ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags rape , rape cases , Roman Polanski , statutory rape

Reply
Old 1st October 2009, 02:53 PM   #361
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,487
He assumed wrong.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 02:56 PM   #362
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,659
Honestly, Polanski's got enough money, lawyers, and fans to delay the process for ages. It wouldn't surprise me if he died of natural causes before ever seeing the inside of a prison.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 03:06 PM   #363
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,642
Originally Posted by headscratcher4 View Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos..._polanski.html
Anne Applebaum at the Wash. Post continues to dig a deeper hole for herself with her defence of Polanski.
She ain't got nothing on Huffington contributor Joan Shore, former CBS journalist and self-proclaimed "activist feminist": Polanski's Arrest - Shame on the Swiss

Originally Posted by Joan Shore
The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother
WTF? "Seduced" in scare quotes, as if Polanski didn't even seduce the girl when he drugged, raped, and sodomized her.

And even if the girl's mother was complicit (I wouldn't take Shore's word), in what universe does this excuse anything? It's OK because she was pimped by her mother? This is demented thinking.
Originally Posted by Joan Shore
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!)
She's so eager to excuse Polanski that she's making stuff up out of whole cloth.

Originally Posted by Shore
Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee
Holy sweet jesus, now she portrays him as a victim.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 1st October 2009 at 03:09 PM.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 03:10 PM   #364
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Ms. W... er, I mean, Shore is the is the head of some organization called, "Women overseas for equality". Apparently she thinks it would be a good idea if women oversees were also drugged, raped and sodomized at age 13 by celebrities. Why should American girls have all the fun, after all?

Last edited by Skeptic; 1st October 2009 at 03:14 PM.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 03:42 PM   #365
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,144
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
so Polanski ran away.
He packed it in,
And packed it up,
And sneaked away,
And buggered off,
And chickened out,
And pissed off home

Brave Polanski ran away.

(apologies to Monty Python)
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 03:57 PM   #366
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
As mentionned earlier it wildly vary with historical and cultural setting. On some palce it is 12ish today, and it used to be 10, then it even depended whether you were homosexual or heterosexual, or even your gender (in France up to 1940 something it was/still is 15 with hetero, but 21 if you were homo).

As far as I can tell it is a real mess in the US where you can go from 15 to 21 as age of consent (21!!!!) with a median at 18.
No, the maximum age of consent is 18 in the U.S., with 16 being the minimum. The plurality of states are still at 16 in fact, but California is 18, which perhaps explains the norm for American movies and TV shows. A few of the states used to be lower, with 14 being the minimum in Hawaii as recently as 2001, for example, but that has all changed recently.

Perhaps you're thinking of legal drinking age, which is abnormally high in the U.S. as compared with most other Western nations. Due to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 the drinking age is currently fixed at 21 for every U.S. state, although many states used to have drinking ages of 18 or 19. I don't think this is a hold-over from Prohibition period morality so much as a practical measure meant to reduce drunk driving, which is especially prevalent amongst young men. Its effectiveness is debated, of course.
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 04:09 PM   #367
Cicero
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 7,861
When all else fails, there is always the economic reason why it is a bad omen to punish Roman


“The people of California- we’re broke. What are we going to do? We’re going to prosecute him with IOUs? Let’s figure out some other way to deal with this for the moment.”
John Ridley, former MSNBC co-host and a Huffington Post contributor,
Cicero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 04:35 PM   #368
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,695
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I'm curious, though. Did Polanski have a reputation as having a thing for young girls? I hadn't heard that until now; but it has no bearing on anything as far as I'm concerned.
I know this questio has already been addressed (by myself and others), where it was pointed out that Polanski also dated a 15 year old girl, and had been pictured 'hanging out' with some fairly young looking girls at Octoberfest.

Well, apparently, according to Polanski, EVERYONE is into little girls...

From: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/mi...tle-girls-too/
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

(This quote was apparently from an interview Polanski gave after he fled to Europe in the 70s.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 04:46 PM   #369
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,487
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He packed it in,
And packed it up,
And sneaked away,
And buggered off,
And chickened out,
And pissed off home

Brave Polanski ran away.

