[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Doesn't it trouble you that you're more thirsty for this guy's blood than the person he wronged? I'm not altogether opposed to him going to prison, but it does seem he's a different person now and I don't take any pleasure in watching men die in captivity.

Time can take the edge off a victim's desire for justice, but justice shouldn't let time be a factor when a person has been so terribly wronged. The law should try to keep a fresh memory, because individuals often lose perspective.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Monique 

If she was on drugs how can she remember all the details of her assumed rape?

Why can't you guys see a 13 year old as a sexual being?

Many 13 and 14 year old do have sex and get pregnant?

It is not the smartest idea but it happens anyway; also, why wasn't mommy there when she was taking her clothes off?

This isn't about her age, it's about him trying to drug her and then ultimately using fear to force himself upon her. The girl's testimony seems very concise and level-headed, given her age. Obviously, she hadn't been intoxicated into insensibility, intimidation was what Polanski used to get what he wanted.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This isn't about her age,

I'd guess that it IS/WAS pretty much about her age, but maybe not in the same was as a "normal" pedophile.

In my (limited experience, rich and powerful people tend to assume that normal laws and mores do not apply to them and I would guess that a large part of the attraction was the ability just to do it. Over here in the UK it has ben reported that Polanski and others in that crowd at that time had rather made a habit of this type of behaviour, although these allegations were unsubstantiated in the interview I heard.

So while this means it is unlikely that Polanski would behave in this way now he should, in my opinion, be forced to face up to the consequences of his actions which apart from waiving two fingers at the law would have resulted in pain and damage to an essentially defenceless minor.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Monique 

If she was on drugs how can she remember all the details of her assumed rape?

Why do you say assumed rape when it's established fact that it happened? We know it's a fact because Polanski admitted in court that it happened. He plead guilty to committing the cat. If the victim said it happened, and the perpetrator said it happened, why are you questioning whether it happened?

[Shaddim]

Does make you wonder how many other teenage girls he raped at Jack's house.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Does make you wonder how many other teenage girls he raped at Jack's house.

Likely answer: zero, because none have ever come forward and it's not like Polanski is a mobster.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Likely answer: zero, because none have ever come forward and it's not like Polanski is a mobster.

None have ever come forward? Maybe they're scared, maybe certain Hollywood types are too powerful to bring charges against them, maybe the girls have been paid off.

Lots of possibilities there, and you have no idea what Polanski is capable of, except that he's a convicted child rapist. It's very difficult to believe that a man as practiced as he was at manipulating teen girls would stop with just one.

[Chuckit]

Wait, what? As practiced as he was at manipulating teen girls? He repeatedly tries to seduce her, fails, tries to have sex with her, she says no, he does it anyway, she tells the police, he's arrested and convicted. How much practice is in evidence here? Because he sounds completely inept by her account.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

None have ever come forward? Maybe they're scared, maybe certain Hollywood types are too powerful to bring charges against them, maybe the girls have been paid off.

Lots of possibilities there, and you have no idea what Polanski is capable of, except that he's a convicted child rapist. It's very difficult to believe that a man as practiced as he was at manipulating teen girls would stop with just one.

That's an awful lot of meaningless speculation.

[stupendousman]

Speculation based on past precedent.

Typically, perverts of Polanski's nature DO NOT just stop at one and do not stop unless they are forced. This isn't speculation. I'm pretty sure you can ask a psychologist and they will tell you the same thing.

As I explained before, what apparently set the judge off was the fact that he was shown photos of Polanski hanging all over 2 other under-age girls and did not appear to be uncomfortable with the situation.

The fact that Polanski took such great steps in trying to seduce this child and did not stop even when he was told to shows that this all about a compulsion to act. Those types of compulsions don't just accidentally occur once, and don't just go away.

The idea that there aren't both girls who would submit based on the idea that doing something so distasteful might make them famous, or parents who might look the other way so that their child could be the beneficiary of the power and prestige of someone like Polanski is VERY naive. It's not uncommon for these people of power to use their power to engage in this kind of behavior and not get caught. Mario Puzo even included a similar situation in his book "The Godfather" (filmed for the movie, but part of the deleted scenes) where a famous Hollywood producer was exchanging the sexual favors of a child for movie roles, gifts and money - all with the mother full well knowing what was going on.

