[BadKosh]

The victim didn't want the PUBLICITY, is the reason she wants to forgive him. Read the evidence and the interview with the victim. She was afraid of Polanski. She was drugged and drunk. He forced himself on her. He KNEW she was 13. He's a piece of crap. Those who support him and want him released are no better, and probably more stupid and sleazy.

[Monique]

Just for the sake of argument let's just say a 13 year old girl has consentual sex with a man of 43 would you call it rape?

Let's just say a boy of 13 has consentual sex with a 43 year old woman would you call it rape?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Just for the sake of argument let's just say a 13 year old girl has consentual sex with a man of 43 would you call it rape?

Let's just say a boy of 13 has consentual sex with a 43 year old woman would you call it rape?

It is statutory rape whether the 13 year old, regardless of gender, regardless whether the child "gives consent". There are laws that say you can't bang a 13 year old. End of story. But lets say you don't believe that should be the case, that a 13 yo should be able to legally give consent to a 40+ year old. That doesn't change the fact that he drugged her in order to facilitate a rape, then forcibly had intercourse with and sodomized the girl despite her continued objections. Regardless of what some would say, that is rape-rape in every state in this country, even if the same was done to an adult woman. Even when the act is committed by a famous director. These accusations are not baseless speculation, Polanski admitted to this in court. By his own admission, he forcibly raped a child. Why would anyone excuse that kind of behavior?

[amazing]

If you search diligently, you can find the transcript of the original police interview with the 13 year-old.

It's chilling, and exceedingly shocking that he got away with pleading to a lesser charge.

Monique: The statutory age of consent in Québec for vaginal sex is 16. The statutory age of consent in Québec for anal sex is 18. Pretty clear? Younger children than the above are deemed not capable of giving consent. Nothing with a 43 year-old can be deemed consensual.

[subego]

Whoopi's backed off.

She claims she was saying Polanski wasn't charged with "rape-rape".

[The Final Dakar]

I think she's worried about getting rape-raped by the media.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Let's just say a boy of 13 has consentual sex with a 43 year old woman would you call it rape?

We usually call it lucky.

[subego]

^^

That was my initial thought, but going back to the tape from The View, she has a pretty legitimate claim to that being what she meant.

"[N]ot charged with" is what immediately precedes the "rape-rape" comment, and she follows by saying someone will find out what it was and tell her in her earpiece.

She sums up by saying there's an important difference between what we think he did, and what he was charged with.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Just for the sake of argument let's just say a 13 year old girl has consentual sex with a man of 43 would you call it rape?

Let's just say a boy of 13 has consentual sex with a 43 year old woman would you call it rape?

Why stop at 13. How about a 6 year old girl? What if she thinks it feels good to be touched "down there" and consents to an adult doing so. Would you call it rape?

You are going down a slippery slope we've already decided. The legal age of consent is already on the books. A thirteen year old girl CAN NOT legally consent to have an adult engage in sexual behavior with her. "Consent" for children to engage in sex acts for adults does not exist.

Your hypothetical isn't hypothetical - it's already been decided.

..and Polanski was charged and plead guilty to rape. He wasn't charged with even more serious charges that it appears he was guilty of because he agreed that he'd plea guilty to the lesser form of rape, not because he didn't engage in "rape rape". Everything about what he did was "rape" of a child.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by amazing 

If you search diligently, you can find the transcript of the original police interview with the 13 year-old.

It's chilling, and exceedingly shocking that he got away with pleading to a lesser charge.

Monique: The statutory age of consent in Québec for vaginal sex is 16. The statutory age of consent in Québec for anal sex is 18. Pretty clear? Younger children than the above are deemed not capable of giving consent. Nothing with a 43 year-old can be deemed consensual.

the smoking gun has it.
The Smoking Gun: Archive

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True, but what does one thing really have to do with the other?

Exactly what I said. We're in agreement - or you were you disagreeing with me just out of habit?

I think you boil things down a little to far. Those that want to see him pay for the crime he committed simply don't care one way or another about his directing career having anything to do with the crime.

