Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Smokin_Aces · 20-05-2010 4:34pm

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

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

That's a nice comment. Proud of yourself?

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:41pm

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.

Yeh I think thats the contenious thing, that the judge didnt have the right to go back on the plea bargain. Polanski says he copped a plea bargain, admitted guilt, and then served the bargained time. Which all sounds fairly standard but then the judge decided to change the time in the plea bargain after he had served his time, which is what people are arguing about. Whether or not a judge is within his rights to change a plea bargain after the deal is made, its beyond me cos Im not a lawyer, but it does sound a bit dodgy? I mean why would you have a plea bargain system if the courts could then renege on the deal

walshb · 20-05-2010 4:45pm

I see your point, and can agree with you on it, but if this judge really
did act illegally with this plea bargain issue, surely it would be highlighted by legal eagles, and not JUST the fugitive?

Millicent · 20-05-2010 4:47pm

PK2008 wrote: »

Yeh I think thats the contenious thing, that the judge didnt have the right to go back on the plea bargain. Polanski says he copped a plea bargain, admitted guilt, and then served the bargained time. Which all sounds fairly standard but then the judge decided to change the time in the plea bargain after he had served his time, which is what people are arguing about. Whether or judge is within his rights to change a plea bargain after the deal is made is beyond me, Im no lawyer, but it does sound a bit dodgy?

Did you even read my reply to you?

Polanski thought a deal had been struck but the judge thought otherwise. AFAIK, Polanski dealt with the prosecutor who tried to bring the deal to the judge who refused it. That was when he fled after being let out to film a movie.

As it was, he was already getting away lightly because he was only being charged with the equivalent of statutory rape (which is what throws most people who don't know the case) instead of sodomy or a drug-rape or child pornography or any more serious charge that could have been levelled against him.

That letter of his sounds like a "poor me" statement, tbh. He had to remortgage his apartment for bail? Seriously? On what he's earned in the last 30 years. Sounds like BS.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:51pm

walshb wrote: »

I see your point, and can agree with you on it, but if this judge really
did act illegally with this plea bargain issue, surely it would be highlighted by legal eagles, and not JUST the fugitive?

Apparantly attorneys on both sides were happy with the plea baragin. The prosecutors were happy with the outcome and wanted to leave it at that, but then against the prosecutors wishes the judge dramatically overturned the plea bargain?

I dont know but I reckon there is defintely more than meets the eye in the case.

The guy is a scumbag for what he done though, no doubt about it.

Meeja Ireland · 20-05-2010 4:51pm

mike65 wrote: »

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.

As far as I know, Colm Toibin didn't offer any support for the behaviour Hogan was being charged with. He was asked to go to court to give a statement about the character of the accused, as he knew it. I don't see anything reprehensible in that, however grave the accusations.

If a friend of yours was on trial, and he asked you to be a character witness, would you refuse?

Carlos_Ray · 20-05-2010 4:52pm

I make a conscious effort to boycott his films. I know its a tiny gesture in the over all scheme of things, but the man sickens me. For me, buying a ticket to see his films is the equivalent of buying a newly released album by Gary Glitter. Although the comparison is not entirely correct when you consider that Gary Glitter WAS actually brought to justice. ( Even if the justice was lenient for his acts.)

Equally disturbing is the support he has received from within the celebrity community. How can actors work with this man?? To me it shows a total lack of morals and decency. They are facilitating a Pedo fugitive. But then again, they may all think like Whoopi Goldberg and believe that "it wasn't "rape" rape.":rolleyes:

If he was a normal everyday guy that decided to photograph and rape a child, would we be even asking IF he should be brought to justice??? If it was up to me, all pedo's (including him) would be castrated and locked away for good.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 4:53pm

Millicent wrote: »

Did you even read my reply to you? Polanski thought a deal had been struck but the judge thought otherwise. AFAIK, Polanski dealt with the prosecutor who tried to bring the deal to the judge who refused it. That was when he fled after being let out to film a movie.

