Roman Polanski on To Catch a Predator

Discuss

33 Responses to “Roman Polanski on To Catch a Predator”

  1. Hawley says:

    what worries me the most is that if roman “anal invader” polanski is thrown in jail he will not be able to reprise his role as Detective Revi should rush hour 4 ever be made.

    and i think that it something we should all keep in mind as we argue the moral ramifications of his past ordeals and its future consequences

  2. anonymou says:

    commentators are welcome to check the legality of anal sex in mexico at that time and then see if Roman Polanski wouldn’t have gone to jail either way.

  3. Tzctlp says:

    It is sad to see how people, from what I think are mostly democratic countries, have such a poor grasp of the legal issues at hand.

    I read the statement of the girl (yeah, thanks Xeni for posting a link to that on her previous rant), all the people that are so ready to admit her deposition at face value should also remember that she admits to having had sex twice before the alleged abuse happened. She also says that she could hardly remember anything.

    All this brings many questions: how it came to happen that a 13 year old, sexually active girl was left on her own with a grown up man? Why nobody is pointing fingers in the direction of the parents? And why nobody is mentioning that the fact that the girl was sexually active could be a diminishing factor in the kind of sentence that Mr Polanski should get? How it comes that the girl is claiming to barely remember anything but then proceeds to give a detailed account of the alleged abuse?

    I am sure that the people involved in the case asked themselves these and many other questions, and for many reasons, paramount one being the welfare of the child, decided on arrange a plea bargain in order for all the affected people to move on.

    But then something happened that induced Polanski, justly or not, to flee. The documentary about this is abundantly clear, nevertheless the prosecutor on the case says now that he lied in the documentary (see Wikipedia article). This is the kind of people Polanski had to deal with.

    I am the first to say that any people that abuse women in general, and young women and children in particular should rot in jail, but the legal system should be respected, otherwise we will descend in anarchy and savagery (which is what most of the comments above advocate, even to the point to advocate for murder as retribution: truly appalling).

    Finally, let the alleged victim speak:

    From Wikipedia:

    “In a 2003 interview,[42] Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.””

    I will repeat what the alleged victim is saying:

    “He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.”

    Wikipedia continues:

    “In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, “I think he’s sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don’t think he’s a danger to society. I don’t think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It’s an unpleasant memory … (but) I can live with it.”

    If the young Californian lawmen trying to make a name for themselves would have any decency they would respect the desires of the alleged victim and would try to find the legal avenues to drop the case for good, since clearly justice in no longer being served.

  4. Jesse M. says:

    Are you f-ing kidding me? So I suppose you also think 13 year olds should serve adult jailtime for any crimes they do as well right?

    No, of course not–I said I was speaking in a moral sense, not a legal sense. I explained that I agree with the usefulness of statutory rape laws, and likewise I agree that teens should not be tried as adults.

    Becuase you know how it is, don’t you. Let me guess, at 13 you never found yourself in a situation where you got to experience just how un-adult you really are.

    There are plenty of situations where adults (including me) realize how un-adult they are; I wasn’t saying teens are capable of handling everything that happens to them in a totally mature way, and neither are adults! I just don’t think the basic ability of a teenager to reason and understand what’s happening to them is that much worse than that of a typical adult, although it’s definitely somewhat worse. But I think teens are definitely a lot more similar to adults mentally than they are to, say, 7-year-olds.

    I’d say more but I can’t. I’m too disgusted and upset. This whole thing makes me so sick and sorry I was born a woman. Thank god abortions are still legal. If I thought there was any chance I’d bring a potential female into this world I’d sooner gouge my guts out. You people sicken me. Seriously.

    Look, I’m sorry my comments made you feel that way, but please remember that my comments about the maturity of 13-year-olds were not meant to defend Polanski if indeed the victim’s account of what happened is true, and I think it most likely is (and if the account is true he is obviously a straight-up rapist). I was talking in a more general way about whether sex between teens and adults can ever be considered consensual from a moral perspective, and my point applies as much to cases where the teen is a boy as it does to cases where the teen is a girl. I’ve read about a few cases in the news lately where adult female teachers were arrested for having sexual affairs with teenage students–do you think it would be right to assume that these relationships were all totally exploitative, with the boys being manipulated into doing something they didn’t really want to, didn’t fully understand, and would inevitably later regret (even though some of them were already having sex with other girls their own age before the affairs), and that these women are all every bit as bad as rapists or people who sexually abuse prepubescent kids? If you agree there are sometimes moral shades of gray when it comes to sex between teens and adults–which is not to say there aren’t good reasons for having it always be illegal, and which is definitely not to say there are any gray areas in the Polanski case if the victim’s account is true–then that was the only point I was making on the consensuality issue.

