. If the judge decides a heavier sentence than the recommendation you can not revoke your plea. It would be very unusual to be able to revoke your plea at or in connection with sentencing (again Cal state rules at this time might have differed from this).
It's just something I heard on a US news channel. It sounds sort-of fair to me, but I'm not really clear on the whole plea bargain thing, so I've no idea.
Quote from: Barrister on September 28, 2009, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
There is a conspiracy theory put forth here that the extradition is a way of the Swiss to get into the US good graces in exchange of not being grilled too much over the banking secrecy thing.
You know there can be a very simple explanation as well. We often run into people here that have had outstanding warrants for years and year. They have been working, easy to find, if anyone had ever gone looking for them.
Then one day for some inoccuous reason they deal with a police officer, who runs their name and: wham. They are arrested for a years-old charge.
The EU-Swiss border is pretty loose. I don't think the Swiss ever ran our passport when we were just driving through. It may well be that Polanski just hadn't come to anyone's attention in Switzerland until now.
Dude, he has a second home there, and it's not like he is a Joe Nobody.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:25:44 PM
So France does not extradite citizens?
Yes they do, they've got a number of extradition treaties with the US. However according to those treaties extradition is at the discretion of both countries. So the French simply said 'no' to US requests.
QuoteSo a French person can go outside France, commit some crime, then go back to France and be secure in the knowledge that he is safe from prosecution?
No.
QuoteThe EU-Swiss border is pretty loose. I don't think the Swiss ever ran our passport when we were just driving through. It may well be that Polanski just hadn't come to anyone's attention in Switzerland until now.
The Swiss are in Schengen. The Swiss-EU border is no more international than the Franco-German one :)
I think you are wrong on a couple of things there but CBA to check.
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
I think on any 30 year old warrant there is pause to be given to make sure that after all this time, things are still wrapped up correctly. I'm not saying he shouldn't do time. But If it was something that was important to anyone they could have caught him any time they really wanted over the years. Why now?
Are US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Bah. too bad this isn't actually about the crime committed. I noticed too that Marc Emery is finally surrendering for extradition. Maybe it's more to do with USA flexing it's muscles in areas that they feel comfortable. Canada & Switzerland. Wow good job catching those guys who pled guilty.
So you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
Maybe it could have been done sooner. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the reality is that he did the crime and should pay the time. I feel for the child/woman, but as you said, she's going to have to live with this forever regardless of what happens.
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
Quote from: citizen k on September 28, 2009, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: citizen k on September 28, 2009, 08:15:31 PM
Quote
"To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history - and as he was traveling to an event honoring him - is absolutely horrifying,"
Isn't Nazi hunting because of ancient history?
I don't think the French are big on nazi hunting either. After all, didn't they just nab some prominent nazi collaborator few years ago, and at the time he was living a respectable life in France?
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 28, 2009, 11:05:52 PM
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
Did he actually do it? I thought it was "consensual"? Ok if that is true, that would change my view quite a bit.
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2009, 10:51:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
Well he did plea to, and thus was convicted for, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That's pretty close to rape.
I thought he was not convicted, but fled after he plead guilty. I may be wrong on the facts of the case, but that was my impression.
And considering a confession to be tantamount to a conviction has been looked down upon since, at least, the Spanish Inquisition. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 28, 2009, 10:51:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
But anyways. You said he was a convicted child rapist, I think that's technically incorrect. :P (the convicted part)
Well he did plea to, and thus was convicted for, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. That's pretty close to rape.
I thought he was not convicted, but fled after he plead guilty. I may be wrong on the facts of the case, but that was my impression.
Don't you have to be convicted before you are sentenced and it was his sentencing that he skipped out on?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:08:00 AM
Did he actually do it? I thought it was "consensual"? Ok if that is true, that would change my view quite a bit.
:frusty:
Quote from: citizen k on September 29, 2009, 02:43:24 AM
:frusty:
You don't see a difference between forcible rape and statuatory rape?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 02:50:01 AM
Quote from: citizen k on September 29, 2009, 02:43:24 AM
:frusty:
You don't see a difference between forcible rape and statuatory rape?
Of course. I thought that's why this case stirred such passions. I don't think you'd get near the publicity if this was just a case of statutory rape.
Ah. I think one reason the issue is so confused is people attacking Polanski keep bringing up that he gave the girl drugs. That makes it sound like she then acquiesced. If the account Hans just gave is accurate, the drugs weren't important at all.
Anyway, I understand the victim does not want to testify against him. Doesn't this significantly reduce the chance of the prosecution getting conviction?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AMWell it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
:lol:
Oh, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:56:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AMWell it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
:lol:
Oh, man.
LOL what? Compared to what the European artists are saying, my opinion would be viewed as a Yanqui-pigdog-nazi-style hate speech against a great director.
QuotePARIS, France (CNN) -- Filmmaker Roman Polanski, arrested in Switzerland over the weekend, will fight extradition to the United States where he faces sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, his California lawyers said Monday.
"An issue related to the Swiss extradition matter is presently being litigated before the California Court of Appeal," attorneys Douglas Dalton and Chad Hummel said in a prepared statement. Separate legal counsel will represent Polanksi in any legal proceedings in Switzerland, they added.
Meanwhile, prosecutors in Los Angeles, California, released a detailed timeline of the Polanski case, which dates to 1977. It indicated that prosecutors had tried to have Polanski arrested and extradited from Israel in 2007.
It also shows that prosecutors obtained a "provisional arrest warrant" upon learning on September 22 that Polanski planned to travel to Switzerland to participate in a film festival.
The warrant was obtained through the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs, and Swiss authorities executed it on Saturday.
The DA's timeline revealed that multiple attempts have been made over the years to take Polanski into custody for extradition. Those attempts involved Polanski's planned travels to England, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil and Israel.
Earlier on Monday, French authorities expressed solidarity with Roman Polanski's family and outrage over the arrest.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he hoped authorities would respect Polanski's rights "and that the affair (will) come to a favorable resolution," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The French culture and communications minister, Frederic Mitterrand, said he "learned with astonishment" of Polanski's arrest. He expressed solidarity with Polanski's family and said "he wants to remind everyone that Roman Polanski benefits from great general esteem" and has "exceptional artistic creation and human qualities."
Investigators in the United States say Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s. Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, but he fled the United States before he could be sentenced. He settled in France.
U.S. authorities have had a warrant for his arrest since 1978. Police in Switzerland arrested Polanski on that warrant Saturday after the 76-year-old tried to enter Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, which is holding a tribute to Polanski this year.
Filmmakers have reacted with outrage at the arrest.
"As a Swiss filmmaker, I feel deeply ashamed," Christian Frei said.
"He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland," said photographer Otto Weisser, a friend of Polanski.
The Polish Filmmakers Association posted a letter on its Web site Monday from the European Film Academy secretariat that protested "the arbitrary treatment of one of the world's most outstanding film directors."
The letter, which was read aloud at the festival, was signed by directors Wim Wenders, Volker Schloendorff and Bertrand Tavernier; actress Victoria Abril; cinematographer Peter Suschitzky; and screenwriter and actor Jean-Claude Carriere.
Mitterrand said he has spoken with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and that Sarkozy "shares his hope for a rapid resolution to the situation which would allow Roman Polanski to rejoin his family as quickly as possible."
Mitterrand said he "greatly regrets that Mr. Polanski has had yet another difficulty added to an already turbulent existence."
Polanski won an Academy Award for best director in 2003 for "The Pianist." He was nominated for best director Oscars for "Tess" and "Chinatown" and for best writing for "Rosemary's Baby," which he also directed.
A spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was arrested upon arrival at the airport.
A provisional arrest warrant was issued last week out of Los Angeles, California, after authorities learned he was going to be in Switzerland, Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, told CNN on Sunday.
There have been repeated attempts to settle the case over the years, but the sticking point has always been Polanski's refusal to return to attend hearings. Prosecutors have consistently argued that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow a man to go free who "drugged and raped a 13-year-old child."
The Swiss Justice Ministry said Polanski was put "in provisional detention." But whether he can be extradited to the United States "can be established only after the extradition process judicially has been finalized," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer said in an e-mail.
Gibbons said the extradition process will be determined in Switzerland, but said authorities are ready to move forward with Polanski's sentencing process, depending on what happens in Zurich.
Polanski was accused of plying the then-teenage girl, Samantha Geimer, with champagne and a sliver of a Quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house. He was 43 at the time.
Nicholson was not at home, but his girlfriend at the time, actress Anjelica Huston, was there.
She said Polanski did not strike her as the type of man who would force himself on a young girl.
"I don't think he's a bad man," she said in a probation report. "I think he's an unhappy man."
Polanski's lawyers tried this year to have the charges thrown out, but a judge in Los Angeles rejected the request. However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza left the door open to reconsider his ruling if Polanski shows up in court.
According to court documents, Polanski, his lawyer and the prosecutor thought they'd worked out a deal that would spare Polanski from prison and let the teen avoid a public trial.
But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.
Polanski fled the United States for France, where he was born.
In the February 2009 hearing, Espinoza mentioned a documentary film, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," that depicts backroom deals between prosecutors and a media-obsessed judge who was worried his public image would suffer if he didn't send Polanski to prison.
"It's hard to contest some of the behavior in the documentary was misconduct," Espinoza said. But he declined to dismiss the case entirely.
Geimer is among those calling for the case to be tossed out. She filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim."
Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:56:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AMWell it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
:lol:
Oh, man.
Seedy, did you know that it's less of a crime to kill whores since, you know, they're filthy whores and all? I'd only count them as like half of a person for sentencing purposes. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
Since she wasn't a virgin, that makes it all okay? Because her mother let her go, that makes it all okay?
Read this then tell me he didn't drug and rape a child:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html)
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
I think on any 30 year old warrant there is pause to be given to make sure that after all this time, things are still wrapped up correctly. I'm not saying he shouldn't do time. But If it was something that was important to anyone they could have caught him any time they really wanted over the years. Why now?
Are US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Bah. too bad this isn't actually about the crime committed. I noticed too that Marc Emery is finally surrendering for extradition. Maybe it's more to do with USA flexing it's muscles in areas that they feel comfortable. Canada & Switzerland. Wow good job catching those guys who pled guilty.
So you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
Maybe it could have been done sooner. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the reality is that he did the crime and should pay the time. I feel for the child/woman, but as you said, she's going to have to live with this forever regardless of what happens.
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
What load of horseshit.
The girl told him "no" over and over again, he raped her. It doesn't matter what her mom thought, or whether she was a virgin (she was), or anything else.
Jesus, I cannot believe people will actually try to justify and excuse someone drugging a raping a child. Well, I guess it is Marty, but still.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 04:40:09 AM
Anyway, I understand the victim does not want to testify against him. Doesn't this significantly reduce the chance of the prosecution getting conviction?
Not really, since they already have a conviction.
You sure you are a lawyer?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction.
From what I've read, that's pretty well exactly what he did - drugged and forcibly sodomized a 13 year old child.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 03:05:38 AM
Ah. I think one reason the issue is so confused is people attacking Polanski keep bringing up that he gave the girl drugs. That makes it sound like she then acquiesced. If the account Hans just gave is accurate, the drugs weren't important at all.
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible. Presumably he was drugging her so that she would not resist. She did anyway, and he fucked her in spite of her resistance (at least, according to her deposition, which hasn't really been challenged).
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 03:05:38 AM
Ah. I think one reason the issue is so confused is people attacking Polanski keep bringing up that he gave the girl drugs. That makes it sound like she then acquiesced. If the account Hans just gave is accurate, the drugs weren't important at all.
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible. Presumably he was drugging her so that she would not resist. She did anyway, and he fucked her in spite of her resistance (at least, according to her deposition, which hasn't really been challenged).
I think I will go with the word of the 13 year old victim over the owrd of the 40 year old piece of human refuse admitted rapist and fugitive.
Of course, she hasn't made any wonderful movies, so maybe that is crazy on my part.
I think the comment from the French official about how this illustrates the "two sides of America" was pretty ironic, since from here it indicates exactly the same thing about France.
Seems like a nice country...that harbors kiddy rapists.
I wish I could say that this was a case of "the usual suspects" on Languish talking "their usual schtick" but I really wonder if Marti has thought through the implications of his apparent belief that raping non-virgins isn't an offense to be outraged over, and that the tacit consent of mother converts a rape into something we shouldn't be concerned about.
I echo the sentiment: "Marti, are you sure you still want to claim you are a lawyer?"
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:11:44 AM
I think the comment from the French official about how this illustrates the "two sides of America" was pretty ironic, since from here it indicates exactly the same thing about France.
Seems like a nice country...that harbors kiddy rapists.
Good point.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:11:44 AM
I think the comment from the French official about how this illustrates the "two sides of America" was pretty ironic, since from here it indicates exactly the same thing about France.
Seems like a nice country...that harbors kiddy rapists.
I am suddenly very uncomfortable with the way this thread is going.
I mean surely there is somebody in France glad to see that rapist dude arrested.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 08:20:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:11:44 AM
I think the comment from the French official about how this illustrates the "two sides of America" was pretty ironic, since from here it indicates exactly the same thing about France.
Seems like a nice country...that harbors kiddy rapists.
I am suddenly very uncomfortable with the way this thread is going.
I mean surely there is somebody in France glad to see that rapist dude arrested.
I have no idea what the average person there thinks of the matter. So far, all I've heard is the articles written by film types and politicians - who seem to shrug it off as a mild misdeed in his past and an example of American hysteria over sex.
To my mind, such a reaction is frankly bizzare. It is true that we in North America have greater hang-ups about sex and sexual misconduct - whenever a public figure is caught with his (or her) pants down, it ignites a shit-storm. But that is over sex that is
consentual. It isn't a "hang up' to have strong dissaproval of, and prosecution of, sex that is
non-consentual.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible.
I really don't see that. It's kind of like saying purposefully running someone over in a stolen car is worse than doing it in your own car.
She knew she was taking the drugs. If they had actually had the intended effect of making her open to sex with him, that would have been a considerably lesser offense than what ended up happening.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:30:01 AM
I have no idea what the average person there thinks of the matter. So far, all I've heard is the articles written by film types and politicians - who seem to shrug it off as a mild misdeed in his past and an example of American hysteria over sex.
To my mind, such a reaction is frankly bizzare. It is true that we in North America have greater hang-ups about sex and sexual misconduct - whenever a public figure is caught with his (or her) pants down, it ignites a shit-storm. But that is over sex that is consentual. It isn't a "hang up' to have strong dissaproval of, and prosecution of, sex that is non-consentual.
Precisely. I just do not get it. It is not like we are tracking him down for something he didn't do or something that would not also be illegal in France or whatever so the comparisons with Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus are bizarre.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible.
I really don't see that. It's kind of like saying purposefully running someone over in a stolen car is worse than doing it in your own car.
She knew she was taking the drugs. If they had actually had the intended effect of making her open to sex with him, that would have been a considerably lesser offense than what ended up happening.
I disagree. Giving illegal drugs (and booze) to minors is an offence unto itself - for one, exactly because it is sometimes used as a tool for 'seduction' of this sort. To my mind it
exacerbates the offense of sexual assault, indicating that the offense was premeditated and planned.
I'll leave it to our expert (BB) to opine on this.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible.
I really don't see that. It's kind of like saying purposefully running someone over in a stolen car is worse than doing it in your own car.
She knew she was taking the drugs. If they had actually had the intended effect of making her open to sex with him, that would have been a considerably lesser offense than what ended up happening.
She was thirteen years old.I don't care if she fucking BEGGED for the drugs, which she did not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible.
I really don't see that. It's kind of like saying purposefully running someone over in a stolen car is worse than doing it in your own car.
She knew she was taking the drugs. If they had actually had the intended effect of making her open to sex with him, that would have been a considerably lesser offense than what ended up happening.
I agree that the drugs make the behavior more obviously criminal, but not more "reprehensible"
per se (though I am not sure it
could be more reprehensible). I vehemently disagree that her knowledge that she was taking some drugs excuses his behavior in any way. She was not adult enough to be responsible for the consequences of her actions. Polanski could not obtain any more consent from a drugged 13-year-old than he could from a non-drugged 13-year-old.
I can't believe we're having an 18-page discussion on this. I guess that's Languish for you.
The guy gave drugs to a 13-year-old girl, had sex with her and sodomized her. he admitted he did.
I don't think we need BB or anyone else with a law degree to "opine" on this at all. It's not a matter of whether he's guilty or not. But he needs to stand trial.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:09:10 AM
Sure they are important - drugging the girl makes his behaviour the more reprehensible.
I really don't see that. It's kind of like saying purposefully running someone over in a stolen car is worse than doing it in your own car.
She knew she was taking the drugs. If they had actually had the intended effect of making her open to sex with him, that would have been a considerably lesser offense than what ended up happening.
I agree that the drugs make the behavior more obviously criminal, but not more "reprehensible" per se (though I am not sure it could be more reprehensible). I vehemently disagree that her knowledge that she was taking some drugs excuses his behavior in any way. She was not adult enough to be responsible for the consequences of her actions. Polanski could not obtain any more consent from a drugged 13-year-old than he could from a non-drugged 13-year-old.
...and of course, he didn't obtain any consent at all, even after he drugged her. She repeatedly told him "no", and he decided to stick his dick in her ass anyway.
Christ, I am simply *amazed* that I am here arguing this - how can anyone possibly defend, excuse, or even attempt to mitigate this?
If the judge in question did anything wrong, it was considering the idea that it would be ok to let someone server a month and a half for the crime of drugging and raping a 13 year old.
Quote from: merithyn on September 29, 2009, 07:34:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
Since she wasn't a virgin, that makes it all okay? Because her mother let her go, that makes it all okay?
Read this then tell me he didn't drug and rape a child:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html)
I didn't say it makes it ok. I just thought that your words mis-characterized what happened. However, I wasn't aware of the facts and the testimony of the girl, so I withdraw my objections.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:00:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 28, 2009, 04:47:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done. She has to continually relive all this shit... at least now that he's arrested and likely to get a worse sentence than any other rapist maybe that will be over for her? Nope. She still has to live with it.
I think on any 30 year old warrant there is pause to be given to make sure that after all this time, things are still wrapped up correctly. I'm not saying he shouldn't do time. But If it was something that was important to anyone they could have caught him any time they really wanted over the years. Why now?
Are US law enforcement so incompetent that they can't catch a famous movie Director/star whose whereabouts are always known?
Bah. too bad this isn't actually about the crime committed. I noticed too that Marc Emery is finally surrendering for extradition. Maybe it's more to do with USA flexing it's muscles in areas that they feel comfortable. Canada & Switzerland. Wow good job catching those guys who pled guilty.
So you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
Maybe it could have been done sooner. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the reality is that he did the crime and should pay the time. I feel for the child/woman, but as you said, she's going to have to live with this forever regardless of what happens.
Well it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
What load of horseshit.
The girl told him "no" over and over again, he raped her. It doesn't matter what her mom thought, or whether she was a virgin (she was), or anything else.
Jesus, I cannot believe people will actually try to justify and excuse someone drugging a raping a child. Well, I guess it is Marty, but still.
Well, I was misinformed.
Stealing a car is illegal; it's just a less serious crime than killing a person with a car. I'm not excusing the guy at all. I just don't get the fixation with the drugs. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 08:17:57 AM
I wish I could say that this was a case of "the usual suspects" on Languish talking "their usual schtick" but I really wonder if Marti has thought through the implications of his apparent belief that raping non-virgins isn't an offense to be outraged over, and that the tacit consent of mother converts a rape into something we shouldn't be concerned about.
I echo the sentiment: "Marti, are you sure you still want to claim you are a lawyer?"
I was wrong, ok? I had a totally wrong understanding of the case, because that's how it has been presented/implied by the Polish media and all the fuckers who defended him.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:07:34 AM
I was wrong, ok? I had a totally wrong understanding of the case, because that's how it has been presented/implied by the Polish media and all the fuckers who defended him.
This has always been a big reason with why public opinion in the US and Euroland are so different on alot of issues. The media in both places spin things in opposite directions. It gets really frustrating at times as both sides come to an issue with completely different...um..."facts".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 09:06:00 AM
Stealing a car is illegal; it's just a less serious crime than killing a person with a car. I'm not excusing the guy at all. I just don't get the fixation with the drugs. :mellow:
It shows malice of forethought, also makes the situation a forceable rape.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AM
The girl was not a virgin at the time
Wow. Just.... wow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 09:06:00 AM
Stealing a car is illegal; it's just a less serious crime than killing a person with a car. I'm not excusing the guy at all. I just don't get the fixation with the drugs. :mellow:
I don't think this is a good analogy, though. There is much less of a casual link between the fact that the car was stolen and the car accident than there is between giving a girl drugs and then fucking her.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:23:35 AM
It shows malice of forethought, also makes the situation a forceable rape.
What makes it forcible rape is the fact he held her and and forced her. If she had had a couple drinks and been all over him, he'd still have been culpable due to her age, but it wouldn't have merited 20 years in prison. (Yes I realize he wasn't going to get anywhere near that, but someone who attacks women in the parking lot would and his actual offense sounds more like that).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 09:39:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:23:35 AM
It shows malice of forethought, also makes the situation a forceable rape.
What makes it forcible rape is the fact he held her and and forced her. If she had had a couple drinks and been all over him, he'd still have been culpable due to her age, but it wouldn't have merited 20 years in prison. (Yes I realize he wasn't going to get anywhere near that, but someone who attacks women in the parking lot would and his actual offense sounds more like that).
I think however that you could build an argument that giving alcohol and drugs to a 13 y.o. is not that much different from giving a "rape pill" to an adult woman - because the girl may be unaware of the effects of alcohol and drugs on her ability to consent/resist.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:33:47 AM
I don't think this is a good analogy, though. There is much less of a casual link between the fact that the car was stolen and the car accident than there is between giving a girl drugs and then fucking her.
There was no causal link in this case though. If the drugs had made her pliant, sure. But he could have raped her just as easily without.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:33:47 AM
I don't think this is a good analogy, though. There is much less of a casual link between the fact that the car was stolen and the car accident than there is between giving a girl drugs and then fucking her.
There was no causal link in this case though. If the drugs had made her pliant, sure. But he could have raped her just as easily without.
She resisted but not strong enough (read her testimony - she says she felt powerless to resist him, didn't fight, etc.) I don't think this is as much a leap of faith to assume that this was at least partially due to the fact that she was inebriated.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:41:05 AM
I think however that you could build an argument that giving alcohol and drugs to a 13 y.o. is not that much different from giving a "rape pill" to an adult woman - because the girl may be unaware of the effects of alcohol and drugs on her ability to consent/resist.
Well, I think in that case it would make a big difference if she knew she was taking a pill or not. Don't most date rape trials involve some kind of subterfuge on the guy's part?
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:30:01 AM
I have no idea what the average person there thinks of the matter. So far, all I've heard is the articles written by film types and politicians - who seem to shrug it off as a mild misdeed in his past and an example of American hysteria over sex.
To my mind, such a reaction is frankly bizzare. It is true that we in North America have greater hang-ups about sex and sexual misconduct - whenever a public figure is caught with his (or her) pants down, it ignites a shit-storm. But that is over sex that is consentual. It isn't a "hang up' to have strong dissaproval of, and prosecution of, sex that is non-consentual.
Agreed, it's mind-boggling. It's one of those times were you start wondering whether you're sane, because what you see or hear just makes no sense at all.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:45:29 AM
She resisted but not strong enough (read her testimony - she says she felt powerless to resist him, didn't fight, etc.) I don't think this is as much a leap of faith to assume that this was at least partially due to the fact that she was inebriated.
Why read her testimony when I can go on short paragraph summaries people have posted? :lol:
I was under the impression she put up resistance and he physically held her down and raped her. In that situation it would be ludicrous for people to keep saying "he
drugged her and raped her" as if the drugging was as big a deal as the rape. But I guess I was wrong, oh well, won't be the last time.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:45:29 AM
She resisted but not strong enough (read her testimony - she says she felt powerless to resist him, didn't fight, etc.) I don't think this is as much a leap of faith to assume that this was at least partially due to the fact that she was inebriated.
Why read her testimony when I can go on short paragraph summaries people have posted? :lol:
I was under the impression she put up resistance and he physically held her down and raped her. In that situation it would be ludicrous for people to keep saying "he drugged her and raped her" as if the drugging was as big a deal as the rape. But I guess I was wrong, oh well, won't be the last time.
No, no. As far as I understand she would just say "no, I don't like it" once or twice, but he would do it anyway, however she offered no physical resistance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:41:05 AM
I think however that you could build an argument that giving alcohol and drugs to a 13 y.o. is not that much different from giving a "rape pill" to an adult woman - because the girl may be unaware of the effects of alcohol and drugs on her ability to consent/resist.
Well, I think in that case it would make a big difference if she knew she was taking a pill or not. Don't most date rape trials involve some kind of subterfuge on the guy's part?
Yeah but my point is that with a 13 y.o., you cannot expect her to be totally aware of the effect of drugs and alcohol, and as such this is similar (if not identical) to subterfuge, because essentially he is giving her a substance has an effect of her she does not predict.
I think it is akin to a situation of giving an adult woman a rape pill, but saying that its effects are really an urban legend, and it just gives you a nice buzz, or something - the woman in this case would know she is taking the pill, but would be unaware of the full consequences.
Not to mention, that if you drug a willing woman and then have sex with her when she can't resist, you can be held accountable for rape even if she was aware of the effect the drug will have on her.
Well it's not like she was given Pot for a nice Buzz. She was given sedatives to make her quite and pliant.
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 09:53:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 08:30:01 AM
I have no idea what the average person there thinks of the matter. So far, all I've heard is the articles written by film types and politicians - who seem to shrug it off as a mild misdeed in his past and an example of American hysteria over sex.
To my mind, such a reaction is frankly bizzare. It is true that we in North America have greater hang-ups about sex and sexual misconduct - whenever a public figure is caught with his (or her) pants down, it ignites a shit-storm. But that is over sex that is consentual. It isn't a "hang up' to have strong dissaproval of, and prosecution of, sex that is non-consentual.
Agreed, it's mind-boggling. It's one of those times were you start wondering whether you're sane, because what you see or hear just makes no sense at all.
I think the reason for this is twofold. First of all, a lot of people are misinformed about the details. And second, the case is prone to make people adopt a knee-jerk reaction because on one hand you have child abuse, and on the other you have the OMG A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR ARTIST PERSECUTED BY THE FASCIST AMERIKKKA, and both issues are highly volatile.
I personally found Polanski's invocation of his Holocaust experience as some kind of excuse for his flight from justice to be very offensive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 10:14:06 AM
I personally found Polanski's invocation of his Holocaust experience as some kind of excuse for his flight from justice to be very offensive.
The problem is that he was not the only one that did that but a lot of people did that too. For example Anne Applebaum.
Yes I thought it was offensive when she did it as well.
Seems to me so totally irrelevant to the crime. "My parents died in the Holocaust and my wife was murdered by Manson ... so I was driven to rape a 13 year old". Huh? :huh:
BTW Marti don't know if this has come up yet, but how do you square your apparent position here that "consent" by a 13 year old girl should have legal significance, with your position that minors should never be tried as adults because of dimished capacity to form meaningful intent?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 10:14:06 AM
I personally found Polanski's invocation of his Holocaust experience as some kind of excuse for his flight from justice to be very offensive.
The thing is that this would probably resonate strongly with the French people since I imagine they carry a bit of guilt re: the Holocaust.
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 07:04:49 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:56:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:53 AMWell it's not like I'm saying he did nothing wrong but saying that he "drugged and raped a child" is a fucking hell of an overreaction. The girl was not a virgin at the time and she was being pimped out by her mother to be a startlet. I don't think any party involved had any doubts as to what will happen if they live a 40 y.o. director with a teenage girl seeking an "audition" in a huge empty villa with a swimming pool, a jacuzzi and a well stocked bar.
He should answer for having sex with an underaged girl, but you make it sound like he picked and drugged some innocent girl from a school playground and then had his way with her.
:lol:
Oh, man.
Seedy, did you know that it's less of a crime to kill whores since, you know, they're filthy whores and all? I'd only count them as like half of a person for sentencing purposes. :)
Killing hookers and whores is redundant. They're dead inside, anyways.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
Seems to me so totally irrelevant to the crime. "My parents died in the Holocaust and my wife was murdered by Manson ... so I was driven to rape a 13 year old". Huh? :huh:
Well he lived through the Holocaust and was hiding throughout the war, so that was more of a personal experience, I imagine. I guess this is a take on the "unhappy childhood" argument, that some people employ when it comes to criminals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 10:24:18 AM
BTW Marti don't know if this has come up yet, but how do you square your apparent position here that "consent" by a 13 year old girl should have legal significance, with your position that minors should never be tried as adults because of dimished capacity to form meaningful intent?
I never said it should have legal significance. As I said, I just thought that the description of the act by Merri was factually untrue - I never made an argument that should be taken into account in sentencing - it was just a factual/semantical nitpick.
That being said I don't think it would be unreasonable to make it a much more serious crime if someone actually forcibly rapes a child, as opposed to "just" committing a vanilla statutory rape - but again this is a statement about a relative severity of the two, and not a call to make a vanilla statutory rape a petty offense.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:07:34 AM
I was wrong, ok? I had a totally wrong understanding of the case, because that's how it has been presented/implied by the Polish media and all the fuckers who defended him.
Actually, even if you account for the facts, your belief that it was significant to mention that she wasn't a virgin, and that the mother was pushing her career, is still bothersome. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of the law could make such assertions.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
Seems to me so totally irrelevant to the crime. "My parents died in the Holocaust and my wife was murdered by Manson ... so I was driven to rape a 13 year old". Huh? :huh:
Well he lived through the Holocaust and was hiding throughout the war, so that was more of a personal experience, I imagine. I guess this is a take on the "unhappy childhood" argument, that some people employ when it comes to criminals.