As it was, he was already getting away lightly because he was only being charged with the equivalent of statutory rape (which is what throws most people who don't know the case) instead of sodomy or a drug-rape or child pornography or any more serious charge that could have been levelled against him.

That letter of his sounds like a "poor me" statement, tbh. He had to remortgage his apartment for bail? Seriously? On what he's earned in the last 30 years. Sounds like BS.

Hey fair enuf, Im not disputing what you say. Im just saying what I read.

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 5:01pm

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Gary Glitter..

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

General Zod · 20-05-2010 5:04pm

Blobby George wrote: »

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

obvious troll is obvious.

Carlos_Ray · 20-05-2010 5:06pm

Blobby George wrote: »

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

Oh I see. IF you "contribute" to the arts we should ignore the fact that you raped a kid.:rolleyes:

GG said his kiddy sex was consesnual too. I couldn't give a sh1t if Polanski's craps Mona Lisas, the man is a child abuser and should be punised.

spinandscribble · 20-05-2010 5:06pm

I think he served something like 30 days to anyone who thinks he "served" his time.

At the end of the day he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. She was toted around the media for years and eventually got a settlement and now as an adult she just wants this all to go away. She doesn't support him, she just wants this to end.

He needs to be given the sentence he deserved all those years ago. he doesn't get to decide whether he's served enough time. boo hoo he had to live in europe instead of america.

Rented Mule · 20-05-2010 5:07pm

He drugged and raped a child.

Let's see what we can come up with to make this all better.

1) Oh sure ....he didn't mean it.

2) It was all a big misunderstanding.

3) She was asking for it.

4) It's not like he's a Catholic Priest

5) Sure that was AGES ago

6) When he did the same thing to Charlotte Lewis .....all of the same things above applied.

walshb · 20-05-2010 5:08pm

And how is the Glitter comparison off?

He sodomized a ****ing 13 year old girl. If ever they are comparable, this is it.

Oh, so he didn't fly to Thailand to do it. He still did it. The guy is every bit as
warped as Glitter.

Blobby George · 20-05-2010 5:08pm

General Zod wrote: »

obvious troll is obvious.

Good man, top top post. Sorry if my view isn't the same as yours.

spinandscribble · 20-05-2010 5:09pm

Blobby George wrote: »

Ah here ffs, are you actually comparing him to Gary Glitter? His contribution to the arts world is too great for him to be locked up. He has suffered enough imo.

well sure why didn't anyone tell pedos this before? dang they better learn the guitar or pick up a video camera fast and get real good at it free child sex toys for all as soon as they get a oscar/grammy. the poor mite suffered with his money in europe did he?

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 5:21pm

spinandscribble wrote: »

I think he served something like 30 days to anyone who thinks he "served" his time.

At the end of the day he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. She was toted around the media for years and eventually got a settlement and now as an adult she just wants this all to go away. She doesn't support him, she just wants this to end.

He needs to be given the sentence he deserved all those years ago. he doesn't get to decide whether he's served enough time. boo hoo he had to live in europe instead of america.

See its the legal intricacies about the case I find interesting, the guy should burn for what I did but from what I can make out he wasnt "found guilty", he pled guilty and he only pled guilty because he was offered a plea bargain, which is a legitimate court process.

I dont care about the guy, he's a scumbag no argument, but if you seprate the emotion of the case and you allow a judge to renege a plea bargain, what are the ripple effects of that? Can plea bargains in other cases also be reneged? Will plea bargains cease to have any appeal to attorneys?

Polanksi = scumabg. no doubt

but Polanski aside, I think plea bargain reneging is a bit wrong, Ive no sympathy for the perpetrator but as a legal tool it loses all merit if the judge can just renege on it after the deal.

MrSir · 20-05-2010 5:25pm

I believe an eye for an eye punishment.So here it is step by step.
1:Build a time machine.
2:Take Roman Polankski back to when he was 16.
3: Drug him.
4:RAPE HIM!
5:Justice is complete.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 5:27pm

PK2008 wrote: »

Hey fair enuf, Im not disputing what you say. Im just saying what I read.