  5. Ilovechocolatemilk says:

    @ blueelm

    Please don’t dismiss legitimate discussion on this topic because you feel disgusted by the subject. It’s also not right to assume that when people have opinions, they are not qualified to have them because they weren’t scarred for life when they were young like some other, unfortunate chaps.

    I personally come from a family where one of our deep dark secrets is the fact that one of my close relatives molested all of his kids for years and years before committing suicide. He was undoubtedly a horrible person and didn’t get what he deserved, but at the same time, I know a couple of his kids ended up exactly the same way and they’ve lived lonely miserable lives for which I sympathize. I also do know what it’s like to have an actual, positive relationship at that age and you can’t say that the two are one and the same; they’re not and it’s disrespectful of the victims of sexual crime to claim that they are.

    Now if Roman Polanski actually did rape this girl (which I am inclined to believe) then he does deserve to be punished and then some. Yet, because this is such a sensitive subject due to the age differential, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was actually consensual at the onset and for various reasons (pressure from parents, changing her mind at the last minute, etc), she felt it would be better to cry rape than to try and defend the relationship. One fact that always bothers me about this case is why this girl agreed to meet up with a complete stranger alone at his house. When you’re 13, it’s not like you’re completely naive as to not know what the implications of such a meeting are. I think there may be more to this case than meets the eye, but to reiterate, if she said stop and he didn’t, then it’s rape plain and simple.

  6. Katie says:

    Gawd, the fact that this girl was anally violated alone should make anyone take pause. Anal intercourse is something that most women are reluctant to participate in, even if it’s with someone they know and trust.

    To do this to A CHILD for the sole purpose in having somewhere to shoot your load that won’t get her pregnant is just repulsive.

    As a victim of rape, both vaginally and anally, I can tell you that what this girl went through, and said “No” to over and over, is nothing short of dispicable. All these people making Polanski out to be the victim in this are hopelessly out of touch with reality.

    But then again, this is Hollywood types that we’re talking about here.

  7. weeklyrob says:

    Seriously, it is a point worth making that he never admitted to, and was never convicted of, having sex with her while she said no (even once, let alone over and over).

    Yes, it’s bad enough that he gave drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old, probably with the intention of having sex with her. Yes, it’s bad enough that he was over 40 and she was 13, and he had sex with her at all. He’s wrong, morally and legally.

    13 year-olds shouldn’t face the question of whether or not to have sex with a 40 year-old man. The event would probably mean a lot more to her than to him, and the adult has much more power and savvy about getting his way. Any adult should know that and shouldn’t let it happen even if the child BEGS for it.

    And we haven’t even mentioned skipping town for 30 years.

    But there is a difference between doing those things he admits to and pled guilty to vs. the extra things that his victim claims he did. I’m not saying that she’s lying. I’m saying that it wasn’t proven in a court of law, and we should be careful.

  8. serfer0 says:

    NBC used to have many douchebags on the 9pm slot, but now only one.

  9. scifijazznik says:

    And now I’m faced with a dilemma: if both were on fire, who would I pee on?

  10. failix says:

    Actually the issue here isn’t whether he’s a rapist or not. It’s more about Switzerland handing his ass over to the U.S for strictly political reasons. Not moral, not legal; political.

  11. Adinala says:

    Really, was the program available at that time?

  12. Xeni Jardin says:

    @adinala: no, this is a parody/remix.

  13. joshz says:

    This is awesome.

  14. Garmt says:

    The original video that most material for this was taken from is here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvQ9GETrBhc

    The interview is so out-there, they practically didn’t have to bother with a ‘remix’…

  15. Anonymous says:

    I have a daughter. She was 13 once. If Polanski had done this to her, he’d be dead and I’d be in prison for first-degree murder, if the jury had the balls to convict me.

  16. Jesse M. says:

    TJ S wrote:
    Even if the girl had been 30, the case as it stands would still be considered rape. Polanski, in a position of power (employer with business connections that the girl needed to further her career), abused that power in order to have sex with her. And that’s if he didn’t drug her and get her drunk, which he is accused of doing.