I suppose so - though one could point out that having an "unhappy childhood' doesn't doom one to become a criminal:
some overcome "unhappy childhoods" to go on to achieve great things. Like become famous movie directors, for example. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:42:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:07:34 AM
I was wrong, ok? I had a totally wrong understanding of the case, because that's how it has been presented/implied by the Polish media and all the fuckers who defended him.
Actually, even if you account for the facts, your belief that it was significant to mention that she wasn't a virgin, and that the mother was pushing her career, is still bothersome. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of the law could make such assertions.
See my response to Joan above - I was just commenting on the factual accuracy of Merri's post, not making a legal or a moral judgement.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 10:42:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 10:23:55 AM
Seems to me so totally irrelevant to the crime. "My parents died in the Holocaust and my wife was murdered by Manson ... so I was driven to rape a 13 year old". Huh? :huh:
Well he lived through the Holocaust and was hiding throughout the war, so that was more of a personal experience, I imagine. I guess this is a take on the "unhappy childhood" argument, that some people employ when it comes to criminals.
I suppose so - though one could point out that having an "unhappy childhood' doesn't doom one to become a criminal: some overcome "unhappy childhoods" to go on to achieve great things. Like become famous movie directors, for example. ;)
I know - again, since it seems like you really need to spell out everything on Languish or your post will be interpreted in the worst possible way, I don't think this is a particularly strong or reasonable argument; it's just that some people seem to think it is. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:42:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:07:34 AM
I was wrong, ok? I had a totally wrong understanding of the case, because that's how it has been presented/implied by the Polish media and all the fuckers who defended him.
Actually, even if you account for the facts, your belief that it was significant to mention that she wasn't a virgin, and that the mother was pushing her career, is still bothersome. I don't see how anyone with an understanding of the law could make such assertions.
I think it's illegal to even bring that up in a US rape case.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:43:49 AM
See my response to Joan above - I was just commenting on the factual accuracy of Merri's post, not making a legal or a moral judgement.
No, you were not. Meri never mentioned the mother or virginity. You were accusing her of over-reacting, and offering these as examples of why the offense didn't deserve her reaction.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
I think it's illegal to even bring that up in a US rape case.
I'd be interested to discovery if the victim's status as a non-virgin is a mitigating or extenuating factor even in Polish law.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 08:20:44 AM
I mean surely there is somebody in France glad to see that rapist dude arrested.
Apparently comments and letters to newspapers are 50/50 and there's been a few anti-Polanski articles. But, as the Guardian says, this is the country that gave Jean Genet a full and irrevocable pardon - so he could never be sent to prison again - because of his art.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 11:17:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
I think it's illegal to even bring that up in a US rape case.
I'd be interested to discovery if the victim's status as a non-virgin is a mitigating or extenuating factor even in Polish law.
It used to be so in US law, I believe. Don't know how long ago - 1950s?
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 11:17:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
I think it's illegal to even bring that up in a US rape case.
I'd be interested to discovery if the victim's status as a non-virgin is a mitigating or extenuating factor even in Polish law.
It's not. I was misinformed - let's leave that post, ok? :P
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
Grumbler is: Wrong. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2009, 11:41:41 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 27, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
Not exactly what happened. He fed her qualudes and champaign in a hot tub until she was near comatose, and then had sex with her. She was 13. He was 44. They did not know one another prior to his hiring her to be his model for a magazine shoot, and throughout the first shoot he fondled her and touched her inappropriately. The second shoot - at Jack Nicholson's house while Jack was away - it was intentionally just the two of them. He went at this with the intent of having sex with her (she was a virgin, by the way).
I'd say that makes him a predator, and if it were anyone else, no one would have pity on the guy.
Grumbler is: Wrong. :P
That isn't the post Marti was responding to. The post he was responding to was made over a day later, and read:
QuoteSo you're saying this should just be forgotten? He drugged and raped a child, and it should just be... forgotten. Because he had the fortitude to stay out of the States for 30 years?
Maybe it could have been done sooner. Maybe they should have tried harder. But the reality is that he did the crime and should pay the time. I feel for the child/woman, but as you said, she's going to have to live with this forever regardless of what happens.
Nothing there about virginity or the mother.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 28, 2009, 12:11:05 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 28, 2009, 11:58:17 AM
and yet she (the victim... the only person harmed by Polanski in this scenario) denies any harm being done.
Thankfully we do not allow that kind of evidence to mitigate the crime. What he did was violate a 13 year old. To the extent that she can tell herself that it wasnt so bad in order to cope with what happened is fine for her but it doesn diminish at all what he did.
Just because he has been able to hide out of the reach of the US for this long does not mean he should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions.
No it doesn't ... and it's not what I'm saying. (READ my posts and you will see where I specifically say it doesn't mitigate the crime... the oh no he's in France and therefore untouchable lie however should mitigate the retarded legal processes of the trial) I'm saying they could have caught him this same way a million times over the years and they didn't.
The whole thing is an exercise in melodrama. He'll likely live out the rest of his life either in a courtroom or a jail cell. And?
Chinatown is still one of the best movies ever made. That's all I care about.
I did read your post. And I read this one and I still dont fully understand the point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that nothing is accomplished by sending him to jail? Are you suggesting his sentence should be reduced because he has not be apprehended all these years?
And as for being able to catch him a million times, do you have some actual knowledge about that or are you just assuming that since it has been so long that they must have had a million chances?
If you do have some knowledge as to how US authorities could have apprehended him a millions times then it would be interesting to know how that could have been done.
I would imagine the same way they check for terrorists. Does he fly under an assumed name? He's been to many countries with extradition including Switzerland, over the years.
All speculation on my part. But maybe law enforcement types really are that stupid. I don't really know.
I am uncertain what I really think on this issue. I tend to the harshest possible sentence for pedophiles. I don't think Polanski is a pedophile. He is a rapist and should do some time... but I'm guessing he'll stay out of jail through appeals etc. (tho it's obvious he's a flight risk) So maybe he'll stay in jail til he dies of old age (he is in 70's) Both seem possible to me. I highly doubt he'll end up cleared somehow.
so any "so-called Liberal" moments I may have defending his art I still think he should have already done time. I don't think until this recent documenary sparked a re-interest in him, that the authorities have made it much of a priority.
If you were raped and you had to wait 30 years before anyone even tried to catch the guy you may end up cynical about the process,that's how I see the victim in this. She's like yeah well wow thanks for dealing with it so promptly.
Law enforcement needs as much of a rebuke as Polanski imho? And why doesn't France have extradition to America anyway? Are they not allies? Lame.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 11:22:57 AM
Apparently comments and letters to newspapers are 50/50 and there's been a few anti-Polanski articles. But, as the Guardian says, this is the country that gave Jean Genet a full and irrevocable pardon - so he could never be sent to prison again - because of his art.
Who's to say a trip to the slammer won't stimulate the muse? Perhaps he might even return to his 60s/70s top form.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 08:20:44 AM
I mean surely there is somebody in France glad to see that rapist dude arrested.
Apparently comments and letters to newspapers are 50/50 and there's been a few anti-Polanski articles. But, as the Guardian says, this is the country that gave Jean Genet a full and irrevocable pardon - so he could never be sent to prison again - because of his art.
Yeah I read that article, absolutely mindbogglingly.
Well, (first link) I hope this isn't being spun as more harm to the victim now that the offender is caught and may serve his prison time, as some reason to let this all go away. Because no matter what, the big harm is always to the victim who has to deal with things how ever it turns out. But we know how things get analyzed to death, to where we can't see straight, have things so muddled as to a mess. And then we'll still want to hang the next child rapist that gets in the news, and rightly so, but be all confused over Polanski.
I'm also annoyed over this being called a "small mistake", as at least one person says in the second link, and that Polanski shouldn't have to suffer for it. While I'm willing to hear both sides, what he is convicted of, found guilty of, is not a small mistake. Perhaps if he'd done his time likely he'd have been free and clear long ago.
A bunch of producers signed a statement on Polanski's behalf. How nice... maybe they could do so for the next child rapist? Because while I haven't been following this that closely, what I have seen seems to be pretty clear cut that he was convicted of child rape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html
Victim: Courts did more harm than Polanski
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html
Polanski will fight extradition, lawyers say
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 11:59:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 11:22:57 AM
Apparently comments and letters to newspapers are 50/50 and there's been a few anti-Polanski articles. But, as the Guardian says, this is the country that gave Jean Genet a full and irrevocable pardon - so he could never be sent to prison again - because of his art.
Who's to say a trip to the slammer won't stimulate the muse? Perhaps he might even return to his 60s/70s top form.
You mean fuck another 13 y.o.? :P
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
He was a twit.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
Holy shit really? :lol:
Dude's a real pansy.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
I believe he ran away because he learned that the judge was going to throw out his sweetheart 48 day plea bargain, and make him go to trial - and face a real sentence.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:25:03 PM
I believe he ran away because he learned that the judge was going to throw out his sweetheart 48 day plea bargain, and make him go to trial - and face a real sentence.
Correct.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
I believe he ran away because he learned that the judge was going to throw out his sweetheart 48 day plea bargain, and make him go to trial - and face a real sentence.
I'm pretty sure you are right. He figured the jig was up so he fled to France quicker than a Black Panther on the lam. Will he: being selling BBQs in 5 years?
To my mind, the really odd question is why the prosecutor would agree to such a deal in the first place.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:31:34 PM
To my mind, the really odd question is why the prosecutor would agree to such a deal in the first place.
I believe the issue was that under the INS rules at the time, if the sentence reached a certain length, he would be subject to mandatory deportation; the prosecutor's office may have had some sympathy for him and wanted to arrange a deal so that he could stay and continue making movies in SoCal.
Presumably the purpose of the psych eval was to "test" his contention that he would suffer uniquely from incarceration and/or that the offense resulted from some treatable temporary derangement.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 29, 2009, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:21:54 PM
Did I read that correctly earlier?
He'd been in jail for 42 days and ran away rather than face another 48? When most of us seem to feel he should have had at least a 20 year jail sentence?
I know American prisons are supposed to be bad, but really, that's ridiculous.
I believe he ran away because he learned that the judge was going to throw out his sweetheart 48 day plea bargain, and make him go to trial - and face a real sentence.
I'm pretty sure you are right. He figured the jig was up so he fled to France quicker than a Black Panther on the lam. Will he: being selling BBQs in 5 years?
This, edited down, has been posted by Martinus -
QuotePARIS, France (CNN) --
...
According to court documents, Polanski, his lawyer and the prosecutor thought they'd worked out a deal that would spare Polanski from prison and let the teen avoid a public trial.
But the original judge in the case, who is now dead, first sent the director to maximum-security prison for 42 days while he underwent psychological testing. Then, on the eve of his sentencing, the judge told attorneys he was inclined to send Polanski back to prison for another 48 days.
Polanski fled the United States for France, where he was born.
...
So he ran away to avoid a further 48 days in jail, having apparently already been in jail for 42, or so it seems.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:31:34 PM
To my mind, the really odd question is why the prosecutor would agree to such a deal in the first place.
Maybe at that time child sex/rape crimes weren't as big of issues as they've become today, with a lot more recognition of the problem? Kind of like drunken driving - decades ago laws weren't nearly as strict, and there wasn't as much focus on it as a problem, at least contrasted to today's thinking, attitudes and laws.
He was angry that the people pounding his ass in jail weren't 13 years old.
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 12:49:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 12:31:34 PM
To my mind, the really odd question is why the prosecutor would agree to such a deal in the first place.
Maybe at that time child sex/rape crimes weren't as big of issues as they've become today, with a lot more recognition of the problem? Kind of like drunken driving - decades ago laws weren't nearly as strict, and there wasn't as much focus on it as a problem, at least contrasted to today's thinking, attitudes and laws.
I dunno. My impression isn't that such matters were viewed more leniently, but rather that they were more often ignored or hushed up, because the scandal was considered too horrible to face, or people simply could not believe anyone would do such things.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 12:47:08 PM
So he ran away to avoid a further 48 days in jail, having apparently already been in jail for 42, or so it seems.
the deal was a 48 day recommendation, but the psych eval portion would be credited as time served. So if the judge chose to accept the recommendation, Polanski would be freed (or serve the additional 6 days).
Instead he gave the attorneys a heads up he was going to give RP *another* 48 days (it seems rather strange to me that a judge would reveal his sentence just prior to the actual sentencing date but Cal can be weird sometimes I guess). And then RP bolted.
Incredibly stupid move, but there it goes.
So assuming he gets extradited, what happens? I assume the 30+ year flight is another crime that will have a sentenced attached, but what do you think he is looking at for the original conviction?
45 years in Quentin.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
So assuming he gets extradited, what happens? I assume the 30+ year flight is another crime that will have a sentenced attached, but what do you think he is looking at for the original conviction?
Gitmo isn't closed yet! :cool:
Man, that'd really piss off those Hollywood and Euro producer types trolling for Polanski's greatness to keep him out of prison, for child rape.
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:36:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
So assuming he gets extradited, what happens? I assume the 30+ year flight is another crime that will have a sentenced attached, but what do you think he is looking at for the original conviction?
Gitmo isn't closed yet! :cool:
Man, that'd really piss off those Hollywood and Euro producer types trolling for Polanski's greatness to keep him out of prison, for child rape.
While I certainly wouldn't want to go to Gitmo, I wouldn't want to do time in the California penal system either.
QuotePolanski Case Exposes Divisions in France
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
The reaction gained steam Tuesday after an array of celebrities and French political officials in the Sarkozy administration defended Mr. Polanski, a French and Polish citizen who was arrested Saturday as he arrived in Zurich to attend a film festival. He fled the United States in 1978 just before he was to be sentenced for having sex with a minor — a 13-year-old girl — under a plea agreement in which he avoided other charges including rape and sodomy.
For two days, supporters in the demi-monde of movies and media circulated petitions and took to the airwaves in his defense. Among them was the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who suggested that perhaps the Swiss had more serious criminal matters to attend to than Mr. Polanski, who, he said, "perhaps had committed a youthful error."
By Tuesday, however, the mood was shifting among French politicians on the right, left and within the ranks of President Nicolas Sarkozy's own center-right party, the UMP. Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister's remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying "the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is."
Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski's side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting "a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class."
Marie-Louise Fort, a French lawmaker in the Assembly who has sponsored anti-incest legislation, said in an interview that she was shocked that Mr. Polanski was attracting support from the political and artistic elite. "I don't believe that public opinion is spontaneously supporting Mr. Polanski at all," she said. "I believe that there is a distinction between the mediagenic class of artists and ordinary citizens that have a vision that is more simple."
The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.
That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski's rarified Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the "crypto-intelligentsia of our country" who deliver "eloquent phrases that defy common sense."
Still, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director's defense.
Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed "stupefaction" with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit," Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. "Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, , "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."
Meanwhile, Mr. Polanski remains in custody somewhere in Zurich; officials have not said exactly where. He was, however, visited by French and Polish diplomats, who afterward pronounced that he was being well treated.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Swiss Criminal Court said it would decide "in the next few weeks" on its response to Mr. Polanski's request for release. Any decision can be appealed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said over the weekend.
:frog:
Besson. Note to self: never make principled friends.
Quote"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit," Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. "Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, , "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."
I'd have serious qualms about letting my 13 year old daughter go over to her friend's house for a sleepover if I was him ... ;)
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 01:43:40 PM
QuotePolanski Case Exposes Divisions in France
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
The reaction gained steam Tuesday after an array of celebrities and French political officials in the Sarkozy administration defended Mr. Polanski, a French and Polish citizen who was arrested Saturday as he arrived in Zurich to attend a film festival. He fled the United States in 1978 just before he was to be sentenced for having sex with a minor — a 13-year-old girl — under a plea agreement in which he avoided other charges including rape and sodomy.
For two days, supporters in the demi-monde of movies and media circulated petitions and took to the airwaves in his defense. Among them was the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who suggested that perhaps the Swiss had more serious criminal matters to attend to than Mr. Polanski, who, he said, "perhaps had committed a youthful error."
By Tuesday, however, the mood was shifting among French politicians on the right, left and within the ranks of President Nicolas Sarkozy's own center-right party, the UMP. Marc Laffineur, the vice-president of the French assembly and a member of the UMP, took issue with the French culture and foreign minister's remarks supporting Mr. Polanski, saying "the charge of raping a child 13 years old is not something trivial, whoever the suspect is."
Within the Green party, Daniel Cohn-Bendit — a French deputy in the European parliament whose popularity is rising — also criticized Sarkozy administration officials for leaping too quickly to Mr. Polanski's side despite the serious nature of his crime. On the extreme right, the father and daughter politicians Jean and Marine Le Pen also attacked the ministers, saying they were supporting "a criminal pedophile in the name of the rights of the political-artistic class."
Marie-Louise Fort, a French lawmaker in the Assembly who has sponsored anti-incest legislation, said in an interview that she was shocked that Mr. Polanski was attracting support from the political and artistic elite. "I don't believe that public opinion is spontaneously supporting Mr. Polanski at all," she said. "I believe that there is a distinction between the mediagenic class of artists and ordinary citizens that have a vision that is more simple."
The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.
That contempt was not only directed at Mr. Polanski, but at the French class of celebrities — nicknamed Les People — who are part of Mr. Polanski's rarified Parisian world. Letter writers to Le Point scorned Les People as the "crypto-intelligentsia of our country" who deliver "eloquent phrases that defy common sense."
Still, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director's defense.
Film industry leaders like Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese and Costa Gavras signed a petition with about 100 names that expressed "stupefaction" with the arrest of Mr. Polanski at the Zurich airport. But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit," Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. "Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, , "I don't have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."
Meanwhile, Mr. Polanski remains in custody somewhere in Zurich; officials have not said exactly where. He was, however, visited by French and Polish diplomats, who afterward pronounced that he was being well treated.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Swiss Criminal Court said it would decide "in the next few weeks" on its response to Mr. Polanski's request for release. Any decision can be appealed, the Swiss Justice Ministry said over the weekend.
:frog:
Yeah the developments in Poland are almost the same.
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
I dunno about that - his supporters are mostly famous entertainment industry insiders who appear to advocate the rights of the artistic elite to do whatsoever they damn well please. ;)
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
A Polish MP has said on his blog ( :bleeding: ) that the Polanski's defenders have "shit for brains". I love how people think blogs are somehow private or less public. :D
Meanwhile, an "ivory tower" Polish films director has called the victim a "child prostitute" in an interview on a Polish tv channel and someone has forwarded the clip to the woman and now she is sueing his ass (which I fully support btw). :D
It is such a wonderful clusterfuck.
This just gets better and better. I love the backlash against the liberal media elite.
Go France!
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
So assuming he gets extradited, what happens? I assume the 30+ year flight is another crime that will have a sentenced attached, but what do you think he is looking at for the original conviction?
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
I dunno about that - his supporters are mostly famous entertainment industry insiders who appear to advocate the rights of the artistic elite to do whatsoever they damn well please. ;)
I think there has been two stages here.
At first, when all the big wigs of Hollywood and European filmmaking came out in his defense, the "champions of the little guy" (myself included :blush: ) had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and also started defending him, since we usually align with the artistic elite in condemnation of the US fascism and whatnot. :P
However after a while most people have reached the "Hey, wait a minute" stage, and now it's just his filmmaking buddies who are pretty much saying that because he is a great director and lived through Holocaust, he can fuck 13 y.o.s - which I think many people take an issue with. :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
I dunno about that - his supporters are mostly famous entertainment industry insiders who appear to advocate the rights of the artistic elite to do whatsoever they damn well please. ;)
Hehe... makes it all the more ironic. Bunch of miscreants. They probably are all for justice, when it doesn't affect their sensibilities. ;)
Shit, he did all this to avoid a measly 48 days? I know child rape wasn't taken seriously back in the 1970's but that's a real sweet heart deal. This is the Draconian legal system the high society is complaining about.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 29, 2009, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 29, 2009, 01:51:51 PM
PARIS — While an international team of lawyers fought to free Roman Polanski from a Swiss jail, where he is being held for possible extradition to the United States, the action against the 76-year-old film director is quickly exposing deep fault lines between his supporters in the arts, entertainment and politics and his increasingly outspoken critics.
Now I have to say the heck with Polanski, and all those who support his flight from justice. So many of those supporting him are probably "champions" of the little guy, the down trodden, social justice for all, yet this guy is able to obtain an international stable of lawyers that only the rich and famous can do! Oh, they irony! :lol:
I dunno about that - his supporters are mostly famous entertainment industry insiders who appear to advocate the rights of the artistic elite to do whatsoever they damn well please. ;)
I think there has been two stages here.
At first, when all the big wigs of Hollywood and European filmmaking came out in his defense, the "champions of the little guy" (myself included :blush: ) had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and also started defending him, since we usually align with the artistic elite in condemnation of the US fascism and whatnot. :P
However after a while most people have reached the "Hey, wait a minute" stage, and now it's just his filmmaking buddies who are pretty much saying that because he is a great director and lived through Holocaust, he can fuck 13 y.o.s - which I think many people take an issue with. :P
Too late. You can't flip flop on us. You are stuck.
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
So assuming he gets extradited, what happens? I assume the 30+ year flight is another crime that will have a sentenced attached, but what do you think he is looking at for the original conviction?
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
What does that mean? Suppose he shows the judge was biased--without sentencing, did the judge even make a relevent decision (it seems we have a guilty plea followed by a guy running a way for fear of a biased judged).
I admit I'm wrong when I'm right.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
I think this thread shows that many Languishites are perverts, and need to be beaten.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:16:02 PM
I think this thread shows that many Languishites are perverts, and need to be beaten.
You could probably post this on any thread that's reached the second page and be right.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:16:02 PM
I think this thread shows that many Languishites are perverts, and need to be beaten.
Or answer to the Coca-Cola company at the very least...
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:16:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
I think this thread shows that many Languishites are perverts, and need to be beaten.
e.g. Ed Anger
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 02:18:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 02:16:02 PM
I think this thread shows that many Languishites are perverts, and need to be beaten.
Or answer to the Coca-Cola company at the very least...
COLONEL BAT GUANO!
Yep, looking back over the last couple pages, you can tell Ed, Malthus, and Agelastus are perverts just by looking at their avatars.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html)
QuoteHollywood Left Bands Together to Fight Polanski Arrest
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Hollywood moguls are pressuring California lawmakers to do what they can to stop the extradition of Roman Polanski, aiming to prevent the Oscar-winning director from being forcibly returned to the U.S. to do time for raping a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s.
The only problem — the government isn't interested.
Actors and actresses from Harrison Ford to Debra Winger have reportedly joined the growing throng of liberal celebrities calling for Polanski to be released following his arrest in Switzerland last week.
Studio kingpin Harvey Weinstein says he is leading the charge and "e-mailing everybody I know" to push for the swift release of his friend, whom he calls a "humanist" who has been the victim of a gross "miscarriage of justice" for more than three decades.
"We will have to speak to our leaders ... particularly in California," Weinstein wrote in an op-ed Tuesday. "I'm not too shy to go and talk to the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to ask him once and for all to look at this."
Scores of American film icons from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese have signed a petition demanding "the immediate release of Roman Polanski," saying they were "dismayed" by his arrest.
But the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, which is seeking to have Polanski extradited to California, isn't interested in petitions from the stars — it has a job to do, DA spokewoman Jane Robison told FOXNews.com.
Will the DA respond to pressure from Tinseltown's biggest bigwigs?
"No."
Will the DA consider their plea to give up on extradition?
"No."
Does the DA have any plans to meet with the directors allying themselves with Polanski?
"No."
Even before Weinstein enlisted the left wing in his fight to free the famed director of "Chinatown," "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Pianist," celebrities were picking up the drumbeat.
Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.
"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left.
"So that's why I wanted to be really clear," Goldberg said, "cause I want to know exactly what I'm talking about."
Here's exactly what Whoopi is talking about: In March 1977, the 44-year-old Polanski fed a 13-year-old girl champagne and a sedative, forced himself on her and anally raped her, according to the girl's grand jury testimony. He was convicted of a lesser charge — statutory rape — because he agreed to plead guilty.
Polanski spent 42 days in a mental institution and had been led to expect that it would be considered "time served," and that he would be freed on probation. But when he came to believe that the presiding judge would sentence him to years in prison instead, Polanski jumped bail and fled to France.
He has been living comfortably in Europe for the past three decades. But on Saturday, as he was flying to Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, he was picked up by Swiss authorities acting on longstanding requests from the U.S. to arrest him.
Actress Debra Winger, the president of the Zurich film festival's jury, blasted Switzerland for its "philistine collusion" with the U.S. in arresting Polanski, who was honored by the festival Sunday night even though he was in jail.
While prosecutors in the U.S. continue to press their case to bring Polanski back to California, some filmmakers abroad are rallying to his cause.
Weinstein's friend Thierry Fremaux, the director of the Cannes Film Festival, reached out to French authorities after Polanski's arrest, and the country's foreign minister quickly dispatched a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for filmmaker's freedom.
The State Department would not confirm the receipt of the letter, or of one from the foreign minister of Poland, where Polanski grew up, but both countries are known to be angling for the release of the director, who is a dual French-Polish citizen.
As Polanski fights to have his arrest overturned in Switzerland, even Hollywood's bitter broadsheets have been laying off the fugitive.
The senior editor of the gossip magazine In Touch said in a television interview he couldn't believe the justice system is still going after Polanski 30 years after his initial arrest, and after his victim, Samantha Geimer, has publicly forgiven Polanski.
"It's mind-boggling why they're still pursuing this," said Tom O'Neill. "It just seems that the prosecutors in Los Angeles won't let go these many years later."
Wow, I'm totally shocked that Woody Allen would be defending Roman Polanski on this issue. :lmfao:
Also, I'm glad Whoopi has spoken out, since seeing her take a position on something generally helps me decide what position I should take: the opposite one. I guess she the psychic powers she gained in
Ghost to "know" what happened that day despite not being there. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
Are you really a lawyer?
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 02:57:00 PM
Also, I'm glad Whoopi has spoken out, since seeing her take a position on something generally helps me decide what position I should take: the opposite one. I guess she the psychic powers she gained in Ghost to "know" what happened that day despite not being there. :)
Isn't this approach made somewhat difficult by the fact that she seems to be rambling incoherently? :P
Let's tear up all these Hollywood leftists stars off the Walk of Shame. Honestly, Harrison, defending a brutal child rapist? Lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. :( Then again, since he turned 60 hes been going through some weird end of life crisis so maybe he views fucking young girls as a means of preserving ones youth.
QuoteActress Debra Winger, the president of the Zurich film festival's jury, blasted Switzerland for its "philistine collusion" with the U.S. in arresting Polanski, who was honored by the festival Sunday night even though he was in jail
Ok, I know these are "my people", but it is just too funny. :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 02:57:00 PM
Also, I'm glad Whoopi has spoken out, since seeing her take a position on something generally helps me decide what position I should take: the opposite one. I guess she the psychic powers she gained in Ghost to "know" what happened that day despite not being there. :)
Isn't this approach made somewhat difficult by the fact that she seems to be rambling incoherently? :P
Is Whoopi really an actress?
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
Let's tear up all these Hollywood leftists stars off the Walk of Shame. Honestly, Harrison, defending a brutal child rapist? Lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. :( Then again, since he turned 60 hes been going through some weird end of life crisis so maybe he views fucking young girls as a means of preserving ones youth.
He seems to be more into doing anorexic chicks than young ones.... :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 03:03:20 PM
Are you really a lawyer?
Are you really a Russian Jew? :lol:
Ok, I just realised one previously unexplored angle in this all, and it really made my blood boil (if you know me well, you can guess what that usually involves ;)).
They are comparing this to Oscar Wilde.
How motherfucking dare they!
They are essentially taking a long term, loving, affectionate consensual relationship between two adult gay men and comparing it to a one-night-stand child rape case?! Fuck you. Seriously. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 03:14:48 PM
Is Whoopi really an actress?
Whoopi's line is that she stopped getting parts after she spoke out against the war in Iraq.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F54%2FWhoopi_Goldberg_New_York_City_No_on_Proposition_8_protest.jpg%2F180px-Whoopi_Goldberg_New_York_City_No_on_Proposition_8_protest.jpg&hash=9e238970703c9cf73f8759bd5860413f845c5e68)
Her friends are more equal than others
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:56:32 PM
Ok, I just realised one previously unexplored angle in this all, and it really made my blood boil (if you know me well, you can guess what that usually involves ;)).
They are comparing this to Oscar Wilde.
How motherfucking dare they!
They are essentially taking a long term, loving, affectionate consensual relationship between two adult gay men and comparing it to a one-night-stand child rape case?! Fuck you. Seriously. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg8.imageshack.us%2Fimg8%2F6425%2Fbettywhite1300x223.jpg&hash=a32240234f9be68643a0e6618c9104d77393f79d)
I really hate to say it but this is a serious self-induced implosion of moral authority by a considerable part of the European and American artistic community. There are individual voices of reason, but most are just fucking nuts.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:56:32 PM
Ok, I just realised one previously unexplored angle in this all, and it really made my blood boil (if you know me well, you can guess what that usually involves ;)).
They are comparing this to Oscar Wilde.
How motherfucking dare they!
They are essentially taking a long term, loving, affectionate consensual relationship between two adult gay men and comparing it to a one-night-stand child rape case?! Fuck you. Seriously. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg8.imageshack.us%2Fimg8%2F6425%2Fbettywhite1300x223.jpg&hash=a32240234f9be68643a0e6618c9104d77393f79d)
Fuck you. She loved gays. :D
Betty White isn't dead. :P Are you thinking of Estelle Getty?
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 04:12:44 PM
Betty White isn't dead. :P Are you thinking of Estelle Getty?
Oh possibly. But either way, she is one of the Golden Girls, isn't she? They are all honorary fag hags. :P
Okay. :P
QuoteStill, many others continued to rally to the Oscar-winning director's defense.