I know you're not.

Sorry if I came across as angry- I'm really not, it's far too sunny to be!

What you have read is not true though. Polanski has said before that he fled because he felt he wouldn't get justice with that judge. So in his mind, rather than waiting around for a trial or asking for a retrial or for the judge to recuse himself because of his bias (and all things Roman could have done, he had the money for the best lawyers), he legs it.

Not really the most appropriate reaction!

Millicent · 20-05-2010 5:28pm

spinandscribble wrote: »

I think he served something like 30 days to anyone who thinks he "served" his time.

At the end of the day he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. She was toted around the media for years and eventually got a settlement and now as an adult she just wants this all to go away. She doesn't support him, she just wants this to end.

He needs to be given the sentence he deserved all those years ago. he doesn't get to decide whether he's served enough time. boo hoo he had to live in europe instead of america.

The settlement he reputedly never paid, btw. How's that for remorse?

PeterIanStaker · 20-05-2010 5:30pm

Smokin_Aces wrote: »

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

"Hiya Roman, long time no see . . . . . .
That's a nice comment. Proud of yourself?

Proud? yes, because the mans' a child rapist, there's no Artist's Exemption for Rape AFAIK.
If a regular guy did it, everyone would want him locked up. Similar arguments made about Cathal O'Searcaigh too, "sure tis alright for him to take advantage of the Nepalese boys, he's a poet". Just because this guy's a film director its ok for him to drug and rape a child?

Biggins · 20-05-2010 5:31pm

PK2008 wrote: »

...I think plea bargain reneging is a bit wrong, Ive no sympathy for the perpetrator but as a legal tool it loses all merit if the judge can just renege on it after the deal.

Over many years I've heard of a lot of cases where plea bargaining has reached "deals" and then both sides went back to court with it.
Subsequently the judge involved said the equivalent of "just hang on a darn minute - justice is not being served by the too low level of time your willing(!) to spend behind bars. I'm upping the time to one that is more in accordance with justice better being done and also, seen to be done"
(last famous case of this was "Paris Hilton" when her skanky ass was hauled back behind bars. Be it only for a short time)

The judge is there to see justice is done the eyes of the law and people of the state, not in the eyes of the sick perverted pedo' and his over priced lawyers.

Smokin_Aces · 20-05-2010 5:34pm

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Yes because the mans' a rapist, there's no Artist's Exemption for Rape AFAIK.
Same arguments made about Cathal O'Searcaigh too, "sure tis alright for him to take advantage of the Nepalese boys, he's a poet".

Oh so he deserves to be in the same cell as his wife's murderer?

Millicent · 20-05-2010 5:35pm

Biggins wrote: »

Over many years I've heard of a lot of cases where plea bargaining has reached "deals" and then both sides went back to court with it.
Subsequently the judge involved said the equivalent of "just hang on a darn minute - justice is not being served by the too low level of time your willing(!) to spend behind bars. I'm upping the time to one that is more in accordance with justice better being done and also, seen to be done"
(last famous case of this was "Paris Hilton" when her skanky ass was hauled back behind bars. Be it only for a short time)

The judge is there to see justice is done the eyes of the law and people of the state, not in the eyes of the sick perverted pedo' and his over priced lawyers.

Exactly and as I've said, the judge hadn't agreed to the plea- he was well within his rights to throw out the plea agreement if he felt it was insufficient punishment. Which it was.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 5:37pm

Ok look I admit Im no lawyer and not well read on this case so I just googled it and this guy is a lawyer, maybe he'll explain it better than me.

If nothing else it is a compelling argument that the case had a flawed process:

http://www.floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/11/plea_deal_reneged_roman_polans_1.html

I think its an even handed argument, in fact this lawyer thinks Polanksi should be prosecuted but also thinks that the judge made some serious mistakes.

