sick country - Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) Discussion

[–] mr-ection 15 years ago

Oh, thank goodness. Another enlightened, pseudo-intellectual dilettante has arrived to tell us filthy Americans how stupid, boorish, and unsophisticated we all are. You are so right, good sir! I can see the truth now!

Child rape--catch the fever!!!!

reply

[–] leforcat 15 years ago

Good, good, that was my intention, pal, at least maybe you're not all that sick ;-)

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bowery_boy 15 years ago

He didn't drug her in the sense that he was being covert about it.

She willingly took the drugs and the alcohol. She was no stranger to quaaludes, alcohol, or sex before meeting up with Polanski.

I'm not condoning what Polanski did. It's like what Geimer said in the documentary that no one knows what really happened except herself and Polanski. She's forgiven him and moved on.

I think the rest of the world should move on too.

reply

[–] leforcat 15 years ago

Look, you're quite right in everything, really - but you're missing my point, or perhaps the point isn't obvious enough in my text. And the point is the proportion. First of all it wasn't rape, whatever the law says, and we all know it now, after all what has been said by not least the girl herself. Second, Americans sleep with 13-year olds as we 'speak' all over your country, and many more would want to. Americans hanag around in those sleazy go-go bars all over the place and God know what else (we don't have them), and you religious or moral majority don't give a crap - and in the meantime get outrageous if a nipple is shown on prime time tv or the word *beep* is said. I'll never be able to like this hipocrysy that you all obviously accept. So what I think is the anger against Polanski after 30 years must have something to do with bad conscience AND with the very fact that he could get almost any girl he wanted, he did it, and he run away - while most of you can't.
The fact that he was framed should be of much bigger importance to you, because it shows your legal system have cracks - but you don't care.
And I haven't even mentioned the fact that you, also in the meantime, let all kinds of creeps into the country, and protect them, and even learn some of them how to fly into high rise bulidings.
I could go on - but you get the picture: the Polanski-thing is totally out of proportion, and most of all, if you're Christian and innocent then, and then only, should you pick up that stone. It's America and Hollywood that MADE Polanski what he became back then.

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fliphop 15 years ago

you keep saying he didnt rape her. i dont know what your definition of 'rape' is... but i find it a little difficult to understand.

im struggling to figure out what 9/11 has to do with a rape case from 20-30 years ago.

reply

[–] Writer01603 15 years ago

I don't believe that Roman Polanski really did much wrong. It wasn't the girls first time with sex or with qualudes, and that's what he gave her. WHen you say drugged, people instantly think he slipped her something, and that's not fair, he gave her a qualude, she took it, and he had sex with her.

BUT!!! And this is a big BUT, I am reminded of Plato's Socrates' Social Contract Argument. We have rules, standards, and laws. These laws prohibit giving people drugs, having sex with underage girls. He violated the law that our country has. Whether right or wrong, he should've been stood trial, for which to argue the legitimacy of the law or, as he admitted that he'd done wrong, to be punished. Laws, unjust, can be argued to be overturn, but one who takes the benefits of a free society, must live by that societies laws.

However, the judge didn't follow the laws in trying a case, his publicity attempts were horrendous. The reason no one probably tried taking on a judge is because that's a lot of work.

I believe Roman Polanski did the wrong thing running away, but I can't think of anything else besides prison.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JFrawley032759 15 years ago

We think we know what OJ Simpson did, but he was never convicted. We know very well what Roman Polanski did, because he entered a detailed confession and pleaded guilty. The victim and this crime deserves no quotation marks, because there really was a crime, and she really was the victim. "Most Americans" are not committing this crime on a daily basis, and it is deranged to think they do. I've never raped a child. My friends have never raped children. Most Americans, Frenchmen and Poles have never raped a child. Those who have raped children are extremely unlikely, for matters of opportunity, stamina and law enforcement efficiency, to rape children on a daily basis.

Let me ask the OP this: Do you rape children on a daily basis? If, as I suspect, you do not, why do you think many Americans do so?

reply

[–] leforcat 15 years ago

I won't argue with you because I feel it's pointless, it's obvious you're part of the American hypocrisy I try to target (particularly with that little absurd twist into "child rape") - so I'm writing for my own clarity and (maybe) for others.

I never said Polanski didn't commit an offense, not technically. It's however unclear if the girl wanted to have sex with him or not - perhaps she was too young to make that decision. But it was a long time ago and the girl wants it to be dropped. You don't address that.
I didn't invent the comparison with OJ Simpson - someone in this thread did. His victim didn't want to be murdered, that I'm sure of. And we all KNOW OJ did murder her, it's beyond doubt. We KNOW he walked because of silly technicalities and, most of all, because of political reasons. Meaning your legal system is crooked - you don't address that. Also the judge in the Polanski case was crooked - and of course you don't address that either.