Film industry leaders like Woody Allen,
Oh, now that's rich.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
I really hate to say it but this is a serious self-induced implosion of moral authority by a considerable part of the European and American artistic community.
I think you've managed to do a fine job on your own self-induced implosion over the course of this thread. :P
I just hope if we manage to bring his perverted old ass back to the US he doesn't get some little slap on the wrist because of his status and sent free. I bet he doesn't get any real jail time though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
I know, but everybody in the pro-Polanski camp has been talking "judicial malfeasance", etc., during the original case and it all stems from the judge "possibly" reneging on the plea agreement.
I've read most of this thread, but in case it's never been posted:
The victim's grand jury testimony transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
The plea agreement transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
The probation report, detailing the forensics of the rape victim:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 05:22:27 PM
I just hope if we manage to bring his perverted old ass back to the US he doesn't get some little slap on the wrist because of his status and sent free. I bet he doesn't get any real jail time though.
He can bunk with Robert Blake.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 03:56:32 PM
Ok, I just realised one previously unexplored angle in this all, and it really made my blood boil (if you know me well, you can guess what that usually involves ;)).
They are comparing this to Oscar Wilde.
How motherfucking dare they!
They are essentially taking a long term, loving, affectionate consensual relationship between two adult gay men and comparing it to a one-night-stand child rape case?! Fuck you. Seriously. :mad:
Both are sex crimes. Your only hope is to support my Sex Crime Abolition Bill.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Froman_polanski_doesnt_deserve_your_sympathy_trollcat.jpg&hash=6c580b57656e7a282cfea36328d56894393c3ff6)
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
Assuming the bias card goes no where, what happens to the plea agreement? Would a judge respect the agreement, or be likely to be much more harsh because of flight.
Debra Winger was super hot.
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
Let's tear up all these Hollywood leftists stars off the Walk of Shame. Honestly, Harrison, defending a brutal child rapist? Lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. :( Then again, since he turned 60 hes been going through some weird end of life crisis so maybe he views fucking young girls as a means of preserving ones youth.
He seems to be more into doing anorexic chicks than young ones.... :unsure:
I don't keep up with my celebrity gossip...haven't for twenty years or so - who's the anorexic chick in this case, given the number of candidates the modern world throws up?
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
I thought it was because what you said when you were "mistaken" was utterly reprehensible. It is hard for people to forget that.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
Assuming the bias card goes no where, what happens to the plea agreement? Would a judge respect the agreement, or be likely to be much more harsh because of flight.
Flight negates the plea agreement. Hell generally any new charges (like flight) will negate a plea agreement. Depends how strictly it is worded, if it's worded at all. Most of our plea deals are done verbally, but sometimes it gets written down in great detail.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:50:01 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
Assuming the bias card goes no where, what happens to the plea agreement? Would a judge respect the agreement, or be likely to be much more harsh because of flight.
Flight negates the plea agreement. Hell generally any new charges (like flight) will negate a plea agreement. Depends how strictly it is worded, if it's worded at all. Most of our plea deals are done verbally, but sometimes it gets written down in great detail.
But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 06:55:38 PM
But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?
First the usual disclaimer - I'm not licensed to practise law in California. This is all based on my own experience.
It depends where they're at in the process. Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done? Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).
If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2009, 06:28:44 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Froman_polanski_doesnt_deserve_your_sympathy_trollcat.jpg&hash=6c580b57656e7a282cfea36328d56894393c3ff6)
I think that's my favourite cat pic so far :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 29, 2009, 06:55:38 PM
But he still gets stuck with the guilty plea? If he gets extradited, he will show up for sentencing for the one crime he admitted, with the judge using whatever sentencing guidelines were in place in the 1970s, plus have to stand for a flight charge?
First the usual disclaimer - I'm not licensed to practise law in California. This is all based on my own experience.
It depends where they're at in the process. Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done? Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).
If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.
Good info, thanks. :hug:
This is all going to be lame if he is extradited and spends 80 days in jail.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
I think your post shows that you just don't have the tools to realize that you still haven't admitted that you were wrong on the single issue I gigged you on: your assertion that the girl's virginity was significant in Polanski's guilt. You have merely said that you want to move past that post, but you haven't acknowledged the phenomenal stupidity of your original position. You have merely tried to shift the debate to the characters of those who pointed out how red your ass was on that one.
Keep flopping, Marti. Frankly, you are more amusing as a flopper than you would be if you were honest.
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
It depends where they're at in the process. Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done? Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).
If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.
There is a transcript of his guilty plea made in court (and it includes the information that he knew fully well that she was thirteen). The judge makes it clear, though, that if the court decides not to accept the plea bargain, then Polanski could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial with the presumption of innocence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
And Martinus, until about page 19.
I'm still shocked that he fled over 48 days after doing 48 days.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 07:30:21 PM
I'm still shocked that he fled over 48 days after doing 48 days.
But he's TALENTED.
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Well, I can't say I have personally seen the court documents, so I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe in the quality of CNN's researchers. I will say that it sounds a ridiculously low sentence for the nature of the crime, but I'm not au-fait with the standards of justice applied to celebrities in California in the 1970s.
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
As Joan explained earlier, the DA enters a sentencing recommendation after a plea then the judge decides. So if you mean prospect as in possibility, it seems yes. If you mean prospect as in certainty it seems no.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Well, I can't say I have personally seen the court documents, so I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe in the quality of CNN's researchers. I will say that it sounds a ridiculously low sentence for the nature of the crime, but I'm not au-fait with the standards of justice applied to celebrities in California in the 1970s.
Well, it would be a ridiculously low sentence for rape and sodomy, but maybe not for "illegal sex with a minor".
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:25:32 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Well, I can't say I have personally seen the court documents, so I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe in the quality of CNN's researchers. I will say that it sounds a ridiculously low sentence for the nature of the crime, but I'm not au-fait with the standards of justice applied to celebrities in California in the 1970s.
Well, it would be a ridiculously low sentence for rape and sodomy, but maybe not for "illegal sex with a minor".
I dunno, from the guilty plea transcript it looked like "illegal sex with a minor" was taken seriously; Polanski was going to be examined for classification as a "Mentally Disordered Sex Offender" and potentially civilly committed.
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 05:22:27 PM
I just hope if we manage to bring his perverted old ass back to the US he doesn't get some little slap on the wrist because of his status and sent free. I bet he doesn't get any real jail time though.
So he can be deported... as JR said if the sppropriate sentence was given, he'd likely be deported. That'd be useful: We got you now leave again. The system works.
He should fake his death like MJ and go to Monster Island.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 29, 2009, 08:57:18 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 05:22:27 PM
I just hope if we manage to bring his perverted old ass back to the US he doesn't get some little slap on the wrist because of his status and sent free. I bet he doesn't get any real jail time though.
So he can be deported... as JR said if the sppropriate sentence was given, he'd likely be deported. That'd be useful: We got you now leave again. The system works.
He should fake his death like MJ and go to Monster Island.
No, he should spend the rest of his life in prison. That is the ideal ending.
Jaron is correct.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Oh fuck off already.
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 09:09:40 PM
No, he should spend the rest of his life in prison. That is the ideal ending.
:yes:
Dude looks amazingly like Danny Kaye, doesn't he?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 29, 2009, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Oh fuck off already.
:huh:
France has been harboring the guy for the last 30 years.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:53:52 PM
:huh:
France has been harboring the guy for the last 30 years.
You forgot Poland :contract:
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 29, 2009, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Oh fuck off already.
:huh:
France has been harboring the guy for the last 30 years.
Whatever.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 29, 2009, 11:28:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 29, 2009, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Oh fuck off already.
:huh:
France has been harboring the guy for the last 30 years.
Whatever.
Whatever? What does that mean? Am I incorrect? Or does it not really matter that France has protected a guy who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl fro several decades? Does that not qualify as "defending" him?
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
It depends where they're at in the process. Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done? Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).
If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.
There is a transcript of his guilty plea made in court (and it includes the information that he knew fully well that she was thirteen). The judge makes it clear, though, that if the court decides not to accept the plea bargain, then Polanski could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial with the presumption of innocence.
There is a distinction however from the plea itself and the sentencing recommendation. The judge can decide to reject the plea bargain, which means the original (harsher) charges are reinstated, and then the defendant can withdraw and go to trial. But the judge can also accept the plea but yet reject the sentencing recommendation of the DA (and/or the Probation Department). If that happens, there usually is no right to withdraw the plea.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 01:58:33 PM
The flight carries max 1 year.
The sentencing on the original conviction is up in the air. Presumably Polanski will get the opportunity to pursue his bias claim re the now dead original judge.
From what I've read, the "bias" issue stems on the ex parte discussions of the judge at the time and the prosecutor; apparently it's a long shot to dismiss charges based solely on ex parte discussions of 2/3rds of the party, particularly AFTER the plea agreement.
Usually you argue bias if you're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. I'm not sure how much utility these is in playing the bias card when the judge is already dead.
I think the bias is not used to argue his case today but to justify him fleeing, since he feared that the judge's bias will cause him to renege the plea bargain. I may be wrong, but I thought the judge was still alive when Polanski fled.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 11:54:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
It depends where they're at in the process. Did they merely have a deal, but nothing had been done? Or had some steps been taken to implement the deal (namely: had he entered the guilty plea in court yet).
If the guilty plea has been proferred he's probably stuck with it.
There is a transcript of his guilty plea made in court (and it includes the information that he knew fully well that she was thirteen). The judge makes it clear, though, that if the court decides not to accept the plea bargain, then Polanski could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial with the presumption of innocence.
There is a distinction however from the plea itself and the sentencing recommendation. The judge can decide to reject the plea bargain, which means the original (harsher) charges are reinstated, and then the defendant can withdraw and go to trial. But the judge can also accept the plea but yet reject the sentencing recommendation of the DA (and/or the Probation Department). If that happens, there usually is no right to withdraw the plea.
Or that. Essentially, Polanski knew that if the judge wanted to, he had procedural ways to fuck him up and the result would be a much longer sentence than the 40 or 96 or whatever days.
Are you now advocating his release? I can't feel too sympathetic if the justice system failed a man who commited a crime like this.
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
This is a misunderstanding.
Quote from: Jaron on September 30, 2009, 12:53:56 AM
Are you now advocating his release? I can't feel too sympathetic if the justice system failed a man who commited a crime like this.
Not really. I am simply saying that he had reasons to flee that go beyond spending 96 days in jail as some people here seem to imply.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
I really hate to say it but this is a serious self-induced implosion of moral authority by a considerable part of the European and American artistic community. There are individual voices of reason, but most are just fucking nuts.
They have always been nuts you just did not see it before.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 08:20:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:11:44 AM
I think the comment from the French official about how this illustrates the "two sides of America" was pretty ironic, since from here it indicates exactly the same thing about France.
Seems like a nice country...that harbors kiddy rapists.
I am suddenly very uncomfortable with the way this thread is going.
I mean surely there is somebody in France glad to see that rapist dude arrested.
Besson and both Le Pen. Fortunately, some worthwhile voices were heard too.
Quote from: Tamas on September 30, 2009, 02:06:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 04:11:23 PM
I really hate to say it but this is a serious self-induced implosion of moral authority by a considerable part of the European and American artistic community. There are individual voices of reason, but most are just fucking nuts.
They have always been nuts you just did not see it before.
The problem is they were MY nuts. How would you feel if your nuts suddenly imploded on you like that. :cry:
tsk tsk, that's not right. Don't you know every french household has a designated room if ever the creep drops by?
We've all been harboring him for 30 years after all.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 30, 2009, 02:30:23 AM
tsk tsk, that's not right. Don't you know every french household has a designated room if ever the creep drops by?
We've all been harboring him for 30 years after all.
I don't think Berkut meant that every french person supports Polanski when he said France. It would be entirely reasonable to assume he meant the French government which doesn't sound unsympathetic to Polanski when one sees things like this:
Quote"I'm offering my support to Polanski as a French citizen and as the minister for culture. Justice has been denied to him many times in his life, and beauty is something that he has brought though his films," he said, calling Polanski a "wonderful man" and "one of the greatest directors of all time." "If the world of culture does not offer its support to Polanski, then that would mean there is no more culture in this country."
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Well, I can't say I have personally seen the court documents, so I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe in the quality of CNN's researchers. I will say that it sounds a ridiculously low sentence for the nature of the crime, but I'm not au-fait with the standards of justice applied to celebrities in California in the 1970s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:30:56 PM
I've read most of this thread, but in case it's never been posted:
The victim's grand jury testimony transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
The plea agreement transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
The probation report, detailing the forensics of the rape victim:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html
There ya go.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 30, 2009, 02:30:23 AM
tsk tsk, that's not right. Don't you know every french household has a designated room if ever the creep drops by?
We've all been harboring him for 30 years after all.
Sorry Zoup, but this isn't your average, run-of-the-mill French Moment of Frenchyness(tm). The French are being real douchebags about this, so save your defensive knee-jerkism for something a little more defensible, like your Hezbollah buddies.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
I think this thread shows that Languish posters just do not have tools to deal with the rarest and most bizarre behavior of all in online debates: admitting that one is wrong.
Most people, like grumbler, just refuse to acknowledge it, and repeat their last disagreement over and over in a vain hope of generating a familiar response. :D
I, for one, appreciated your admission. :)
Beyond that, it helped to showcase exactly where the disconnect between Europe and the USA came from. 'mericans don't know what happened completely (mostly) but think what we do know is terribly wrong; Europe doesn't know and doesn't care to find out. What matters is that 'mericans are just plain wrong in their eyes.
Glad to see that some Euros are finding out - and getting upset about it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 05:21:28 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 29, 2009, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2009, 08:04:42 PM
Are we sure that he fled the prospect of only 48 days, or is that figure a result of misunderstanding the facts somewhere?
Well, I can't say I have personally seen the court documents, so I guess it all depends on whether or not you believe in the quality of CNN's researchers. I will say that it sounds a ridiculously low sentence for the nature of the crime, but I'm not au-fait with the standards of justice applied to celebrities in California in the 1970s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2009, 05:30:56 PM
I've read most of this thread, but in case it's never been posted:
The victim's grand jury testimony transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
The plea agreement transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
The probation report, detailing the forensics of the rape victim:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html
There ya go.
I remembered after I retired last night that you had posted the links before I made my post, so I have no excuse for my lazyness. :Embarrass:
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 02:37:57 AM
It would be entirely reasonable to assume he meant the French government which doesn't sound unsympathetic to Polanski when one sees things like this:
Well that is the "Minister of Culture" who naturally is going to have his priorities skewed towards culture.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 08:31:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 02:37:57 AM
It would be entirely reasonable to assume he meant the French government which doesn't sound unsympathetic to Polanski when one sees things like this:
Well that is the "Minister of Culture" who naturally is going to have his priorities skewed towards culture.
Culture = assraping teenage girls? :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Yeah, I saw a clip of Whoopi on The View saying that it wasn't "Rape,Rape". I guess just regular rape, or not since it was consensual, with a kid? Wow. And we're putting school teachers in jail for having sex with kids, even where it actually is consensual. Whoopi is generally more rational, down to earth, or so I thought. What is it with Hollywood types and the celeb "machine" out in some force trying to defend this guy with lame arguments? And looking damn foolish trying to do so. Just because he's one of "them", part of their world?
Latest argument I heard: "If Americans cared so much for his crimes, why did they give him an Oscar for the "Pianist".
:bleeding:
Quote from: KRonn on September 30, 2009, 08:52:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 29, 2009, 07:11:20 PM
I'm bored, and don't wanna read 26 pages. So can someone sum it up and tell me who defended a man who drugged and forced himself on a thirteen year old girl?
France, Anne Applebaum, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Yeah, I saw a clip of Whoopi on The View saying that it wasn't "Rape,Rape". I guess just regular rape, or not since it was consensual, with a kid? Wow. And we're putting school teachers in jail for having sex with kids, even where it actually is consensual. Whoopi is generally more rational, down to earth, or so I thought. What is it with Hollywood types and the celeb "machine" out in some force trying to defend this guy with lame arguments? And looking damn foolish trying to do so. Just because he's one of "them", part of their world?
LOL some idiot Polish actress went on TV saying something along the lines: "As my 20 y.o. son can tell you, 13 y.o. girls can be very sexually aggressive and will try to get into a guy's pants at any cost."
I bet her son at home watching this went: SHIT :huh:
Why aren't woman's group just freaking out over this "Blame the victim" response to rape?
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:55:25 AM
LOL some idiot Polish actress went on TV saying something along the lines: "As my 20 y.o. son can tell you, 13 y.o. girls can be very sexually aggressive and will try to get into a guy's pants at any cost."
:blink: :unsure:
So?
Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 08:56:35 AM
Why aren't woman's group just freaking out over this "Blame the victim" response to rape?
Heh this is what I've been wondering as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 08:59:28 AM
Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.
Unless you know Polanski personally, I don't see why you'd have a particular inclination to believe him or not believe him.... I would think you'd judge the case on the surface based on what facts are verifiable about it.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:55:25 AM
LOL some idiot Polish actress went on TV saying something along the lines: "As my 20 y.o. son can tell you, 13 y.o. girls can be very sexually aggressive and will try to get into a guy's pants at any cost."
:blink: :unsure:
So?
I guess it means the guy couldn't just resist it. Dunno. People are stupid.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 08:56:35 AM
Why aren't woman's group just freaking out over this "Blame the victim" response to rape?
I'm doing my best. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:01:22 AM
I guess it means the guy couldn't just resist it. Dunno. People are stupid.
Yeah... the "so" was directed at her, not you. ^_^
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 08:59:28 AM
Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.
I agree. Not only do Euros think of 13-year-olds as more mature than Americans do, they probably ARE more mature in some Euro cultures. That doesn't diminish the extent of the crime, though, since AFAIK only Spain of all the Euro countries has an age of consent as low as 13, and Polanski testified that he knew her age.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:00:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 08:56:35 AM
Why aren't woman's group just freaking out over this "Blame the victim" response to rape?
Heh this is what I've been wondering as well.
He's not a Republican, Priest or other member of the Patriarchy(TM).
EDIT: The (TM) thing doesn't work anymore!
EDIT2: Too be fair I've seen scathing inditments from individual women involved in such groups.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 09:01:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 08:59:28 AM
Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.
Unless you know Polanski personally, I don't see why you'd have a particular inclination to believe him or not believe him.... I would think you'd judge the case on the surface based on what facts are verifiable about it.
Yeah. But then again we are talking about putting him on trial here, not necessarily sentencing him. I mean, while this is obviously a highly emotional case, I don't think there are reasons to assume that he won't get a fair trial in the US.
In fact, I wouldn't be very surprised if he is acquitted. First of all, Samantha Geitner (sp?) said she is not going to testify against him, so the only evidence the prosecution will have is a 30 year old affidavit of a testimony. And on top of that, I really wish good luck to anyone trying to find 12 men and women who have no preconceived opinion about the case in California today.
...wasn't he already tried for this? Or do you mean put on trial for skipping bail?
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 09:02:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:01:22 AM
I guess it means the guy couldn't just resist it. Dunno. People are stupid.
Yeah... the "so" was directed at her, not you. ^_^
I think the best part was her using her 20 y.o. son alleged "experience" of not being able to resist advances of all these horny 13 y.o. girls.
I really wish the camera was there at his home to see his face when she was saying that. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 09:06:42 AM
...wasn't he already tried for this? Or do you mean put on trial for skipping bail?
Well, I am not sure to be honest - there are so many conflicting accounts. My understanding is that he entered a plea bargain that was then rejected by the judge - but he was never found guilty, formally, by the grand jury. Could any US lawyer who actually knows details of the case explain what really happened?
My understanding is that, unless he enters a new plea bargain, he needs to be found guilty in order to be sentenced for the underage sex thing.
Or is it true that the judge can effectively ignore the plea bargain when it comes to the proposed sentence, but uphold the conviction based on the guilty plea itself?
If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:47:43 AM
Culture = assraping teenage girls? :D
I mean he is going to be all kissing ass towards directors and artists and so forth and perhaps couldn't care less about assraping unless it is a particularly artistic assraping.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:04:48 AM
He's not a...member of the Patriarchy(TM).
Well...he is a man...
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:52:59 AM
Latest argument I heard: "If Americans cared so much for his crimes, why did they give him an Oscar for the "Pianist".
:bleeding:
The Academy and law enforcement are the same entities eh? :P
I know somehow the 'OMG AMERIKKKA ARE HYPOCRITES!' thing would get tossed out there eventually.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:04:48 AM
He's not a...member of the Patriarchy(TM).
Well...he is a man...
But it's totally true, if he weren't a part of the cultural elite he wouldn't have these defenders. If he was a politician (especially a right wing politician) or some kind of religious authority these same people would be baying for his scalp.
QuoteMatt Gurney on Roman Polanski: A rapist, sure, but not a RAPE-rapist
Posted: September 30, 2009, 10:00 AM by Matt Gurney
Full Comment, Matt Gurney
Full Comment brings you a regular dose of international punditry at its finest. Today, talented journalists -- plus Whoopi Goldberg -- chimed in from around the world on whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of rape-rape, or merely rape. Apparently, being rich and famous protects you from being arrested for rape, singular. Polanski was pushing it, though, when he committed rape-rape-rape.
Before I get a flood of hate mail accusing me of being flippant with so serious a a subject, let me be clear — I'm as aghast as you are. The absurdity of the argument — yes, he's a rapist, but he's not really a rapist — would be laughable were it not so disgusting. But today, on ABC's The View, Whoopi made that exact argument (Link goes directly to video). Ms. Goldberg, before a global audience of millions of viewers, stated, "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
Whoopi? I loved you as Guinan, but can you please explain to me the difference between rape, and rape-rape? And would rape-rape-rape be worse than rape-rape? Maybe we'd all be better off if we just stuck with the old-fashioned approach, and kept rape as bad from the get-go?
Fortunately, other pundits around the world seem to have a better grip on reality. Writing in The Guardian, Joan Smith utterly destroys-destroys Whoopi Goldberg. (See what I did there? Destroying-destroying is way worse than merely destroying.) The column is so brilliant I must quote it at length. Smith says:
"...plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't 'really' rape. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not 'rape-rape' so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as 'rape-lite'."
She continues: "...Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn't want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn't remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn't, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home. Would that be rape? Or would it be 'rape-rape'?"
Bravo, Ms. Smith!
Similar in tone is a piece by Kate Harding at Salon.com. She takes on exactly the same points as Ms. Smith, but with far more anger: "Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile' (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."
Somehow I get the feeling that Ms. Smith and Ms. Harding won't be appearing on The View anytime soon.
Writing in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., makes an excellent comparison. In an article titled Father Polanski Would Go to Jail, Reese writes, "Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
"But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"
Fr. Reese nails it. Our celebrity worship has finally reached its logical conclusion. For years, celebrities could beat their partners, go on drug-fueled rampages, drive drunk, and escape serious consequences. We considered that acceptable, so long as they stayed rich, famous, and available for public display. We've watched human beings destroy themselves in real time before our very eyes, and took no action other than driving up network ratings and tabloid sales. In this world of celebrity, everyone now gets one rape for free. Just not rape-rapes.
Michael Cross-Barnet, writing for the Baltimore Sun, would seem to agree, offering these powerful words: "Like a Roman Polanski movie, this is a tale in which there are few good guys. The crime itself was monstrous and can in no way be excused as a byproduct of the tragedies in Polanski's personal life (his mother was killed by the Nazis, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was a victim of the Charles Manson cult)...By all means, enjoy Roman Polanski's movies. But don't for a minute imagine he's some persecuted hero."
National Post
[email protected]
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/30/matt-gurney-on-roman-polanski-a-rapist-sure-but-not-a-rape-rapist.aspx#ixzz0SbG7JBBj
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 08:59:28 AM
Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.
I agree. Not only do Euros think of 13-year-olds as more mature than Americans do, they probably ARE more mature in some Euro cultures. That doesn't diminish the extent of the crime, though, since AFAIK only Spain of all the Euro countries has an age of consent as low as 13, and Polanski testified that he knew her age.
There is also the booze and hard drugs he slipped her.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:52:59 AM
Latest argument I heard: "If Americans cared so much for his crimes, why did they give him an Oscar for the "Pianist".
:bleeding:
The Academy and law enforcement are the same entities eh? :P
I know somehow the 'OMG AMERIKKKA ARE HYPOCRITES!' thing would get tossed out there eventually.
It's especially funny because if someone suggested that he should NOT be getting an Oscar for his films because he assraped a girl, many of the same people (and myself, as well) would be outraged.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:16:01 AM
Or is it true that the judge can effectively ignore the plea bargain when it comes to the proposed sentence, but uphold the conviction based on the guilty plea itself?
If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.
I thought that was the case?
My understanding was that plea was worked out with the prosecution, which agreed to drop most of the charges and request a light charge for the one he was convicted of. A guilty plea was entered, and the judge started acting as though he might not go along with the sentence in the plea agreement. There may have been reason to believe that the judge had a lawyer from California lobbying him for a tougher sentence, which could have biased the judge. So Polanski decided to split town.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:27:20 AM
But it's totally true, if he weren't a part of the cultural elite he wouldn't have these defenders. If he was a politician (especially a right wing politician) or some kind of religious authority these same people would be baying for his scalp.
So..wait...you are saying people tend to defend people they like and attack people they do not like?
HuffPo is a hoot right now.
A bunch of people wrote defenses of Polanski there and were befuddled by the appalled response of their audience.
I especially liked the film critic whose deconstruction of Polanski's film proves that Polanski understands, humanizes and values women.
Following that of course, was a backlash by the sane writers who put up their opinion.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:01:22 AM
I think the best part was her using her 20 y.o. son alleged "experience" of not being able to resist advances of all these horny 13 y.o. girls.
I really wish the camera was there at his home to see his face when she was saying that. :lol:
Lol... Like I said, people are coming out of the woodwork to say anything that they feel is some sort of vindication for RP. Perhaps they better think of what they're going to say first. ;)
That poor actress's son... now we have to watch and see if a 20yo son of an actress gets arrested sometime soon. :D
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 30, 2009, 09:27:54 AM
There is also the booze and hard drugs he slipped her.
True, but many Euros are perfectly okay with 13-year-olds having some wine, and those types tend to be generally less uptight about drugs as well.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 29, 2009, 04:08:20 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F54%2FWhoopi_Goldberg_New_York_City_No_on_Proposition_8_protest.jpg%2F180px-Whoopi_Goldberg_New_York_City_No_on_Proposition_8_protest.jpg&hash=9e238970703c9cf73f8759bd5860413f845c5e68)
Her friends are more equal than others
Looks like Morgan Freeman in drag.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:41:20 AM
I especially liked the film critic whose deconstruction of Polanski's film proves that Polanski understands, humanizes and values women.
Why do people keep throwing up smokescreens like this? So he "understands, humanizes and values women".... that has no impact on whether or not he drugged and raped one. :mellow:
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:41:20 AM
I especially liked the film critic whose deconstruction of Polanski's film proves that Polanski understands, humanizes and values women.
Why do people keep throwing up smokescreens like this? So he "understands, humanizes and values women".... that has no impact on whether or not he drugged and raped one. :mellow:
Yeah last I checked misunderstanding, dehumanizing, and not valuing women were not crimes, while raping women is.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 09:41:20 AM
I especially liked the film critic whose deconstruction of Polanski's film proves that Polanski understands, humanizes and values women.
Why do people keep throwing up smokescreens like this? So he "understands, humanizes and values women".... that has no impact on whether or not he drugged and raped one. :mellow:
The irony of course is that the critic is a woman.
And she totally doesn't get why people are upset with her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-morgan/roman-polanski-understand_b_301292.html
I just don't get why the guy's friends can't say stuff more like "Roman Polanski is my friend and I respect/love him and support him, but he committed a crime and he needs to answer for it. I'll be there to support him during his incarceration and once he's served his time." Why does it have to be "he's my bud and he's talented so THEREFORE THSI IS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE LOOOOOOOL" :huh:
I love how it seems that the overwhelming majority of posters on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones) are shooting the elites out of water over their defense of Polanski.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 10:21:17 AM
I just don't get why the guy's friends can't say stuff more like "Roman Polanski is my friend and I respect/love him and support him, but he committed a crime and he needs to answer for it. I'll be there to support him during his incarceration and once he's served his time." Why does it have to be "he's my bud and he's talented so THEREFORE THSI IS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE LOOOOOOOL" :huh:
Because the slut asked for it. :P
Besides, I suspect many people in the artistic community have similar sins on their conscience - maybe not rape per se, but probably walking a fine line between consensual sex and coercion/sex-with-drugged-people/sex with underage girls.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:16:01 AM
If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.
Not really. I mean in his cases he plead to only one crime when there had been heaps of charges against him. That's pretty fair.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 10:26:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:16:01 AM
If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.
Not really. I mean in his cases he plead to only one crime when there had been heaps of charges against him. That's pretty fair
Yeah I thought it works differently.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
I love how it seems that the overwhelming majority of posters on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones) are shooting the elites out of water over their defense of Polanski.
You have time to frequent other sites? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 10:21:17 AM
I just don't get why the guy's friends can't say stuff more like "Roman Polanski is my friend and I respect/love him and support him, but he committed a crime and he needs to answer for it. I'll be there to support him during his incarceration and once he's served his time." Why does it have to be "he's my bud and he's talented so THEREFORE THSI IS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE LOOOOOOOL" :huh:
Because the slut asked for it. :P
Besides, I suspect many people in the artistic community have similar sins on their conscience - maybe not rape per se, but probably walking a fine line between consensual sex and coercion/sex-with-drugged-people/sex with underage girls.
That probably wasn't rape rape. Just rape.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
I love how it seems that the overwhelming majority of posters on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones) are shooting the elites out of water over their defense of Polanski.
You have time to frequent other sites? :huh:
Pretending to be a lawyer on the internet is a full time job.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones)
How embarrassing for you.
