Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Biggins · 20-05-2010 11:13am #1

Basic facts of the case:

Roman Polanski took photos of a naked 13 year old before moving on to anal rape a drugged girl.
(Story here for example.)

After all these years, should he face justice and be extradited back to the country where he was found guilty?
I find this part of the above news link also sickening:

In an astonishing - some would say disgraceful - act of backroom diplomacy, Nicolas Sarkozy hand-delivered a letter from Polanski to Barack Obama during the recent summit in Washington.

In it, the Polish-born director is said to have claimed that the two months he spent in a Swiss jail, before being detained - as he is now - under house arrest in his own luxury chalet in Gstaad, was sufficient punishment for fleeing American justice after pleading guilty to the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in California 33 years ago.

Minstrel27 · 20-05-2010 11:14am

He should absolutely be extradited. What he did is sick and he should be punished.

Pyr0 · 20-05-2010 11:16am

He should be punished for his crimes. House arrest in his multi-million dollar gaff ? Oh the horror !

wes · 20-05-2010 11:17am

Yes, he should be punished. I really hate this nonsense about great artists being able to get away with crap like this.

mike65 · 20-05-2010 11:18am

No statute of limitations on child rape as far as I know!

Groinshot · 20-05-2010 11:18am

Its screwed up, he deserves to be punished, but thats a really really biased article.....

Lux23 · 20-05-2010 11:20am

I think if he has been convicted then he should do the time. If not it seems that if you are famous you can get away with sleeping with under age people.

--Kaiser-- · 20-05-2010 11:21am

Utter scumbag.
He should have been extradited back to the states decades ago, at least they pass proper sentences.

What is nearly as disgusting as his crime is celebrities sticking up for him (see Whoopi Goldberg "It wasn't rape-rape", how much worse can you get than drugging and raping a child?)

Morlar · 20-05-2010 11:21am

I knew his lawyers would argue for house arrest, and I also knew that they would later ask for time served. Sickening cynical dishonest scum. He should be in prison. My vote is deport him to serve the lenient sentence he ran away from in the first place. Criminals should not be rewarded for avoiding justice or for having influential friends and connections. House arrest in a chalet in the swiss alps is not prison.

DrumSteve · 20-05-2010 11:22am

yeah he should get sent to prison where ironically he would receive what he did to that girl

Offy · 20-05-2010 11:22am

He should swing for that.

My name is URL · 20-05-2010 11:24am

Locking him up won't undo what happened.. the world knows what a sicko he is so it's not as if it's being swept under the rug. Let live out the rest of his life in fear of being imprisoned.. he'll die a very painful death without ever making peace with himself

Dancor · 20-05-2010 11:25am

Of course he should and that midget Sarkozy should not be getting involved either.

sbsquarepants · 20-05-2010 11:26am

He's a paedo rapist.
The fact that he's rich and famous shouldn't come in to it.

prinz · 20-05-2010 11:27am

Yes he should.

subway · 20-05-2010 11:27am

mike65 wrote: »

No statute of limitations on child rape as far as I know!

statute of limitations doesnt come into it anway, he is alreday convicted.

send him back and, please people, stop going to his goddam movies

Morlar · 20-05-2010 11:30am

My name is URL wrote: »

Locking him up won't undo what happened..

That's the same for any crime in the history of ever. Letting him off the hook and having an expectation that he might 'feel bad' is not justice.

General Zod · 20-05-2010 11:32am

He admitted his guilt, plead guilty, and ran away when the Judge wasn't going to go easy on him because he was a celebrity. I don't care how good his movies are (and they are very good) he should do the time.

mike65 · 20-05-2010 11:35am

subway wrote: »

statute of limitations doesnt come into it anway, he is alreday convicted.

Well you know what I mean.

amacachi · 20-05-2010 11:49am

Yeah he should face up to what he did, I just don't like the politicking which must have been going on.

Abrasax · 20-05-2010 11:50am

I don't know.
Isn't it for statutory rape as opposed to rape-rape. Angelica Huston who was in the house at the time said the girl looked liked she could have been up to 25 years old. (source).
Did Polanski know she was only 13? (edit. yes he did according to the original trial transcripts)
The victim herself has said the whole thing should be tossed out and forgotten about.
And the D.A. in this case, Steve Cooley, is running for election himself
and has garnered most of his publicity on the back of his efforts to extradite Polanski, which makes me wonder about the whole thing, especially given that the original trial judge was said to have done a deal with Polanski, for time already served, and then changed his mind under fear of a public backlash.