That may be true of some, myself included, but those are not the people I was talking about. I was talking about people who either apologize for him because of his talent, or dismiss his talent in an effort to portray him as having no redeemable qualities whatsoever, and I think both of those types of people are missing the truth.

If you don't fall into either camp, I was not referring to you. I never claimed to be speaking about every individual who has thoughts on this case.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are going down a slippery slope we've already decided. The legal age of consent is already on the books. A thirteen year old girl CAN NOT legally consent to have an adult engage in sexual behavior with her. "Consent" for children to engage in sex acts for adults does not exist.

There are huge practical problems with the age of consent. We as a society don't actually have any confidence that it's reasonable. We don't actually bar teens from having sex. If a 13-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, we don't normally charge him with statutory rape even though she's just as incapable of giving consent to him. But then once he turns 18 and she's still 17, suddenly he's a sex offender for life. Age of consent is FUBAR even for legal purposes, much less for deciding morality. (Not defending Polanski. I just think the way we handle teen sexuality is bizarre and schizophrenic and any argument that assumes it's unimpeachable is ridiculous on its face.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There are huge practical problems with the age of consent. We as a society don't actually have any confidence that it's reasonable. We don't actually bar teens from having sex. If a 13-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, we don't normally charge him with statutory rape even though she's just as incapable of giving consent to him. But then once he turns 18 and she's still 17, suddenly he's a sex offender for life. Age of consent is FUBAR even for legal purposes, much less for deciding morality. (Not defending Polanski. I just think the way we handle teen sexuality is bizarre and schizophrenic and any argument that assumes it's unimpeachable is ridiculous on its face.)

Most states have that covered now.
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A few examples

Arizona
F. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1405 if the victim is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age, the defendant is under nineteen years of age or attending high school and is no more than twenty-four months older than the victim and the conduct is consensual.
Iowa

The age of consent in Iowa is 16, with a close in age exemption for those aged 14 and 15, who may engage in sexual acts with partners less than 4 years older.

Kentucky

The age of consent in Kentucky is 16. Section 510.020 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes deems a person unable to consent if he or she is less than 16 years old. It is a defense however if the "victim" is at least 14 and the actor is less than 5 years older {510.130(b)}.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There are huge practical problems with the age of consent. We as a society don't actually have any confidence that it's reasonable. We don't actually bar teens from having sex. If a 13-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, we don't normally charge him with statutory rape even though she's just as incapable of giving consent to him. But then once he turns 18 and she's still 17, suddenly he's a sex offender for life.

You make a good point, but like Chongo explained, most states are clarifying the laws to make sure that in situations where there is no real adult/child inequality of partners, that those in question aren't punished.

Age of consent is FUBAR even for legal purposes, much less for deciding morality. (Not defending Polanski. I just think the way we handle teen sexuality is bizarre and schizophrenic and any argument that assumes it's unimpeachable is ridiculous on its face.)

No one is trying to impeach "teen sex". Teens will have sex. With each other. They will experiment sexually with their equal peers who hold no real power over them to provide punishment, and have no real power over them or ability to provide unfair incentive to "consent" to sex.

The fact remains though that this argument wouldn't help Polanski any. If a thirteen boy gave a thirteen year old girl drugs and alcohol then despite her telling him she wanted to be taken home and not engage in sexual activity, he vaginally and anally penetrated her anyways and she reported this to the authorities, the 13 year old boy in question would most likely be charged as a juvenile with raping the girl.

There's really no way for Polanski not to be guilty of "rape rape" - the kind that ends up giving people long prison sentences, if the facts are as the victim says they were (that Polanski doesn't seem to dispute).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's really no way for Polanski not to be guilty of "rape rape" - the kind that ends up giving people long prison sentences, if the facts are as the victim says they were (that Polanski doesn't seem to dispute).

True. I wonder what type of sentence the average Joe Blow who isn't rich and famous and of the belief a judge was in your pocket would get if they did the same thing Polanski did?

A slap on the wrist- or some serious time one might consider skipping the country to avoid?