Ok, to follow up on Berkut's and my surprise about feminists - several famous Polish feminists came out and all condemn Polanski. Not that there is anything special about it, but in a situation when most of the so-called elites are detestable, being decent becomes almost heroic.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
I love how it seems that the overwhelming majority of posters on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones) are shooting the elites out of water over their defense of Polanski.
That's not surprising. Leftism leads to moral decay, not outright moral degradation.
Quote from: DGuller on September 30, 2009, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
I love how it seems that the overwhelming majority of posters on all the leftist sites I frequent (HuffPo, Advocate, some Polish ones) are shooting the elites out of water over their defense of Polanski.
That's not surprising. Leftism leads to moral decay, not outright moral degradation.
Err, how are you inferring this from the fact that all the leftists (like me) who frequent these sites are condemning Polanski and his defenders? :huh:
Essentially, the sequence of events after Polanski's arrest took this course:
Polanski's artist buddies ( :frog: ): OMG FREE POLANSKI!
Leftists ( :o) : YEAH WHAT THEY SAID! FREE POL... HEY WAIT A MINUTE!
:frog:: HE IS A GREAT MOVIE DIRECTOR!
:o: ERR I AM NOT SURE IF THIS...
:frog:: BESIDES THE SLUT DESERVED THIS!
:o: WTF! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?!
I think this will create a solid backlash against the Hollywood (or the European equivalent) elites from their usual supporters/allies in the left, imo.
The first one you did was better than the 5 edits that followed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 10:20:29 AMsnip
One of the writers uses his Holocaust experience as an excuse for his actions. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 11:17:34 AM
I think this will create a solid backlash against the Hollywood (or the European equivalent) elites from their usual supporters/allies in the left, imo.
I rather doubt it. It's a momentary blip of common sense, but the left will be back to their old nonsense in no time.
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 09:09:40 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 29, 2009, 08:57:18 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 05:22:27 PM
I just hope if we manage to bring his perverted old ass back to the US he doesn't get some little slap on the wrist because of his status and sent free. I bet he doesn't get any real jail time though.
So he can be deported... as JR said if the sppropriate sentence was given, he'd likely be deported. That'd be useful: We got you now leave again. The system works.
He should fake his death like MJ and go to Monster Island.
No, he should spend the rest of his life in prison. That is the ideal ending.
at 76 he most likely will. My money is that if he stays in Swiss prison for months on end waiting for extradition. He will die in his sleep, and America will not get the Justice it wants.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:08:58 AM
Well, I am not sure to be honest - there are so many conflicting accounts. My understanding is that he entered a plea bargain that was then rejected by the judge - but he was never found guilty, formally, by the grand jury. Could any US lawyer who actually knows details of the case explain what really happened?
My understanding is that, unless he enters a new plea bargain, he needs to be found guilty in order to be sentenced for the underage sex thing.
The judge never rejected the plea. I honestly have no idea how the procedure will work now if he is succesfully extradited back to Cal. I don't know if there is a mechanism that would allow him to withdraw the plea given the passage of time. If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
However, the case on flight seems to me very rock solid and that can carry as much as 1 year.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 12:00:48 PM
at 76 he most likely will. My money is that if he stays in Swiss prison for months on end waiting for extradition. He will die in his sleep, and America will not get the Justice it wants.
What Justice is it that you want?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?
It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 12:57:00 PM
It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...
Justice is blind. :)
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 12:57:00 PM
It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...
How could it depend on her state of residence?
I think the mere threat of prosecution for contempt would void her unwillingness to testify (if she can be compelled at all), given that the latter is based on her desire to just end all of this.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?
In theory yes. In practice, it is not likely because (a) it looks really bad politically for the prosecutor to be "victimizing" the victim, and (b) it is hard to try a criminal case where your principal witness is hostile and uncooperative. Such witnesses are prone to sudden memory losses for example.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 01:06:33 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 12:57:00 PM
It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...
How could it depend on her state of residence?
I think the mere threat of prosecution for contempt would void her unwillingness to testify (if she can be compelled at all), given that the latter is based on her desire to just end all of this.
I don't think it is unfathomable to have a law stating that a victim of rape cannot be compelled to testify.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 08:47:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 08:31:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 02:37:57 AM
It would be entirely reasonable to assume he meant the French government which doesn't sound unsympathetic to Polanski when one sees things like this:
Well that is the "Minister of Culture" who naturally is going to have his priorities skewed towards culture.
Culture = assraping teenage girls? :D
Don't worry, that minister is more into Thai young boys.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 01:06:33 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 12:57:00 PM
It may depend on what state she lives in now, but it would look just great if the rape victim was thrown in jail for contempt of court...
How could it depend on her state of residence?
Because California ordinarily doesn't have the power to compel New York residents to appear before it?
This is a pretty common concept; if you look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal district court can only compel people who are either in the district, within 100 miles of the courthouse, or within the entire state if the state lets their own courts get away with that, barring another statutory provision.
Quote from: ulmont on September 30, 2009, 03:10:32 PM
Because California ordinarily doesn't have the power to compel New York residents to appear before it?
There is a procedure for this in criminal cases - a uniform act which most of the states have adopted and provides for reciprocality.
Criminal rules with respect to subpoenas are different from civil in this respect - for example the Federal Criminal Rules allow subpoenas to be issued anywhere in the US whereas the FRCivP as you point out has the 100 mile rule.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 03:23:26 PM
There is a procedure for this in criminal cases - a uniform act which most of the states have adopted and provides for reciprocality.
Ah, nice.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:08:58 AM
Well, I am not sure to be honest - there are so many conflicting accounts. My understanding is that he entered a plea bargain that was then rejected by the judge - but he was never found guilty, formally, by the grand jury. Could any US lawyer who actually knows details of the case explain what really happened?
My understanding is that, unless he enters a new plea bargain, he needs to be found guilty in order to be sentenced for the underage sex thing.
The judge never rejected the plea. I honestly have no idea how the procedure will work now if he is succesfully extradited back to Cal. I don't know if there is a mechanism that would allow him to withdraw the plea given the passage of time. If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
However, the case on flight seems to me very rock solid and that can carry as much as 1 year.
I'm starting to hate you guys - do you know how much time it takes to trawl a thread for a specific post.
Anyway, as per Grumbler -
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 07:12:57 PM
There is a transcript of his guilty plea made in court (and it includes the information that he knew fully well that she was thirteen). The judge makes it clear, though, that if the court decides not to accept the plea bargain, then Polanski could withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial with the presumption of innocence.
I think that answers the above - I don't believe this has been invalidated by the passage of time. Finding 12 men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:15 PM
Finding 12 men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.
I disagree. There's plenty of Americans who don't know what fucking time it is. And we're talking California Americans, a whole different breed of Amerimoron.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 30, 2009, 04:59:15 PM
Finding 12 men and women sufficiently unbiased (possibly not the right word) to be able to serve on a jury after all this time could be hard though, as was posted a couple of pages back.
I disagree. There's plenty of Americans who don't know what fucking time it is. And we're talking California Americans, a whole different breed of Amerimoron.
As a non-American, I stand corrected.
In breaking news, according to BBC Ceefax, the French government is dropping its support of Polanski, due to the backlash it has received for its stance from non-Polanski supporting members of the elite.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 30, 2009, 06:50:17 PM
In breaking news, according to BBC Ceefax, the French government is dropping its support of Polanski, due to the backlash it has received for its stance from non-Polanski supporting members of the elite.
Meh, they'll back another kiddierapist somewhere else.
You know, for all the bullshit it's worth, Polanski will most likely do more time between the incarceration awaiting extradition and the 1 year for the flight from justice charges than he would have if he simply did the rest of the time per the plea agreement.
And there was no indication that the judge was going to set aside the plea agreement...Polanski skipped out on the belief that the judge would, and there's no evidence that it would've happened, as the judge allowed all but one of the charges to be dropped.
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.
Polanski needs some attention from a K-9 like on Cops. Like when the one dude tried to hide under a kiddie pool.
Oh, and for all the time-travel bullshit involving the victim, then and now, from Eugene Robinson--
QuoteMuch has been made of the fact that Polanski's victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it's irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What's important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 01:07:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?
In theory yes. In practice, it is not likely because (a) it looks really bad politically for the prosecutor to be "victimizing" the victim, and (b) it is hard to try a criminal case where your principal witness is hostile and uncooperative. Such witnesses are prone to sudden memory losses for example.
If you do domestic violence prosecutions, compelling unco-operative and hostile witnesses is your bread and butter. It's unusual to get a fully co-operative witness.
Even on rape charges, a reluctant witness is not at all unusual. A colleague of mine was just dealing with a full-on violent rape by a stranger in the bushes, but the witness was still very reluctant and scared and the Crown did have to resort to a witness warrant at one point in the proceedings (she was fully co-operative at the end of the day however).
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 01:07:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
...If there is some way he can pull that off, he might be in good shape assuming the victim actually holds to her statement that she would not testify against him.
She can be compelled to testify, just like any other witness, can she not?
In theory yes. In practice, it is not likely because (a) it looks really bad politically for the prosecutor to be "victimizing" the victim, and (b) it is hard to try a criminal case where your principal witness is hostile and uncooperative. Such witnesses are prone to sudden memory losses for example.
If you do domestic violence prosecutions, compelling unco-operative and hostile witnesses is your bread and butter. It's unusual to get a fully co-operative witness.
Even on rape charges, a reluctant witness is not at all unusual. A colleague of mine was just dealing with a full-on violent rape by a stranger in the bushes, but the witness was still very reluctant and scared and the Crown did have to resort to a witness warrant at one point in the proceedings (she was fully co-operative at the end of the day however).
Which is why the State of Maryland takes over the prosecution without the testimony of the victim.
Don't want to testify against hubby? Fine. The polaroids of you we took at the hospital will.
There are good policy reasons to be able to compel a witness to testify, by the way.
If it is entirely up to a witness to testify or not it leaves the door wide open to all kinds of abuses, namely the witness being vulnerable to threats and intimidations, or to the witness being able to extort some kind of cash settlement in exchange for non-testimony.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.
Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.
Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Impaling oneself on a tree from 20,000 feet isn't exactly making things better.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.
Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Doubtful Seedy knows where he is. -_-
They never found the body, but it's a pretty sure thing that he died in the jump right?
They're only saying that so there's less criticism for not having caught the guy. ;)
Besides, we all know he died trying to break out of prison with Scofield and Burroughs. :tinfoil:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2009, 07:17:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 30, 2009, 07:14:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:55:45 PM
Dummies always make shit worse when they run.
Tell that to D.B. Cooper.
Doubtful Seedy knows where he is. -_-
They never found the body, but it's a pretty sure thing that he died in the jump right?
What I've read on the subject has tended to be fairly even handed as to whether he survived or not. Personally, I think he survived, but without a body or a fugitive, there's no way to be certain either way.
DB Cooper gets his own thread, ladies.
Keep it there before I slip you half a 'Lude and fuck you in the ass because you're not on the pill.
I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge. The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.
It would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.
So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted. Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 07:49:20 PM
I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge. The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.
The lawtalkers haven't thrown this out because there's nothing short of conjecture about it. "According to legend" doesn't wash.
QuoteIt would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.
So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted. Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.
You didn't read his plea bargain transcript I posted, did you? You know, where he waives the right to trial and face his accuser? That one.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 07:49:20 PM
I feel like throwing this out there because I'm surprised one of the lawtalkers hasn't done so already: Polanski took a plea bargain; a plea bargain is just another recommendation from the prosecutor to the judge. The judge handling Polanski's case was retiring and, according to legend, not in a mood to accept the plea deal, so he was going to send it to trial anyway and throw the maximums at him upon conviction.
It would be different if he was tried in absentia, but if he was tried in absentia and then extradited back here, it would actually go back for trial again because of his constitutional right to face his accusers.
So, effectively, Polanski was not convicted. Also, the people throwing around the timeline of what happened that night are actually making it harder to have him extradited and retried, since it would be very difficult to prove there wasn't a bias against the defendant.
I am not sure what your point is, here. Polanski wasn't "convicted" because he pled guilty. The judge accepted the plea. All that was left was the sentencing hearing. The judge did leave open the possibility that he might, upon reflection, turn the plea bargain down, in which case Polanski could retract his plea and the case would go to court. There was no evidence other than some hearsay that the judge was not going to accept the plea (though he did indicate at one point that he wanted Polanski to serve the full 90 days in the original plea, which I believe was enough to get Polanski deported). The judge certainly stepped over the line when telling the prosecuting and defense attorneys what they were going to say at the sentencing hearing - he apparently liked to stage-manage these things and assign people their lines, given that everyone knew how the story would end.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 07:53:53 PM
You didn't read his plea bargain transcript I posted, did you? You know, where he waives the right to trial and face his accuser? That one.
You might want to consider re-posting it a couple of more times so that people can still not read it...
Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea. It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right? There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?
Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract? Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?
Sorry. I misphrased it. Polanski took the lesser charge on the basis that he wouldn't get the maximums for the charge. Page 8 of the transcript is where he presumably realizes he was screwed- note the pause when the prosecutor asks him who would have the final say in his sentencing. The judge was looking for the full monte and his answers sound a lot less confident when he gets the "MDSO" bit thrown at him and gets told that he could be in a treatment facility for however long they wanted to keep him there, regardless of the length of the prison sentence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 08:03:24 PM
Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea. It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right? There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?
Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract? Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?
It has to be the indictment or an agreement between prosecution, defense, and the judge; if the defendant refuses a plea deal, the judge and prosecutor can't throw a softball.
If a judge offers a deal, then reneges on it, I would assume the conversations regarding the deal would become ex parte and would require censure, recusal, or a retrial, depending on when it happened and to what extent it influenced the proceedings.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 08:03:24 PM
Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea. It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right? There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?
Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract? Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?
If Polaski gets extradited and then the prosecutor doesn't press charges, well, I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor that made that decision, 'cause then the shit would hit the fan.
Nonononono. I'm talking about the original deal for just illegal sex with a minor. Polanski pleads guilty. Can the judge say no, I'm not taking that, we're going to try him for aggragavated rape, devil worshiping and directing over-rated movies.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 08:03:24 PM
Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea. It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right? There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?
Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract? Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?
It has to be the indictment or an agreement between prosecution, defense, and the judge; if the defendant refuses a plea deal, the judge and prosecutor can't throw a softball.
He didn't ask about the defendent refusing a plea deal; he asked about the judge refusing to accept the plea agreement.
Generally, judges can't force a prosecutor to press charges, but there might be some unusual provision in California criminal that I don't know about.
And even absent a deal, after a successful prosecution, the prosecutor could still make a sentencing recommendation that would ask for the lightest possible sentence, and the judge could go along with it--so they can throw a softball if they want.
QuoteIf a judge offers a deal, then reneges on it, I would assume the conversations regarding the deal would become ex parte and would require censure, recusal, or a retrial, depending on when it happened and to what extent it influenced the proceedings.
Uh, judges don't offer plea agreements; prosecutors do (though sometimes judges might encourage the prosecution and defense to try to come to a deal).
Depending on the circumstances, a prosecutor who reneges on a deal might face ethics charges, suppression of evidence in the case learned through discussions involving the deal, maybe even having the case dismissed--or there could be no consequences other than the confession itself being suppressed and having to go forward with an actual trial (heck, in some cases, it might even be possible to still get the confession entered into evidence).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 08:32:14 PM
Nonononono. I'm talking about the original deal for just illegal sex with a minor. Polanski pleads guilty. Can the judge say no, I'm not taking that, we're going to try him for aggragavated rape, devil worshiping and directing over-rated movies.
The judge can reject the deal, but the prosecutor can still withdraw the charges AFAIK--we'd need a lawyer who does California criminal law to say for sure.
Yeah. Shit, I can't get anything out of my mouth right today. The judge can reject the deal that the prosecutor offers. Once the indictment's been read, though, the prosecution would need to file a motion to dismiss, which the judge would need to sign; if there's no good reason to dismiss it, the judge could simply refuse to sign the motion for dismissal and force it to keep going. The prosecution could self-destruct their case, but that could lead to a firing at best or legal malpractice and disbarment at worst.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 08:46:30 PM
Yeah. Shit, I can't get anything out of my mouth right today. The judge can reject the deal that the prosecutor offers. Once the indictment's been read, though, the prosecution would need to file a motion to dismiss, which the judge would need to sign; if there's no good reason to dismiss it, the judge could simply refuse to sign the motion for dismissal and force it to keep going. The prosecution could self-destruct their case, but that could lead to a firing at best or legal malpractice and disbarment at worst.
You're being way over dramatic. I figure most lawyers could do a poor job of arguing a case without making it look deliberate--most likely, there would be no formal action taken. I'm not sure about California, but in most states, the only way to "fire" the prosecutor (I'm assuming that the actual prosecuting attorney is either the one tanking the case, or if he's not presenting the case himself he's at least has given his tacit approval to the underling in his office who is handling the case to throw it--obviously, if one of his subordinates deliberately lost a case without the boss OKing it, he might be fired) would be for the votes to vote him out in the next election--most states do have procedures in place to remove a prosecuting attorney from office for malfeasance, but I doubt allegations that he did a poor job on a case would be sufficient cause, or otherwise the entire L.A. county prosecutor's office would have been fired several times over the last decade or so.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 12:00:48 PM
at 76 he most likely will. My money is that if he stays in Swiss prison for months on end waiting for extradition. He will die in his sleep, and America will not get the Justice it wants.
What Justice is it that you want?
Why does that matter? This is what I hate about this fucking place. Everyone has to have an unmovable position. I'm actually interested in people's opinions, and often change my own when people make good arguments (and this does happen on Languish) so my opinion is malleable on this issue, and others. I've always maintained though that he should finish his sentence (and do the year or whatever for evading jail) but...
what I am cynical about is: that actually happening, and am quite amused by all the morons who spend so much time talking about how he's not an exception to be made because of his art. Well d'uh. Being creative and successful with that creativity doesn't exclude you from being someone who deserves prison for having sex with a minor. I guess unless you are Michael Jackson., but then you have to watch out for Kervorkian types posing as your friend.
The guy is a criminal and possibly also an asshole. I wouldn't actually know for sure, but he is a success in the film industry. It's hard not to be an asshole in that case.
If he actually does time in America or anywhere other than his current Swiss jail ( I imagine him being guarded by those Swiss Pope guards for some reason.) I'd be amazed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 08:03:24 PM
Question for the shysters: say the judge doesn't accept the plea. It's still the prosecutor's discretion what charges to try him on, right? There's no way the judge can force the prosecutor to charge him with any other crime, is there?
Also, is a plea agreement a legally binding contract? Does a prosecutor that welches on a deal face any harm besides that to his reputation?
First question: what do you mean by 'doesn't accept the plea'. The way it works (in my experience) is:
1. Defense offers the guilty plea, i.e. I pelad guilty to count 4 on the indictment.
2. Prosecution reads in the facts, i.e. Mr. Polanski had sex with a 13 year old
3. Defense agrees to the facts, i.e. yup, I did
4. Judge accepts the guilty plea, i.e. I find you guilty Mr. Polanski
5. Lawyers make their submissions on sentence
6. Judge passes sentence
So the two stages involving the judge are on whether or not to accept the plea, and whether or not to accept the sentence. In terms of accepting the plea it only has to do with whether or not the facts alleged actually make out the crime. You sometimes get accuseds who try to minimize their involvement so much their actually aren't pleading guilty to a crime. And here it is fully within the judge's power, and indeed it's his obligation, for the judge to reject the guilty plea.
And the second stage in terms of the sentence. This is going to depend somewhat on the jurisdiction. Up here even with a joint submission on sentence the judge can still reject it if it is "demonstrably unfit".
But no - the judge can not force the prosecution to add extra crimes, or reject a deal because he doesn't think it's to enough charges or counts. The prosecution always has the discretion of what charges to present.
Second question,
A plea agreement is binding, but there are options to back out. First if the accused does something to violate the deal, or commits a new crime. Second, I believe either side can resile from the agreement as long as no one has taken any steps to their detriment. Our office has had to do that once or twice - we strike a deal, but before any guilty pleas are entered we realize the deal is way off.
jeez Yi, never seen an episode of law & order? Beeb's reply is like a plot synopsis. :p
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 09:15:51 PM
First question: what do you mean by 'doesn't accept the plea'.
I had gotten the impression from some of the posts in this thread that it was within the judge's discretion to say no Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not happy with that agreement you struck with Mr. Polanski on illegal sex with a minor and think we should procede to throw the book at him.
If not, and based on your post it appears the judge can't do that, then it casts Polanski's flight in an even worse light. Even if the judge in the case was a dirty lying Jew director hating sonofabitch he couldn't up the charge from illegal sex with a minor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 09:29:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 09:15:51 PM
First question: what do you mean by 'doesn't accept the plea'.
I had gotten the impression from some of the posts in this thread that it was within the judge's discretion to say no Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not happy with that agreement you struck with Mr. Polanski on illegal sex with a minor and think we should procede to throw the book at him.
If not, and based on your post it appears the judge can't do that, then it casts Polanski's flight in an even worse light. Even if the judge in the case was a dirty lying Jew director hating sonofabitch he couldn't up the charge from illegal sex with a minor.
The judge can throw out the sentence suggested, but the judge can't say you aren't proceeding on enough charges. If the prosecution wants to reduce a murder charge to simple assault the judge can't say anything, but he can throw out the suggested $25 fine and different sentence.
A fascinating look at the discussion.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/29/roman-polanski-raped-a-child-a-primer.aspx
BB's steps accurately describes the US federal system and NY State (and presumably most if not all the other state).
The plea and the sentencing recommendations are analytically distinct although sometimes the bargain will include a recommendation. The benefit from the plea is that the defendant may be offered a lower charge to plea to than the one the government might otherwise be able to prove. In addition, the prosecutor may formally or informally offer to be lenient in the sentencing recommendation.
The judge can either accept or reject the plea - if the plea is accepted, the judge then must sentence within the allowable statutory range for the crime pled to (i.e. they cant exceed the max). But the judge is under no compulsion to accept the prosecutor's recommendation, even if that recommendation was part of the overall understanding in connection with the plea deal.
The issue as I understand it with Polanski was NOT that the judge was going to reject the plea, but that he was considering ignoring the joint sentencing recommendation of both sides and imposing more jail time under the plea.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The issue as I understand it with Polanski was NOT that the judge was going to reject the plea, but that he was considering ignoring the joint sentencing recommendation of both sides and imposing more jail time under the plea.
Yeah that is my understanding as well. And that he was communicating this to the prosecutors and even members of the press, asking them what should be the sentence.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The issue as I understand it with Polanski was NOT that the judge was going to reject the plea, but that he was considering ignoring the joint sentencing recommendation of both sides and imposing more jail time under the plea.
Yeah that is my understanding as well. And that he was communicating this to the prosecutors and even members of the press, asking them what should be the sentence.
Alas, more conjecture.
For the sake of clarity - because there is a lot of confusion about it - there are, broadly speaking, three different arguments being advanced in Polanski's defense in relation to the judge's corruption - I will list them in the order from the one most acceptable to the one most outlandish.
1. Polanski's flight was justified because he feared he would not get a fair trial. Perhaps he was not acting reasonably but his panicky reaction to a prospect of a "court lynching" could be justified by mental instability resulting from his Holocaust experience. So he should not be sentenced for the crime of fleeing the court.
2. The judge's corruption was not an exception, but just a symptom of a broader problem. The entire American justice system is corrupt like this, and it shows that Polanski would not - and cannot even today - get a fair trial with respect of the sentence he would receive.
3. The charges against Polanski's were fake. He is innocent.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 07:07:13 PM
Even on rape charges, a reluctant witness is not at all unusual. A colleague of mine was just dealing with a full-on violent rape by a stranger in the bushes, but the witness was still very reluctant and scared and the Crown did have to resort to a witness warrant at one point in the proceedings (she was fully co-operative at the end of the day however).
There is a difference between a witness who is frightened and reluctant but will tell the truth if compelled to show up and testify and one who is not so much scared of the perp as actively pissed off of the state for invading her privacy.
Which of these two categories is more applicable here remains to be seen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2009, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The issue as I understand it with Polanski was NOT that the judge was going to reject the plea, but that he was considering ignoring the joint sentencing recommendation of both sides and imposing more jail time under the plea.
Yeah that is my understanding as well. And that he was communicating this to the prosecutors and even members of the press, asking them what should be the sentence.
Alas, more conjecture.
Uhm, I don't think anyone who knows the case is questioning the fact that the judge's behaviour was grounds for his removal on bias grounds. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2009, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The issue as I understand it with Polanski was NOT that the judge was going to reject the plea, but that he was considering ignoring the joint sentencing recommendation of both sides and imposing more jail time under the plea.
Yeah that is my understanding as well. And that he was communicating this to the prosecutors and even members of the press, asking them what should be the sentence.
Alas, more conjecture.
Uhm, I don't think anyone who knows the case is questioning the fact that the judge's behaviour was grounds for his removal on bias grounds. :huh:
"Judge's behavior" = "judicial prerogative".
Damned activist judges. We should dig up Judge Sirico while we're at it, and move to mistrial Watergate.
Just for giggles, how's all this playing out over on EUOT? An Atlantic rift not seen since 2003?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2009, 12:27:35 AM
Damned activist judges. We should dig up Judge Sirico while we're at it, and move to mistrial Watergate.
You lost me there. I think you are now being as unreasonable as the people who are arguing against his extradition. It is clear Polanski raped a 13 y.o. It is also clear that there was a serious misconduct from the judge during the trial, which somewhat excuses Polanski's flight (but not his original crime).
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
1. Polanski's flight was justified because he feared he would not get a fair trial. This is imo not completely unjustified. . . . this argument would be used to defend him against charges of fleeing the court, not charges of the child rape.
It is unjustified. He was entering a plea and thus faced no trial. He had skilled counsel who were more than capable of taking and prosecuting an appeal.
Quote2. The judge's corruption was not an exception, but just a symptom of a broader problem. The entire American justice system is corrupt like this, and it shows that Polanski would not - and cannot even today - get a fair trial with respect of the sentence he would receive.
From reading the plea agreement, it seems far more plausible that whatever corruption exists in the system worked to his benefit. He got what appears on the surface to have been a pretty sweetheart deal from a starstruck Cal DA's office. At worst he faced the prospect of a few more weeks or months if the judge decided to be a tough guy. And maybe deportation as well, but flight hardly fixes that problem.
When one compares this to typical sentences received in similar kinds of cases, it is hard to see how he was being treated unfairly.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Uhm, I don't think anyone who knows the case is questioning the fact that the judge's behaviour was grounds for his removal on bias grounds. :huh:
Well the judge is dead and not here to defend himself; his accusers are busy getting themselves into movie documentaries. I wouldn't rush to accept everything that is being said about the judge at face value.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:30:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
1. Polanski's flight was justified because he feared he would not get a fair trial. This is imo not completely unjustified. . . . this argument would be used to defend him against charges of fleeing the court, not charges of the child rape.
It is unjustified. He was entering a plea and thus faced no trial. He had skilled counsel who were more than capable of taking and prosecuting an appeal.
Quote2. The judge's corruption was not an exception, but just a symptom of a broader problem. The entire American justice system is corrupt like this, and it shows that Polanski would not - and cannot even today - get a fair trial with respect of the sentence he would receive.
From reading the plea agreement, it seems far more plausible that whatever corruption exists in the system worked to his benefit. He got what appears on the surface to have been a pretty sweetheart deal from a starstruck Cal DA's office. At worst he faced the prospect of a few more weeks or months if the judge decided to be a tough guy. And maybe deportation as well, but flight hardly fixes that problem.
When one compares this to typical sentences received in similar kinds of cases, it is hard to see how he was being treated unfairly.
Oh ok. I thought he would get like years in prison if the judge decided to go for the maximum penalty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:24:19 AM
There is a difference between a witness who is frightened and reluctant but will tell the truth if compelled to show up and testify and one who is not so much scared of the perp as actively pissed off of the state for invading her privacy.
Not really - these issues, plus about a dozen more you haven't mentioned (witness who will lie, witness who is afraid of getting on the stand, witness that doesn't like being told what to do, witness with her own emotional issues, and so on and so forth) all run together. You don't get them all, but they are far from mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Uhm, I don't think anyone who knows the case is questioning the fact that the judge's behaviour was grounds for his removal on bias grounds. :huh:
Actually I don't know a single soul (other than yourself) who *is* saying such a thing.
Care to link me up?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The judge can either accept or reject the plea
What does it mean if the judge rejects the plea?
Quote from: Barrister on October 01, 2009, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Uhm, I don't think anyone who knows the case is questioning the fact that the judge's behaviour was grounds for his removal on bias grounds. :huh:
Actually I don't know a single soul (other than yourself) who *is* saying such a thing.
Care to link me up?
Do your own research. It has been mentioned in some of the links already posted in this thread (Faelin's for example) and I think is on Polanski's wiki page.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 01:16:11 AM
Do your own research.
I did. The victim's had more anal sex than you.
We're talking about the law here, dude. You're in way over your head, Marcin.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 08:23:22 PM
It has to be the indictment or an agreement between prosecution, defense, and the judge; if the defendant refuses a plea deal, the judge and prosecutor can't throw a softball.
If a judge offers a deal, then reneges on it, I would assume the conversations regarding the deal would become ex parte and would require censure, recusal, or a retrial, depending on when it happened and to what extent it influenced the proceedings.
Kinda curious as to why you are stating with such assumed authority things which even I, a law dilettante, know are untrue. :huh:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:09:44 PM
Why does that matter?
You are talking about "the justice America wants." Since the only person about whom you can state the "wants" is yourself, we must translate "America" as you (though a you assuming that your wants are universal, which, of course, they are not).