But the behaviour of the media, and of some lawyers in America, is a different matter. The Polanski affair has now become utterly politicised. The man in charge of the case, the Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, is locked in a tight race for the Republican nomination to become California's attorney general: much of his prominence is down to his high-profile pursuit of Polanski. It does not seem to matter that the officers of the court in 1977 recommended that the director should not serve a custodial sentence, or that the original trial judge more or less made up the law as he went along. A lynch mob is in town, bent on destroying Polanski, whatever the facts of his case or the opinions of his real victim, Samantha Geimer, who has long since publicly forgiven him and asked for him to be left alone. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/19/media-lynch-mob-roman-polanski )

Biggins · 20-05-2010 11:50am

I think its terrible that politics has even come into it. Disgraceful.

Forgetting about everything else that is happening afterwards - the core important thing to ultimately remember is that a innocent young child was used as nothing but some sick mans sextoy to abuse.
I don't give a crap about the politics or whos doing what now for whatever reason - the pervert did something wrong, committed a state crime, was found guilty and did a runner before he could be jailed.
...Anything after that is immaterial to the crime and the under-age abuse done.

amacachi · 20-05-2010 11:58am

Biggins wrote: »

I think its terrible that politics has even come into it. Disgraceful.

That's what happens when you have elections for every public office going.

--Kaiser-- · 20-05-2010 12:03pm

Abrasax wrote: »

I don't know.
Isn't it for statutory rape as opposed to rape-rape. Angelica Huston who was in the house at the time said the girl looked liked she could have been up to 25 years old

Are you ****ing kidding me? What's your definition of 'rape-rape' the girl was drugged until she was almost unconscious. He asked her mother permission to photograph her so I'm sure he was well aware of her age.

Morlar · 20-05-2010 12:03pm

amacachi wrote: »

That's what happens when you have elections for every public office going.

Also what happens when the criminal is very well connected in circles of power and influence.

amacachi · 20-05-2010 12:06pm

Morlar wrote: »

Also what happens when the criminal is very well connected in circles of power and influence.

True in this case.

Abrasax · 20-05-2010 12:09pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Are you ****ing kidding me? What's your definition of 'rape-rape' the girl was drugged until she was almost unconscious. He asked her mother permission to photograph her so I'm sure he was well aware of her age.

Which is why I asked the question 'Did he know?' ,which you might have spotted if you hadn't gone off into an emotional tizzy or engaged in selective quoting.
I asked the question because I don't know much about the case and instead of answering you edit out the question and ask me "Are you ****ing kidding me?" in relation to the edited bit. Nice one.
I had just edited my post, before seeing yours, to say that he did in fact know, (after a quick google).
And from what I understand the charge is statutory rape and not rape or child abuse.

Winty · 20-05-2010 12:14pm

I hate the way a number of Celebrities are supporting him

Neil Jordan for one you should be ashamed you dickhead

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/artist-rally-behind-polan_b_302371.html

mike65 · 20-05-2010 12:20pm

Colm Toibin was happy to offer his public support to that poet Desmond Hogan who was found guilty of sexually assautling a 15 year old boy. It seems to be a blind spot in the world of luvvies.

bonerm · 20-05-2010 12:22pm

I think he should be left alone in Europe to continue making his pretentious, dull & vastly over-rated movies.

(amazing how someone who made Chinatown could produce such a slew of crap ever since).

General Zod · 20-05-2010 12:57pm

Abrasax wrote: »

Which is why I asked the question 'Did he know?' ,which you might have spotted if you hadn't gone off into an emotional tizzy or engaged in selective quoting.
I had just edited my post, before seeing yours, to say that he did in fact know, (after a quick google).
And from what I understand the charge is statutory rape and not rape or child abuse.

Yes, he knew.

He knew when he committed the acts. He knew when he went to court.

He knew when he pled guilty.

He knew when he fled from the country rather than stay and be sentenced.