    Polanski is accused of the Grand Slam of non-consent:
    - underage
    - subordinate position
    - drunk
    - drugged

    Plus, she said “No” on top of all that.

    I already said that if the victim’s accusations are accurate then he’s definitely a rapist, and that I think they most likely are. However, I think the fact that she claims she said “no” isn’t just icing on the cake if we’re talking about how guilty he is in a moral sense, it really makes a big moral difference whether that happened or not (and I think it makes a pretty big legal difference as well, not all cases of non-consensual sex are treated as precisely identical in the legal system; someone who breaks into someone’s home and violently rapes them is not treated exactly the same as someone who has sex with a 16-year old who verbally agreed to it, or someone who has sex with someone who’s had too many drinks but is still capable of coherent conversation). I agree he’d be guilty of bad things in this situation even if she didn’t say no, but in that case I would see him as less of a monster and more of a pathetic sleazy sexist 1960s dude…I’ve only seen a little of Mad Men, but those characters don’t really seem like true monsters even though they would probably have sex with a subordinate, give a woman drinks to try to “loosen her up”, or have sex with a teenager (though probably not a 13-year-old)

    Also, just as a legal thing, I don’t think it’s actually correct that being in a subordinate position alone is sufficient to render sex non-consensual…no one would say that Bill Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky or Letterman’s affair with various staffers qualifies them as rapists, however sleazy and unethical they might be (if the women felt pressured to consent then I think she’d have a case for sexual harassment though).

    • Brainspore says:

      maoinhibitor:

      I agree that Polanski should be prosecuted. But I shudder to think of life under a legal system where prosecutors make decisions based on online petitions instead of the evidence they are presented with.

  17. failix says:

    At least now I know how Michael Jackson fans felt…

  18. Anonymous says:

    Commenters might be interested to look up the Age of Consent in Mexico. It varies by state, but if Polanski had been a little further south for his photoshoot he would never have been arrested.

  19. Paul says:

    Can I just say thank you to BB for not being among the “he’s an artistic genius, therefore shouldn’t be prosecuted” camp.

    I really don’t get the logic of some of the people defending Polanski. I don’t see how having non-consensual sex with a 13 year-old is ever right, or in some way excusable. If he was a dirty old man in a mac, people like Oprah would be queuing up to denounce him.

    • 13tales says:

      Sorry Paul – I’m picking on you, in an attempt to set straight something that constantly bugs me about the Polanski debate. Not sure if you meant this or not, but…

      Repeat after me- you CAN’T HAVE “consensual” sex with a 13yo by definition, because they’re under the age of CONSENT (that being where the word “consensual” comes from.

      “Consensual” sex with a 13yo is impossible, so there’s no need to say “non-consensual” when you mention the sex. To avoid confusion though, best to just call it what it is: rape. Non-consensual is a weasel-word anyway. It’s rape.

      here endeth my pedantic rant

  20. Moriarty says:

    Counterpoint:

    Legally you need very precise definitions, obviously, but morally I think they just get in the way. Drugging a 13 year old and having sex with her is very wrong. If calling it “rape” or not or “consensual” or not changes your opinion of it, you’re very confused.

    Anyway, I’d say legal and casual definitions of consent are pretty clearly different, so whether it’s correct depends on context.

  21. tboy says:

    Let us not mince words and attempt to dance around whether having sex with a 13-year old is rape or not by definition.

    Court testimony indicates that Mr. Polanski, after repeated attempts by the victim to saying “no” to him, had anal sex with her. Among other things.

    I dunno what legal jurisdiction you can come from, but the fact that she said “no” and he cornholed her anyway? That’s rape. 13 years old, 21 years old, it doesn’t matter. Girl, woman, man, it doesn’t matter. It’s rape.

    She said “no”, he stuck it into her pooper anyway, ergo rape. Very, very easy.

    Now sure, you can deny the victim’s testimony… but you’re denying the testimony of a 13-year old girl. Who got raped. In the butt, among other places.

    I dunno how she felt about it, but considering the fact that the judge reduced the sentence because he felt that the girl had gone through quite a bit, we can fairly say that she was not having a barrel of laughs.

    In any case. There’s this bit:

    “I paid for my crimes!”

    Yeah, you know what? 40+ days worth of jail? Not for rapists. The law is clear.