QuoteThis is what I hate about this fucking place. Everyone has to have an unmovable position. I'm actually interested in people's opinions, and often change my own when people make good arguments (and this does happen on Languish) so my opinion is malleable on this issue, and others. I've always maintained though that he should finish his sentence (and do the year or whatever for evading jail) but...
This is what I hate abiout some fucking posters. They get all "I'm actually interested in people's opinions" but, when asked for their own, claim the asker is taking "an unmovable position" which makes them "hate this place."
Generally, if you want opinions, you should ask open-ended questions, rather than making silly pronouncements about what "America wants."
Quotewhat I am cynical about is: that actually happening, and am quite amused by all the morons who spend so much time talking about how he's not an exception to be made because of his art. Well d'uh. Being creative and successful with that creativity doesn't exclude you from being someone who deserves prison for having sex with a minor. I guess unless you are Michael Jackson., but then you have to watch out for Kervorkian types posing as your friend.
It is interesting that you think only morons talk about how Polanski is not an exception to the rules (unless you are saying that the morons on the other side don't amuse you). This is a pretty unbalanced position, whichever way you mean it.
QuoteIf he actually does time in America or anywhere other than his current Swiss jail ( I imagine him being guarded by those Swiss Pope guards for some reason.) I'd be amazed.
I concur on this. The interesting question will be whether or not he gets bail while awaiting the years of rulings and appeals. My guess: yes, after a figleaf period of two or three months.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:29:56 AM
It is also clear that there was a serious misconduct from the judge during the trial, which somewhat excuses Polanski's flight (but not his original crime).
What, exactly, was this misconduct? All I have ever been able to find was (1) hearsay testimony about a conversation he supposedly had at a country club, and (2) testimony from the prosecuting and defense attorneys that he was trying to dictate what they would say at the sentencing hearing.
You got more than this? Because neither of these (the first of which Polanski couldn't have known about" justifies, in any way, Polanski's flight, as far as I can see.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:35:27 AM
Oh ok. I thought he would get like years in prison if the judge decided to go for the maximum penalty.
I think you are correct in this. Several sources have stated that, at the time, the maximum
possible sentence was 50 years in prison for this crime.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 01, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
Just for giggles, how's all this playing out over on EUOT? An Atlantic rift not seen since 2003?
Didn't they pull the plug on OT?
Nope, it's still there and there is a thread on the second page called "Roman Polanski Arrested for Statutory Rape". I'll check it out... bound to be hilarious.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 06:55:33 AM
Nope, it's still there and there is a thread on the second page called "Roman Polanski Arrested for Statutory Rape". I'll check it out... bound to be hilarious.
Well? Yes I'm still up and Johan is too scared of me to lift my ban.
Quote from: Matija
Quote:
Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.
Good enough for me, let him go.
Quote from: Smirfy
This is a nonsense. A 13 year old girl who looks 25, drinks, does drugs and has sex. Thats half the 13 year old girls in the UK.
Maybe if Mr Polanski learns to moonwalk the charges will be dropped
Quote from: Skarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwalcmai
But he did commit a crime afterwards. Every day he spent running from justice after he'd been found guilty was another day of breaking the law.
The way he has avoided justice I don't think is even a crime in Sweden.
And I don't see how it can be viewed as a crime either as it's not bad for the country in question?
Quote from: DarthMaurQuote:
Originally Posted by LordLeto
When was rape legal?
Hard to say. Before XIX century?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boblof
Laws aren't there to be cost efficient, in that case we would just shoot every criminal, 5 cents a pop, or we would export them as slave labour and make a buck. Laws are there to 1. protect the individual and revenge wrongs against the same 2. protect society and 3. to deter criminal behaviour.
I think that actually they are... and shooting people is rarely cost effiecent (nor is chaining them)
A lot of large-scale things, like security measures, are designed to be cost effiecent, often putting a price on human life, they just don't often see the public light
Quote from: miloc
What leaves a bitter taste is the fact that he has been in Switzerland many times before without getting arrested. Apparently he even owns a house in Gstaad. Why this arrest now?
My guess: Probably a try to improve relations with the USA again, which had dropped after the tax evasion schemes of the UBS in the USA came to light. It seems Polanski did pay the price for USA-Swiss agreement on this.
Quote from: Skarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Men
If it was just some random shleb off the street, that nobody had ever heard of, he'd have been locked up with hardly a ripple in the news. In he goes. If he had committed the crime yesterday, there wouldn't be any question about it; why should he be treated leniently because he managed to escape justice for 30 years? If anything that should make it worse. In he goes.
At least here we usually say that if someone has avoided committing a crime for a certain amount of years after you did the crime you succeeded to avoid getting punished for your considered rehabilitated and sentencing you after that would be counter-productive. The only sense in sentencing someone 30 years after they committed a deed and it can be proven that he hasn't committed a crime since is for revenge and statuary example. Neither that I consider should belong in a justice system.
Quote from: pithorr
Justice...
Anyone remembers OJ Simpson?
Polański was absolutely guilty due to the local law, however do you guys personally really consider sex with a teen as a heavy crime?
Quote from: Skarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtis
How you could honestly not want this man punished for a) conspiring to rape a 13-year old, then acting on that plan and raping a 13-year old and b) fleeing before he was sentenced for the above which he admitted to is totally beyond me.
Don't bother responding you've made my ignore list for this ridiculous stance and others where you see women as prizes to be won and trophies to be captured.
I will bother to answer anyway, even if you read it or not.
A person that commit rape deserves any hell he can get. To be honest such a man deserves little in life.
My point was that there's no point to execute a person for crimes that was done decades ago if the person has been clear from committing any crimes since. All psychological theories show this. Why the heck should society bother to spend millions on a person whom don't deserve anything? Let him rot in France.
And me seeing women as prizes to be won or trophies to be captured I think is an extreme insult.
I do consider it every person's right to try to learn how to be better in making people happy. Getting an companion is an important part in making yourself and your partner happy. This is the stance I have, read the discussions between me and Seil and the fact that I am in an long term relationship if you disagree. I and Seil has very different stance on that topic.
Gender has no importance, females should hunt men and men should hunt females. With the goal to make themselves and their prey happy.
If you would consider my opinion as seeing "women as prices to be won", then you are completely missing that I don't care about "winning" and I don't care about gender. The point is to make the people involved happy.
Caliga, some of those posters on EUOT have to be demented.
I have a small, sneaking degree of agreement with Matija's point, as I have had all along. I tend to have sympathy with a victim's point of view on appropriate punishment, so I have to accept that sometimes the victim wants less of a punishment than I think is appropriate.
It is only a small degree of agreement though; the majority of me believes Polanski should be punished as the Californian courts system sees fit (since he entered a guilty plea.)
The rest of the posters that Caliga has excerpted from are so "out there" that all I can say is :frusty:
EUOT is an example of what happens to a forum when stupid people cannot be viciously verbally brutalized.
Just FYI, I only picked out the posts that amused me the most. Most of the people posting in the thread actually were supportive of his arrest. I think it helped that Stoney was one of the earliest posters and kinda held the dike restraining the Sea of EUOT Stupidity back with his finger.
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 07:47:12 AM
EUOT is an example of what happens to a forum when stupid people cannot be viciously verbally brutalized.
:)
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 07:50:42 AMthe Sea of EUOT Stupidity
:lol:
It's funny because it's true
I guess some of the people (especially in Europe) who oppose Polanski's extradition come from the position that the US is this country with draconic laws that are only marginally better than those of Iran, Saudi Arabia or China. So their position is that by extraditing him to the US - even if he committed the crime - would result in a punishment that people in Europe would consider unjust - for example many people in this thread suggested life imprisonment, whereas I think most Euros would view a penalty of say 3-4 years - taking into account his age, the fact that he reconciled with the victim etc. - to be more appropriate.
Of course this argument is invalidated substantially by the fact that if the French government thought that he should face justice but that he would get an unjust trial/sentence in the US, they should have tried him under the French law in a French court instead, which they didn't (before people start screaming that I'm a shitty lawyer - this kind of jurisdiction over one's citizens is not unusual in European countries, even if the crime is committed abroad and the victim is foreign - check out the Swedish government prosecuting Swedish sex tourists who travel to Thailand).
Oh and to improve the image of France a bit:
QuoteFrench drop Polanski release call
The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".
The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.
He is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over charges of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
On Monday, the French foreign minister called for Polanski to be freed.
Polanski, who has dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested on Saturday when he flew into the country.
He had been due to pick up a lifetime achievement prize at the Zurich film festival.
'Serious affair'
Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job."
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner have written to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calling for Polanski to be freed.
But the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has distanced himself from the move by asking his ministers to show "greater restraint" in defending him.
He added that despite a "leading Polish director" being involved, it is still a "case of rape and of punishment for having sex with a child".
A member of the British parliament has called on the Council of Europe, of which he is also a member, to support Polanski's extradition to the US.
Denis MacShane said the film-maker "should be held accountable" for his actions.
French film-maker Luc Besson, who directed the 1994 movie Leon, has also refused to lend his support.
Speaking to French radio station RTL, he said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much ... but nobody should be above the law.
"I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
Despite that, Mr Polanski has no shortage of supporters, including at least 110 film industry figures who have signed a petition calling for his release.
Among them are Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and David Lynch, as well as Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci.
Actor Peter Fonda said he thought "celebrating the arrest of Osama bin Laden and not the arrest of Polanski" was far more important.
Mr Polanski fled the US in 1978 before he was sentenced on a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
He has never returned and even missed receiving an Oscar for his 2003 film The Pianist.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
Tilda Swinton :cry:
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 07:59:15 AM
-for example many people in this thread suggested life imprisonment, whereas I think most Euros would view a penalty of say 3-4 years - taking into account his age, the fact that he reconciled with the victim etc. - to be more appropriate.
Really? That's not a loaded question: I don't remember anyone calling for life imprisonment. I would be cool with a sentence of 3-4 years and suspect this is the sort of sentence he'll end up getting.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
1. Polanski's flight was justified because he feared he would not get a fair trial. Perhaps he was not acting reasonably but his panicky reaction to a prospect of a "court lynching" could be justified by mental instability resulting from his Holocaust experience. So he should not be sentenced for the crime of fleeing the court.
You know, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow insulting to all the holocaust survivors who aren't raping 13 year old girls.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 07:59:15 AM
-for example many people in this thread suggested life imprisonment, whereas I think most Euros would view a penalty of say 3-4 years - taking into account his age, the fact that he reconciled with the victim etc. - to be more appropriate.
Really? That's not a loaded question: I don't remember anyone calling for life imprisonment. I would be cool with a sentence of 3-4 years and suspect this is the sort of sentence he'll end up getting.
Jaron did (yeah I know :P).
Quote from: Faeelin on October 01, 2009, 08:03:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
1. Polanski's flight was justified because he feared he would not get a fair trial. Perhaps he was not acting reasonably but his panicky reaction to a prospect of a "court lynching" could be justified by mental instability resulting from his Holocaust experience. So he should not be sentenced for the crime of fleeing the court.
You know, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow insulting to all the holocaust survivors who aren't raping 13 year old girls.
Maybe noone told them that they can? :P
Anyway you are twisting my words. I didn't say that this is a justification for him raping a girl, but a justification that he may have freaked out and acted panicky fearing he would not get a fair trial. Only because he is guilty does not mean he is not entitled to a fair trial.
Martinus: You're a shitty lawyer.
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 08:08:47 AM
Martinus: You're a shitty lawyer.
That is still somewhat uncertain.
Just FYI, Marti, my reading of the case is that Polanski thought that he was getting a sentence that would not be severe enough to result in deportation. When the judge started talking about 90 days, it seems that this would (and the judge probably intended that it would) result in deportation. At that point, Polanski decided (again, just my interpretation) that, if he was going to be kicked out of Hollywood anyway, it made no sense to serve more jail time, so he voluntarily did what he thought the judge wanted to do to him involuntarily: get out of the US for good.
I don't think that years in prison was a real issue.
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 08:08:47 AM
Martinus: You're a shitty lawyer.
Are we sure he is a lawyer?
Quote from: DGuller on October 01, 2009, 08:19:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 08:08:47 AM
Martinus: You're a shitty lawyer.
Are we sure he is a lawyer?
Martinus is a lawyer, and has been one for quite some time.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 07:59:15 AM
-for example many people in this thread suggested life imprisonment, whereas I think most Euros would view a penalty of say 3-4 years - taking into account his age, the fact that he reconciled with the victim etc. - to be more appropriate.
Really? That's not a loaded question: I don't remember anyone calling for life imprisonment. I would be cool with a sentence of 3-4 years and suspect this is the sort of sentence he'll end up getting.
I don't believe he reconsiled with his victim either. If I'm not mistaken she reconciled with what happened to her and doesn't want her name being dragged through the mud all over again by those slezebags who think a 13 year old girl getting drugged and sexed by an old freak isn't a big deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 01:03:25 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 01, 2009, 12:12:31 AM
The judge can either accept or reject the plea
What does it mean if the judge rejects the plea?
Depends on the reason for the rejection - it could mean the two sides put together a new agreement that responds to the judge's concern, or the case goes to trial, or even the government decides not to proceed at all.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 01, 2009, 08:39:31 AM
I don't believe he reconsiled with his victim either. If I'm not mistaken she reconciled with what happened to her and doesn't want her name being dragged through the mud all over again by those slezebags who think a 13 year old girl getting drugged and sexed by an old freak isn't a big deal.
I agree with this as well. In fact, I don't think Polanski has ever admitted that what he did was wrong (and, in fairness to him, I don't think he is capable of recognizing that it
is wrong to have sex with underage girls - something inside him is broken). The victim hasn't so much forgiven him as said that she wishes the whole thing would just go away.
Didn't he pay her off? If so, I guess that was his way of reconciling with her.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:48:16 AM
Didn't he pay her off? If so, I guess that was his way of reconciling with her.
Paying a lawsuit settlement is not a means of reconciling, but rather a means of avoiding the cost and dangers of going to trial.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2009, 08:50:28 AM
Paying a lawsuit settlement is not a means of reconciling, but rather a means of avoiding the cost and dangers of going to trial.
I didn't mean to imply that I endorse what I speculate was his way of 'reconciling' with her. :)
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2009, 08:18:50 AM
Just FYI, Marti, my reading of the case is that Polanski thought that he was getting a sentence that would not be severe enough to result in deportation. When the judge started talking about 90 days, it seems that this would (and the judge probably intended that it would) result in deportation. At that point, Polanski decided (again, just my interpretation) that, if he was going to be kicked out of Hollywood anyway, it made no sense to serve more jail time, so he voluntarily did what he thought the judge wanted to do to him involuntarily: get out of the US for good.
I don't think that years in prison was a real issue.
This is also my reading from the press accounts. The statutory max was much higher, but that was never in the cards; the question was whether the judge was going to add on a couple months to trigger mandatory deportation. Judges don't hew to prosecutor recommendations 100% of the time, but it would be unheard of for a judge to hear a recommendation of 48 days from the State and then sentence to 48 years.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:52:50 AM
I didn't mean to imply that I endorse what I speculate was his way of 'reconciling' with her. :)
My reading of the case is that he felt no need to reconcile, since he did nothing wrong. He would then have paid off the lawsuit to avoid having a lot of sordid details come out, not to make up for anything he had done.
All speculation, of course, and based more on what he hasn't said than what he has.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2009, 08:56:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:52:50 AM
I didn't mean to imply that I endorse what I speculate was his way of 'reconciling' with her. :)
My reading of the case is that he felt no need to reconcile, since he did nothing wrong. He would then have paid off the lawsuit to avoid having a lot of sordid details come out, not to make up for anything he had done.
Gotcha... makes sense to me.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2009, 07:59:15 AM
-for example many people in this thread suggested life imprisonment, whereas I think most Euros would view a penalty of say 3-4 years - taking into account his age, the fact that he reconciled with the victim etc. - to be more appropriate.
Really? That's not a loaded question: I don't remember anyone calling for life imprisonment. I would be cool with a sentence of 3-4 years and suspect this is the sort of sentence he'll end up getting.
I think he should be left to rot.
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about nobody calling for life imprisonment. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 09:31:34 AM
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about nobody calling for life imprisonment. :blush:
I'd crucify Polanski on the National Mall as an example.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:34:10 AM
I'd crucify Polanski on the National Mall as an example.
That might upset the folks at the Holocaust Museum facing the Mall. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 09:41:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:34:10 AM
I'd crucify Polanski on the National Mall as an example.
That might upset the folks at the Holocaust Museum facing the Mall. :mad:
THEY ARE ON NOTICE TOO.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 09:41:46 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:34:10 AM
I'd crucify Polanski on the National Mall as an example.
That might upset the folks at the Holocaust Museum facing the Mall. :mad:
Apparently, they need all the encouragement to behave they can get - according to some of Polanski's defenders. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2009, 09:44:12 AM
Apparently, they need all the encouragement to behave they can get - according to some of Polanski's defenders. ;)
Indeed. I cannot tell if they are saying that Polanski can fuck kids because he survived the
Holocaust or because he
survived the Holocaust.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2009, 06:11:57 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 09:09:44 PM
Why does that matter?
You are talking about "the justice America wants." Since the only person about whom you can state the "wants" is yourself, we must translate "America" as you (though a you assuming that your wants are universal, which, of course, they are not).
QuoteThis is what I hate about this fucking place. Everyone has to have an unmovable position. I'm actually interested in people's opinions, and often change my own when people make good arguments (and this does happen on Languish) so my opinion is malleable on this issue, and others. I've always maintained though that he should finish his sentence (and do the year or whatever for evading jail) but...
This is what I hate abiout some fucking posters. They get all "I'm actually interested in people's opinions" but, when asked for their own, claim the asker is taking "an unmovable position" which makes them "hate this place."
Generally, if you want opinions, you should ask open-ended questions, rather than making silly pronouncements about what "America wants."
Quotewhat I am cynical about is: that actually happening, and am quite amused by all the morons who spend so much time talking about how he's not an exception to be made because of his art. Well d'uh. Being creative and successful with that creativity doesn't exclude you from being someone who deserves prison for having sex with a minor. I guess unless you are Michael Jackson., but then you have to watch out for Kervorkian types posing as your friend.
It is interesting that you think only morons talk about how Polanski is not an exception to the rules (unless you are saying that the morons on the other side don't amuse you). This is a pretty unbalanced position, whichever way you mean it.
QuoteIf he actually does time in America or anywhere other than his current Swiss jail ( I imagine him being guarded by those Swiss Pope guards for some reason.) I'd be amazed.
I concur on this. The interesting question will be whether or not he gets bail while awaiting the years of rulings and appeals. My guess: yes, after a figleaf period of two or three months.
Bah. the "America" bit was throw-away. Just some sarcastic humour I forgot not everyone understands those concepts (humor or sarcasm) I would never deign to speak for "America" as I'm not American. Not even close despite my proximity.
Why should I apologize for not taking hard positions on a retarded forum where I'm (just like you) trying to have a bit of fun, and kill some time. There are no discussions on this board (including my own threads) that I take very seriously.
Who on this board actually asks open ended questions? That's not how it works here. You say something you think is either brilliant, trollish, stupid, clever, etc and wait for others to respond in kind.
[grumbler] oh and btw I never said "only" morons, I said "the" morons who... Which only refers to certain morons, not even all of them, or even only them... others may have opinions, but the morons are the ones yakking the loudest on both sides. [/grumbler]
I agree with Grumbler's analysis of Polanski's reasons for fleeing the USA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 30, 2009, 06:36:26 PM
I disagree. There's plenty of Americans who don't know what fucking time it is. And we're talking California Americans, a whole different breed of Amerimoron.
Whatever. :rolleyes:
That said, I think you could find many Americans (/many Californians) who have no idea who Polanski is or what he did. He really isn't that big of a deal.
And this move just makes Polanski's defenders look worse, if that's possible.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/?cid=hp:featureline
QuoteA retired L.A. prosecutor—the man at the center of the Polanski judicial misconduct allegations—now tells Marcia Clark that he lied to documentarians, undercutting the director's defense. Among the developments Clark finds:
• Polanski's grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that "I lied" in the movie about advising the judge, and that "it never happened," which could undermine the director's case for dismissal.
• Wells' excuse for lying in the movie? "The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I'd told the judge what to do."
• Wells confirms to Clark that he did supply the judge pictures of Polanski reveling at Oktoberfest, and says that it's these photos that prompted the judge in 1977 to reconsider the plea bargain.
• Law-enforcement sources confirm that the strident actions of Polanski's own lawyers—prompted by Wells' now-recanted statements in the movie—led to his arrest this weekend.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2009, 03:47:10 PM
And this move just makes Polanski's defenders look worse, if that's possible.
Why? :huh:
If Polanski was smart, he would announce a news conference from behind bars, state he is tired of "running", that he is dropping all appeals, and will return to face the charges.
Over the next few weeks his PR people supply a constant stream of stories about how he is (or is not) holding up under the enormous strength, with tales of pity about how bravely the nearly 80 year old man is baring under the circumstances.
By the end of the day this brave old man, a holocaust survivor no less, returns to the US and the groundswell to release him or give him a nominal sentence is so overwhelming he is immediately released.
And Polanski then announces his triumphant new film coming out in theatres next year.
It's a decent plan. With any luck he could score some fresh pussy while he's here.
He should make a blockbuster, ie a movie that doesn't make any money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 04:04:18 PM
It's a decent plan. With any luck he could score some fresh pussy while he's here.
Almost certainly.
Yeah, he does like it fresh :ph34r:
Quote from: The Brain on October 01, 2009, 04:07:38 PM
He should make a blockbuster, ie a movie that doesn't make any money.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 04:04:18 PM
It's a decent plan. With any luck he could score some fresh pussy while he's here.
He could hook up with that hideous Kate Gosselin woman. She got a few girls in Polanski's range
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 01, 2009, 04:04:18 PM
It's a decent plan. With any luck he could score some fresh pussy while he's here.
He could hook up with that hideous Kate Gosselin woman. She got a few girls in Polanski's range
:lol: ! ! !
They're remaking all sorts of movies these days.
He could "reboot" Caged Heat.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 01, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
They're remaking all sorts of movies these days.
He could "reboot" Caged Heat.
Lolita.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 09:31:34 AM
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about nobody calling for life imprisonment. :blush:
Well, at his age, the 3-4 years you mentioned might well be the same as life.
I personally would not have minded if he had gotten the max 30 years ago, but I see little purpose in doing so now.
I think what I'd like to see is for him to serve another 48-60 days for the original crime, and then 1-2 years for the flight. That should send a message that if you run, you're just making it worse for yourself.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 04:53:46 PM
He could hook up with that hideous Kate Gosselin woman. She got a few girls in Polanski's range
I can't stand to look at photos of her. Worst hairstyle ever. It's like a mullet in reverse.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 01, 2009, 11:56:53 AM
Bah. the "America" bit was throw-away. Just some sarcastic humour I forgot not everyone understands those concepts (humor or sarcasm)
You also forgot that maybe it was your usage of the "sarcastic humor" that was at fault... oh, wait. I forgot. You don't think anyone at Languish admits mistakes, so naturally you don't consider doing so yourself.
QuoteWho on this board actually asks open ended questions? That's not how it works here. You say something you think is either brilliant, trollish, stupid, clever, etc and wait for others to respond in kind.
Well, I ask them JR asks them, BB asks them, Yi (especially) asks them... so we are left with the necessity of translating your "not how it works here" to "not how it works here
for me." Okay. Just don't bitch so much, then, when others "pull a BuddhaRhubarb."
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 01, 2009, 06:05:13 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 01, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
They're remaking all sorts of movies these days.
He could "reboot" Caged Heat.
Lolita.
17 year old Dominique Swain was hott.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 01, 2009, 09:34:25 PM
No. She looked 12.
Bullshit. She looked like a grown woman with a little girl's haircut.
Sue Lyon looked younger, though I'm thinking 14 maybe.
Quote from: grumbler on October 01, 2009, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 01, 2009, 11:56:53 AM
Bah. the "America" bit was throw-away. Just some sarcastic humour I forgot not everyone understands those concepts (humor or sarcasm)
You also forgot that maybe it was your usage of the "sarcastic humor" that was at fault... oh, wait. I forgot. You don't think anyone at Languish admits mistakes, so naturally you don't consider doing so yourself.
QuoteWho on this board actually asks open ended questions? That's not how it works here. You say something you think is either brilliant, trollish, stupid, clever, etc and wait for others to respond in kind.
Well, I ask them JR asks them, BB asks them, Yi (especially) asks them... so we are left with the necessity of translating your "not how it works here" to "not how it works here for me." Okay. Just don't bitch so much, then, when others "pull a BuddhaRhubarb."
:face: ow. Was I that mean to you? or just talking out of my ass about the board in general? I never intended originally to get into some kind of ad hom bullshit. but I did. sorry.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,560983,00.html
Polanski Denied Request to Be Released From Prison
The Swiss Justice Ministry says it has rejected an appeal from Roman Polanski to be released from prison pending his possible extradition to the United States.
Ministry spokesman Folco Galli told The AP on Tuesday that the government maintains there is a high risk that Polanski might flee if released from custody.
The appeal is separate from a court case Polanski's legal team filed last week that also seeks the 76-year-old director's freedom.
Polanski was arrested Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive an award from a film festival.
Polanski pleaded guilty to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl and fled into exile in France in 1977. He has since avoided traveling to countries that were likely to extradite him.
He had spent 42 days in prison in what his lawyers believed was his full sentence under a plea bargain. But a decision by the now deceased judge to add more prison time and require his voluntary deportation prompted him to leave the country.
His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.
Polanski has lived for the past three decades in France, where his career has continued to flourish; he received a directing Oscar in absentia for the 2002 movie "The Pianist." He and Seigner have two children.
Cool I look forward to his trial.
He should be sentenced to attending every Baltimore Orioles game next year.
It seems terribly unreasonable to consider the poor man a flight risk. He is a respected director!
Perhaps another one of America's long national nightmares is coming to an end? :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 08:29:24 AM
It seems terribly unreasonable to consider the poor man a flight risk. He is a respected director!
He's made many good movies. Raping a child hardly compares with his artistic mastery. And Woody Allen says he is a righteous dude!
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 06, 2009, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 08:29:24 AM
It seems terribly unreasonable to consider the poor man a flight risk. He is a respected director!
He's made many good movies. Raping a child hardly compares with his artistic mastery. And Woody Allen says he is a righteous dude!
:lol:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 06, 2009, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 06, 2009, 08:29:24 AM
It seems terribly unreasonable to consider the poor man a flight risk. He is a respected director!
He's made many good movies. Raping a child hardly compares with his artistic mastery. And Woody Allen says he is a righteous dude!
He gets two free rapes for
Chinatown.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F14%2FCalling-of-st-matthew.jpg&hash=dcc07d285de12f4af5383836d4f690a5ea31fe92)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc5%2FMichelangelo_Caravaggio_069.jpg&hash=72d752b789879e0bf1c23bceb8e1ffe960bc667e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb8%2FMichelangelo_Caravaggio_006.jpg&hash=6b9faa1ecd276f3b8de987e889e76f929f412aac)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F42%2FMichelangelo_Caravaggio_021.jpg&hash=19a088ca5ddbf8c03a576722a0ca44518c119245)
All these great works of art wouldn't exist had justice been served. :P
:bleeding: next time use bigger pictures to make your point. btw I like your Brad Pitt quote. I'd pay dues to be a member of that party (Pitt The Stoner?).
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 06, 2009, 11:22:32 AM
:bleeding: next time use bigger pictures to make your point. btw I like your Brad Pitt quote. I'd pay dues to be a member of that party (Pitt The Stoner?).
I must admit I find myself surprised to find myself so in accord with Brad Pitt's political views. I like the fact that I can still learn something new everyday.
QuoteFrench minister in 'boy sex' row
France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand is facing intense pressure over a book he wrote that described paying for "young boys" in Thailand.
The book was written four years ago, before he joined the government, but is back in the headlines following his impassioned support for Roman Polanski.
Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland on child sex charges.
Mr Mitterrand, nephew of late President Francois Mitterrand, is expected to defend himself on TV later on Thursday.
Mr Mitterrand has come under attack from right and left.
In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: "I got into the habit of paying for boys," saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing "the sordid details of this traffic".
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Mr Mitterrand, 62, has denied being a paedophile, saying the term "boys" was used loosely.
'Sex tourism'
The account of cruising for prostitutes in Thailand attracted little attention when it was published in 2005, when Mr Mitterrand was a TV personality.
He did not share his uncle's socialist politics, and was brought into the centre-right government by President Nicolas Sarkozy in June 2009.
But his strong defence of Polanski has brought the book back into the public eye. Polanski faces deportation to the United States for having had sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Mr Mitterrand said the US' behaviour, in seeking his extradition, was callous and "horrifying".
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
A senior aide to President Sarkozy, Henri Guaino, on Thursday backed the minister, saying the row was "excessive and quite undignified".
But the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby, in Paris, says that the revelation that a senior cabinet minister was involved in sex tourism, just as the country holds negotiations with Thailand to discuss ways of fighting it, will inevitably embarrass Mr Sarkozy's government.
:lmfao: :face: :lmfao:
<Maurice Chevalier laugh>
Told you so
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 30, 2009, 01:20:53 PM
Don't worry, that minister is more into Thai young boys.
:face:
Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2009, 08:27:59 AM
Cool I look forward to his trial.
He should be sentenced to attending every Baltimore Orioles game next year.
Force him to manage the team. Most of the pitching staff throws like 12-year old girls, so he will fit right in.
QuoteFrench 'boy sex' minister defiant
A French politician has refused to resign over comments that he enjoyed paying for "young boys" in Thailand.
Frederic Mitterrand, 62, the culture minister, denied that passages of his book, The Bad Life, described sexual encounters with underage boys.
Interviewed on French TV, he condemned sex tourism and paedophilia, saying he had only paid for sex with men his age.
Mr Mitterrand, nephew of late President Francois Mitterrand, faced criticism from left and right in recent weeks.
