cdrudge Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 As you probably read, Roman Polanski was arrested over the weekend on an arrest warrant from the late seventies for raping a 13 year old girl. He plead guilty but skipped before the actual sentencing. He's been living in France since then and was arrested when he went to a film festival in Zurich where he was to be honored. I'm sure there is probably much more detail to the story then what a news website tells, but according to the article, "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..." I've never been in nor do I know of anyone that's been in a situation like Polanski's, but I know that if I was ever accused of something like that and I didn't do it, there is zero chance that I would plead guilty. Unless he was somehow tricked into pleading, which doesn't sound like the case, he as admitted to what he did. What I don't get is some of the reaction to him being arrested. Also from that same article: 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." 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." How on earth can anyone justify saying that someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old "made a little mistake" and that he has exceptional human qualities", that his treatment is arbitrary, or that it's shameful for Switzerland detain him pending a due process extradition hearing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 As you probably read, Roman Polanski was arrested over the weekend on an arrest warrant from the late seventies for raping a 13 year old girl. He plead guilty but skipped before the actual sentencing. He's been living in France since then and was arrested when he went to a film festival in Zurich where he was to be honored. I'm sure there is probably much more detail to the story then what a news website tells, but according to the article, "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..." I've never been in nor do I know of anyone that's been in a situation like Polanski's, but I know that if I was ever accused of something like that and I didn't do it, there is zero chance that I would plead guilty. Unless he was somehow tricked into pleading, which doesn't sound like the case, he as admitted to what he did. What I don't get is some of the reaction to him being arrested. Also from that same article: 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." 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." How on earth can anyone justify saying that someone who drugged and raped a 13 year old "made a little mistake" and that he has exceptional human qualities", that his treatment is arbitrary, or that it's shameful for Switzerland detain him pending a due process extradition hearing? Don't know all the ins and outs of the story but I think I heard this morning that the woman that was raped wanted to drop the charges. Not sure why?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Don't know all the ins and outs of the story but I think I heard this morning that the woman that was raped wanted to drop the charges. Not sure why?? Money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) Don't know all the ins and outs of the story but I think I heard this morning that the woman that was raped wanted to drop the charges. Not sure why?? Heard part of an interview where she said that every time this comes up her & her family is drug into it again. I guess she just wants to get on with her life and not to be forever known as the 13 year old who was raped by Roman Polanski. Edited September 28, 2009 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 she just wants to get on with her life and not to be forever known as the 13 year old who was raped by Roman Polanski. that, and they reached a monetary settlement years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Money?She's tried to move on with her life but every time it comes back up in the media it comes back to haunt her and her family. Article It puts the justice system in a tight spot. Do you continue to go after someone who did something atrocious to a 13 year old even after the victim wants to move on? Do the wants and legitimate desires of the victim come before society's interest in making the guilty pay for their crimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 She's tried to move on with her life but every time it comes back up in the media it comes back to haunt her and her family. Article It puts the justice system in a tight spot. Do you continue to go after someone who did something atrocious to a 13 year old even after the victim wants to move on? Do the wants and legitimate desires of the victim come before society's interest in making the guilty pay for their crimes? He plead guilty. Justice has not been served. I don't think they need the girl anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 He plead guilty. Justice has not been served. I don't think they need the girl anymore.That was my though. Since posting this, Time has a article talking about France's reaction. I still think the French viewpoint is . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 He plead guilty. Justice has not been served. I don't think they need the girl anymore. This is the international media we are talking about. Since when do they respect a person's wish to be left out of the spotlight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 She's tried to move on with her life but every time it comes back up in the media it comes back to haunt her and her family. Article It puts the justice system in a tight spot. Do you continue to go after someone who did something atrocious to a 13 year old even after the victim wants to move on? Do the wants and legitimate desires of the victim come before society's interest in making the guilty pay for their crimes? Just to answer your question and not knowing all the details here, i think the wants of an individual should be secondary to the needs of society to punish those that deserve to be punished. Otherwise, people would be allowed to continue to commit crimes against others. There's also the issue of criminals being able to settle situations with "hush" money which would allow them to continue to remain free and potentially commit more crimes/ rape more women, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The problem was that he plead guilty when he had an agreement worked out with the prosecutor and the judge. The judge was a notorious publicity hound who changed his mind on the deal after it was agreed upon. There was a good HBO documentary on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The victim doesn't want anything else done. Can't Obama just issue an executive order stating that Planski can stay in the lad of the cowardly frog as long as he wants, but that if he ever steps foot on US soil that he will be shot on site? Save the tax payers some money, and the victim from having to go through the press cirus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The problem was that he plead guilty when he had an agreement worked out with the prosecutor and the judge. The judge was a notorious publicity hound who changed his mind on the deal after it was agreed upon. There was a good HBO documentary on it. Are you sure that's the way it went down? I'm not saying it's not...but I don't recall the judge changing his mind on the plea agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The problem was that he plead guilty when he had an agreement worked out with the prosecutor and the judge. if that's the case, he can tell it to the new judge. whatever. I am glad he has to face the music after just reading the testimony of what he did to that girl on thesmokinggun.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The quotes dont seem that odd given their context. I remember a guy a couple years ago that was extradited after it was shown he was a SS concentration camp guard during WWII. A lot of his neighbors were against it becaus ethey knew the guy in a different way and he posed no threat. people can be weird . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Eerie coincedence... Susan Atkins just died on Thursday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 The quotes dont seem that odd given their context. I remember a guy a couple years ago that was extradited after it was shown he was a SS concentration camp guard during WWII. A lot of his neighbors were against it becaus ethey knew the guy in a different way and he posed no threat. people can be weird . . . . Those guys should be shot. They've spent the last 80 years upright while their victims have been air pollution. If this guy has done what is said, he too, should be shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Those guys should be shot. They've spent the last 80 years upright while their victims have been air pollution. If this guy has done what is said, he too, should be shot. Agreed. At least the guys that knew the SS guard didnt know what he did. It isnt like Roman Polanski changed his name at all or hid from the spotlight . . . . . people have known for years . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 If Polanski ever were to walk down my street, I'm afraid I'd have to draw down on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Don't know all the ins and outs of the story her & her family is drug into it Ba-ZING!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 I think after this amount of time, being a fugitive for this long is a pretty bad crime all in itself. I don't care if he's not a threat to 13 year old girls anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Are you sure that's the way it went down? I'm not saying it's not...but I don't recall the judge changing his mind on the plea agreement. Meh. I got some details wrong. He wanted to put him back in jail after he was released from the psych ward. A key revelation, Zenovich said, came from the case's retired prosecutor, Roger Gunson, who suggests in the film that Rittenband acted improperly before Polanski decided to skip the country in 1978. At first, all sides had agreed that the only sentence he should serve would be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation in prison at Chino, California. But when Chino authorities, fearing for Polanski's safety, released him after 42 days, an infuriated Rittenband called in both sets of lawyers and announced a new plan. He wanted to put Polanski back in prison for another 48 days or deport him, Gunson tells Zenovich. Now, I'm not saying I think the guy shouldn't have ended up in prison, but there was some funny business going on with the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 If Polanski ever were to walk down my street, I'm afraid I'd have to draw down on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) Did they have penile/vaginal intercourse? If she only performed oral on him it wasn't sex and he should be freed, Edited September 29, 2009 by polksalet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Did they have penile/vaginal intercourse? If she only performed oral on him it wasn't sex and he should be freed, He gave her a quaalude & champagne then raped & sodomized her. He completely admitted to doing it & got a plea bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.