(apologies to Monty Python)
No need to apologize to Terry Gilliam. He signed the petition.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 05:08 PM   #370
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,675
The Governator steps up to the plate:

Originally Posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger
I think he should be treated like everyone else.

Tough luck, rapist.

Last edited by johnny karate; 1st October 2009 at 05:12 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 05:57 PM   #371
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
 
HeyLeroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,567
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
From what I've read, some of the "blame" for this has been laid at the feet of Polanski's lawyers. A few months ago, when arguing that any charges against Polanski should be dropped and the matter closed, they pointedly complained that California had made no attempt at extradition in over 30 years and that this was obviously a case they preferred to ignore.

California, apparently, decided to up the ante.
It's not quite true that they had made no attempt:

Quote:
According to a news release issued by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office earlier this week, state law enforcement officials were in talks with the RCMP about detaining Polanski in Calgary and having him extradited to California in December 1986 when it was discovered the director was thinking about shooting a movie in Canada.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/enterta...883/story.html

ETA: Wow! My 5,000th post!
__________________
Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325
I my kids.
I ♠ my dog.
I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.
HeyLeroy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 06:11 PM   #372
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,487
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Hasta la vista, rosemary's baby!
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 06:16 PM   #373
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10,109
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
When all else fails, there is always the economic reason why it is a bad omen to punish Roman


“The people of California- we’re broke. What are we going to do? We’re going to prosecute him with IOUs? Let’s figure out some other way to deal with this for the moment.”
John Ridley, former MSNBC co-host and a Huffington Post contributor,
If that were the case, I wouldn't have to go to the criminal court tomorrow to do my jury service, nor would the investigator from when I was robbed be calling me about victim restitution.
LostAngeles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:10 PM   #374
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Having read through this entire monster thread:

1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.

2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".

Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her. It is possible that they had consensual sex and she lied about it later, just as it is possible that Polanski drugged her and raped her.

3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison. Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.

4. If you happened to have a TARDIS and a video camera in your back yard, and you went back and videotaped the alleged rape, and by doing so you obtained proof beyond reasonable doubt that Polanski raped the girl exactly as she described it, then I would obviously support trying Polanski for rape and giving him an appropriate sentence. If you don't have a TARDIS and Polanski has not confirmed the girl's story then this isn't going to happen.

5. If I've missed the link where Polanski admits to raping her, mea culpa. If I haven't, this thread is an embarrassing display of supposed skeptics leaping to vilify someone based on insufficient evidence and those of you who have been stating as a fact that Polanski is a rapist need to go to remedial skeptic training.

6. How to put this politely... from what I've read in Dan Savage's column (NSFW) over the years I would expect an anal rape that took place as described in the transcript at The Smoking Gun to leave detectable injuries that would have been documented by the police and presented at Polanski's trial as evidence of forcible rape. I'm not calling her a liar but if that exact sequence of events was presented in a sex scene in a work of fiction I think it would be seen as implausible. People's bits just don't work that way.

Possibly they just had no clue about aspects of forensic procedure we take for granted today in the seventies but a medical examination for evidence of injuries isn't exactly rocket science.

That oddity doesn't incline me to a conclusion either way but it does strike me as rather curious.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:29 PM   #375
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,487
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post

Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:29 PM   #376
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
 
ZirconBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 13,381
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Having read through this entire monster thread:

1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.

2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".

Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her. It is possible that they had consensual sex and she lied about it later, just as it is possible that Polanski drugged her and raped her.
It doesn't matter if she was lying. Even if you throw out the drugs & alcohol (which would have been a crime to provide to a minor, anyway), "just" having sex with her was rape. She was 13. She was not old enough to legally consent.

Quote:
3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison.
Which, if true, shows how messed up in the head he was. 30+ years of evading justice, just to avoid a mere 48 days in prison?

Quote:
Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.
An additional 48 days for rape is absurd on it's face. But, now he has the added crime of evading justice.
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays.
Manipulate the people for the money they pay.
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards.
ZirconBlue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:34 PM   #377
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,675
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.

2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".

Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her. It is possible that they had consensual sex and she lied about it later, just as it is possible that Polanski drugged her and raped her.
Polanski admitted to having sex with a 13 year-old girl. Under the law then and now, that is statutory rape. Consent, nor the veracity of the girl's version of events, does not factor in. No matter how you slice it, spin it, or distort it: Roman Polanski is a rapist.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison. Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.
The 48 additional days he was supposedly meant to serve were part of a plea agreement that could be set aside by the judge sentencing him. I believe the maximum penalty at the time for his crime was up to 20 years in prison. It was certainly more than 90 days, and could very easily, and quite legally, have been imposed upon Polanski. That is why he fled.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
4. If you happened to have a TARDIS and a video camera in your back yard, and you went back and videotaped the alleged rape, and by doing so you obtained proof beyond reasonable doubt that Polanski raped the girl exactly as she described it, then I would obviously support trying Polanski for rape and giving him an appropriate sentence. If you don't have a TARDIS and Polanski has not confirmed the girl's story then this isn't going to happen.

5. If I've missed the link where Polanski admits to raping her, mea culpa. If I haven't, this thread is an embarrassing display of supposed skeptics leaping to vilify someone based on insufficient evidence and those of you who have been stating as a fact that Polanski is a rapist need to go to remedial skeptic training.
When a 44-year old man has sex with a 13-year old girl, that's rape. Polanski admitted he had sex with a 13 year-old girl, therefore he committed rape. No TARDIS required.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
6. How to put this politely... from what I've read in Dan Savage's column (NSFW) over the years I would expect an anal rape that took place as described in the transcript at The Smoking Gun to leave detectable injuries that would have been documented by the police and presented at Polanski's trial as evidence of forcible rape. I'm not calling her a liar but if that exact sequence of events was presented in a sex scene in a work of fiction I think it would be seen as implausible. People's bits just don't work that way.

Possibly they just had no clue about aspects of forensic procedure we take for granted today in the seventies but a medical examination for evidence of injuries isn't exactly rocket science.

That oddity doesn't incline me to a conclusion either way but it does strike me as rather curious.
Your incredulity about the details of 13 year-old rape victim's recollection of her rape notwithstanding, Roman Polanski is a rapist. This is a matter of record.

Last edited by johnny karate; 1st October 2009 at 07:39 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:36 PM   #378
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,464
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Having read through this entire monster thread:

1. I haven't spotted any links or citations showing that Polanski ever confirmed that the girl's statements about what happened on the night in question were true. If such a citation is available I'm happy to take their combined statements as being factual, in which case Polanski belongs in jail for a lengthy list of crimes.

2. Lacking such a citation, I think the position several posters have taken that the girl was telling the truth is insufficiently supported. Lacking such a citation bald claims like "Polanski raped a thirteen year old girl twice" are incorrect, and the posters making those claims should instead be saying "a thirteen year old girl alleges Polanski raped her twice".
While I am not aware anywhere that Polanski has confirmed her statements, I am not aware that he has denied her account, either.

As has been described in this thread, the reason for the plea down likely doesn't have to do with him denying her version, but more to the fact that her version, even if accepted as true, would have been difficult to get a rape conviction in 1979, when sexual assault was far more tolerated and crap like "she was asking for it" was acceptable. From a modern perspective, her story is a clear-cut case of rape. However, back then, it wouldn't have been so easy. I mean, she undressed on her own! She had had sex previously! Obviously she was asking for it. Or so the argument would go.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:43 PM   #379
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
3. It seems that the likely outcome of Polanski staying in the USA was 48 days in prison followed by deportation. By fleeing the USA, voluntarily deporting himself as it were, he avoided 48 days in prison. Certainly if due process is to be followed he should spend 48 days in a US prison but it's such a small length of time for a crime committed so long ago that I don't find the case for pursuing the matter very compelling.
You have no idea what 'due process' means in this case and you are also conveniently ignoring the fact that 'due process' would have to take into account the fact that he fled from justice.


For the rest of your post, your not calling her a liar you are just saying you don't believe her story and you think she might have had consensual sex and is now lying about it.