ANALYSIS
Hugh Schofield, BBC News, Paris Frederic Mitterrand got his key messages over loud and clear: one, he was ineradicably opposed to sex tourism; two, he had never himself paid for sex with underage boys.
He also turned the tables on his attackers - accusing them of conflating homosexuality with paedophilia. From now on, anyone who reopens the attack on Mr Mitterrand risks the stigma of intolerance. Questions are bound to remain about how truthful he was being.
But culture ministers in France always have a certain licence. Most French people will take him at his word.
His book was little-noticed when it was first published in 2005.
However it returned to the headlines after Mr Mitterrand made an impassioned defence of film director Roman Polanski, who was recently arrested in Switzerland on child sex charges.
Mr Mitterrand said the behaviour of the United States, in seeking his extradition, was callous and "horrifying".
His comments in support of Polanski led the right-wing National Front to lead the criticism of Mr Mitterrand over events in his past.
France's Socialist opposition has also been sharply critical of Mr Mitterrand.
'Not a crime'
Mr Mitterrand appeared on a French TV news programme on Thursday evening visibly angry and far from apologetic.
"I absolutely condemn sexual tourism [and] I condemn paedophilia in which I have never in any way participated," Mr Mitterrand said.
FREDERIC MITTERRAND
Born in Paris, 21 August 1947
Nephew of former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand
Former TV presenter, documentary maker and writer
Appointed head of the French Academy in Rome in 2008
Named by Nicolas Sarkozy as culture minister in June 2009
"All the people who accuse me of that type of thing should be ashamed."
People "should not confuse paedophilia and homosexuality", the culture minister insisted, describing his actions in Thailand as an error - "without a doubt" - but not a crime.
"Each time I was with people who were my age, or who were five years younger - there wasn't the slightest ambiguity - and who were consenting," he said.
Mr Mitterrand said he retained the confidence of current President Nicolas Sarkozy and that he had not offered to resign over the controversy.
He had committed what he thought was an "offence against... human dignity", but strongly denied any accusations of illegal sexual activities.
When Mr Mitterrand's book, described by his publishers as a novel based on autobiography, was written, it received literary praise and did not generate controversy.
When he was appointed to the French government in June 2009 Mr Sarkozy described his new minister as "talented and courageous".
Looks like the story with the minister was a bit different than originally reported. Well, assuming he is not lying, this is not a reason to resign and kudos to the French people for not being stuck up puritans. :frog:
Quote from: Martinus on October 09, 2009, 04:15:20 AM
Looks like the story with the minister was a bit different than originally reported.
Not really, no.
But you? Jumping to conclusions? That was originally reported.
Berkut, speaking of your (and mine) earlier comment, has there been any backlash from feminist organizations in the US?
In Poland, pretty much all feminist, women-rights, anti-discrimination, anti-homophobia and gay rights organizations, as well as a number of various leftist gurus and commentators signed an open letter protesting the trivialization of child abuse and/or calls for special treatment of famous people, and saying that Polanski should get a fair trial - but nothing beyond that.
Kinda cool - my rolemodels haven't failed me. :P
Judging by the way you behave, if these are your role models and you learned your behavior from them, they're suspect.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2009, 08:28:43 AM
Judging by the way you behave, if these are your role models and you learned your behavior from them, they're suspect.
Well they are all Polish.
He went to Thailand and paid for sex, but he's very opposed to sex tourism? Is there something lost in the translation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:43:46 AM
He went to Thailand and paid for sex, but he's very opposed to sex tourism? Is there something lost in the translation?
Well, yes. He doesn't recommend it and is ashamed of it, now.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 16, 2009, 10:14:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:43:46 AM
He went to Thailand and paid for sex, but he's very opposed to sex tourism? Is there something lost in the translation?
Well, yes. He doesn't recommend it and is ashamed of it is a politician, now.
Fixed.
Yi - I looked at his original statement in French. The translation is: "Do as I say, not as I do"
Quote from: MartinusLooks like the story with the minister was a bit different than originally reported. Well, assuming he is not lying, this is not a reason to resign and kudos to the French people for not being stuck up puritans. :frog:
We've been there before: he was questionned on his book in the past, before the recent events with Polanski and never denied having sex with underage boys. He never said he did have sex with underage boys either, he deliberately let the question hanging. But when you're asked if you paid for underage boys and you evade the question instead of saying "NO", you're suspicious.
Besides, let's look at that in all honesty here. You may think I'm an homophobic puritan, and I tend to think you're leaning to close to Grallon's stance on underage sex for my tastes, but look at the facts in a clear, rational matter:
- You are an older homosexual man with enough money to 'rent' an occasional male prostitute for your pleasure.
- You decide to visit Thailand, a place known for it's underage sex market.
- You write in a book that you like "ephebes". Ephebes means younger teenage boys.
- You're ask if you slept with underage boys and you never answer.
- You take the defense of someone accused of raping a 13 y.o. girl by calling the accuser "puritans".
- People make the link with your book and your previous answers.
- You then call them "puritans".
I fail to see how it is anybody's fault but Mitterand if people consider you a pedophile given these facts.
Nobody goes in Thailand to sleep with 21 year old male prostitutes. You can do that in Paris, I'm pretty sure. What you can't do (safely) in Paris though is sleep with 13-14 year old boys or buy them at a 'market' of sort.
Viper, you're off-base here. As Disturbed Pervert has constantly tells us with constant knee-jerk style, there's no such thing as pedophile sex trafficking in Thailand. It's all in Cambodia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2009, 10:52:01 AM
Yi - I looked at his original statement in French. The translation is: "Do as I say, not as I do"
You sure it's not: sounded good when I wrote it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:43:46 AM
He went to Thailand and paid for sex, but he's very opposed to sex tourism? Is there something lost in the translation?
He went there 40 years ago. Unlike on Languish, people in the real world (tm) sometimes change their opinions.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2009, 08:28:43 AM
Judging by the way you behave, if these are your role models and you learned your behavior from them, they're suspect.
Well, they represent views that are pretty much 100% opposed to yours so no wonder.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 10:58:33 AM
... You may think I'm an homophobic puritan, and I tend to think you're leaning to close to Grallon's stance on underage sex for my tastes, but look at the facts in a clear, rational matter:
You do know there's a difference between having sex with consenting 15 or 16 yo and the kind of boys being sold/rented in Thailand yes? I'll never condem the former while the latter needs to be exposed and punished.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
You do know there's a difference between having sex with consenting 15 or 16 yo and the kind of boys being sold/rented in Thailand yes? I'll never condem the former while the latter needs to be exposed and punished.
You do know that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is no such thing in law as consent from a 15 year old.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:35:07 AM
He went there 40 years ago. Unlike on Languish, people in the real world (tm) sometimes change their opinions.
He hadn't changed his mind by 2005 when his book was published, apparently. Looks like he changed his mind, in a stunning coincidence, right after he started catching shit over it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:40:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:35:07 AM
He went there 40 years ago. Unlike on Languish, people in the real world (tm) sometimes change their opinions.
He hadn't changed his mind by 2005 when his book was published, apparently. Looks like he changed his mind, in a stunning coincidence, right after he started catching shit over it.
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
You do know there's a difference between having sex with consenting 15 or 16 yo and the kind of boys being sold/rented in Thailand yes? I'll never condem the former while the latter needs to be exposed and punished.
You do know that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is no such thing in law as consent from a 15 year old.
So? In Poland (and I understand Quebec) 15 is the age of consent. I also realise that in many jurisdictions (in fact I suspect in more jurisdictions than used in your example), homosexual sex is punished by death or long term imprisonment. Not sure if I understand what your point is.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
You do know that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is no such thing in law as consent from a 15 year old.
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
G.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Presumably it's the part you read before telling me that he had changed his mind. :lol:
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
You do know that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is no such thing in law as consent from a 15 year old.
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
G.
See, this is where we differ. I disagree. There is a need for a uniform standard. It's just that I think that in this day and age, the age should be somewhere between 14-16. Setting it at 18 (or even higher) is entirely unreasonable. It doesn't mean you get to be the judge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Presumably it's the part you read before telling me that he had changed his mind. :lol:
Nope. I see nothing inconsistent between the following scenario:
Guy goes to do something bad in his youth. Then writes a book about his youth, and mentions his bad deeds. But he does not think his bad deeds were acceptable.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:39:16 AM
You do know that in many jurisdictions, including Canada, there is no such thing in law as consent from a 15 year old.
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
If you have sex with a 15 year old in this country you're taking your chances. Do what you will, but for your own safety I'd recommend sticking to 16 year olds. :)
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Presumably it's the part you read before telling me that he had changed his mind. :lol:
Nope. I see nothing inconsistent between the following scenario:
Guy goes to do something bad in his youth. Then writes a book about his youth, and mentions his bad deeds. But he does not think his bad deeds were acceptable.
It's a fascinating scenario. ANything you can point to to show that's how he actually feels?
Grallon should be in prison with Tallyrand and Polanski. :(
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Presumably it's the part you read before telling me that he had changed his mind. :lol:
Nope. I see nothing inconsistent between the following scenario:
Guy goes to do something bad in his youth. Then writes a book about his youth, and mentions his bad deeds. But he does not think his bad deeds were acceptable.
It's a fascinating scenario. ANything you can point to to show that's how he actually feels?
His words?
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
Nope. I see nothing inconsistent between the following scenario:
Guy goes to do something bad in his youth. Then writes a book about his youth, and mentions his bad deeds. But he does not think his bad deeds were acceptable.
I don't see anything inconsistent there either. Where I do see inconsistency is between your attempt to first defend him by suggesting he changed his mind, and your later tack that there's no proof he changed his mind.
Stop wasting your vacation arguing about gay stuff, Marcin. :P
Go back on msn and send me that nude pic again. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:00:59 PM
His words?
His words defending Polanski? :P
Sorry the guys sounds like a slimeball to me....but then he is related to that Vichyite Mitterand.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:52:23 AM
See, this is where we differ. I disagree. There is a need for a uniform standard. It's just that I think that in this day and age, the age should be somewhere between 14-16. Setting it at 18 (or even higher) is entirely unreasonable. It doesn't mean you get to be the judge.
Oh but I agree with you. In fact until the redneck govt we have in Canada came to power the age of consent was 14 - it's been increased to 16 in a fit of the usual conservative 'protect the innocent children' drivel. I think 14 was perfect, before they're too young to be enjoyable or to make their own mind about it anyway.
G.
Marti, are you still defending kiddie-fucking?
@Grallon: :x
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:00:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:48:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
The book was autobiographical. Care to point me to the part of the news coverage where it is stated that in 2005 he saw nothing wrong with sex tourism?
Presumably it's the part you read before telling me that he had changed his mind. :lol:
Nope. I see nothing inconsistent between the following scenario:
Guy goes to do something bad in his youth. Then writes a book about his youth, and mentions his bad deeds. But he does not think his bad deeds were acceptable.
It's a fascinating scenario. ANything you can point to to show that's how he actually feels?
His words?
Which words are those?
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:14:03 PM
@Grallon: :x
Which test have I failed this time? As Martinus keep saying - I'm crass. :lol:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 01:28:27 PM
Which test have I failed this time? As Martinus keep saying - I'm crass. :lol:
G.
What you posted was quite disgusting. How anyone could be sexually attracted to someone between 14-16*....:x :x :x
*caveat - by anyone I meant a functioning adult.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:29:43 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 01:28:27 PM
Which test have I failed this time? As Martinus keep saying - I'm crass. :lol:
G.
What you posted was quite disgusting. How anyone could be sexually attracted to someone between 14-16*....:x :x :x
I'd fuck the shit outta Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
I'd fuck the shit outta Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
I'd fuck the shit outta Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
:bleeding:
What? Shes hot. Imagine a threesome with Miley and Taylor. :perv:
And that saucy little senorita from High School Musical.
Ay, Chihuahua.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:29:43 PM
What you posted was quite disgusting. How anyone could be sexually attracted to someone between 14-16*....:x :x :x
*caveat - by anyone I meant a functioning adult.
You're into older guys - you should understand something of why *your* partners are into you no? Besides I'm into the mentor/pupil schtick.
G.
If you want a younger guy, you can be my mentor.
Quote from: Jaron on October 16, 2009, 01:37:29 PM
If you want a younger guy, you can be my mentor.
I suspect there will be many hard lessons in the weeks to come, grasshopper. :(
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 01:38:18 PM
Quote from: Jaron on October 16, 2009, 01:37:29 PM
If you want a younger guy, you can be my mentor.
I suspect there will be many hard lessons in the weeks to come, grasshopper. :(
"This is going to hurt me more....oh wait, no it isn't."
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:29:43 PM
What you posted was quite disgusting. How anyone could be sexually attracted to someone between 14-16*....:x :x :x
*caveat - by anyone I meant a functioning adult.
You're into older guys - you should understand something of why *your* partners are into you no? Besides I'm into the mentor/pupil schtick.
G.
Have you read anything by Alan Hollinghurst? His characters are these single, over-educated gay men in their late 20s and early 30s, who oscillate between falling for younger (late teens/early twenties) sophisticated guys and uneducated brutish chavs.
He often writes about thoughts and concerns I have all the time. :P
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 01:39:39 PM
"This is going to hurt me more....oh wait, no it isn't."
In this case it might, though. :Embarrass:
In the prison yard of Languish, Jaron walks behind us all with his finger in our collective belt loop.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
In the prison yard of Languish, Jaron walks behind us all with his finger in our collective belt loop.
Hey now, nobody here is my daddy.
Quote from: Jaron on October 16, 2009, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
In the prison yard of Languish, Jaron walks behind us all with his finger in our collective belt loop.
Hey now, nobody here is my daddy.
We bought your ass for two cartons of Kools years ago, Susan.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
I'd fuck the shit outta Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
Better watch out, Siege will kill you when he sees this.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 02:09:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2009, 01:31:05 PM
I'd fuck the shit outta Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
Better watch out, Siege will kill you when he sees this.
He's too busy doing fingercuffs with Zach and Cody.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 01:34:08 PM
You're into older guys - you should understand something of why *your* partners are into you no? Besides I'm into the mentor/pupil schtick.
G.
Which is why they are always eminently disposable. Their attraction is revolting although not nearly as great as it would be were I 14!
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 11:35:07 AM
He went there 40 years ago. Unlike on Languish, people in the real world (tm) sometimes change their opinions.
Afaik, it is not specified when.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
You do know there's a difference between having sex with consenting 15 or 16 yo and the kind of boys being sold/rented in Thailand yes?
Yes. It is disgusting, but legal. Same goes for a 15 year old girl with a 60 year old man.
But as we have seen not far from where I live (always nice to see
Le Journal de Québec make a front page with a no-story ;) ), older man giving drugs to younger boys in exchange for sexual favours is akin to prostitution.
And generally speaking, teenagers are not attracted to older men. Boys or girls.
For example, what Bourgault did for most of his life is unacceptable to me, even though the left will insists "it's a finger to the politically correct".
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
But if I were to pay a 15 year old girl for sex, with money or drugs, would she be consenting, by your definition?
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
But if I were to pay a 15 year old girl for sex, with money or drugs, would she be consenting, by your definition?
I think you are confusing two things. One is drugging someone and then having sex with them - which obviously is not consensual sex. The other is paying someone to have sex with you - either with money or other goods, such as drugs - which, whatever you may think about prostitution is consensual (as long as both parties are of the legal age, of course).
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 12:21:27 PM
Oh but I agree with you. In fact until the redneck govt we have in Canada came to power the age of consent was 14 - it's been increased to 16 in a fit of the usual conservative 'protect the innocent children' drivel. I think 14 was perfect, before they're too young to be enjoyable or to make their own mind about it anyway.
a 14 year old boy can still sleep with a 19 year old girl or boy if he wants too without any consequences.
However, the law made it a tad more difficult for pedophiles to claim their victim was consenting. There was such a case in Montreal recently... the man was seen by the boy sister receiving a fellatio. Of course, he pretended the boy gave his consent (wich was in a way true, since they were at the boy's place). But unfortunately for the man, and fortunately for us, this line of defense did not stick.
Nor did it for the Belgian dude who came all the way to Montreal to fuck with a "consenting" 13 year old girl.
I'm willing to credit you with the necessary moral judgement to decide if a young boy is really consenting to be fucked by you or not.
However, as a general rule, most of these boys are abused one way or another, and the government has a duty to protect them, even if it's against their will.
Most of the girls of Quebec city who were involved in juvenile prostitution were consenting, at first. They made a lot of money in a relatively short time.
Some of them even attempted to start her own network shortly after being arrested.
However, I doubt teenagers have the necessary moral background to isolate their feelings and take clear&measured attitude towards sex, hence the need for such harsh laws.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 02:45:05 PM
Which is why they are always eminently disposable. Their attraction is revolting although not nearly as great as it would be were I 14!
Attraction to younger people than oneself is more natural than attraction to older people. Youth is a valued trait.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 03:47:38 PM
I think you are confusing two things. One is drugging someone and then having sex with them - which obviously is not consensual sex. The other is paying someone to have sex with you - either with money or other goods, such as drugs - which, whatever you may think about prostitution is consensual (as long as both parties are of the legal age, of course).
You don't have to drug someone, just give him/her drugs.
In the case I cited, in Kamouraska (a small village, 20 min east of where I live), a man in his 40s used a younger boy/man to recruit teenagers at the local ice ring. He gave the boys (13-16) drugs in exchange for them to masturbate in front of him, touching them or fucking them.
He did not do a 'Polanski' here, he paid for sex with drugs instead of money.
It is not a rape as the boys were obviously consenting to these sexual acts, as long as they received drugs.
Sometimes they did consume drugs with the man, but in a way that would lead to suggest that he was drugging them to get their consent.
The criminal code on that one is clear: prostitution under 18 is illegal. Prostitution over 18 is not illegal (nor is it "legal").
Most teens sleeping with older people tend to do it as part of a prostitution agreement. It could be an organized network by a criminal organization, or it could be young troubled people living in the street doing it in exchange for food and shelter.
It's still prostitution, it's still an abuse of teenager.
I have nothing against prostituton, male, female or otherwise between consenting adults, and I am presuming in advance that the parties engaging in such acts are consenting, unless proven otherwise.
In other words: if you decide to visit Montreal and give Grallon 1000$ to spend the entire night with him, I couldn't care less ;)
If it were up to me, I'd legalize it so the government can perceive taxes on this and establish some form of control, although I realaize that the last point is wishful thinking from my part.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 03:45:47 PM
But if I were to pay a 15 year old girl for sex, with money or drugs, would she be consenting, by your definition?
I meant real consent of course! Those 15-16-17 yo I had sex with in the past weren't paid or attracted with any other candies than the ones nature gave me. They knew my age and they all came to me, wherever I was living at various times.
Two of those were very eager to be initiated when they were 16;
One was already quite skilled at 15 (It was in fact one of the best lay I ever had);
Finally in the case of that 17yo 6'2, long black haired and blue eyed gothic princeling, I was the one who got a long, thick, hard lesson for 2 days - enough to be exhausted.
No my friend, teenagers can and do give consent. And then of course they toss you out and about :P
So do you see any scared, confused and abused children in that lot?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 04:06:49 PM
So do you see any scared, confused and abused children in that lot?
Almost certainly. :mellow:
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 04:06:49 PM
One was already quite skilled at 15 (It was in fact one of the best lay I ever had);
but that bothers me.
And shouldn't it bother you too? If he is "quite skilled" at 15, it probably means he's been abuse in the past by older men who were much less scrupulous than you are, and you are just adding to their trauma.
And not only were they all gay (that's confused, see I read you guy's post here ;) :P ) but the 17 one was gothic ;)
Quote
So do you see any scared, confused and abused children in that lot?
If we were to base laws on individual anectodes, we might as well remove the speed limits on the highways, legalize duels, and a whole other bunch of laws.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 04:11:28 PM
remove the speed limits on the highways, legalize duels, and a whole other bunch of laws.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 04:11:28 PM
but that bothers me.
And shouldn't it bother you too? If he is "quite skilled" at 15, it probably means he's been abuse in the past by older men who were much less scrupulous than you are, and you are just adding to their trauma.
Please! I'm scrupoulous enough to have abstained had I sensed any reluctance or forced or faked behavior. And there were no such signs, only enthousiastic and eloquent participation.
I even had an email from that particular boy last year (he was then 22) asking how I was and forwarding a recent picture (which I posted here before the meltdown)! No Vip, that lad wasn't traumatized then and isn't now.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 04:11:28 PM
If we were to base laws on individual anectodes, we might as well remove the speed limits on the highways, legalize duels, and a whole other bunch of laws.
True enough - hence why the law states that teenagers can give consent from the age of 14 (now 16) onward unless there's a relationship of authority involved (which, in my case(s) there weren't).
What I question is the assumption that *because* one is below a certain age one cannot give consent - when these anecdotes clearly show otherwise. Every case should be judged on its particular circumstances.
G.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 04:09:33 PM
Almost certainly. :mellow:
I've been saying for a long time that you should broaden your horizons. Not everyone and everything fits into your narrow world-view.
G.
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 04:11:28 PM
And not only were they all gay (that's confused, see I read you guy's post here ;) :P ) but the 17 one was gothic ;)
I will grant you it's much more delicate if girls are involved, because of the natural inclination to protect them and because of the pregnancy risk.
And that's another reason to convert I would add. :P
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 04:09:33 PM
Almost certainly. :mellow:
I've been saying for a long time that you should broaden your horizons. Not everyone and everything fits into your narrow world-view.
And how do you propose I should "broaden my horizons"? Should I talk with psychiatrists about adolescent sexuality? Should I talk with victims of sexual abuse? Should I talk with perpetrators of sexual abuse? Should I attend courses dealing with sexual offences?
Oh wait - I've already done that.
If adolescents are acting out sexually and having promiscuous and age-inappropriate sexual encounters there's a very high likelihood they have been sexually abused in the past. Now I'm not saying you abused them, but that's just the statistical reality of the situation. :mellow:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 03:56:10 PM
Attraction to younger people than oneself is more natural than attraction to older people. Youth is a valued trait.
Having money is a valued trait.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 04:06:49 PM
I meant real consent of course! Those 15-16-17 yo I had sex with in the past weren't paid or attracted with any other candies than the ones nature gave me. They knew my age and they all came to me, wherever I was living at various times.
Two of those were very eager to be initiated when they were 16;
One was already quite skilled at 15 (It was in fact one of the best lay I ever had);
Finally in the case of that 17yo 6'2, long black haired and blue eyed gothic princeling, I was the one who got a long, thick, hard lesson for 2 days - enough to be exhausted.
No my friend, teenagers can and do give consent. And then of course they toss you out and about :P
So do you see any scared, confused and abused children in that lot?
G.
I doubt they can truly understand the ramifications of their actions. In general, we are all pretty immature as teens.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 04:55:38 PM
I doubt they can truly understand the ramifications of their actions. In general, we are all pretty immature as teens.
What ramifications are you refering to? Immaturity is a given in such circumstances - hence why the older partner should provide the lacking maturity. In the above mentioned cases, insisting on condoms for instance. Other than that I'd say the older partner is generally (and much to his chagrin usually) the one being played. That 15yo I keep mentioning once told me: "
It's my way or the highway!". Being the adult I chose the highway naturally; and that was the last we saw of each other (except for that email last year).
G.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 04:46:08 PM
...
If adolescents are acting out sexually and having promiscuous and age-inappropriate sexual encounters there's a very high likelihood they have been sexually abused in the past.
Do you even realise how many moral judgements you have laden in this phrase? Why is it so difficult to admit that teenagers can be (and are) informed earlier than what was once the norm? I am not saying those statistics you refer to are irrelevant - what I'm saying is that you should admit there's a grey zone where some of these teens are more... awake than their average peers; and that the Law should have provisions in such cases.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
the Law should have provisions in such cases.
G.
To what benefit? So old folk can get it on with those young enough to be their children?
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:19:03 PM
Do you even realise how many moral judgements you have laden in this phase? Why is it so difficult to admit that teenagers can be (and are) informed earlier than what was once the norm? I am not saying those statistics you refer to are irrelevant - what I'm saying is that you should admit there's a grey zone where some are of these teens are more... awake than their average peers; and that the Law should have provisions in such cases.
Thet last thing you want in the criminal law are "grey zones". As much as possible you want things to be very clear and straightforward, both for the benefit of making such laws easier to prosecute, but also for ordinary people to easily understand what is and is not allowed.
Because of this the law has now been set so that the age of sexual consent is 16. It might be 'unfair' to the possibly mythical really advanced and mature 15 year old. It probably also puts 16 and 17 years olds who aren't very mature at risk. But you need to draw a bright line, and 16 seems to be the consensus as to where it should be.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:11:45 PM
What ramifications are you refering to? Immaturity is a given in such circumstances - hence why the older partner should provide the lacking maturity. In the above mentioned cases, insisting on condoms for instance. Other than that I'd say the older partner is usually (and much to his chagrin usually) the one being played. That 15yo I keep mentioning once told me: "It's my way or the highway!". Being the adult I chose the highway naturally; and that was the last we saw of each other (except for that email last year).
G.
All sorts of things. After all, such early liaisons can have effects on how one views love, sex, adults, power dynamics, not to mention then the obvious risks to health. Really, it is bad enough when young teens are having sex with young teens but still infinitely preferable to the situation where you have an older individual who somewhat naturally gets the position of an authority figure...but may not really care for the well-being of the young adult as he really just wants to bust a nut.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 05:27:26 PM
...
Because of this the law has now been set so that the age of sexual consent is 16. It might be 'unfair' to the possibly mythical really advanced and mature 15 year old. It probably also puts 16 and 17 years olds who aren't very mature at risk. But you need to draw a bright line, and 16 seems to be the consensus as to where it should be.
Yet for years on end 14yo was that bright line... What has changed? The level of maturity has suddenly increased? Or is it that the Law is now responding to the influence of a newly elected group? One which happens to be in direct correlation of the demographics of the governing party?
G.
I don't know. I've got two 15-year-old boys and one 14-year-old boy, and it would be very difficult for me to believe that any of the three of them would be capable of seeing the ramifications that could happen beyond the instant of pleasure given and gotten. I would be furious at anyone over the age of 19 or 20 who tried to sleep with any of my boys because while they're physically as developed as young men, mentally and maturity-wise, they're still very young.
At that age, they want instant gratification with no regard for what might come of it. When discussing sex, there's more to it than just a roll in the hay, and I'd rather my boys weren't put in the position to deal with the emotional aspects at such a young age. If it were with a girl or boy near their own age, that's different. Then they can explore that together. Anything else is clearly wrong to my eyes.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
All sorts of things. After all, such early liaisons can have effects on how one views love, sex, adults, power dynamics, not to mention then the obvious risks to health. Really, it is bad enough when young teens are having sex with young teens but still infinitely preferable to the situation where you have an older individual who somewhat naturally gets the position of an authority figure...but may not really care for the well-being of the young adult as he really just wants to bust a nut.
Well said, Garbon. :hug:
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:37:44 PM
Yet for years on end 14yo was that bright line... What has changed? The level of maturity has suddenly increased? Or is it that the Law is now responding to the influence of a newly elected group? One which happens to be in direct correlation of the demographics of the governing party?
G.
Our knowledge of how these things affect teens. The physical dangers that a teenager can and will face during sex. The average maturity level of teenagers today.
A lot has changed, and the laws have changed with the times.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
... Really, it is bad enough when young teens are having sex with young teens but still infinitely preferable to the situation where you have an older individual who somewhat naturally gets the position of an authority figure...but may not really care for the well-being of the young adult as he really just wants to bust a nut.
I'd say the reverse is more often than not true: the young adult generally doesn't care about the well-being of the older partner... And the one who usually wants to 'only bust a nut' *is* the younger partner. Because they have gone through all this shit before, the older partners will usually be in for more than just sex, much to their chagrin as I've said before.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:37:44 PM
Yet for years on end 14yo was that bright line... What has changed? The level of maturity has suddenly increased? Or is it that the Law is now responding to the influence of a newly elected group? One which happens to be in direct correlation of the demographics of the governing party?
G.
So? For more years on end than that, it wasn't uncommon for weddings (and so, presumably, consummations) to happen to 13-year-old girls. What changed there? People used to see the first signs of puberty as "coming of age" into adulthood; now we understand that it's a transitional period, and that the transition to mental and physical maturity isn't until much later.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:37:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 05:27:26 PM
...
Because of this the law has now been set so that the age of sexual consent is 16. It might be 'unfair' to the possibly mythical really advanced and mature 15 year old. It probably also puts 16 and 17 years olds who aren't very mature at risk. But you need to draw a bright line, and 16 seems to be the consensus as to where it should be.
Yet for years on end 14yo was that bright line... What has changed? The level of maturity has suddenly increased? Or is it that the Law is now responding to the influence of a newly elected group? One which happens to be in direct correlation of the demographics of the governing party?
Canada was increasingly out of step with much of the western world when it came to the age of consent. Plus polling showed that a very large number of Canadians (far more than just Conservative party supporters) supported the change.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 05:45:10 PM
Because they have gone through all this shit before, the older partners will usually be in for more than just sex, much to their chagrin as I've said before.
G.
Such older partners sound dangerous and delusional if they keep showing up to get burnt. Destructive behavior FTW!
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2009, 05:38:18 PM
...
At that age, they want instant gratification with no regard for what might come of it. When discussing sex, there's more to it than just a roll in the hay, and I'd rather my boys weren't put in the position to deal with the emotional aspects at such a young age. If it were with a girl or boy near their own age, that's different. Then they can explore that together. Anything else is clearly wrong to my eyes.
Wouldn't you agree your boys are much more at risk of such emotional backlashes, by youths their age or slightly older, rather than by individuals older and more mature? It is the youths who disreguard the guidelines and rules of society; far more so than older people who have had to live (and suffer) by them...