While it's speculation to claim that this was happening(happens) with Polanski, it's based on knowledge of how these things normally work, I'm afraid. That's why it's important not to base justice on what a victim currently thinks is "just". That does nothing to deter this type of behavior from happening in the first place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wait, what? As practiced as he was at manipulating teen girls? He repeatedly tries to seduce her, fails, tries to have sex with her, she says no, he does it anyway, she tells the police, he's arrested and convicted. How much practice is in evidence here? Because he sounds completely inept by her account.

Read the testimony, it's very clear. He didn't sound inept, he sounded as if he was accustomed to hearing "no" and knew how to get around it. He was patient, prepared, and calm. This guy had done this before and likely has done it since.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That's an awful lot of meaningless speculation.

You could think that, if you aren't paying attention.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This guy had done this before and likely has done it since.

I was reminded that just a few short years later he was romantically involved with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski.

He never learned his lesson.

Maybe he will now that he's likely to serve quite a bit more time than he probably would have originally had he just not fled the authorities.

[Chuckit]

Kinski was over the age of consent in France and that was a relationship, not rape.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Kinski was over the age of consent in France and that was a relationship, not rape.

She was lucky then, because he sure as hell raped Samantha Gailey.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

She was lucky then, because he sure as hell raped Samantha Gailey.

Um, OK. I don't believe anybody was disputing that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Kinski was over the age of consent in France and that was a relationship, not rape.

I'm not saying he did anything that would be illegal in some other country. Some tribes in Africa have no real "age of consent" for instance. He could go there and likely land himself a twelve year old and see no negative repercussions.

What we do have is him engaging in behavior that WOULD be considered rape in this country. He's shown a pattern of engaging in such behavior that most Americans believe is immoral, unethical and pretty much illegal. If he wants to go to France or African to sooth his penchant for girls not old enough to be knowledgeable in the ways of the world, he should have stayed there and done it. In some countries, females are pretty much treated as property, in fact.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that since his choice in sexual partners between 1977 and 1979 included more than one girl whose age was below that of legal consent in the US, and one of the girls he drugged and "rape raped" that it very well have not been the first or last time he did it. He clearly has a compulsion and that isn't something that perverts like Polanski can just choose not to feed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If he wants to go to France or African to sooth his penchant for girls not old enough to be knowledgeable in the ways of the world, he should have stayed there and done it.

Oh, you can do that right here in the US. Or do you actually think an 18-year-old knows anything a 17-year-old doesn't?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, you can do that right here in the US. Or do you actually think an 18-year-old knows anything a 17-year-old doesn't?

I'd guess that an 18 year old probably knows a lot more than a 13 or 15 year old. Otherwise, we'd give middle schoolers the right to vote.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd guess that an 18 year old probably knows a lot more than a 13 or 15 year old. Otherwise, we'd give middle schoolers the right to vote.

Men must be a lot smarter than women. Otherwise we would have given them the right to vote when this country was founded. (In other words, the law is written by humans and thus quite fallible. The mere observation that something is legal or illegal in a particular time and place has little bearing on whether that act would be logically or morally justified in the absence of that law. I consider it to be a weak argument.)

[Shaddim]

A 40 y/o guy screwing a 13 y/o isn't normal, and to defend it does say a great deal about you. Direct question for you, do you think it's ok for me to pickup a willing 8th grader for sex? Let's say she's very mature for her age, would that matter?

Um, OK. I don't believe anybody was disputing that.

Oh really? Read this thread again, because for some reason several people have already tried. My point is that if she weren't willing, he probably would have just taken her anyway.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The mere observation that something is legal or illegal in a particular time and place has little bearing on whether that act would be logically or morally justified in the absence of that law. I consider it to be a weak argument.)

Perhaps it is a weak argument. However, if you would like to navigate away from legal definitions and float on towards a moral maelstrom specific to this issue...

Is, in your opinion, sex between a middle aged man and a 13 year old girl ever moral?

Is, in your opinion, the unwilling use of a drug to facilitate unwilling sex between one and another ever moral?