Right.
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:45 PM   #380
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,675
And to put to rest once and for all this ridiculous notion that Polanski was somehow the victim of a reneged plea agreement, here's the testimony from his plea transcript:

Quote:
Mr. Gunson (Deputy District Attorney): Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?

The Defendant (Polanski): (No response.)

Mr. Gunson: Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?

The Defendant: Yes

Last edited by johnny karate; 1st October 2009 at 07:52 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 07:46 PM   #381
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
As has been described in this thread, the reason for the plea down likely doesn't have to do with him denying her version, but more to the fact that her version, even if accepted as true, would have been difficult to get a rape conviction in 1979, when sexual assault was far more tolerated and crap like "she was asking for it" was acceptable. From a modern perspective, her story is a clear-cut case of rape. However, back then, it wouldn't have been so easy. I mean, she undressed on her own! She had had sex previously! Obviously she was asking for it. Or so the argument would go.
And Kevin's attacks on the victim's credibility are just the sort of thing that police and prosecutors try to avoid by allowing rapists to plead down.
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:02 PM   #382
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
It is possible that they had consensual sex
No, it is not. By law, a 13 year old girl cannot give consent to have sex with a 43 year old man.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:03 PM   #383
thinkingman
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35
Judge the Movie, Not the Man By Samantha Geimer February 23, 2003 I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy....We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.
Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb...on/oe-geimer23


Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim By Steve Lopez September 30, 2009
The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...27,full.column


Dominic Lawson: Let's not forget what Polanski did - The film director has been treated with extraordinary indulgence Tuesday, 29 September 2009 A man who drugged and sodomised a 13-year old girl would not usually receive the uncritical support of the political and literary establishments....There, the 44-year-old Polanski plied her with the drug Quaalude mixed in glasses of champagne. Then, after insisting that she join him in the Jacuzzi, Polanski said: "Let's go in the other room". From this point on, the testimony is harrowing, so skip the next few paragraphs if you are of a squeamish disposition.
"Q. What did you do when he said, 'Let's go into the other room'?
A. I was going 'No, I think I better go home', because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.... He sat down beside me and asked if I was OK. I said 'No'.
Q. What did he say?
A. He goes 'Well, you'll be better'. And I go, 'No I won't. I have to go home. He said 'I'll take you home soon'.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then he went down and he started performing cuddliness... I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination... I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go."
Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?
A. He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' and I went, 'No' and he goes 'When did you have your period?' and I said, 'I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure'... He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember'. And I told him I didn't.... and right after I said I was not on the pill... and he goes... and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.
Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really, because...
Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...d-1794717.html

court transcripts
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...skicover1.html
thinkingman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:20 PM   #384
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,902
Polanski is certainly guilty of statutory rape and evading justice anyway, but whether or not the girl's testimony is true makes the difference on several other potential charges like aggravated rape as well--don't know if any of them have a statute of limitations in California, though.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:22 PM   #385
kallsop
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 755
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
From what I read on this, the victim has let it go, and was compensated long ago.
Huh? "Compensated" sounds a lot like bought off. Fair enough, but what are the facts?

He knew her age, 13. He drugged her. He raped her while she repeatedly said "No". Check the transcripts, it's all there. He admitted guilt, and fled when it appeared he wasn't going to get a deal to his liking. Contrary to what legal expert Whoopie says, it was actually "rape-rape". Did you hear that, Debra Wingnut and Woody "keep it in the family" Allen. Your friend is a rapist.

So, what should the punishment be for a midget who rapes a 13 year old girl, admits guilt, and goes on the run for 30+ years? Whatever the original sentence was likely to be, plus significantly more time for evading justice. That's not punitive because of his fame, it's just the same justice you or I would deserve.
kallsop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:29 PM   #386
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
My wording was imprecise, and I should have learned from experience that people are eager to leap on that kind of imprecision. Mea culpa.

Roman Polanksi pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. He did not plead guilty to forcible sex with a minor.