G.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 05:51:03 PM
Canada was increasingly out of step with much of the western world when it came to the age of consent. Plus polling showed that a very large number of Canadians (far more than just Conservative party supporters) supported the change.
Specious arguments! In this country 14 yo was deemed and judged appropriate for sexual consent until the Conservatives came to power. There was no question about it until then. Your refering to external sources is disingenuous.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 06:39:46 PM
Specious arguments! In this country 14 yo was deemed and judged appropriate for sexual consent until the Conservatives came to power. There was no question about it until then. Your refering to external sources is disingenuous.
What do you mean by "no question about it until then"?
If you mean that there was no question what the law was, well, you are correct.
But if you mean that there wasn't political pressure to change the age of consent law, well, you're wrong. The Conservatives didn't pull that change out of thin air. There was substantial support for that change. Five seconds of googling revealed this Parliamentary Research Branch paper from 2001 that discusses the issue: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm
And why is it disingenuous to point out what other countries are doing? From the following link it appears very few countries have an age of consent of 14 years:
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm#
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 11:45:15 AM
I'm not interested in legalities based on the outdated judeo-christian ethos. If *I* judge the lad is consenting then I will proceed. :)
That's a mistake. Only I can judge.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 06:46:32 PM
And why is it disingenuous to point out what other countries are doing? From the following link it appears very few countries have an age of consent of 14 years:
14.. 16.. Is there such a difference in maturity between the 2? I don't think so. Both age groups are subjected to hormonal influences that aren't significently different from each other. Therefore both age groups are submitted to similar influences. Henceforth both age groups can experience life under similar conditions. Thus the legal proscription is arbitrary at best.
G.
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2009, 07:00:01 PM
That's a mistake. Only I can judge.
Finally you've overplayed your hand sirrah! Using an argument for the sake of using it disqualifies it, particularly when it is taken out of context. :)
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 07:00:41 PM
14.. 16.. Is there such a difference in maturity between the 2? I don't think so. Both age groups are subjected to hormonal influences that aren't significently different from each other. Therefore both age groups are submitted to similar influences. Henceforth both age groups can experience life under similar conditions. Thus the legal proscription is arbitrary at best.
Any set limit is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but there are some pretty big differences between 14 and 16 in terms of maturity and experience. It's why we have the age to get a driver's license set at 16, for example.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 07:00:41 PM
14.. 16.. Is there such a difference in maturity between the 2? I don't think so. Both age groups are subjected to hormonal influences that aren't significently different from each other. Therefore both age groups are submitted to similar influences. Henceforth both age groups can experience life under similar conditions. Thus the legal proscription is arbitrary at best.
G.
While I agree with BB that there are some differences, I'll agree with you here and push that the minimum age should be pushed up to 18. The differences between 14 and 18 and even 16 and 18 are generally great.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/BRAIN.pdf
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/09/the-teen-brain.html
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 07:03:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 16, 2009, 07:00:01 PM
That's a mistake. Only I can judge.
Finally you've overplayed your hand sirrah! Using an argument for the sake of using it disqualifies it, particularly when it is taken out of context. :)
I've overplayed nothing.
The fact of the matter is that society will not function if everybody just does their own thing. The only way to run things is to have me decide on an age where sexual contact is allowed, and then enforce my laws with murderously brutal punishment.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 07:16:51 PM
While I agree with BB that there are some differences, I'll agree with you here and push that the minimum age should be pushed up to 18. The differences between 14 and 18 and even 16 and 18 are generally great.
Even between 14 and 16 there are noticeable changes in maturity; a freshman in high school and a junior in high school would behave very differently from each other- maybe not as radically as at the first onset of puberty, but the change would be noticeable.
At 18, there's simply a higher likelihood that they'll be mature enough to be cognizant of the decision that they're making- even then, modern psychology accepts that females don't hit full mental maturity until 21 years on average, and further to 24 years on average for males.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 07:00:41 PM
14.. 16.. Is there such a difference in maturity between the 2? I don't think so. Both age groups are subjected to hormonal influences that aren't significently different from each other. Therefore both age groups are submitted to similar influences. Henceforth both age groups can experience life under similar conditions. Thus the legal proscription is arbitrary at best.
G.
There is a huge difference between 14 and 15, much less 14 and 16. You may be too old to remember, G, but at that age even one year makes a huge difference in how these kids view the world.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 06:35:46 PM
Wouldn't you agree your boys are much more at risk of such emotional backlashes, by youths their age or slightly older, rather than by individuals older and more mature? It is the youths who disreguard the guidelines and rules of society; far more so than older people who have had to live (and suffer) by them...
G.
Older people have had longer to perfect their manipulation skills than the young. That alone is reason enough to worry about my teenagers being with someone older.
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 06:35:46 PM
Wouldn't you agree your boys are much more at risk of such emotional backlashes, by youths their age or slightly older, rather than by individuals older and more mature? It is the youths who disreguard the guidelines and rules of society; far more so than older people who have had to live (and suffer) by them...
G.
Older people have had longer to perfect their manipulation skills than the young. That alone is reason enough to worry about my teenagers being with someone older.
:huh:
Quote from: merithyn on October 16, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Older people have had longer to perfect their manipulation skills than the young. That alone is reason enough to worry about my teenagers being with someone older.
Yourself is that very older person, no?
Quote from: PRC on October 17, 2009, 03:03:05 AM
Yourself is that very older person, no?
It is only proper that parents can manipulate their children...if that's what you are asking. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on October 17, 2009, 03:14:48 AM
It is only proper that parents can manipulate their children...if that's what you are asking. :huh:
Which is why the general assumption by psychologists now is that there can be no genuine consent between an adult and a preadolescent or adolescent minor, especially in cases of incest- kids are almost hardwired at this point to be deferential (to a degree) to an adult.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 07:00:41 PM
14.. 16.. Is there such a difference in maturity between the 2? I don't think so. Both age groups are subjected to hormonal influences that aren't significently different from each other. Therefore both age groups are submitted to similar influences. Henceforth both age groups can experience life under similar conditions. Thus the legal proscription is arbitrary at best.
I guess ignorance can excuse this absurd contention, but no one who has had experiences dealing with 14-year-olds and 16-year-olds would make any such absurd contention.
Now, if one were to argue that 14-year-old girls are as mature as 16-year-old boys (or that the AoC should be two years higher for boys than for girls), that would be tough to argue against.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zuguide.com%2Fimage%2FGene-Hackman-Crimson-Tide.6.jpg&hash=3261c009296f01175f70cd2bc5a3566583edcd39)
"Yeah, horses are fascinating animals. Dumb as fenceposts but very intuitive. In that way they're not too different from high school girls: they may not have a brain in their head but they do know all the boys want to fuck them."
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 10:43:29 AM
I guess ignorance can excuse this absurd contention, but no one who has had experiences dealing with 14-year-olds and 16-year-olds would make any such absurd contention.
...
I'll take your word for it - you do have more experience than me with teenagers; I had only 4 after all...
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 17, 2009, 12:25:28 PM
I'll take your word for it - you do have more experience than me with teenagers; I had only 4 after all...
G.
"Had" being the operative word. Having sex with a few teenage boys hardly makes you the forum expert on the spectrum of adolescent psychology.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2009, 02:01:48 PM
...Having sex with a few teenage boys hardly makes you the forum expert on the spectrum of adolescent psychology.
Didn't I admit to that? Are we through with the posturing yet?
G.
funny since the conservatives recently proposed to lower the age of consent from 16 to 14. (with the caveat that at this age the partner cannot be more than a few years older... iirc a max of 4. Anything more gets really messy if found out)
Quote from: Grallon on October 17, 2009, 04:26:14 PM
Didn't I admit to that? Are we through with the posturing yet?
G.
I read your post as sarcasm; if that was wrong, then just ignore my reply.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 07:16:51 PM
While I agree with BB that there are some differences, I'll agree with you here and push that the minimum age should be pushed up to 18. The differences between 14 and 18 and even 16 and 18 are generally great.
:yes:
My line is drawn at the age of legal emancipation (which happens to be 18 where I live -- YMMV on the age of legal emancipation where you live). Once my children are 18 then they're free to fuck things up for themselves. Before that, though, their behavior & the consequences thereof are legally *MY* problem, which means that *I* set the rules.
Don't like it? Fuck you, have your own kids & stay away from mine. Seriously.
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 17, 2009, 06:39:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 07:16:51 PM
While I agree with BB that there are some differences, I'll agree with you here and push that the minimum age should be pushed up to 18. The differences between 14 and 18 and even 16 and 18 are generally great.
:yes:
My line is drawn at the age of legal emancipation (which happens to be 18 where I live -- YMMV on the age of legal emancipation where you live). Once my children are 18 then they're free to fuck things up for themselves. Before that, though, their behavior & the consequences thereof are legally *MY* problem, which means that *I* set the rules.
Don't like it? Fuck you, have your own kids & stay away from mine. Seriously.
See, you are the kind of idiot opposite extreme to grallon's idiot extreme.
Hopefully, laws would be based on reason and fall somewhere in between.
One would hope we have moved, as a civilization, from both
pater familias and
pederasty but reading Languish, I sometimes think that the last 2000 years were more or less inconsequential. :rolleyes:
I think you are overconcerned with who and what looks and behaves civilized Marty.
As for the lads, it's only natural to want to pluck them when they are ripe. ^_^
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:28:54 AM
I think you are overconcerned with who and what looks and behaves civilized Marty.
Civilization is what separates us from beasts.
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
Treating your own kids like your property - or someone else's kids like your sex toys - both break these rules. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Civilization is what separates us from beasts.
Wrong.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 04:57:10 AM
See, you are the kind of idiot opposite extreme to grallon's idiot extreme.
Hopefully, laws would be based on reason and fall somewhere in between.
One would hope we have moved, as a civilization, from both pater familias and pederasty but reading Languish, I sometimes think that the last 2000 years were more or less inconsequentia[l/b]. :rolleyes:
So you try for the idiot hyperbolic extreme? Well-done, if that was your aim.
I would agree with you that the law should not force people to comply with CCR's views on when sex is appropriate, but he clearly is stating that his rules are for his kids.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:28:54 AM
As for the lads, it's only natural to want to pluck them when they are ripe. ^_^
An appeal to "nature" was not exactly what I was expecting.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:28:54 AM
I think you are overconcerned with who and what looks and behaves civilized Marty.
Civilization is what separates us from beasts.
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
Treating your own kids like your property - or someone else's kids like your sex toys - both break these rules. ;)
:P
If you're reading my post above as me simply treating my children as "property" then I don't know what else to say to you. I get that your emotional makeup is such that you are totally hardwired to attend solely to your own needs & desires and are incapable of sacrificing any part of yourself for the ones that you love (if there is indeed anybody else that you do love). That's fine. I'm not going to make any moral judgement about that being good or bad. And honestly, I'm not making any moral judgements about what Grallon described earlier as being good or bad. He didn't describe a situation where he was out trolling the junior high schools for some kid to molest, he described a situation where he was seduced by a kid at the lower end of the age of consent. I'm not so blinded by my stance that I cannot discern the difference.
What I am saying, though, is that raising *MY* kids to be independent, functioning adults is *MY* responsibility, as are the legal ramifications of their attempts to emulate adult-like behavior, and to help me to that end it is my OPINION that I don't want adults fucking my underage kids. If that makes me uncivilized then I guess I'm a fucking barbarian...
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 19, 2009, 10:18:17 AM
If that makes me uncivilized then I guess I'm a fucking barbarian...
Wait, that was ever in doubt?
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
He nicked those out of the Bible :P
Quote from: Brazen on October 19, 2009, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
He nicked those out of the Bible :P
Something I'm sure Marcin has never read, i believe his skin burns upon touching it.
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2009, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 19, 2009, 10:18:17 AM
If that makes me uncivilized then I guess I'm a fucking barbarian...
Wait, that was ever in doubt?
Pffft. No...
;)
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 09:11:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 04:57:10 AM
See, you are the kind of idiot opposite extreme to grallon's idiot extreme.
Hopefully, laws would be based on reason and fall somewhere in between.
One would hope we have moved, as a civilization, from both pater familias and pederasty but reading Languish, I sometimes think that the last 2000 years were more or less inconsequentia[l/b]. :rolleyes:
So you try for the idiot hyperbolic extreme? Well-done, if that was your aim.
I would agree with you that the law should not force people to comply with CCR's views on when sex is appropriate, but he clearly is stating that his rules are for his kids.
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
Quote from: Brazen on October 19, 2009, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
He nicked those out of the Bible :P
Not really. This is quite different from the second Jesus's commandment and doesn't incorporate God unlike the first Jesus's commandment (and don't get me even started on the rest of the Bible).
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2009, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 19, 2009, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Anyway, my life philosophy really boils down to two rules set out by Immanuel Kant (I paraphrase here);
1. Act like you would like everyone to act.
2. Don't treat other people like things.
He nicked those out of the Bible :P
Something I'm sure Marcin has never read, i believe his skin burns upon touching it.
Actually unlike apparently both of you, I have read the Bible so I know there is no "Do unto others" commandment there, contrary to a popular opinion. ;)
Um sorry Marcin but once again you show yourself to be clueless.
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2009, 11:01:11 AM
Um sorry Marcin but once again you show yourself to be clueless.
Why does Marty being clueless make you sorry?
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 11:07:34 AM
Quote from: katmai on October 19, 2009, 11:01:11 AM
Um sorry Marcin but once again you show yourself to be clueless.
Why does Marty being clueless make you sorry?
Because it shows we should have let the Germans and Russians keep Poland.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:55:59 AM
Actually unlike apparently both of you, I have read the Bible so I know there is no "Do unto others" commandment there, contrary to a popular opinion. ;)
Rather than spend a lot of time answering this I'm just going to post an except from Wikipedia:
QuoteChristianity
See also: Christianity
Within Christian circles, the ethic of reciprocity is often called the "Golden Rule". Christianity adopted the ethic from two edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.", see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God"). Crucially, Leviticus 19:34 universalizes the edict of Leviticus 19:18 from "one of your people" to all of humankind.
The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches also express the Silver Rule.
Tobit 4:15 "Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
Sirach 31:15 "Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
Several passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the ethic of reciprocity, including the following:
Matthew 7:12
12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31
31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 10:25-28
25And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Jesus then proceeded to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" means a total stranger, or someone that happens to be nearby. Jesus' teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Christianity
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
:lol:
Apparently Martinus is the property of the Polish government.
Anyway it's not what Kant's principles are saying.
New Testament rules are very personal - Kant's can form a basis for rules and laws of the society. For example, if I punish a murderer, I am not "doing unto him like I would like him to do unto me", but I am acting according to the principle which I would like to be made a universal law (i.e. murderers are punished).
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 11:58:50 AM
Anyway it's not what Kant's principles are saying.
New Testament rules are very personal - Kant's can form a basis for rules and laws of the society. For example, if I punish a murderer, I am not "doing unto him like I would like him to do unto me", but I am acting according to the principle which I would like to be made a universal law (i.e. murderers are punished).
Well since Jesus very pointedly did not spell out rules for an entire society, but only rules for individuals, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
But I know what point I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that your quote:
Quote from: MartinusActually unlike apparently both of you, I have read the Bible so I know there is no "Do unto others" commandment there, contrary to a popular opinion.
was wrong. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
No one can "make rules" for their property. :huh:
Well, I suppose you could make a rule that your house must jog around the block every day, but the house won't obey your rule.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
No one can "make rules" for their property. :huh:
Well, I suppose you could make a rule that your house must jog around the block every day, but the house won't obey your rule.
My dogs are my property. I make rules for them.
Some rules are followed more closely than others...
You can make rules for something if it is your property, but the converse is not true. Many organizations, including the state, make rules for people who are not their property.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
My dogs are my property. I make rules for them.
Some rules are followed more closely than others...
The rules that you train them to follow, they follow. The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore. This is thus an issue of training, not rules.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
My dogs are my property. I make rules for them.
Some rules are followed more closely than others...
The rules that you train them to follow, they follow. The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore. This is thus an issue of training, not rules.
This is true.
But my example only goes to counter your point that you can't have rules for property. You can.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
The rules that you train them to follow, they follow. The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore. This is thus an issue of training, not rules.
Even so, dogs aren't computer programs and will never follow those rules as closely as one might like.
Ed's rule:
1) Obey
Done.
Quote from: Maximus on October 19, 2009, 12:20:00 PM
You can make rules for something if it is your property, but the converse is not true.
I make all kinds of rules that I expect people (who are not my property) to follow. My employees and my kids come to mind.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2009, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
The rules that you train them to follow, they follow. The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore. This is thus an issue of training, not rules.
Even so, dogs aren't computer programs and will never follow those rules as closely as one might like.
My dog is much more reliable then many programs out there.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 01:23:32 PM
But my example only goes to counter your point that you can't have rules for property. You can.
I think you missed Grumbler's grammatical critique.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
No one can "make rules" for their property. :huh:
Well, I suppose you could make a rule that your house must jog around the block every day, but the house won't obey your rule.
My dogs are my property. I make rules for them.
Some rules are followed more closely than others...
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
I disagree with grallon that age of consent is irrelevant or it is "I-take-them-as-I-see-them" but just as I oppose child abuse, I oppose overbearing parents making arbitrary decisions for their children who are capable of making them on their own.
I think my position is the most principled one of the three (the other two presented by grallon and CCR).
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.
He has authority over his kids. The government has authority over me and they make rules for me...does that mean I am the property of the state? I think you are living a bit too close to Russia.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
Well if there is anything 15 and 16 year old are known for it is informed and sound judgements. A 16 year old may have a drivers license but if he is abusing the privledge somehow a parent would and should step in even if what the kid is doing is not technically illegal in someway. It is the same if a kid had the right to consent, if they are using it in a self destructive manner the parent, such as CCR, should step in.
Despite what you might believe a parent may still have a few lessons left to teach their child after the kid turns 15. Even about sex.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 02:47:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.
What he said.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 02:47:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 02:49:12 PM
Despite what you might believe a parent may still have a few lessons left to teach their child after the kid turns 15. Even about sex.
Perhaps they are bad parents then? It's funny that you used the word "authority" to describe the parent-child relationship. I guess it is a cultural gap between America and Europe, but we stopped viewing the relationship this way some time ago. It's guardianship and guidance.
I guess I should keep it in mind that you are less culturally progressed on the other side of the pond. :)
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 02:47:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
What an interesting argument. So you think that people ability to make good decisions peaks at 15 or so? Nothing to learn after that?
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Except, of course, every study done on emotional maturity.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
I love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
That being said "they are not having sex until they are out of my house" sounds like a particularly stupid decision to make. Of course CCR's kids may inherit from him his inability to make good decisions, but this we will have to wait to find out.
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
I love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
This is an insulting ad hom. I don't want to have sex with teenagers. I never had sex with a teenager - despite the age of consent in Poland being 15. Go fuck yourself, you miserable troll.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
Perhaps they are bad parents then? It's funny that you used the word "authority" to describe the parent-child relationship. I guess it is a cultural gap between America and Europe, but we stopped viewing the relationship this way some time ago. It's guardianship and guidance.
I guess I should keep it in mind that you are less culturally progressed on the other side of the pond. :)
Yes what I said was that the parent-child relationship=authority. Are you going to respond to my points or simply twist it around in a ridiculous and moronic way? I fucking said they have things to teach their kids you douchebag, not order them.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
An article on the topic:
"the cognitive-control system is the part of the brain that regulates behavior and makes the ultimate decisions, but is still maturing during adolescence and into a person's mid-20s at least."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67714.php
Quote from: ulmont on October 19, 2009, 03:02:11 PM
"the cognitive-control system is the part of the brain that regulates behavior and makes the ultimate decisions, but is still maturing during adolescence and into a person's mid-20s at least."
Wow. Yeah I know I didn't stop making rather irresponsible decisions until I was about 25 exactly.
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 19, 2009, 03:02:11 PM
"the cognitive-control system is the part of the brain that regulates behavior and makes the ultimate decisions, but is still maturing during adolescence and into a person's mid-20s at least."
Wow. Yeah I know I didn't stop making rather irresponsible decisions until I was about 25 exactly.
I'll let you know when i stop making them..
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:53:18 PM
People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.
Actually there's quite a bit of research to show that while kids might not have a higher or lower IQ intelligence, that teenagers are noticeably less effective in decision making. The centres of the brain that deal with assessing risk and consequences are nowhere near fully developed until the early to mid 20s.
I love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
This is an insulting ad hom.
While I am sure you are insulted by your terrible logic being pointed out, it is certainly not an ad hom to do so.
Quote
I don't want to have sex with teenagers.
Of course you don't. You just think it is ok, but for some reason don't want to.
Quote
I never had sex with a teenager - despite the age of consent in Poland being 15.
Congratulations on that! Way to go, you should be very proud of yourself, considering your ability to justify having sex with 15 year olds based on completely made up data like "adults are no more capable of making decisions that a 15 year old!" type comments.
Quote
Go fuck yourself, you miserable troll.
Hmm, I think calling someone "miserable troll" might be considered an ad hom -certainly suggesting that they "go fuck themselves" is not exactly the height of rational debate. You should watch yourself, I heard that isn't supposed to be very nice. Some people complain about it, although most don't promptly do it themselves to illustrate it so nicely.
Bravo!
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:08:31 PM
Of course you don't. You just think it is ok, but for some reason don't want to.
Uhm, yes. I do think it is ok. And I don't want to. This may be inexplicable for you but that's how tolerance and liberalism work.
There are other things I don't want to do yet I think it is ok for people to do it. Having sex with women. Following a non-violent religion. Being a sex worker. Smoking cigarettes or pot.
I guess considering you are pretty much adopting a Taliban approach, you can't fathom that in your fundamentalist mind.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:11:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:08:31 PM
Of course you don't. You just think it is ok, but for some reason don't want to.
Uhm, yes. I do think it is ok. And I don't want to. This may be inexplicable for you but that's how tolerance and liberalism work.
There are other things I don't want to do yet I think it is ok for people to do it. Having sex with women. Following a non-violent religion. Being a sex worker. Smoking cigarettes or pot.
I guess considering you are pretty much adopting a Taliban approach, you can't fathom that in your fundamentalist mind.
Ahhh more of your non-ad hom responses. I see how that works for you.
I don't agree with Marty than nailing kids is a-ok, so I am just like the Taliban. Gotcha. That is even better than
"There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids"
Got any more whoppers, counselor?
Well, your position is essentially that of an islamist. I am not sure if this is because of your relatively low education, your cultural upbringing or some defect of your personality.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Well, your position is essentially that of an islamist. I am not sure if this is because of your relatively low education, your cultural upbringing or some defect of your personality.
LOL, don't fuck teenages == Islamist. Awesome. Although it is just a re-statement of your previous post, so it doesn't really waulify as "another" whopper.
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists?? Only Marty, apparently.
It is interesting that every time you get hammered in an argument on the facts, you immediately retreat to these crass flames and just try to see how insulting you can possibly be. Rather childish, don't you think?
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists??
Where all Islamists at?
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
:lol:
Have some kids & let me know how that works out for you, Sport...
Even adults and visitors to my house still have to follow my rules. :D
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists?? Only Marty, apparently.
What do I have to do with all this? Other than the fact that I like mature women... :unsure:
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 19, 2009, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
:lol:
Have some kids & let me know how that works out for you, Sport...
I am equally impervious to grallon's argument ("Only if you fuck teenagers you can say if they can give informed consent") as I am to yours. :P
I think the point of democracy is that we make judgement calls on situations that we do not have a personal experience or stake in. :P
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:36:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists?? Only Marty, apparently.
What do I have to do with all this? Other than the fact that I like mature women... :unsure:
Berkut is trying to drag you into his stupidity. I don't know why. :P
Well I will go on the record to say that I *have* fucked a teenager (19 year old), but at the time I myself was 18. :cool:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 19, 2009, 03:32:49 PM
Even adults and visitors to my house still have to follow my rules. :D
So what if your kid is at the other person's house?
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:40:41 PM
Well I will go on the record to say that I *have* fucked a teenager (19 year old), but at the time I myself was 18. :cool:
Pedo. <_<
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:36:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists?? Only Marty, apparently.
What do I have to do with all this? Other than the fact that I like mature women... :unsure:
Marty stated that thinking having sex with 15 year olds is not a great plan makes you just like the Taliban.
There are only two possible states - fucking teens is awesome, or Taliban. That puts you in the Taliban camp.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 19, 2009, 03:36:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 03:18:12 PM
Who knew that BB and Caliga and Berkut where all Islamists?? Only Marty, apparently.
What do I have to do with all this? Other than the fact that I like mature women... :unsure:
Berkut is trying to drag you into his stupidity. I don't know why. :P
No Marty, your claim that not agreeing with you that nailing teens is ok and that teens are no more capable of making good choices than adults (the only things I have disagreed with you on) makes me just like the Taliban.
You own that little bit of stupid - don't try to pass it off on someone else.
Well even if it was legal to fuck kids who were 15 I would still say a parent should first give their kid permission, as they would have a good idea if their child was mature enough to make that sort of judgement. Some are more equipt at that stage than others.
There are even some cases in the US and I bet even in Europe where that principal exists legally...such as over here a parent or guardian can allow their child to drink acohol even though the drinking age is 21 at a certain age...I think they have to be present I am not sure of the details (obviously that would not work for sex :ph34r:).
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Well, your position is essentially that of an islamist. I am not sure if this is because of your relatively low education, your cultural upbringing or some defect of your personality.
Ok I am starting to get your tactic of throwing stuff back at people just like they usually throw being gay back at you. I will make a note of that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 19, 2009, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 19, 2009, 12:20:00 PM
You can make rules for something if it is your property, but the converse is not true.
I make all kinds of rules that I expect people (who are not my property) to follow. My employees and my kids come to mind.
That's what I said. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
Quote from: C.C.R. on October 19, 2009, 03:24:13 PM
Have some kids & let me know how that works out for you, Sport...
I am equally impervious to grallon's argument ("Only if you fuck teenagers you can say if they can give informed consent") as I am to yours. :P
I think the point of democracy is that we make judgement calls on situations that we do not have a personal experience or stake in. :P
Of course you are impervious to the argument -- you've been trolling from the get-go & really couldn't give a flying fuck about how parents raise their kids so long as they're not stuffing the gay ones in gunny sacks & throwing them off of bridges. That's why I keep refusing to bite...
:hug:
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Well, your position is essentially that of an islamist. I am not sure if this is because of your relatively low education, your cultural upbringing or some defect of your personality.
Ok I am starting to get your tactic of throwing stuff back at people just like they usually throw being gay back at you. I will make a note of that.
It's a chicken-and-the-egg paradox.
Did Marty start throwing out irrelevant
ad homs because people kept throwing them at him? Or do people throw
ad homs at Marty because he keeps using them?
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:04:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Well, your position is essentially that of an islamist. I am not sure if this is because of your relatively low education, your cultural upbringing or some defect of your personality.
Ok I am starting to get your tactic of throwing stuff back at people just like they usually throw being gay back at you. I will make a note of that.
It's a chicken-and-the-egg paradox.
Did Marty start throwing out irrelevant ad homs because people kept throwing them at him? Or do people throw ad homs at Marty because he keeps using them?
But who has thrown any ad homs at Marty on this topic?
There is only egg here - marty goes into rage-tantrum mode as soon as he says something he knows was stupid (parents are no more capable than teens when it comes to making decisions) and he gets called on it.
It is generally rather effective, since then the discussion changes over to him slinging more and more farcical ad homs (Berkut is a Taliban!), rather than the original stupid thing he said - but at the end of the day, I don't think it really helps his particular cause or his image much.
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:07:23 PM
But who has thrown any ad homs at Marty on this topic?
Quote from: BerkutI love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
Whatever you can say about Marty, he's never shown any interest in adolescents.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:10:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:07:23 PM
But who has thrown any ad homs at Marty on this topic?
Quote from: BerkutI love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
Whatever you can say about Marty, he's never shown any interest in adolescents.
Arguing that is is ok to bang 15 year olds does not count as "interest in adolescents"?
And really - there isn't even anything wrong with finding a 16 year old attractive - plenty of them are very hot - what is wrong is using clearly inane logic to try to justify someone actually acting on that, stuff like claiming parents aren't any more capable of making decisions than kids. Which was my point, and certainly NOT an ad hom, since I was not avoiding his argument in favor of comments like "Berkut is just like the Taliban!".
How can you possibly equate the two?
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:16:18 PM
Arguing that is is ok to bang 15 year olds does not count as "interest in adolescents"?
And really - there isn't even anything wrong with finding a 16 year old attractive - plenty of them are very hot - what is wrong is using clearly inane logic to try to justify someone actually acting on that, stuff like claiming parents aren't any more capable of making decisions than kids. Which was my point, and certainly NOT an ad hom, since I was not avoiding his argument in favor of comments like "Berkut is just like the Taliban!".
How can you possibly equate the two?
I hate you for making me seem like I'm defending Marty. :angry:
(I'm not by the way)
Supporting the concept of having an age of consent of 15, and thus making it possible for adults to have sex with 15 year olds, isn't the same as wanting to have sex with 15 year olds yourself. IIRC you support drug legalization, but it would be inaccurate of me to say you want to snort some blow as soon as its legal.
You threw out a cheap shot at Marty. Nothing all that wrong with it. Marty throws out a lot of them himself. But it is what it is.
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:10:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:07:23 PM
But who has thrown any ad homs at Marty on this topic?
Quote from: BerkutI love how self-serving peoples logic is - Marty wants to have sex with teenagers, so he is perfectly willing to undergo whatever mental gyrations are necessary to "justify" it.
Whatever you can say about Marty, he's never shown any interest in adolescents.
Arguing that is is ok to bang 15 year olds does not count as "interest in adolescents"?
Now you're just being silly. But you know this of course.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:19:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:16:18 PM
Arguing that is is ok to bang 15 year olds does not count as "interest in adolescents"?