PeterIanStaker · 20-05-2010 5:38pm

Smokin_Aces wrote: »

Oh so he deserves to be in the same cell as his wife's murderer?

He deserves incarceration for the offence committed. While I don't literally think he'll wind up in with oul' Charlie, lets just put him in a cell with some big, burly guy who doesn't understand the word "no".

Millicent · 20-05-2010 5:48pm

PK2008 wrote: »

Ok look I admit Im no lawyer and not well read on this case so I just googled it and this guy is a lawyer, maybe he'll explain it better than me.

If nothing else it is a compelling argument that the case had a flawed process:

http://www.floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/11/plea_deal_reneged_roman_polans_1.html

And then Mr. Polanski could have appealed and had a mistrial declared. Seriously, he was a major figure in the seventies with access to the best lawyers. If there was a flaw in the case, why not let them handle it? Why run? The only reason I can see for that is if you're guilty.

And I don't buy that the judge wanted Polanski to be deported and this is what Polanski objected to. If that was the case, why leave the country voluntarily?!?! Seems a bit stupid of him, doesn't it?

Besides his original sentencing, there is now the sentencing for being a fugitive to consider too. What this boils down to is that Roman Polanski did not like the punishment being meted out so rather than respect the criminal process, he left the jurisdiction and whinged about it for 30-odd years.

Biggins · 20-05-2010 5:52pm

PK2008 wrote: »

Ok look I admit Im no lawyer and not well read on this case so I just googled it and this guy is a lawyer, maybe he'll explain it better than me.
If nothing else it is a compelling argument that the case had a flawed process:
http://www.floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/11/plea_deal_reneged_roman_polans_1.html
I think its an even handed argument, in fact this lawyer thinks Polanksi should be prosecuted but also thinks that the judge made some serious mistakes.

I disagree.

Quote from one of todays papers - but the facts are still the same and the reasons behind them also still stand on record.

Polanski returned to LA just before the trial and struck a deal with the court to drop some charges in return for pleading guilty to one count of unlawful intercourse with a minor.
As the report shows, the film business rallied round him.
Dick Sylbert, the art director on Chinatown, called him 'a generous loyal friend and a very sensitive human being'.
And his friend Gene Gutowski (he went on to produce Polanski's 2002 Oscar-winning film The Pianist) said: 'There is very little dark or sinister about Roman.
'He has remained amazingly normal and well adjusted, generous to a fault.
As a result, he has been targeted by young and ambitious females.'

With such controversy raging, it might have been wise for Polanski to keep a low profile - but no.
First, he got into a fight with an LA photographer who took a picture of him kneeling at his murdered wife Sharon's grave. Then he was pictured drinking with a beautiful girl at a beer festival. And when he went out to dinner in Hollywood, his friends were apt to get to their feet and applaud him.

By now Judge Rittenbrand had had enough. He sent Polanski to Chino jail for three months to undergo the psychiatric tests which form part of the probation officer's report.
Incredibly, the psychiatrist, Alvin E. Davis, decided that the film director was not a sexual deviant, not a paedophile, and that the 'offence occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgement and loss of normal inhibitions in circumstances of intimacy and collaboration in creative work, with some coincidental alcohol and drug intoxication'.
The conclusion was that prison would destroy him, and he should instead pay a substantial fine.

Rittenbrand did not agree. The judge, who died in 1993, called the report a whitewash and told Polanski's lawyer that he planned to jail the director for another six weeks - or longer, if he did not agree to voluntary deportation.
Polanski spent one last night partying at Jack Nicholson's house with a coterie of starry friends and then fled, ignoring the outraged judge.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 6:00pm

Millicent wrote: »

And then Mr. Polanski could have appealed and had a mistrial declared. Seriously, he was a major figure in the seventies with access to the best lawyers. If there was a flaw in the case, why not let them handle it? Why run? The only reason I can see for that is if you're guilty.