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
It doesn't matter if she was lying. Even if you throw out the drugs & alcohol (which would have been a crime to provide to a minor, anyway), "just" having sex with her was rape. She was 13. She was not old enough to legally consent.
I'm not sure precisely what point you are trying to make, given that I'm obviously aware of the fact that Polanski pleaded guilty to the offence of "just" having sex with her (your term) because I stated that in my last post.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Polanski admitted to having sex with a 13 year-old girl. Under the law then and now, that is statutory rape. Consent, nor the veracity of the girl's version of events, does not factor in. No matter how you slice it, spin it, or distort it: Roman Polanski is a rapist.
Can you cite where I sliced, spun or distorted anything? Otherwise I'm writing you off as a troll.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
While I am not aware anywhere that Polanski has confirmed her statements, I am not aware that he has denied her account, either.

As has been described in this thread, the reason for the plea down likely doesn't have to do with him denying her version, but more to the fact that her version, even if accepted as true, would have been difficult to get a rape conviction in 1979, when sexual assault was far more tolerated and crap like "she was asking for it" was acceptable. From a modern perspective, her story is a clear-cut case of rape. However, back then, it wouldn't have been so easy. I mean, she undressed on her own! She had had sex previously! Obviously she was asking for it. Or so the argument would go.
The fact that he hasn't denied it isn't proof it's true. (Sorry, I just felt like stating the bleeding obvious).

As to whether we can divine the reason he was allowed to cop a plea all those years ago, I tend to think we can't. However "he said, she said" rape cases are terribly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt even today and I tend to suspect that the only way these cases get convictions most of the time is if the juries don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by gtc View Post
For the rest of your post, your not calling her a liar you are just saying you don't believe her story and you think she might have had consensual sex and is now lying about it.

Right.
I realise this is the politics forum where putting words into other people's mouths is more or less the norm, but this isn't a Palestine thread so please behave yourself.

In the same sense that I think there might be fossils on Mars, sure, I think she might have had consensual sex and then lied about it. Can you cite any source either for Polanski confirming her story, or for any hard evidence confirming her story? Without such confirmation all we have is her word and Polanski's plea to a lesser charge.

Originally Posted by gtc View Post
And Kevin's attacks on the victim's credibility are just the sort of thing that police and prosecutors try to avoid by allowing rapists to plead down.
While there were and are sound reasons for "rape shield" laws that limit the defence's ability to cross-examine rape complainants, and overall I support those laws, that doesn't mean that all rape complainants are honest or that it's not legitimate skepticism to ask questions about their narrative. Especially if one part of that narrative, as presented, seems incompatible with the facts of life as I understand them.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 09:36 PM   #387
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
No, it is not. By law, a 13 year old girl cannot give consent to have sex with a 43 year old man.
Purely legally this is half-right and half-wrong.

Having sex with a 13 year old girl in which she is a voluntary participant is a crime.

Having sex with a 13 year old girl in which she is an involuntary participant is a much more serious crime.

Whether the underage person involved participated voluntarily or not determines what specific crime the adult is charged with and thus has a major influence on what sentence the adult is likely to receive.

(Before anyone is tempted to leap in with some nonsense like "But it's not voluntary! It can't be voluntary because they can't consent!", think about the fact that the law is very clear about this issue. Whether the underage participant was forced to have sex or had sex voluntarily is enormously important legally. If you don't like that fact go lobby to have the laws changed).
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 10:44 PM   #388
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,675
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Can you cite where I sliced, spun or distorted anything? Otherwise I'm writing you off as a troll.
Right here:
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Polanksi pled guilty to having sex with her. He did not plead guilty to raping her.
He plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Also know as statutory rape. You trying to pretend that the sex he had with a 13 year-old girl is not rape if it was consensual is the spinning and distorting to which I was referring.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 10:47 PM   #389
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Edited by LibraryLady:  Edited for attacking the arguer