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 2:14pm

Abrasax wrote: »

The victim herself has said the whole thing should be tossed out and forgotten about.

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

Biggins · 20-05-2010 2:20pm

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

Its understandable why she wants it dropped.
The charge and the sentence however still sits unserved on the pervert. That means he's still wanted by law, still accountable by law and getting away with his crime.

The man has problems. It’s not like this was the only time he engaged with conduct unbecoming with minors.
In 1976, Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old.

prinz · 20-05-2010 2:21pm

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

What she wants is irrelevant tbh. That's why it's called statutory.

Banned Account · 20-05-2010 2:25pm

I don't get it, did Roman Polanski sell drugs to Katie French?

Hang the dog!!!!!

Rabble Rabble

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 2:27pm

Biggins wrote: »

In 1976, Polanski started a romantic relationship with Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15 years old and he was 43 years old.

She denied this. At least deal with the facts.

Biggins · 20-05-2010 2:29pm

Blobby George wrote: »

She denied this. At least deal with the facts.

Certainly.

He made Nastassja Kinski the star of Tess in 1980. But he had had an affair with her four years earlier when she was 15. But there again she was no ordinary 15-year-old, and they have remained lifelong friends. "We talk, mostly about his wife and children," she said recently. She doesn't have a bad word to say about him and said that "he educated me. He was wonderful to me and taught me many things that I should know". But she concedes he knew he did something wrong with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/polanski-story-of-the-convicted-child-rapist-who-sued-for-libel----and-won-470348.html

This affair is WELL recorded despite denials in later years and known amid the hollywood set of the time - for obvious reason!
(* Leaming, Barbera Polanski, A Biography: The Filmmaker as Voyeur, New York: Simon and Schuster (1981), p. 155.
* Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (directed by Marina Zenovich), HBO in 2008.)

"If found guilty Roman Polanski would face a 50-year prison sentence in 1977, and he eventually filmed the British novel in France to avoid being extradited for prosecution. It became one of Hollywood’s most famous controversies, darkly overshadowing the movie to this day. (Wikipedia claims Polanski had previously had an affair with the movie’s star, Nastassja Kinski, when she was 15, and IMDB quotes her as saying that “As a director, he was 10 times more wonderful than as a lover.”)"

http://www.moviecritic.com.au/roman-polanski-and-nastassja-kinski/

--Kaiser-- · 20-05-2010 2:36pm

Blobby George wrote: »

There you go. The whole thing should just be dropped at this stage.

He skipped out on his sentence so justice was not served in this case.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 2:41pm

Has anyone ever read the transcript's of Samantha Gailey's testimony? It's absolutely heartbreaking. Anyone unsure of whether this was "rape-rape" (fuck you for this, btw Whoopi, fuck you forever) or whether it was a Lolita-like encounter that might be unseemly but understandable should give this a read.

For anyone about to say, that's her word against his, this is what Polanski plead to. TBH, he was damn lucky to get away with the charge he did which makes his fleeing even more ghastly.

walshb · 20-05-2010 3:26pm

Biggins wrote: »

Basic facts of the case:

Roman Polanski took photos of a naked 13 year old before moving on to anal rape a drugged girl.
(Story here for example.)

After all these years, should he face justice and be extradited back to the country where he was found guilty?
I find this part of the above news link also sickening:

Absolutely this sick **** should face charges. But, yet again, people in powerful positions are aiding and helping and supporting the fiend.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 3:38pm

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely this sick **** should face charges. But, yet again, people in powerful positions are aiding and helping and supporting the fiend.

The Hollywood petition has, sadly, ruined a lot of good actors and directors for me who are out in support of him. This one broke my heart (sorry for the quality):

*sigh* I used to lurve him. Although the dodgy slightly French accent in that helps me hate him that bit more...

Morlar · 20-05-2010 3:40pm

That is dissappointing in my view also.

I am inclined to just not pay to see his (polanski's) movies.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 3:47pm

Morlar wrote: »

That is dissappointing in my view also.

I am inclined to just not pay to see his (polanski's) movies.

I just can't support the asshats who are blindly supporting him either though. And it's bloody hard- there's loads of them!

Emma Thompson took her name off the petition after it was explained to her just what he'd done and I have a lot of respect for her for that.