And I don't buy that the judge wanted Polanski to be deported and this is what Polanski objected to. If that was the case, why leave the country voluntarily?!?! Seems a bit stupid of him, doesn't it?

Besides his original sentencing, there is now the sentencing for being a fugitive to consider too. What this boils down to is that Roman Polanski did not like the punishment being meted out so rather than respect the criminal process, he left the jurisdiction and whinged about it for 30-odd years.

But his guilt isnt in question, he pled guilty afterall. There is no doubt Polanski is guilty, but thats not what Im talking about.

I think its a very emotive case and I agree the guy should pay for what he did, but what interests me about this case is the whole plea bargain aspect. At the time would he have been able to beat the case with a not guilty plea and a robust defense, he had that right but waived it in lieu of a plea bargain. These are the annoying technicalities of the judicial system, which is why its so important that jusges and lawyers follow protocol becasue when they make mistakes it gives criminals like Polanski ways to get out of paying for their crimes.

PK2008 · 20-05-2010 6:04pm

Hey look guys I can see Im becoming the poster for others to vent their frustration with Polanski against so Im gonn aleave it there.

Im not arguing for him, I just was always bemused why he would get any support, so after I did a bit of googling I found all these counter arguments. Maybe they are all BS, but their not my arguments so if you have a problem with what that lawyer said, I dont know, maybe email him or something. Im gonna go with his word though considering the guy is a practising American lawyer and all, and we, well we're just random internet posters.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 6:10pm

PK2008 wrote: »

But his guilt isnt in question, he pled guilty afterall. There is no doubt Polanski is guilty, but thats not what Im talking about.

I think its a very emotive case and I agree the guy should pay for what he did, but what interests me about this case is the whole plea bargain aspect. At the time would he have been able to beat the case with a not guilty plea and a robust defense, he had that right but waived it in lieu of a plea bargain. These are the annoying technicalities of the judicial system, which is why its so important that jusges and lawyers follow protocol becasue when they make mistakes it gives criminals like Polanski ways to get out of paying for their crimes.

Yes but there are appeal systems in place if Polanski felt he was getting a raw deal. The logical and natural thing would be to follow up on an appeal or as I said, argue for the judge to recuse himself if biased.

I know it's an emotional case and what he did to that woman bothers me immensely but this is not where my statement here is coming from. This is very black and white for me. polanski did not like what he could see happening so he fled. That indicates that he has a total disregard for the law (which the fact of him partying the night before he fled would seem to emphasise).

There were other options available to Polanski. If he were a poor, black man in the South in the same decade, I might understand why he felt he had no other recourse. But the fact is he had, especially given his celebrity and wealth.

I understand where you're coming from about Polanski possibly not getting his right to a fair trial but that is something which is enshrined in US law. He would have won on appeal if that were the case. Instead, he gave two fingers to the court and ran.

Millicent · 20-05-2010 6:13pm

PK2008 wrote: »

Hey look guys I can see Im becoming the poster for others to vent their frustration with Polanski against so Im gonn aleave it there.

Im not arguing for him, I just was always bemused why he would get any support, so after I did a bit of googling I found all these counter arguments. Maybe they are all BS, but their not my arguments so if you have a problem with what that lawyer said, I dont know, maybe email him or something. Im gonna go with his word though considering the guy is a practising American lawyer and all, and we, well we're just random internet posters.

I'm not trying to vent my frustration on you.

I thought we were debating the intricacies of his case. Sorry if I inadvertently offended you.

I've read a lot on this case so you'll forgive me if one voice out of those isn't swaying me (who btw, still said that Polanski should be punished on his return). ETA: You said that he said that. Sorry...

Biggins · 20-05-2010 6:16pm

PK2008 wrote: »

...Im gonna go with his word though considering the guy is a practising American lawyer and all, and we, well we're just random internet posters.

Thats fair enough and fair play too for putting another possible other side.
Your a brave person and credit to you.