Since when did rape (child-rape at that) become a crime that shouldn't automatically carry a hefty sentence anyway?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True. I wonder what type of sentence the average Joe Blow who isn't rich and famous and of the belief a judge was in your pocket would get if they did the same thing Polanski did?[

A slap on the wrist- or some serious time one might consider skipping the country to avoid?

I'm guessing serious time. I think that I read that the sentence was usually about 5 years, though most only do about 2 years. But that's for statutory rape which Polanski plead to. Chances are a "average Joe" would get the maximum for the lesser charge on a plea deal. Polanski likely knew this, but had thought he was going to get a sweetheart deal because he was rich and a celebrity.

Since when did rape (child-rape at that) become a crime that shouldn't automatically carry a hefty sentence anyway?

I don't know. That's the problem I have with Polanski defenders. For what he did, even with a plea, he deserved to do more than about a month under "psychological evaluation".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There are huge practical problems with the age of consent. We as a society don't actually have any confidence that it's reasonable. We don't actually bar teens from having sex. If a 13-year-old has sex with a 13-year-old, we don't normally charge him with statutory rape even though she's just as incapable of giving consent to him. But then once he turns 18 and she's still 17, suddenly he's a sex offender for life. Age of consent is FUBAR even for legal purposes, much less for deciding morality. (Not defending Polanski. I just think the way we handle teen sexuality is bizarre and schizophrenic and any argument that assumes it's unimpeachable is ridiculous on its face.)

I think our age related laws show that we, as a society, have very little confidence in our youth (and, subsequently, ourselves, since we were are youth once as well). Youth are able to make responsible decisions *well* before 18, and are probably more likely to be more responsible than if we force them to wait until 18 or 21.

16 to drive a car, but
18 to have sex?
18 to smoke?
18 to join the military?
*21* to drink alcohol? (if anything, I think people should learn to drink alcohol responsibly before learning to drive)

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Youth are able to make responsible decisions *well* before 18

*off topic*

Puhlease. What ****ing planet do you live on? "Kids" well into their twenties are still idiots.

God this entire ordeal is retarded and it should be easy to get some perspective. Just gather up the testimonies and news articles. Find and Replace Polanski's name with Joe the Plumber and re-read. Aside from his nickname making more sense, maybe a new perspective could be gained. Or maybe everyone's arguments and excuses would just flip.

God I sports. GO TEAM!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by pooka 

"Kids" well into their twenties are still idiots.

And, that differentiates them from adults how? Case in point: Roman Polanski.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think our age related laws show that we, as a society, have very little confidence in our youth (and, subsequently, ourselves, since we were are youth once as well). Youth are able to make responsible decisions *well* before 18, and are probably more likely to be more responsible than if we force them to wait until 18 or 21.

16 to drive a car, but
18 to have sex?
18 to smoke?
18 to join the military?
*21* to drink alcohol? (if anything, I think people should learn to drink alcohol responsibly before learning to drive)

The brain isn't fully formed until in the early 20s. Do some research on it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The brain isn't fully formed until in the early 20s. Do some research on it.

If that's the argument, then why do we allow people to drive without supervision at 16?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The brain isn't fully formed until in the early 20s. Do some research on it.

I don't mean this to sound rude, but: Who cares? Even when the brain is "fully formed," it's not particularly likely to work much better. If I had a dollar for every fully formed moron I've met, I would be posting this from my private tropical island while being fanned by Polynesian girls in leis.

Honestly, I'd trust some of my students a lot more than I'd trust some of my coworkers in their 30s and 40s.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I was talking about people who either apologize for him because of his talent, or dismiss his talent in an effort to portray him as having no redeemable qualities whatsoever, and I think both of those types of people are missing the truth.

Gotcha. I just haven't seen anyone as in not a soul, do the later. I guess they may be out there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If that's the argument, then why do we allow people to drive without supervision at 16?

We shouldn't. It's one of the things I'll never understand.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

We shouldn't. It's one of the things I'll never understand.