What aggravates people is Polanski could get any chick he wanted - while most of you can't. Your country is obsessed with sex while, yes, minors are 'beeping' all over the place as we speak, there's a go-go bar within every one's reach, there are prostitutes everywhere - some of them minors - and your sex- and porno industry is world-leading - but you can't show a nipple on prime time TV. It's this hypocrisy and bigotry I find sick. Clean up your own crap before blaming Polanski for anything.

"They teach young people how to kill but they don't allow them to write *beep* on their airplanes - because it's obscene" Walt E. Kurtz

reply

[–] JFrawley032759 15 years ago

I'll just stick with "the American hypocrisy." Forcibly sodomizing children is evil, and people who do it should be treated far more harshly than the legal system prescribes. People like Polanski should just march into prison and thank god they're not getting all they deserve.

reply

[–] ring-2 15 years ago

You keep mentioning all these other crimes that he was not convicted of in an effort to try to make some kind of point. Your point, in pretty much every post, seems to be that people who have sex with minors deserve to die in the most horrible possible way because you personally don't like them. Hopefully you've grown up a little bit and no one really needs to explain to you what kind of monster that makes you out to be (far worse than any of the "evil" people you claim to hate).

So, if you want to actually have a real discussion about his crime as depicted in this film it would be really helpful if you would stick to the facts and stop using graphic and inappropriate language to make up for the fact that your view is unsupportable. Quit saying "forcible sodomy." Quit saying "rape." He was not convicted of those crimes. You should quit saying them if you want people to take you seriously, but I don't think you really care. You prefer trolling to legitimate discussion.

reply

[–] JFrawley032759 15 years ago

I keep mentioning the elements of the crime in Roman Polanski's confession. If reading such things disturb you, consider it from the perspective of the victim: Not only did she hear them, they were also performed on her body. Gosh, maybe Roman Polanski isn't as marvelous as you think. "His crime as depicted in the film" is of no relevance, of course. We are not discussing the dramatic unities of a piece of fiction, but rather real events that occurred in 1977. What is "depicted" has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed (Polanski says yes), whether he confessed (he has said so many times), whether he pleaded guilty (well, yes. Polanski says so, and it's unimportant whether you do) and whether he was convicted (even the filmmakers recognize that he was).

I do not feel like any kind of monster for being disgusted by any man who would {oh, you don't like the words "forcibly sodomize" so let's try this -) commit each specific of the saintly Roman Polanski's sworn confession. I say it is bad, the state of California says it is bad, Samantha Geimer says it is bad - even Roman Polanski says it is bad. The only problem is that the State of California and I think this felony should be punished, while you do not. You are appalled that I find adult men who sexually prey upon children evil and depraved; I am appalled that you do not. You characterize your comments as "legitimate discussion," so let's just throw the two relevant issues out there for discussion:

1. As it is a matter of fact and law that Polanski was convicted of a felony, for what reason should he be spared from a felony sentence?
2. As it is obvious that his flight from lawful imprisonment constitutes another felony, for what reason should he be spared from an additional felony sentence.

reply

[–] ring-2 15 years ago

He plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (essentially a statutory rape provision in the penal code). This is not always a felony, and certainly not as bad as the crimes he was originally charged with. I'm no expert on California law, but he was sentenced to 90 days in Chino state prison, right? In this case what is "depicted" is VERY relevant, since what was depicted were interviews with both lawyers who were saying, in essence, that the judge was a raving media whore (you know that feeling, right?) who was on some personal crusade to make a name for himself in the media at the expense of justice. Are you related to this guy by any chance?

You can call it "forcible sodomy" all day long, JFrawley, but that is a separate criminal violation that he was not convicted of. Do you see what I'm saying, here? It lends your arguments some weight if you will actually use the correct terms for his crime, but since you insist on using inflammatory (and incorrect, and potentially libelous) words to describe his crime you come off as a troll.

Nowhere did I say he didn't do a bad thing or shouldn't have been punished, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm appalled at the hatred spewing from you and from people like you, and yes, I consider advocating torture and violence as much worse than sex with a minor. Oh noes.