As it is myself, I'm going with the likely more years (experience) the actual judge spent as a lawyer for those era times, before moving then on to become a judge, gaining even more experience of similar court rulings within the said times too.

Its easy for lawyers to come along years later and give an opinion in hindsight and not on the experience and background history of the days, on the day.

Lirange · 20-05-2010 9:55pm

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. (source).
Did Polanski know she was only 13? (edit. yes he did according to the original trial transcripts)

Samantha Gailey @ age 13

What do you think?

Abrasax · 20-05-2010 10:13pm

Lirange wrote: »

Samantha Gailey @ age 13

What do you think?

I quote a report where one eye witness said she could have been 25.
So I ask, being ignorant of the facts of the case, if Polanski knew she was 13.
I've since discovered he did and I also read the transcripts another poster posted and I see that the moral outrage directed at Polanski is deserved.
But I protest at directing it at me, like yourself and another poster have done, for asking an innocent question.

Ulysses Gaze · 20-05-2010 10:22pm

Polanski didn't help his case when he said things like this AFTER he had fled:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/

Lirange · 20-05-2010 10:27pm

Abrasax wrote: »

I quote a report where one eye witness said she could have been 25.
So I ask, being ignorant of the facts of the case, if Polanski knew she was 13.
I've since discovered he did and I also read the transcripts another poster posted and I see that the moral outrage directed at Polanski is deserved.
But I protest at directing it at me, like yourself and another poster have done, for asking an innocent question.

You protest? My response and question to your inquiry is no more or less innocent. That's wonderful that you've now come to see the act for what it is but my comments concerned only your remarks about her appearance. I'm sure we'd all agree that if she's 13 and he knew this then how old she appeared doesn't matter. But I was simply curious. What are your views on the pictures dating from around the time of the rape? One would think they would carry more weight than the "eye witness" statements of a friend.

Abrasax · 21-05-2010 3:59am

Lirange wrote: »

You protest? My response and question to your inquiry is no more or less innocent. That's wonderful that you've now come to see the act for what it is but my comments concerned only your remarks about her appearance. I'm sure we'd all agree that if she's 13 and he knew this then how old she appeared doesn't matter. But I was simply curious. What are your views on the pictures dating from around the time of the rape? One would think they would carry more weight than the "eye witness" statements of a friend.

Condescend much? It´s wonderful that I now come to see the act as it is?
I didn't know, so I asked a question about it. That was enough to delfect some of the moral outrage it appears.
How she appears to me in one photo or how she appeared on the day of a photoshoot is irrelevant. My question was did Polanski know her age.
My opinion as to your innocent question, doesn't come into it.

General Zod · 21-05-2010 10:13am

Blobby George wrote: »

Good man, top top post. Sorry if my view isn't the same as yours.

you posted twice to the thread, once saying enough time had gone by, the second saying his art is to important, so he should be excused for having raped a 13 year old.

You're trolling, and you have previous for it too.

mike65 · 21-05-2010 4:54pm

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

As far as I know, Colm Toibin didn't offer any support for the behaviour Hogan was being charged with. He was asked to go to court to give a statement about the character of the accused, as he knew it. I don't see anything reprehensible in that, however grave the accusations.

If a friend of yours was on trial, and he asked you to be a character witness, would you refuse?

I would refuse, if I made such a discovery about somone I knew I could no longer say I knew him/her well enough to give a character reference.

MickShamrock · 21-05-2010 5:21pm

Yes.

Biggins · 21-05-2010 5:38pm

mike65 wrote: »

I would refuse, if I made such a discovery about somone I knew I could no longer say I knew him/her well enough to give a character reference.

Well put.

vicecreamsundae · 21-05-2010 9:00pm

My name is URL wrote: »

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

is that a good enough punishment for all rapists in society?
i don't think it is.

HavingCrack · 23-05-2010 3:01pm

Polanski should definately face justice. Whats the difference between him and other child rapists...

Roman Polanski - Should he face justice now?

Comments