-t

Hold the roof up; I agree with Turtle!! We don't people vote until 18, sign legal contracts until 18, and drink until 21, yet we give children the keys to a two-ton missile, and tell them we're proud of them when they pile into a car at 16 and race around town.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't mean this to sound rude, but: Who cares? Even when the brain is "fully formed," it's not particularly likely to work much better. If I had a dollar for every fully formed moron I've met, I would be posting this from my private tropical island while being fanned by Polynesian girls in leis.

Honestly, I'd trust some of my students a lot more than I'd trust some of my coworkers in their 30s and 40s.

Stop thinking in anecdotal terms.

[Wiskedjak]

I also agree. We should be consistent with our age laws. 16 for everything or 21 for everything. Though, I'd say they shouldn't be learning to drive and drink at the same time and I think they should learn to drink *before* they learn to drive.

[amazing]

Court reveals Polanski settlement

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Court reveals Polanski settlement

Likelihood is that he paid something, but the article isn't clear. Certainly the court doesn't seem to know of any payment.

edit: here's a clearer article

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...ettlement.html

[amazing]

Opinions needed: Why isn't the press calling Polanski a pedophile?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Opinions needed: Why isn't the press calling Polanski a pedophile?

Because there is no evidence that he has a sexual proclivity for prepubescent children.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Stop thinking in anecdotal terms.

You'd prefer I think in useless, baseless generalities of the sort that would tell us not to trust a black man because he's likely a violent criminal?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Hold the roof up; I agree with Turtle!! We don't people vote until 18, sign legal contracts until 18, and drink until 21, yet we give children the keys to a two-ton missile, and tell them we're proud of them when they pile into a car at 16 and race around town.

Well at least we require them to pass a test and get a license before they can drive. How about a test that proves a person is smarter than a mushroom before they're allowed to pull a lever for some nitwit to have authority over everyone else? Or a test that shows they understand that, no, a credit card is not 'free money' it comes with an obligation to pay someone back what they loan you.

Personally I wouldn't want it to be any easier for anyone under 21 to drink and then pilot a two-ton missile, so the 21 drinking age at least stands as a small barrier to that.

[amazing]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because there is no evidence that he has a sexual proclivity for prepubescent children.

Once is all it takes, legally and morally. Once is all it takes to name you so.

He doesn't get a Monopoly card that says, "do it once, go past jail straight to bank."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because there is no evidence that he has a sexual proclivity for prepubescent children.

There does appear to be evidence that he has sexual proclivity for girls at the very least no fully out of puberty. One of the things that set the original judge off supposedly where photos of him cavorting with underage girls in a magazine. That and the fact that he admitted to raping a young girl does seem to put a large target on his head as far as being labeled a "pedohphile" goes, IMO.

[Chongo]

Read the transcripts. He took several rolls of film.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Once is all it takes, legally and morally. Once is all it takes to name you so.

He doesn't get a Monopoly card that says, "do it once, go past jail straight to bank."

That's as stupid as labeling someone a homosexual for life because he kissed a guy once in college. I don't care whether you approve of what he did — it's just plain nonsensical to say somebody has a predilection for something he only ever did once in his life.

Besides that, as far as we know, he didn't even once engage in sexual contact with a prepubescent child. This girl was already well into puberty, making the act itself not pedophilic.

And since apparently people are incapable of separating one question from another: None of this is meant to defend anything Polanski did. I'm just saying you're wrong if you call him a pedophile.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's as stupid as labeling someone a homosexual for life because he kissed a guy once in college. I don't care whether you approve of what he did — it's just plain nonsensical to say somebody has a predilection for something he only ever did once in his life.

I'd agree with that.

Besides that, as far as we know, he didn't even once engage in sexual contact with a prepubescent child. This girl was already well into puberty, making the act itself not pedophilic.

That puts it "generally ages 15 to 19" which includes a period of time that includes the age of consent and would not be illegal. What you are looking for is hebephilia. 13 generally isn't thought of being post-pubescent. At best, it's mid-pubescent and whatever you call it, it's something that's clearly illegal and creepy.