1. He was originally charged with six felonies. He plead guilty to what the papers described as a "lesser charge" (probably a lesser degree felony, but the same crime can also be a misdemeanor). He was sentenced to serve out the other half of his 90 day sentence. That's all the state of California and "the LAW" that you so ardently defend wanted out of him. In reality the judge was reprehensible, foolish, and a criminal himself, and if Polanski had stayed and fought the corrupt system even that weak sentence would have probably been overturned.

You want to convict him online, pseudo-anonymously after the fact of "rape" and "sodomy" and the like, none of which he was actually convicted for. You know he has successfully sued people in the past for behavior like that, right? He doesn't even have to come here to do it.

2. Both points are fairly moot since it's obvious that he has no intention of coming back (nor would any sane person... my guess is that he's not staying away to avoid jail time, since that's not even on the table really, but to avoid people like you). But I'll bite: his fleeing the country could just as easily be seen as a flight from unlawful persecution (which it was) to a sovereign nation that has no duty to turn him over to us (they don't).

Since you like questions so much, riddle me this: Why are you out for blood in this case, when even the victim and the prosecuting attorney for that matter are not? Are you one of those deluded vigilante freaks? You sure have their lingo down.

reply

[–] JFrawley032759 15 years ago

He was not sentenced to 90 days in Chino. He was sent to a pre-trial psychological evaluation (at Chino, I suppose), but was not sentenced there or anywhere else. After that evaluation, a report on it was provided to the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney, and the judge was expected to take it into account in two matters: whether he was fit to stand trial and assist in his own defense (He was) and whether he was a sexual psychopath (apparently he was found not to be). The judge accepted Polanski's sworn confession - which included such stuff as whether he had sex with the victim (yes), whether she protested (yes) and whether he continued to have forcible sex - call it sodomy, intercourse, conversation, coitus, f&#**^g or rape, it still constitutes forcible sexual contact with a child (yes) - and was expected to take it into consideration in his sentencing decision. Now, Roman Polanski had originally been charged with a much more serious felony - rape - but the prosecutor offered him a plea deal to the lesser offense, with a recommendation to the judge that he give Polanski probation. The judge, however, was not bound by any deal between the prosecutor and the defendant, and was free to issue any sentence within the sentencing guidelines. Most sadly for Mr. Polanski, that included one of many, many years. For a number of reasons, he became convinced that this was what the judge intended to do. This seemed an extremely unpleasant outcome for Mr. Polanski, so he fled to France, which has a policy of not extraditing French citizens for any but the most extreme charges. Et voila! Polanski IS a French citizen, and the charge IS NOT among those for which France is willing to extradite him. He knows that he pleaded guilty and was convicted; He knows that a severe penalty is permitted in a case identical to his; He knows that he is an international fugitive, and knows that is much more satisfactory to him than languishing in prison. I know, and you should know, that he has not been victimized in any way in this case.

reply

[–] nfaust1 15 years ago

You are at it again, talking about things you don't understand or don't want to understand, and,true to form, you evoke your favorite image:" which included such stuff as whether he had sex with the victim (yes), whether she protested (yes) and whether he continued to have forcible sex - call it sodomy, intercourse, conversation, coitus, f&#**^g or rape, it still constitutes forcible sexual contact with a child (yes) "

Many of us think that after a year of saying pretty much the same thing, you've exhausted this subject. We all know what you think. It's time to move on.

reply

[–] JFrawley032759 15 years ago

One would think you have had enough time to realize a man who would abuse a child that way is an evil pervert who - good golly - should be thrown in prison for many years. Do you think anyone would have told Polanski to just shut up already if he said something critical of Charles Manson in 1970, a year after his crimes, or 1980, or 2009? If the crime is bad, it's pathetic to think it just wears away in a year.

reply

[–] nfaust1 15 years ago

Yes, we know, you've said all this before and have added nothing new here. Go away. It's time to go away.

reply

[–] KelVintage 15 years ago

What is wrong with people like you? Why are you defending Roman? I don't understand it.

So what if JFrawley032759 says the same thing? He has made valid points.

Stop saying that he is trolling and answer the damn question. Did the victim accuse Roman? Yes. Did he plead guilty? Yes. Did he run away? Yes. That's all I need to know. The facts are there. I don't care if he's a great filmmmaker.

He is a COWARD. If he stayed in the U.S. and faced his charges like a real man, he would have been out by now, probably earlier for good behaviour and he would have used his lawyers to get a one-year or two-year sentence. It would not have been 20, that's for sure.

He's a coward and pervert. Face it. He cheated on his wife too. Not a good person, even if he did have a hard life or childhood.

Chris Benoit murdered his wife and child, and then killed himself like a coward. I would never defend him even though I used to watch the man wrestle.