And really - there isn't even anything wrong with finding a 16 year old attractive - plenty of them are very hot - what is wrong is using clearly inane logic to try to justify someone actually acting on that, stuff like claiming parents aren't any more capable of making decisions than kids. Which was my point, and certainly NOT an ad hom, since I was not avoiding his argument in favor of comments like "Berkut is just like the Taliban!".
How can you possibly equate the two?
I hate you for making me seem like I'm defending Marty. :angry:
(I'm not by the way)
Really? You are excusing him for calling those who disagree with him fundy islamist talibans by saying it is no different than attacking his argument. If that isn't defending him, then what would be?
Quote
Supporting the concept of having an age of consent of 15, and thus making it possible for adults to have sex with 15 year olds, isn't the same as wanting to have sex with 15 year olds yourself.
But pointing out that taking onvisouly ridiculous positions like parents can't make any better decisions anyway, so it is a-ok, is certianly suggestive. It might be wrong, but it is by no means a cheap shot, much less akin to a tempter tantrum "Yyou are just like the Taliban!" response, where he doesn't even bother trying to make an argument.
Quote
IIRC you support drug legalization, but it would be inaccurate of me to say you want to snort some blow as soon as its legal.
If I said something like "Drugs should be legal because kids are smarter than their parent anyway, man!" you might not be completely out of line to wonder why I was making such a ridiculous argument to carry a point.
Quote
You threw out a cheap shot at Marty. Nothing all that wrong with it. Marty throws out a lot of them himself. But it is what it is.
Pfft, that is weak. I attacked his position, and he responded by calling me an islamic fundy taliban because I said the exact same thing YOU did.
If you think that is all one and the same, then I think you might be the one snorting coke.
I wish we hadn't lost the old Languish. A long time ago someone once compared debating with Berkut to watching a pitbull on PCP. It would savagely attack its opponent, but on a moment's notice it would rocket into the crowd seemingly at random.
Don't ever change, you crazy diamond. :hug:
Martinus,
Once again, your position here seems to be in tension with your position that persons under 18 should never be tried as adults.
:lol:
I come home and find that, like a public restroom in the subway, Marti has smeared the walls of this thread with his Martiness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2009, 05:32:37 PM
:lol:
I come home and find that, like a public restroom in the subway, Marti has smeared the walls of this thread with his Martiness.
Mart is Rodger from
American Dad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jordanhoffman.com%2Farchives%2FamdadRodger_72.jpg&hash=f1154338b652b69333b3f133d5a0dc42e23d3429)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2009, 05:25:21 PM
Martinus,
Once again, your position here seems to be in tension with your position that persons under 18 should never be tried as adults.
I never argued that position. I have repeatedly expressed my surprise at the fact that very young people (12 for example) can be tried as adults in the US. That does not mean I oppose trying people above say 15 (which is also, surprise surprise, the age at which I put age of consent) for more serious crimes as adults.
Or were you trolling me? :)
I recall you opposing the trial of 15 year olds as adults, but here you are defending 15 years as a reasonable age of consent.
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
That's reasonable. How would you respond to someone who said the age of consent should be 12 and you're a Taliban for making it 16?
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
Hello stranger. I guess you must have stolen Jimmy's identity, or else you would have realized that lengthy thread hijacks are just a part of how we roll here on Languish. :)
Is there anything new on the Polanski case, by the way?
Anyone?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
Fuck off then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
He only wish he could. Unfortunately for him none of those teenage trysts turned out emotional wrecks due to their encounter with me. I was merely a formative experience in their respective lives.
In fact there's an entire literary genre (homoerotic poetry) that expound on older men being made fools of by youths - which would indicate, despite puritan America's beliefs, that in most cases it is said men who suffer from such relationships.
As for Marty's idiosyncrasies well.. he's the product of his environment!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
He only wish he could. Unfortunately for him none of those teenage trysts turned out emotional wrecks due to their encounter with me. I was merely a formative experience in their respective lives.
:huh:
I don't wish to have anyone arrested. I have plenty enough work without wishing for more. I wish to see the law followed. You haven't described breaking any laws.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
In fact there's an entire literary genre (homoerotic poetry) that expound on older men being made fools of by youths - which would indicate, despite puritan America's beliefs, that in most cases it is said men who suffer from such relationships.
there's a literary genre about people in a galaxy far, far away using some mystic power they call "The Force" to defeat their opponents. Does that make it true?
A long time ago, there was a bunch of stoners, whom we called "Les poètes maudits" who wrote all kind of weird poetry. Should we take that as fact for how people of the time lived? How we should live our lives?
Quote from: viper37 on October 19, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
A long time ago, there was a bunch of stoners, whom we called "Les poètes maudits" who wrote all kind of weird poetry. Should we take that as fact for how people of the time lived? How we should live our lives?
'tis all a matter of context. In the one I've described above there was no obvious scarring - it doesn't mean there can't be.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:29:31 PM
I was merely a formative experience in their respective lives.
G.
I think you give yourself too much credit, sir.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 07:25:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 06:44:55 PM
Jesus Christ, I pop in hoping to see an update on the Polanski case and I get this clusterfuck. BB, arrest Grallon or give it a rest, reading 9 pages of that was painful.
Fuck off then.
So harsh. :cry:
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 07:50:16 PM
I think you give yourself too much credit, sir.
You haven't tried me yet ;)
Seriously you're probably right. So much for damaging poor lost teenagers heh?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 07:55:28 PM
You haven't tried me yet ;)
Seriously you're probably right. So much for damaging poor lost teenagers heh?
G.
Sorry, but I don't see a handful of anecdotal cases, where potentially no harm was done, justifying a change in current laws.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 07:57:30 PM
Sorry, but I don't see a handful of anecdotal cases, where potentially no harm was done, justifying a change in current laws.
The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before. All a matte of context I say.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before. All a matte of context I say.
G.
Given that the United States has tied a whole lot of education money into teaching abstinence in Health class instead of condom use (which isn't allowed until 10th grade), I don't see that part happening any time soon. <_<
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before. All a matte of context I say.
G.
Except that trauma isn't caused simply because we "encourage"(?) kids to be traumatized.
Quote from: merithyn on October 19, 2009, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before. All a matte of context I say.
G.
Given that the United States has tied a whole lot of education money into teaching abstinence in Health class instead of condom use (which isn't allowed until 10th grade), I don't see that part happening any time soon. <_<
Did you know that the rates of teenage pregnancy has been rising since about 2005?
Gee, wonder why...
I'm afraid that Grallon has swayed me to his point of view. I want to bang teenagers, too. I want to spooge all over their Facebooks.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 19, 2009, 08:27:12 PM
Did you know that the rates of teenage pregnancy has been rising since about 2005?
Gee, wonder why...
Yes, this is a common topic at school whenever the Abstinence Guy comes. (Yes, they bring in a special teacher for that week of lessons.)
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
I disagree with grallon that age of consent is irrelevant or it is "I-take-them-as-I-see-them" but just as I oppose child abuse, I oppose overbearing parents making arbitrary decisions for their children who are capable of making them on their own.
I think my position is the most principled one of the three (the other two presented by grallon and CCR).
Opening myself to fire here by posting this before reading the last page, but "age of consent" is a social norm, not a natural right. As has been mentioned, most authoritative studies point to a mental "age of maturity" of around 24 for males and 21 for females, so a naturalist should actually be arguing for a
higher age of consent. Also, in response to grallon's position, the obvious flaw (to manipulate his own metaphor) is that the fruit isn't ripe if there's still a lot of green to it- maturity isn't something you wake up with one morning; it is progressive and as slow as any other biological growth; taking
years of adolescence to reach full maturity.
Quote from: garbon on October 19, 2009, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 19, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
The law is outdated. Provide coherent sex-ed, work at alleviating anachronistic pejudices about sex, and you might eliminate hang-ups that create the trauma we spoke before. All a matte of context I say.
G.
Except that trauma isn't caused simply because we "encourage"(?) kids to be traumatized.
I want to traumatize Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2009, 09:06:37 PM
I want to traumatize Hanna Montana.
There. I said it.
I'd say that I'm sorry for you, but I don't care. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2009, 06:09:34 PM
I recall you opposing the trial of 15 year olds as adults, but here you are defending 15 years as a reasonable age of consent.
I think that there is naturally a logical problem with the fact that the age at which we consider a person to be an adult and to have all the legal rights and priviliges that we associate with adulthood varies for different rights. However, one has to realize that those ages limits are always necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary, and while having one particular age limit for everything would be tidy, there's no compelling reason that I can see that different rights and priviliges shouldn't have different age limits associated with them. (Which is not to say that I agree with every choice that we've written into law.)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 19, 2009, 08:32:42 PM
I'm afraid that Grallon has swayed me to his point of view. I want to bang teenagers, too. I want to spooge all over their Facebooks.
Get grumbler to put you on the sub list. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 19, 2009, 06:27:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:30:28 PM
Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.
That's reasonable. How would you respond to someone who said the age of consent should be 12 and you're a Taliban for making it 16?
That I would disagree with, obviously.
FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2009, 09:37:42 AM
FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.
I QUALIFY!
YES!
Quote from: dps on October 19, 2009, 11:45:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 19, 2009, 06:09:34 PM
I recall you opposing the trial of 15 year olds as adults, but here you are defending 15 years as a reasonable age of consent.
I think that there is naturally a logical problem with the fact that the age at which we consider a person to be an adult and to have all the legal rights and priviliges that we associate with adulthood varies for different rights. However, one has to realize that those ages limits are always necessarily going to be somewhat arbitrary, and while having one particular age limit for everything would be tidy, there's no compelling reason that I can see that different rights and priviliges shouldn't have different age limits associated with them. (Which is not to say that I agree with every choice that we've written into law.)
But can a 15 year old can be presumed sufficiently mature as to give meaningful consent to sex with a much older and experienced person, but at the same time be presumed to have insufficient capacity to grasp the blowing someone's head off in a drive by is an evil act?
I take your point but it seems to me that to the extent different age cutoffs apply to different sorts of age-based limits, the criminal law cutoffs should be lower than age-of-consent cutoffs, because the judgment required for an adoloscent to grasp and control their own emerging sexuality is far more difficult to acquire than the judgment required to understand that (e.g.) murder is bad. Which makes Martinus' dual positions even more untenable.
Quote from: The Brain on October 20, 2009, 09:37:42 AM
FWIW I think that the age of consent should be 35, and there should also be land ownership requirements.
And, of course, only applicable to males.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 20, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
... it seems to me that to the extent different age cutoffs apply to different sorts of age-based limits, the criminal law cutoffs should be lower than age-of-consent cutoffs, because the judgment required for an adolescent to grasp and control their own emerging sexuality is far more difficult to acquire than the judgment required to understand that (e.g.) murder is bad.
This is so disingenuous! As if we should expect teens to be conversant in sexual theory before engaging in recreational sex. I maintain they can since they do already with other teens. In fact what matters here is whether or not they can determine if they really want to accept an offer or if they feel pressured into accepting it. And that is entirely subjective and should be approached on a case by case basis.
G.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 20, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
And, of course, only applicable to males.
Well duh... land ownership requirements. :contract:
Quote from: Grallon on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
This is so disingenuous! As if we should expect teens to be conversant in sexual theory before engaging in recreational sex. I maintain they can since they do already with other teens. In fact what matters here is whether or not they can determine if they really want to accept an offer or if they feel pressured into accepting it. And that is entirely subjective and should be approached on a case by case basis.
G.
That has been taken into consideration; law is a balancing act between one's personal rights and the protection of society. Are there teenagers who are cognizant enough to judge for themselves? Probably. However, if that group exists, it is small enough that it must be discounted in favor of protection for the larger group of those that are not mature enough to make the decision for themselves.
Quote from: Grallon on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
As if we should expect teens to be conversant in sexual theory before engaging in recreational sex. This strawman argument of mine is so disingenuous! G.
I put your statements in the correct order and added needed explanatory language so that it would make sense
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 20, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
And, of course, only applicable to males.
Well duh... land ownership requirements. :contract:
Wait - you two want only males to be able to consent to sex?
Fags. <_<
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2009, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 20, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
And, of course, only applicable to males.
Well duh... land ownership requirements. :contract:
Wait - you two want only males to be able to consent to sex?
Fags. <_<
And/or rapists, thanks very much.
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2009, 11:27:03 AM
Wait - you two want only males to be able to consent to sex?
Fags. <_<
I may or may not have been bribed by Marti to make that statement. NO FURTHER COMMENT.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 20, 2009, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 20, 2009, 11:27:03 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 20, 2009, 10:16:35 AM
And, of course, only applicable to males.
Well duh... land ownership requirements. :contract:
Wait - you two want only males to be able to consent to sex?
Fags. <_<
And/or rapists, thanks very much.
I stand corrected.
Fags and/or rapists. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on October 19, 2009, 02:55:15 PM
Perhaps they are bad parents then? It's funny that you used the word "authority" to describe the parent-child relationship. I guess it is a cultural gap between America and Europe, but we stopped viewing the relationship this way some time ago. It's guardianship and guidance.
I guess I should keep it in mind that you are less culturally progressed on the other side of the pond. :)
I love how Marty uses this "we" shit when he is talking about "them." If be "we" you mean condescending twits (the only "we" i can see you claiming), then the "we" is you, Grallon, and I. But we don't agree on how much authority a parent should have in the lives of their children, so this "we" is useless in this argument.
Quote from: Grallon on October 20, 2009, 10:22:57 AM
This is so disingenuous! As if we should expect teens to be conversant in sexual theory before engaging in recreational sex. I maintain they can since they do already with other teens. In fact what matters here is whether or not they can determine if they really want to accept an offer or if they feel pressured into accepting it. And that is entirely subjective and should be approached on a case by case basis.
G.
Understanding one's sexuality is a bit more complex than recognizing whether or not one should kill another human being. Nothing disingenuous about that.
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2009, 12:22:27 PM
I love how Marty uses this "we" shit when he is talking about "them." If be "we" you mean condescending twits (the only "we" i can see you claiming), then the "we" is you, Grallon, and I. But we don't agree on how much authority a parent should have in the lives of their children, so this "we" is useless in this argument.
:D
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2009, 02:34:04 AM
Understanding one's sexuality is a bit more complex than recognizing whether or not one should kill another human being. Nothing disingenuous about that.
Apparently, it is when you're busy confusing sexual arousal with balanced emotional and physical sexuality. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 21, 2009, 09:07:18 AM
Apparently, it is when you're busy confusing sexual arousal with balanced emotional and physical sexuality. :contract:
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)? Bhudda? You? Brain? Marty? Should your ability to consent be questioned whenever you are offered a treat because your emotional and physical sexual 'balance' is offset at times? Give me a break!
You people keep approaching these topics as if they were zero-sum games.
G.
Of course you approach it as if we should be thrilled to allow old men to sleep with teens, even though there is most certainly no benefit to society and likely much harm.
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)? Bhudda? You? Brain? Marty? Should your ability to consent be questioned whenever you are offered a treat because your emotional and physical sexual 'balance' is offset at times? Give me a break!
You people keep approaching these topics as if they were zero-sum games.
G.
On the other hand, what we're not trying to do is claim that the research by an
army of psychologists and sociologists depicting psychological maturity as coming later than physical maturity is a myth perpetuated by a repressive government just bent on keepin' a young brothah's pecker down.
Really? You thought it was appropriate to post that?
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
Really? You thought it was appropriate to post that?
Yes. :blush:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 21, 2009, 02:05:28 PM
On the other hand, what we're not trying to do is claim that the research by an army of psychologists and sociologists depicting psychological maturity as coming later than physical maturity is a myth perpetuated by a repressive government just bent on keepin' a young brothah's pecker down.
Once again I didn't say anything of the sort. What I've always advocated on this particular issue is to avoid generalizing. It's obvious maturity varies - I mean only look at our boy Garbon, lecturing everyone from the height of his 22 years.
My point has always been that some teens can give meaningful consent and that the law should aknowledge this instead of treating all teens like mindless children.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)? Bhudda? You? Brain? Marty?
Yo, over here. I have reached it.
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 05:18:15 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 21, 2009, 02:05:28 PM
On the other hand, what we're not trying to do is claim that the research by an army of psychologists and sociologists depicting psychological maturity as coming later than physical maturity is a myth perpetuated by a repressive government just bent on keepin' a young brothah's pecker down.
Once again I didn't say anything of the sort. What I've always advocated on this particular issue is to avoid generalizing. It's obvious maturity varies - I mean only look at our boy Garbon, lecturing everyone from the height of his 22 years.
My point has always been that some teens can give meaningful consent and that the law should aknowledge this instead of treating all teens like mindless children.
G.
Nice theory, but trying to put it into practice would be a disaster. In order to prove a charge of child molestation, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual child in question was in fact too emotionally immature to be able to give meaningful consent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Yo, over here. I have reached it.
Money my dear, denying yourself or treating your partners like disposables isn't a sign of balance. ;)
G.
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2009, 05:25:27 PM
Nice theory, but trying to put it into practice would be a disaster. In order to prove a charge of child molestation, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual child in question was in fact too emotionally immature to be able to give meaningful consent.
Yes the law must cater to the majority, otherwise it can't be applied. However what I'm saying is that the 'external authorities' involved in such cases (social services, judges, police, etc) should consider any particular affair without the baggage of pre-frabricated morality. It is probably too much to hope considering how people are.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 05:31:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Yo, over here. I have reached it.
Money my dear, denying yourself or treating your partners like disposables isn't a sign of balance. ;)
Well, it IS zero-sum. I'm getting sum = zero. LOLZ
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2009, 05:25:27 PM
Nice theory, but trying to put it into practice would be a disaster. In order to prove a charge of child molestation, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual child in question was in fact too emotionally immature to be able to give meaningful consent.
Yes the law must cater to the majority, otherwise it can't be applied. However what I'm saying is that the 'external authorities' involved in such cases (social services, judges, police, etc) should consider any particular affair without the baggage of pre-frabricated morality. It is probably too much to hope considering how people are.
G.
Well, I don't consider the idea that it's wrong for adults to sexually prey on children "baggage"--and yes, I understand that you're talking about teenagers, not younger kids. That wasn't my point, however. My point was that the law has to make it clear what is and isn't legal. If the law says that the age of consent is 15, then you can have consensual sex with 15-year olds with impunity, but you would know that you'd be subject to arrest if you had sex with a 14-year old. But if the law said that you could legally have consensual sex with a minor IF in the judgment of the authorities said minor was emotionally mature enough to give meaningful consent, you wouldn't know whether or not it was legally permissable for you to have sex with a 16-year old or not, because your evaluation of their level of maturity might not be the same as that of the authorities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)? Bhudda? You? Brain? Marty?
Yo, over here. I have reached it.
I think your relationship with women speaks volumes about your relationship with your mother.
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)?
G.
[/quote]
I have. I've exhausted both.
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 05:18:15 PM
Once again I didn't say anything of the sort. What I've always advocated on this particular issue is to avoid generalizing. It's obvious maturity varies - I mean only look at our boy Garbon, lecturing everyone from the height of his 22 years.
G.
Lecturing everyone? Not agree with your boyfucking equals lecturing everyone? I guess "everyone" is actually a very small group.
Oh and I'm not 22.
I also can't quote.
Quote from: Neil on October 21, 2009, 10:02:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 21, 2009, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 10:32:23 AM
Who here has reached a 'balanced emotional and physical sexuality' (whatever that means)? Bhudda? You? Brain? Marty?
Yo, over here. I have reached it.
I think your relationship with women speaks volumes about your relationship with your mother.
Fuck you. My mommy is a saint. :mad:
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2009, 09:21:21 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 21, 2009, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: dps on October 21, 2009, 05:25:27 PM
Nice theory, but trying to put it into practice would be a disaster. In order to prove a charge of child molestation, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual child in question was in fact too emotionally immature to be able to give meaningful consent.
Yes the law must cater to the majority, otherwise it can't be applied. However what I'm saying is that the 'external authorities' involved in such cases (social services, judges, police, etc) should consider any particular affair without the baggage of pre-frabricated morality. It is probably too much to hope considering how people are.
G.
Well, I don't consider the idea that it's wrong for adults to sexually prey on children "baggage"--and yes, I understand that you're talking about teenagers, not younger kids. That wasn't my point, however. My point was that the law has to make it clear what is and isn't legal. If the law says that the age of consent is 15, then you can have consensual sex with 15-year olds with impunity, but you would know that you'd be subject to arrest if you had sex with a 14-year old. But if the law said that you could legally have consensual sex with a minor IF in the judgment of the authorities said minor was emotionally mature enough to give meaningful consent, you wouldn't know whether or not it was legally permissable for you to have sex with a 16-year old or not, because your evaluation of their level of maturity might not be the same as that of the authorities.
Indeed. Criminal liability (especially in cases as serious as child abuse) should not hinge on the ex-post-facto psychological evaluation of the minor. This would be a legal nightmare and would fail to meet the most basic criteria of criminal law, that is the certainty.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 07:18:41 AM
Indeed. Criminal liability (especially in cases as serious as child abuse) should not hinge on the ex-post-facto psychological evaluation of the minor. This would be a legal nightmare and would fail to meet the most basic criteria of criminal law, that is the certainty.
It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting
more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law... :ph34r:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 22, 2009, 07:24:14 AM
It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law...
I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants. The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups. This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time. This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous. But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 22, 2009, 07:37:30 AM
I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants. The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups. This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time. This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous. But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.
G.
Law changes, usually to reflect society's
current tolerances, and it's often delayed by the mechanism of legislation, but it's hardly as whimsical as you're trying to paint it. To be prosecuted, the crime has to have been a crime
when you committed it. Ex post facto legislation is abhorrent, agreed, but that's entirely another can of worms.
Wait a minute here. If we allow the authorities to determine who is and is not mature enough for sex on a case by case basis, rather than setting an age limit, wouldn't that be the same as banning gay sex? After all, it is a well-known fact that homosexual are inherently immature.
Quote from: Grallon on October 22, 2009, 07:37:30 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 22, 2009, 07:24:14 AM
It's kind of odd; Grallon's worried about the state abusing power with sweeping generalizations about the mental state of a minor, yet he advocates putting more unchecked power into the realm of administrative law...
I had sex with minors when the opportunity arose and they were willing and enthousiastic participants. The law as it is fail to recognize this possibility other than specifying an age of consent that changes depending on the mood of the times or the agenda of interests groups. This basically means that one year I'm a criminal and the next I'm not, depending on whatever floating morality presides over the legislative machinery at any given time. This is what I find deplorable, nay, outrageous. But as I said, common sense is almost always the loser in a battle against rigid doctrine.
G.
So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?
You think that would be an
improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 08:34:55 AM
So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?
You think that would be an improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?
Clearly, he wants to be found innocent of any criminal child rape charges, no matter the child's age. Pretty much the opposite of what you are proposing.
What he refuses to recognize is the possibility (and maybe the probability) that the solution would be far worse than the system it would replace. Her would never be free of the possibility of being charged, no matter how old the partner was, if a prosecutor and judge can agree that the partner was too immature to consent under the law.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 10:17:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 08:34:55 AM
So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?
You think that would be an improvement over simply knowing ahead of time that nailing someone under the defined age of consent was illegal?
Clearly, he wants to be found innocent of any criminal child rape charges, no matter the child's age. Pretty much the opposite of what you are proposing.
What he refuses to recognize is the possibility (and maybe the probability) that the solution would be far worse than the system it would replace. Her would never be free of the possibility of being charged, no matter how old the partner was, if a prosecutor and judge can agree that the partner was too immature to consent under the law.
I really hate to say it but: my thoughts exactly. :lol:
No one on Languish would qualify. At least no one pretty enough to fuck.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 08:34:55 AM
So you think it would be better to determine if you are a kiddy-fucking criminal AFTER you had sex with some child, by some judge somewhere?
Observe this reaction gentlemen, the very phrasing used is prejudiced and biaised. There's the implied crime, the disparaging description and the confusion generated by the bundling together of kids and teens. Typical Languish dishonesty(TM) naturally. However, and unfortunately, it is also a perception far too common among the population.
Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.
G.
That's the reaction you should get.
Quote from: Grallon on October 22, 2009, 11:59:01 AM
Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.
Trust me on this: if you touch for a sexual purpose an 8 year old, the law will treat you very differently than if you touch in the same manner a 15 year old.
The law is more nuanced than you give it credit for. There are different standards for what will and will not be acceptable at 12, 14 and 16 years of age.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 12:09:06 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 22, 2009, 11:59:01 AM
Nonetheless, nobody will ever make be believe that a 15yo studling is to be treated on par with an 8yo child, which is what the law says.
Trust me on this: if you touch for a sexual purpose an 8 year old, the law will treat you very differently than if you touch in the same manner a 15 year old.
The law is more nuanced than you give it credit for. There are different standards for what will and will not be acceptable at 12, 14 and 16 years of age.
lets not confuse the issue with "facts".
Not only special treatment, but the fucker's made bail! :mad:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/11/27/2009-11-27_inmate_roman_polanski_gets_special_treatment_in_swiss_jail.html
Quote
Roman Polanski gets special treatment in Swiss jail
By Soraya Roberts
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, November 27th 2009, 2:05 PM
The earliest Roman Polanski would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry says.
AP
The earliest Roman Polanski would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry says.
Roman Polanski has been getting the star treatment behind bars.
The filmmaker, 76, was allowed regular calls to his wife, French actress Emmanuelle Seigner, and his attorneys, according to Yussi Akram, an inmate who served time with Polanski. Prison guards also kept the "Rosemary's Baby" director away from other inmates, Akram told Zurich's Radio One.
Polanski's cell phone was equipped with an emergency button to summon guards, The Los Angeles Times reports.
But, according to The Associated Press, Polanski is just getting the same rights as any extradition detainee, a group who are afforded more privileges than prisoners who have committed crimes on Swiss soil.
Director Janusz Morgenstern, a close friend of Polanski's, told Radio One the director is depressed and has lost 30 pounds.
"His fear of the U.S. verges on panic, and he has lived with that fear for so long that it's become obsessive," Morgenstern said, adding that Polanski's kids have been taken out of school after being taunted by their peers.
Polanski has been in the Swiss prison for two months after his arrest on a warrant from a 1978 child sex case in Los Angeles.
The earliest he would be released from prison is Monday, the Swiss justice ministry told the BBC.
Swiss officials had repeatedly denied the director bail in the past on the grounds that he was a flight risk. The director fled from the U.S. before his sentencing on Feb. 1, 1978, and has been a fugitive until his recent arrest.
The court ultimately decided to release Polanski after he pledged $4.5 million in bail and agreed to electronic monitoring, which will alert authorities if he attempts to flee house arrest.
"It is very rare to get bail in an extradition case and especially in cases where the person's fled," Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and Loyola law professor, told the Los Angeles Times. "This is a little like giving bail to O.J. after the Bronco chase."
The L.A. Times reports that Polanski will likely stay at his three-story chalet, dubbed Milky Way, at a Gstaad ski resort.
Legal experts say the bail will only prolong the decision over whether Polanski should be extradited to L.A. to face sentencing for having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
The filmmaker was accused of raping Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot in 1977 after giving her champagne and a sedative.
Polanski was indicted on six felony counts of rape by use of drugs, child molestation and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse.
He fled to France in 1978 on the day of his sentencing and has been living there ever since.
No one cares anymore.
I hope he runs away, just for the sake of the shitstorm that would surely follow. :D
Hopefully he gets shot while running away, so that we won't have to hear about him again.
To bad it's not the 40's when it was perfectly acceptable for the cops to shoot suspects if they were running away, even if they were known to be unarmed, and the crime for which they were wanted wasn't a violent crime.
Quote from: dps on November 28, 2009, 04:43:04 AM
To bad it's not the 40's when it was perfectly acceptable for the cops to shoot suspects if they were running away, even if they were known to be unarmed, and the crime for which they were wanted wasn't a violent crime.
That's an opinion I do not share.
Yeah seriously. Might as well say "I miss the days when the king could throw you away in the dungeon for life for committing no crime" :lol:
dps goes over the top sometimes though.
I doubt that really happened much except in Hollywood. Much cheaper to pay an executioner for a day than a jailer for decades.
What do you mean? It happened all the time, even as far back as the Byzantine Empire. Executions seemed to not be a favored choice over imprisonment or exile.
I've never read accounts of long-term prisoners from the time period that weren't either being held for ransom or VIPs whom it would be too dangerous to kill.
READ a Tale of Two Cities
That book was set in the 18th century, and a work of fiction.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2009, 08:30:18 AM
I've never read accounts of long-term prisoners from the time period that weren't either being held for ransom or VIPs whom it would be too dangerous to kill.
There were such prisoners but until the 18th-19th century you had to pay for your upkeep which meant that practically a long-term stay was restricted to the rich. The rest would go into prison and quite often die of the unhealthy conditions.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2009, 08:16:58 AM
I doubt that really happened much except in Hollywood. Much cheaper to pay an executioner for a day than a jailer for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darya_Saltykova
I'm not sure how that case is relevant. :huh: It's obviously not an instance of this:
QuoteYeah seriously. Might as well say "I miss the days when the king could throw you away in the dungeon for life for committing no crime"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2009, 09:13:30 AM
I'm not sure how that case is relevant. :huh: It's obviously not an instance of this:
QuoteYeah seriously. Might as well say "I miss the days when the king could throw you away in the dungeon for life for committing no crime"
So you assume that maltreating peasants in 18th century, Russian ones at that, constituted a crime? :huh:
It violated the law of God. "Thou shalt not kill." -_-
Quote from: Syt on November 28, 2009, 09:03:49 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 28, 2009, 08:16:58 AM
I doubt that really happened much except in Hollywood. Much cheaper to pay an executioner for a day than a jailer for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darya_Saltykova
Yeah, it would have been cheaper to wall her up in her living quaters, like her predecessor Erzebet Bathory.