    And yes, you did survive the Holocaust, and your wife was murdered by Charles Manson’s gang. It is a terrible tragedy. And horrible luck, really, to happen to one guy.

    But you still raped a 13-year old girl. And the law’s the law, even for the likes of you. And you know what? Knowing the sick society and justice system you live in, you’ll get a slap on the wrist.

    At the very least let’s hope you get into the sex offender’s registry, and have to introduce yourself to your neighbours every time you move to a new location.

    People are right when they say that a great injustice will be done to Roman Polanski. But it’s not because he will be punished too much. Quite the opposite, really.

  22. libraryboi says:

    Why exactly is Chris Hanson a “teledouchebag?” I’m not familiar with the term and name calling doesn’t necessarily mean others agree with you. Personally, I support catching predators who attempt to lure children online to be raped. Is it because the program puts them on television in advance of a trial? Well, of the episodes I’ve seen, they all admit to the behavior once the proof of their communications have been shown to them. They only regret it once they are caught. Have you ever met a child whose life has been destroyed by rape?

  23. Anonymous says:

    He doesn’t need to be tried again. He was charged, he pled guilty, he was about to be sentenced, and decided to flee so as to avoid sentencing. But why settle for rumors?

    check the 1970s documents for yourself:
    http://www.vachss.com/mission/disinformation.html

    and see:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISPkY59vdWI

  24. RikF says:

    Not that I wish to diminish the crimes that Polanski admitted to, but can we keep pedophilia to its medical definition and stick to it being applied to those with a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, which, by all accounts, does not include this case.

  25. 2k says:

    @ libraryboi
    I think it means that he can feel you up remotely through the ether.

  26. EH says:

    @blueelm:

    Here you go:
    http://www.fox4kc.com/wdaf-keaire-brown-trial-story-42809,0,7157236.story

    So it seems that society is able to think of 13 year olds as adults in some contexts, but not others. Kooky, huh?

  27. Jesse M. says:

    I wish people would be a little more cautious in their denunciations–he was accused of raping her when she said “no”, but he never plead guilty to that aspect of the case, only to the aspect of having sex with an underaged girl. He always claimed it was totally consensual (I realize that an underaged teen can’t give ‘consent’ in a strictly legal sense, but from a moral standpoint I’d say they can–I remember what it was like to be 13, one can certainly think rationally and understand adult issues and consequences of actions at that age, even if one is not quite as good at doing so as an adult. Of course sex between adults and teens is still usually exploitative and generally a bad decision on the part of the adult, so I accept the utility of statutory rape laws to discourage it, but morally I think it’s far less terrible than rape of an unwilling victim, or pedophiliac sex acts involving an adult and a prepubescent child). I think the rape accusations in the Polanski case are most likely to be true, and either way he should definitely be brought to trial, but research suggests that at least 1 in 10 rape accusations are false, so there’s some non-negligible chance his version of events could be accurate.

    • TJ S says:

      Jesse –

      Even if the girl had been 30, the case as it stands would still be considered rape. Polanski, in a position of power (employer with business connections that the girl needed to further her career), abused that power in order to have sex with her. And that’s if he didn’t drug her and get her drunk, which he is accused of doing.

      Polanski is accused of the Grand Slam of non-consent:
      - underage
      - subordinate position
      - drunk
      - drugged

      Plus, she said “No” on top of all that.

      Yeah, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution, but they seem to have an awful lot of proof, and Polanski has to disprove each of the items I listed above.

      It’s ridiculous that he’s been able to live a life of comfort in Europe for the last few decades.

    • blueelm says:

      I remember what it was like to be 13, one can certainly think rationally and understand adult issues and consequences of actions at that age, even if one is not quite as good at doing so as an adult.

      Are you f-ing kidding me? So I suppose you also think 13 year olds should serve adult jailtime for any crimes they do as well right? Becuase you know how it is, don’t you. Let me guess, at 13 you never found yourself in a situation where you got to experience just how un-adult you really are. If you did you’d have figured out by now that no, the world you thought you understood was far far different than reality. Unless of course you’ve been able to live in the lovely bubble of privelege all your life.

      I’d say more but I can’t. I’m too disgusted and upset. This whole thing makes me so sick and sorry I was born a woman. Thank god abortions are still legal. If I thought there was any chance I’d bring a potential female into this world I’d sooner gouge my guts out. You people sicken me. Seriously.

Leave a Reply