. The guy seems to have a thing for girls too young for him to legally have sex with. That's really all that matters in labeling him. There seems to be ample evidence that he was/is likely a predatory pervert and that kind of thing just doesn't go away.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd agree with that.



That puts it "generally ages 15 to 19" which includes a period of time that includes the age of consent and would not be illegal. What you are looking for is hebephilia. 13 generally isn't thought of being post-pubescent. At best, it's mid-pubescent and whatever you call it, it's something that's clearly illegal and creepy.

. The guy seems to have a thing for girls too young for him to legally have sex with. That's really all that matters in labeling him. There seems to be ample evidence that he was/is likely a predatory pervert and that kind of thing just doesn't go away.

15 to 19 fall into this description: Ephebophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The definition of hebephilia sounds like "in the middle of puberty", while ephebophilia is after puberty. This whole thread reminded me of a joke I heard: One night, a cop pulls up to a car parked on the side of a country road. He find a guy in the front seat reading the sports page, in the back seat he sees a girl crocheting. He ask the guy "how old is she?" The guy looks at his watch and says" In 5 minutes she'll be 18"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That puts it "generally ages 15 to 19" which includes a period of time that includes the age of consent and would not be illegal. What you are looking for is hebephilia. 13 generally isn't thought of being post-pubescent.

It isn't generally thought of that way, but we're not talking generalities here — we're talking about an actual girl who was said to be unusually physically mature. Therefore, I think what I said is correct. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be accurate to call him a pedophile, which is all I was arguing (in answer to somebody's question, "Why doesn't the media call him a pedophile?").

[amazing]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's as stupid as labeling someone a homosexual for life because he kissed a guy once in college.

Let's not equate kissing between adults in college with what a 43 year-old forces upon a 13 year-old girl. I do suppose most people know the difference?

I will grant there are differences between the legal and medical definitions of "pedophile." What counts here is the legal definition, obviously?

"In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent)."
Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Let's not equate kissing between adults in college with what a 43 year-old forces upon a 13 year-old girl. I do suppose most people know the difference?

Yes, and also the similarities — such as that one case does not constitute a pattern.

Originally Posted by amazing 

I will grant there are differences between the legal and medical definitions of "pedophile." What counts here is the legal definition, obviously?

"In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent)."
Pedophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That isn't a legal definition. That's the way the term is often used in law enforcement — the same bunch of Hemingways who tell us that cars are "red in color." The article immediately notes that relevant experts disagree with this usage.

[Shaddim]

Ok, set aside the pedophilia for a minute, it really isn't relevant and it only clouds the issue. He did commit rape (yeah, "rape rape"), read the transcript of the girl's testimony.

He should serve his 4-8 years in a California prison, just for that alone.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Bingo! End thread.

greg

[amazing]

Agreed. I'm looking forward to him being in prison.

[Chongo]

He may also have to deal with kiddie porn charges. Polanski took several rolls of film (in various states of undress), some that had been developed and used as exhibits.

[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?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I feel like I've just been sucker-punched in the kidney

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Monique 

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

Just because you black out when you drink, doesn't mean that the rest of the world losing time and memory when they are under the influence of drugs. I can remember most everything I did when I've gotten drunk and done stupid things.

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?

The point is that adults are old enough to know that a 13 year old girl isn't old enough to provide for the child, and isn't mature enough to resist pressure from adults who could cause them problems if they don't do what they tell them to do. That's why it's normally not "illegal" when she becomes pregnant by one of her equally clueless and immature peers, but is when an adult who should know better does it.

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

She was being irresponsible and naive. Polanski took advantage of that fully.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Agreed. I'm looking forward to him being in prison.

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.

[amazing]

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.

I have a hard time forgiving crimes against children, and raping a child is a horrific crime. I also have a hard time when the Elite or Aristocracy or Glitterati feel above the law. Put these 2 together, there have to be consequences. Especially when you see the apologists come out of the woodwork (there's something sickening about that.)