Is, in your opinion, there any moral justification to either of the above cases? How about combined, would the sum of those two transgressions be less than, equal to, or greater than their individual immorality?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A 40 y/o guy screwing a 13 y/o isn't normal, and to defend it does say a great deal about you.

I wasn't defending that. My post directly above yours was simply attacking a weak argument.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Direct question for you, do you think it's ok for me to pickup a willing 8th grader for sex? Let's say she's very mature for her age, would that matter?

I don't think so, but I don't believe it's good for people to be having sex at that age at all. I do admit that I find it frustratingly difficult to quantify why I think that, though. If you have a good idea on the topic, I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh really? Read this thread again, because for some reason several people have already tried.

Maybe, but I doubt it, because people such as yourself have repeatedly insisted that I've been defending what Polanski did to Gailey when I haven't at all (see above).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Men must be a lot smarter than women. Otherwise we would have given them the right to vote when this country was founded. (In other words, the law is written by humans and thus quite fallible. The mere observation that something is legal or illegal in a particular time and place has little bearing on whether that act would be logically or morally justified in the absence of that law. I consider it to be a weak argument.)

Law is fallible. Your observations in regards to allowing women the right to vote is a perfect example of that. The same with laws allowing slavery. Neither had any real, quantifiable justification for denying certain rights to the humans in question. Both have been corrected after we've had time to think about them.

That being said, there have been plenty of studies which show harmful effects for children who become sexualized too young. It doesn't take but a tiny bit of observation of early teens to see a difference in emotional maturity between a 13 year old and an 18 year old either. There are reasons why a 13 year old can't drive, vote, get a job and live on their own but an 18 year old can. It isn't just because we decided not to make it legal because it makes us feel good or is convenient.

I believe the laws in regard to statutory rape are on the books based on quantifiable observations and the result of years of research. There is logical justification for the law over and above it just being culturally unacceptable due to it making us feel icky. Absent of the law, it's still a bad idea. Roman Polanski appears to have serially engaged in that "bad idea" and when he was living in the United States got caught engaging in it while it was illegal. That's pretty much the reason most people end up in prison. Polanski is no better.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Child Protective Services employee to be charged with sexually assaulting boy he supervised

Okay, so from what we've all learned, the above is not really a big deal, in part because:

1. The age of consent laws are arbitrary and outdated.
2. Drugging someone and forcing sex on them isn't rape-rape.
3. People just can't understand that he can be both a talented Child Protective Services employee... and someone who drugs and has sex with a child.
4. He can't be called a pedophile, there's no evidence that he has a sexual proclivity for children.
5. Since the kid was drugged how can he remember the details of this assumed rape?
6. Hollywood will come out to defend the guy, because this isn't just about someone being rich and famous, but actual principal.
7. We shouldn't expect the person to have any remorse, but rather consider how he deals with grief.
8. If -despite the non-seriousness of the "crime"- this person is sentenced, he should expect a slap on the wrist from a judge. or, If he unfairly goes before a judge that won't play ball, he should be allowed to flee, and live a completely free and open life in France for 30 years while we all yawn and look the other way.

[amazing]

Oops, you forgot one: A French Culture Minister will rally to the cause, the same French Culture Minister who's written a book admitting he paid for sex with "young boys" in Thailand. This is the same Minister who condemned US persecution of Polanski so vehemently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/wo...ef=global-home
Sex with boys admission haunts French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterand - Times Online

Curiously enough, the Minister is also responsible for holding talks with Thailand to curtail sexual tourism. Wonder how those talks will go?

But of course, he went on TV last night to say that the "young boys" were really 40 years-old. Very believable, how could he possibly be lying?

French culture minister denies paying for underage sex in Thailand | World news | The Guardian

[stupendousman]

I guess not everyone in Hollywood is a afraid not to be "pro rape".

“If it had been my daughter who was barely a teenager — my daughter is 15 — Roman Polanski would be missing … period. It wouldn’t even get to the court case. But, that’s me and I wouldn’t want anyone else to follow that because you should let the justice system work it out.”

-Jamie Foxx

[SpaceMonkey]

Visual aid:

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I guess not everyone in Hollywood is a afraid not to be "pro rape".

Unfortunate that it's a huge tool who also wasn't afraid to be in "Stealth."