Roman Polanski - justice finally caught up or let him go, he's a brilliant film maker

Thirdfox

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/27/movies/entertainment-us-polanski-arrest.html?hp

Roman Polanski has been arrested on a 31 year old US warrant in Switzerland.

He had sex and gave drugs to a 13 year old girl in LA back in 1978 and fled to Britian and then France. He is also a pretty good filmmaker.

So, what say you? The guy is a paedophile who finally is going to meet his comeuppance (though the French may have something to say about that) or due to the 31 years and his celebrity status should he be let go?

Personally I'm with the "send him back to the US" vein of thought. Otherwise it's one rule for the likes of Paris Hilton and her DUIs and another for the ordinary person.

Our man in Havana

I am assuming there is a good extradition treaty between the USA and Switzerland.

I do agree, let the legal process take it's course.

Thirdfox

We do have the twist that while he has admitted guilt, the victim wants the case to be thrown out and the original judge (who has now passed away) apparently acted with impropriety during the case.

I think it's interesting to note public reaction to this - we had Gary Glitter who was condemned, but Gary Glitter didn't win an Oscar I suppose.

spadder

I'd say he's frantic;)

AARRRGH

The guy is a paedophile and deserves to be punished. His wealth and fame should not protect him from the law.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

The guy is a paedophile and deserves to be punished. His wealth and fame should not protect him from the law.

Probably not the thread for it but the term paedophile does tend to be used very liberally. There are of course many definitions of it. The most commonly used psychiatic definition tends to refer to pre-pubescent children, or at most, early pubescent children. Usually 13 year olds would be post-pubescent.

So it begs the question whether an adult having an atttraction for a post pubescent 13 year old should be as morally culpable as someone with an attraction for 8 year olds. And if a 13 year old is too close to the bone, what about a 14, 15, or 16 year old?

Thirdfox

Indeed - I believe the age of consent in Japan and Canada are both 14 years of age.

But we can agree that he committed statutory rape (or the US equivalent of it). Sprinkle in the drugs and alcohol and while it may not be paedophilia (except as the general "love of children") it is still a serious sex crime.

hullaballoo

drkpower wrote: »

Probably not the thread for it but the term paedophile does tend to be used very liberally. There are of course many definitions of it. The most commonly used psychiatic definition tends to refer to pre-pubescent children, or at most, early pubescent children. Usually 13 year olds would be post-pubescent.

So it begs the question whether an adult having an atttraction for a post pubescent 13 year old should be as morally culpable as someone with an attraction for 8 year olds. And if a 13 year old is too close to the bone, what about a 14, 15, or 16 year old?

FWIW, I agree that the term is bandied about too liberally, and I think in this forum, there's not as much room for word-mincing. So, as you quite rightly point out, paedophilia refers to sexual desire of pre-pubescent children. I think the appropriate term is hebephilia.

AARRRGH

Have any of you seen the updates today regarding his arrest? Apparently politicians and hollywood types are saying it's an absolute disgrace he has been arrested.

Yeah, it's a disgrace. He only drugged and raped a 13 year old. WTF.

cotwold

AARRRGH wrote: »

The guy is a paedophile and deserves to be punished. His wealth and fame should not protect him from the law.

Pedophile is hardly the correct term.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Indeed - I believe the age of consent in Japan and Canada are both 14 years of age.

Its 14 in a few countries and only 13 in Spain.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Have any of you seen the updates today regarding his arrest? Apparently politicians and hollywood types are saying it's an absolute disgrace he has been arrested.

Yeah, it's a disgrace. He only drugged and raped a 13 year old. WTF.

Its a little dodgy for politicians to be commenting on this sort of thing. Im not familiar with all the facts of the case so i wont comment on it myself yet. Did the 13 year old girl consent at the time?

Reginald P. DuM

No there was no consent. He abused his position to take advantage of a minor. He plied her with alcohol and sedatives, and despite her pleading with him to stop he continued his sordid act. I don't care how many films he has directed or what the French government think. If they want to condone this type of behaviour thats their call. Speaks volumes about them though. I hope at the very least RP faces trial and this woman gets her day in court. It's up to the jury after that. Seems clear cut on on the evidence I have heard however.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

Have any of you seen the updates today regarding his arrest? Apparently politicians and hollywood types are saying it's an absolute disgrace he has been arrested.

Yeah, it's a disgrace. He only drugged and raped a 13 year old. WTF.

I'm not defending him but:
1. Given the forum we are in, a little accuracy would be nice.
2. There is a difference moral, ethical and legal culpability between having sex with a post pubescent 13 year old and a 2 year old, for instance, so it is important not to throw out inaccurate allegations.

Otherwise, we could just call him a murderer or a perpetrator of genocide.

Crotchety

The guy wants to have his penis chopped off and throw in to a blender. Dirty, dirty old man.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

It's ephebaphilia - attraction to teenagers.

Yep, let's castrate him :rolleyes: and then we can all watch Joe Duffy/Adrian Kennedy/Jeremy Kyle delete as applicable.

Let the courts decide? Well, if you do, and if he's found innocent, will you accept the verdict?

Tom Young

I don't like some of the above. Let's keep it clean folks.

Cheers,

Tom

Tom Young

I don't like some of the above. Let's keep it clean folks.

Cheers,

Tom

AARRRGH

cotwold wrote: »

Did the 13 year old girl consent at the time?

How can a 13 year old consent to drugs and sex? 13 year olds are children.

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not defending him but:
1. Given the forum we are in, a little accuracy would be nice.
2. There is a difference moral, ethical and legal culpability between having sex with a post pubescent 13 year old and a 2 year old, for instance, so it is important not to throw out inaccurate allegations.