Just noticed while I was searching for a link there that the actress who starred with Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child and in Polanski's Pirates is alleging that Polanski abused her as a minor. Don't know how true it is but I hadn't heard of it til now- the news is about three days old.

PeterIanStaker · 20-05-2010 3:53pm

He should be locked up with Charles Manson as a cellmate.

"Hiya Roman, long time no see . . . . . ."

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:04pm

At first I was like WTF, of course this guy should be locked up, why the hell would anyone support him ffs!!!... but then I read an article that said he was already sentenced and served time in Chino prison for the crime and that it was only after he served his time and got out that the judge decided to arbitrarily change the sentence and ordered him rearrested, which is kind of an unheard of thing to do.

I'll try to find the link but it does cast a little light on why anyone would support him, I mean if you do the sentence you are given then that should really be that, so Im unsure really cos people try to paint as a black and white case where he's too famous to go to prison but its actually about a dodgy court ruling by a maverick judge (or something).

(Disclaimer: I admit I am uninformed about this case, so I await boards correction with an open heart)

EDIT: here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/03/roman-polanski-breaks-silence

Not saying I support the man or anything but it does appear the facts of the case have been lost in the media sensationalism, theres defintely another side to the story at least.

walshb · 20-05-2010 4:19pm

There is no other side. He committed a heinous act and fled before sentencing.
He is a legal fugitive, plain and simple.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 4:20pm

PK2008 wrote: »

At first I was like WTF, of course this guy should be locked up, why the hell would anyone support him ffs!!!... but then I read an article that said he was already sentenced and served time in Chino prison for the crime and that it was only after he served his time and got out that the judge decided to arbitrarily change the sentence and ordered him rearrested, which is kind of an unheard of thing to do.

I'll try to find the link but it does cast a little light on why anyone would support him, I mean if you do the sentence you are given then that should really be that, so Im unsure really cos people try to paint as a black and white case where he's too famous to go to prison but its actually about a dodgy court ruling by a maverick judge (or something).

(Disclaimer: I admit I am uninformed about this case, so I await boards correction with an open heart)

EDIT: here it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/03/roman-polanski-breaks-silence

Not saying I suppoirt the man or anything but it does appear the facts of the case have been lost in the media sensationalism

No, the thing about this is Polanski thought that a deal had been struck and he would be sentenced to time served. The judge, who was probably fairly accused of wanting to make an example of him for his own motives, was going to refuse the deal (as he has a legal right in the States to do). Polanski got wind of it and did a legger.

That's the gist of it anyway. I might have it slightly wrong but that's what I got from everything I've read about it.

Just noticed the link in your edit now. Gonna have a read of it. Looks interesting.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:26pm

walshb wrote: »

There is no other side. He committed a heinous act and fled before sentencing.
He is a legal fugitive, plain and simple.

Hey man, I totally agree, but his argument is that he did indeed serve his sentence and that he only fled after the judge reneged on the that sentence.

Maybe he's BS'ing to save his own skin but it defintely shows that its not as clear cut as its made out. I originally though he just legged it before he could be sentenced but in fact he pled guilty and served time in Chino, which I beleive is a fairly hardcore prison (if my knowledge of rap music serves me right). Its a heinous crime but at the same time if you've already served your sentence then its a bit strange to be re-sentenced.

Anyway I dont care about the guy just thought Id throw that counter argument in the mix for balance.

walshb · 20-05-2010 4:29pm

The judge was well within his rights to do what he did, he acted legally and in doing so, Polanski had to obey. It is the law. Polanski fled and this is why we are having this discussion. In fleeing, he broke the law and became a fugitive.

Killer Pigeon · 20-05-2010 4:30pm

Why should he be above the law? He is a human being bound by the law like everyone else should be.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:31pm

walshb wrote: »

The judge was well within his rights to do what he did, he acted legally and in doing so, Polanski had to obey. It is the law. Polanski fled and this is why we are having this discussion. In fleeing, he broke the law and became a fugitive.

You're probably right and if I cared in the slightest Id probably end up agreeing with you but for the moment Im gonna go with "unsure", and let the courts decide (not the media)

Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Should Roman Polanski face justice even now? 143 votes

Comments