Mod WarningPlease attack the argument, not the arguer.
Posted By:LibraryLady

Last edited by LibraryLady; 2nd October 2009 at 07:08 AM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 10:49 PM   #390
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Roman Polanksi pleaded guilty to sex with a minor. He did not plead guilty to forcible sex with a minor.
Same thing. Go read a law book.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 10:49 PM   #391
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,642
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Polanski admitted to having sex with a 13 year-old girl. Under the law then and now, that is statutory rape.
This is a concept that Kevin_Lowe, who has a history on this forum defending sexual abuse of children by adults, continuously fails to grasp.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:07 PM   #392
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
He plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Also know as statutory rape. You trying to pretend that the sex he had with a 13 year-old girl is not rape if it was consensual is the spinning and distorting to which I was referring.
As it says in that link, "very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes". Legally speaking, sex involving the voluntary participation of an underage person is only a subset of "rape" in a handful of jurisdictions and my view is that even in those cases the legal term is an inflammatory misnomer. Everywhere else it's something like "unlawful sexual intercourse", the crime Polanski pleaded guilty to.

As such, it's a cold, hard legal fact that sex with a willingly participating thirteen year old in California is not rape in the legal sense. It's unlawful sexual intercourse. (Of course if she was not a willing participant, as is likely but not proven beyond reasonable doubt, it would be rape).

Since I made it perfectly clear that sex with the girl in question was illegal, regardless of whether she participated voluntarily, you're pursuing a purely semantic argument based on a popular misnomer ("statutory rape") that has no basis in Californian law. The spin and distortion here is your insistence on using an emotive misnomer rather than the technically correct terms.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:09 PM   #393
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Of course we'll all take the word of a Tasmanian for what California law says about rape...
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:23 PM   #394
slingblade
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,466
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This is a concept that Kevin_Lowe, who has a history on this forum defending sexual abuse of children by adults, continuously fails to grasp.
Thank you. I wasn't sure how to say that, but you managed it quite well.
slingblade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:23 PM   #395
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This is a concept that Kevin_Lowe, who has a history on this forum defending sexual abuse of children by adults, continuously fails to grasp.
I told Varwoche what I thought of him by PM at the time he made that post, but since I'd bowed out of that thread I didn't allow myself to be lured back in. However since he's now linking to it as evidence that I'm "defending sexual abuse of children by adults" I feel obliged to respond to his offensive, deceptive and defamatory postings.

Firstly, in the post linked to by Varwoche is (I surmise deliberately) misstating my actual position and the actual questions I was asking. Read the full thread for the details, but he took it upon himself not only to lie to the AIFS about my position but also to specifically avoid asking about the actual issue we had been discussing earlier in the thread, which was the exact degree of harm known to be caused by voluntary sex involving underage people (whether with other youngsters or with adults).

If I recall correctly the evidence that posters in that thread had unearthed at the time was ambiguous to say the least, but did not show statistically significant levels of long-term psychological harm caused by voluntary and non-distressing early sexual activity involving sexually mature minors. (Since then I've done one or two surveys of the available literature and the current consensus seems to be that there is a reasonable case to be made for long-term psychological harm, since people have finally done a few studies that were properly controlled. The main problem at the time of that thread was that the studies we could find were all poorly controlled).

I can't construct any explanation for Varwoche's behaviour which is consistent with good or honest intentions. Possibly I'm biased but I can't see any basis for his behaviour other than malice.

I am reporting his post and asking the moderators to split his garbage off into AAH where it belongs along with my response to it.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:43 PM   #396
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
I do not know what history has Kevin Lowe, but he is RIGHT. It is called statutory rape only in a few state, other call it unlawful sex with minor, 3rd degree felony, etc.... And it is a different offense than real rape.

What we are observing here is the inability of people of separating what sort of fact are available, and what is speculated.
1) the girl accused him of rape
2) as far as i can tell there is no medical documentation or anything showing it a way or another. If there was it would be clear cut and the prosecutor would not have choosen this way
3) we are left out of a she-said he-said thus the plea from the prosecutor
4) polanski accepted the plea
5) he fled before sentencing

the rest is unknowable from any of us and is just speculation or over reaction.

There are more murky stuff like whether there was an undue influence of the judge, whether or not the sentence would have been only 48 days etc...