Please visit my website at http://embark.to/kelvintage and tell me what you think! Thank you!

reply

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 11 years ago

I stopped reading after you said he was sent to Chino pre-trial. No he went after the plea bargain and going there is not supposed to be a punishment in and of itself as Judge Rittenband made it.

He was a first time offender and the judge kept changing the sentence to please the press.

Before you call me a Polanski sympathizer know that I worked to help put pedophiles in jail. More than one got a plea of time served and registration in the Megan's Law database, which didn't exist in the 70s. Why should Polanski be any different?

reply

[–] nfaust1 15 years ago

I see you've changed your tactic here to suit the message. Now you're interested in what the victim has to say! In messages to me you dismissed what she had to say as being (your word) irrelevant. In other messages, you've prided yourself over the fact that you've not seen the documentary. But here, you discuss what's in the documentary as if you have. Even so, what you write is not correct. I'll comment on your first paragraph below:

"I keep mentioning the elements of the crime in Roman Polanski's confession. If reading such things disturb you, consider it from the perspective of the victim: Not only did she hear them, they were also performed on her body. AGAIN, YOUR FAVORITE OBSESSION, THE CHILD'S BODY BEING BRUTALIZED. YOU BRING THIS UP OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Gosh, maybe Roman Planks isn't as marvelous as you think. "His crime as depicted in the film" is of no relevance, of course. IF YOU HAD SEEN THE FILM YOU'D KNOW HOW WRONG YOU ARE HERE AND HOW STUPID YOUR STATEMENT IS.We are not discussing the dramatic unities of a piece of fiction, but rather real events that occurred in 1977. What is "depicted" has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed YES IT DOES. NO ONE HAS DISPUTED THAT FACT AND YOU KNOW IT. (Planks says yes), whether he confessed (he has said so many times), whether he pleaded guilty (well, yes. Planks says so, and it's unimportant whether you do) and whether he was convicted (even the filmmakers recognize that he was). YOUR POINT HERE MAKES LITTLE OR NO SENSE. THE DOCUMENTARY DOES NOT WHITE WASH THE SITUATION. IT CAREFULLY, PROGRESSIVELY DETAILS IT. THERE ARE STATEMENTS GIVEN ON CAMERA BY ALL - AND I MEAN ALL - INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE VICTIM. THE JUDGE, YES, HAS SINCE DIED, BUT ALL THE LAWYERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AGREE ON ONE THING: THE JUDGE BUNGLED THE CASE. ALL OF THEM, INTERVIEWED SEPARATELY AGREE ON THIS POINT. YOUR CASUAL DISMISSAL OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT MAKES ME WONDER JUST WHAT IN HELL YOU'RE AFTER? "

We know what you think. It's time to move on.

reply

[–] kaream 15 years ago

My friends have never raped children.

Much as I hate to post to this inane thread, this assertion stopped me in my tracks.

Just how do you know none of your friends has ever raped a child?

Child rape DOES occur every day, almost certainly in every country and society. Try talking to people who deal with helping victims; it's a very common occurrence. More frequently than not the perpetrator is a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend, or an uncle or cousin or any other family member, including, horribly enough, the biological father. And don't be misled by stereotypes - this happens across every class of society, every income group, every ethnicity, every conceivable occupation (including priests, if you'll recall). The nicest guys you know, with the nicest families; pillars of their churches and their communities.

I doubt if there's a single person posting to these boards, or reading them, who will not have among their circle of acquaintances at least one who has secretly engaged in child rape, perhaps only once, perhaps ongoing for many years. It's almost always a secret crime; usually no one but the perpetrator and the victim ever know. The ones that are found out are the rare cases. Boys are victimized less often than girls, but are by no means immune. And we're not just talking about 13-year-olds, but every age from tiny babies on up.

reply

[–] GethinVanH 15 years ago

To all those who saying it is sick to have sex with a 13 year old. I don't condone it but it's legal in many Western European countries. In Spain it's 13, in Italy it's 14. In most of Western Europe the age ranges from 13 to 16. It's 17 in the UK and 18 in Turkey.

It used to be 14 in Canada but the Conservative Party raised it to 16.

Drinking laws, age of consent laws, marijuana laws, abortion laws in the US are similar to African and middle-eastern oligarchies. The US is one of the few countries to have a drinking age of 21.

Western Europe is certainly more libertarian than the US or even Canada. Personally I think by the age of 14 someone should be intelligent enough to decide who they are going to have sex with. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be rape laws or laws against people of authority having sex with minors (such as teachers, coaches, etc.)

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]