Otherwise, we could just call him a murderer or a perpetrator of genocide.

He has admitted to giving the girl drugs and having sex with her. His argument is it was years ago so the charges should be dropped.

Redjeep!

So "he's a brilliant film maker" and that makes a difference ?

Did anybody ever say Fred West was a bloody good builder or Harold Shipman deserved to be let free because he was a fantastic doctor ?

RP deserves to be treated like anybody else, no better and no worse, irrespective of his position as a film maker.

AARRRGH

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's ephebaphilia - attraction to teenagers.

Yep, let's castrate him :rolleyes: and then we can all watch Joe Duffy/Adrian Kennedy/Jeremy Kyle delete as applicable.

Let the courts decide? Well, if you do, and if he's found innocent, will you accept the verdict?

Why are you defending his actions?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AARRRGH wrote: »

Why are you defending his actions?

Am I?

I don't beleive in castration (like a lot of people) - how is this "defending his actions"?

AARRRGH

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Am I?

I don't beleive in castration (like a lot of people) - how is this "defending his actions"?

Your tone implies you are defending him.

You do know he has admitted to the crime, so there is no doubt that he raped a young girl?

Crotchety

The courts could decide or he could have his genitals numbed or something.

He's a disgrace. I don't care who he is.

seclachi

Justice should run its course, when your in country your bound by the law of the land, what ever the legal age. I dont understand why all these people are rallying to his defence, or how he wasnt completely shunned in the first place when he returned to france. Its scary to see the large number of people who are against it, simply because hes a good director ? Being a productive part of society is something that determined during sentencing, it doesn't absolve you of your crimes.

I feel sorry for the victim, its clearly something she has put behind her, and now its going to be dragged out once again.

The semantics about paedophilia are amusing, its taken almost universally to mean somebody under the age of consent, what ever websters may say the cut off is.

hullaballoo

Reginald P. DuM wrote: »

I hope at the very least RP faces trial and this woman gets her day in court. It's up to the jury after that. Seems clear cut on on the evidence I have heard however.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Let the courts decide? Well, if you do, and if he's found innocent, will you accept the verdict?

Lads, he's already been convicted of this. He admitted it so there was no trial, just a conviction. He absconded to escape sentencing.

I know I'm not a Mod in this forum anymore, but I'd ask people to keep the discussion on topic for this forum. There are plenty of other threads on other boards for you to lynch-mob Roman Polanski in. This just isn't the right place.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AARRRGH wrote: »

Your tone implies you are defending him.

You're joking, right? PLEASE elaborate.

You do know he has admitted to the crime, so there is no doubt that he raped a young girl?

Yes, I know he's admitted it, and if and when sentencing occurs, then I hope he is punished accordingly. (Just so we're clear)

If pointing out that said punishment is unlawful and barbaric is "condoning his actions", then be aware that, as I said, a LOT of people are against castration as a punishment. Are they all supporting his actions too?

AARRRGH

There is only one person saying bad things should happen to his genitals.

You didn't quote his post so it is hard to know everything you said is aimed at him.

Anyway, let's not go off topic.

seamus

For the sake of argument, if Josef Fritzl came up with a cure for aids while in prison, would you say that he should be allowed free because of his service to humanity?

Or would you say that regardless of what else you've done, a crime is a crime?

The nature of his crime though may give him some leeway in fighting extradition. If it was a child - pre-pubescent that is, the line is less blurred and he'd have little to stand on.

hoolio

If i recall correctly he plead guilty to a plea bargain where he'd get a slap on the wrist, and when the (now deceased) judge threw it out and decided to throw the book at him he fled.

No, he's not technically a paedophile
Yes, he's a sexual predator
No, the fact that he's a famous director/widower of a manson victim/holocaust survivor doesn't f*cking matter. Seriously? What the hell are people who say this thinking.
No, the passage of time doesn't matter. "Ah sure i robbed that bank aaages ago, be sound about it"
No, the victims feelings don't matter. Thankfully most developed countries no longer place weight in the feelings of victims/their relatives.

The bones of it is he drugged and sexually assaulted an adolescent, thought he'd get away with it, then when he realised he wouldn't legged it out of the country. He should be brought back and face his sentence. If he wants to argue and appeal it do it through legal means, it's not as if he's short of cash for a decent attorney.

drkpower

AARRRGH wrote: »

He has admitted to giving the girl drugs and having sex with her. His argument is it was years ago so the charges should be dropped.

Yes, but he isnt a paedophile.

Thirdfox

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, but he isnt a paedophile.

Depends on whether you use the Oxford English dictionary's definition or the WHO's (for mental disease):

OED: "A. n. An adult who is sexually attracted to children."

From wiki:

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).

...Sounds like Roman Polanski to me. We're not discussing this in the psychiatric forum but the legal one.

drkpower

Thirdfox wrote: »

Depends on whether you use the Oxford English dictionary's definition or the WHO's (for mental disease):

OED: "A. n. An adult who is sexually attracted to children."

From wiki:

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).

...Sounds like Roman Polanski to me. We're not discussing this in the psychiatric forum but the legal one.

Yes, this is the legal forum. And you will not find the term "paedophile" or any derivative in Irish law AFAIK. What Wikipedia refers to as a legal definition is more than a little dubious.

If you did go by the legal definition, an 18 year old convicted of having sex with their 16 year old girlfiend would be a paedophile which would be patently ridiculous.

Thirdfox

That's why some countries have Romeo and Juliet clauses.

Tom Young

Ok - If it's not obvious, this topic is totally dead now.

Lets let the process take effect and justice take its own course.

Sorry to those who had valid input, to those who were hell bent on being nonsensical, go start a thread elsewhere.

Tom