But the bottom line is 1) yes he should now get in prison for the deal he would have been sentenced for 2) yes he should get a sentence for fleeing (isn't there an aggravation when you flee sentencing?). but NO 3) nobody can say anything MORE to this since there are no evidence whatsoever left from that time

the rest is only emotional reaction

ETA And speak of emotional, the age of consent is a very culturally wildly differing point of view, so please stop your "but but sex with anybody around 13 is RAPE even if he/she consent !!!". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png

Last edited by Aepervius; 1st October 2009 at 11:48 PM. Reason: 123 was a quite age of consent :P changed to 13
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2009, 11:56 PM   #397
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10,109
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I do not know what history has Kevin Lowe, but he is RIGHT. It is called statutory rape only in a few state, other call it unlawful sex with minor, 3rd degree felony, etc.... And it is a different offense than real rape.

What we are observing here is the inability of people of separating what sort of fact are available, and what is speculated.
1) the girl accused him of rape
2) as far as i can tell there is no medical documentation or anything showing it a way or another. If there was it would be clear cut and the prosecutor would not have choosen this way
3) we are left out of a she-said he-said thus the plea from the prosecutor
4) polanski accepted the plea
5) he fled before sentencing

the rest is unknowable from any of us and is just speculation or over reaction.

There are more murky stuff like whether there was an undue influence of the judge, whether or not the sentence would have been only 48 days etc...

But the bottom line is 1) yes he should now get in prison for the deal he would have been sentenced for 2) yes he should get a sentence for fleeing (isn't there an aggravation when you flee sentencing?). but NO 3) nobody can say anything MORE to this since there are no evidence whatsoever left from that time

the rest is only emotional reaction

ETA And speak of emotional, the age of consent is a very culturally wildly differing point of view, so please stop your "but but sex with anybody around 13 is RAPE even if he/she consent !!!". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png
Aspervius, Kevin, at what age should a person be able to enter into a legal contract? At what age should they be allowed to vote? At what age should they be able to join the military?

Please explain the reasoning for your answers.
LostAngeles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2009, 12:00 AM   #398
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by LostAngeles View Post
Aspervius, Kevin, at what age should a person be able to enter into a legal contract? At what age should they be allowed to vote? At what age should they be able to join the military?

Please explain the reasoning for your answers.
I suggest starting a new thread rather than hijacking this one, which is about Roman Polanski.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2009, 01:21 AM   #399
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This is a concept that Kevin_Lowe, who has a history on this forum defending sexual abuse of children by adults, continuously fails to grasp.
Your post from that other thread is very relevant to this case. Even if she hadn't been fed drugs and alcohol it looks like the research says that she couldn't have given her informed consent to sexual intercourse.
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2009, 02:46 AM   #400
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by LostAngeles View Post
Aspervius, Kevin, at what age should a person be able to enter into a legal contract? At what age should they be allowed to vote? At what age should they be able to join the military?

Please explain the reasoning for your answers.
Legal contract, vote, military , are not comparable with sex (if that is what you want to compare to) those are activities you are allowed to enter when you get the status of legal adult citizen. 18 year old in my country.

Sex (and mariage), drinking age, cigarette are individual/personal activity which can and are legal when the individual is consenting. So I would place them at all the same age, although a different age than you become citizen (so not 18).
Sex is placed at my country at 15, I would tend to place them at 16 when an adult is involved, because i tend to think before 16 most teenager are not able to make a good decision (aka 99 year old person with a consenting 15 would be a no-no, but with a consenting 16 their problem) but more or less free of repercussion when both are under or equal 15 and above or equal 12 because you can't legislate youth (try ANYWAY to forbid two 13 year old to play doctor... good luck with that, if you make it unlawful you only make teenager marked for life for stuff which are basically OK between consenting people).

Now if you ask for my personal taste (and not what i think is legal) when i was young and good looking enough I flirted only with older women (I won the jackpot far more rarely than i wished, but often enough that some on this board would have called those women statutory rapist). Today when I see a daughter/mother pair, the daughter is quasi invisible to me, the hot mama feeling all my eye. So yeah, I am the sort of pervert which are only interrested in 35-45 year old old (big breasted) women. But neither do i see some of the reaction of the poster here as warranted.

Last edited by Aepervius; 2nd October 2009 at 02:53 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.