Roman Polanski Finally Arrested?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very bizarre.

Not sure how I feel about this; the time, the era. Things were different then. Not saying it was okay of course, just, I don't know.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Very bizarre.

Not sure how I feel about this; the time, the era. Things were different then. Not saying it was okay of course, just, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Not sure how I feel. Even the girl, Samantha Geimer, is urging to just let it be.

I guess not knowing how it all really went down, the mystery behind this, doesn't help. I mean, was he giving this young woman drugs because they were just "partying" or was he being malicious and trying to get this young girl out of her element so he could take advantage?

Either way, she wants it dropped so I think it probably should be.
 
David Jimerson said:
He pleaded guilty then fled. Open and shut.
Click to expand...

See the recent documentary on the case, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired and you'll find it's not quite so black and white - but basically I do agree, he's certainly guilty and should've faced his crime back then. Matters are complicated by misconduct on the part of the prosecution and the judge, and the fact that even the victim wants the charges dismissed (although she received an unknown sum in an out of court settlement, so it's not necessarily because she regards him as innocent).
 
He's probably looking at harsher punishment/additional charges now since he fled, etc vs. having just served his time back then.
 
Rick Meyer said:
His guilt is open and shut but I don't think the severity of his punishment is.
Click to expand...

We can't have people just choose to scoot after pleading guilty to stuff like unlawful intercourse with a minor - plea bargained down from even worse, like rape by use of drugs, forcible sodomy and lewd acts upon a child - and treat the matter with punishments that are anything short of severe.

The state has a vital interest in prosecuting serious crimes no matter how the people observing or involved personally feel about it, and no matter how prominent and gifted the perpetrator may be.
 
Rick Meyer said:
Yeah, I'm with you on this. Not sure how I feel. Even the girl, Samantha Geimer, is urging to just let it be.

I guess not knowing how it all really went down, the mystery behind this, doesn't help. I mean, was he giving this young woman drugs because they were just "partying" or was he being malicious and trying to get this young girl out of her element so he could take advantage?

Either way, she wants it dropped so I think it probably should be.
Click to expand...

Read the arrest report, Smoking gun posted above.
 
It's not a question of arguing anything at this point. He pleaded guilty. He fled. The legal proceedings are over. Now, as Jason says, he'll have even more charges to face.
 
He has to face up to his crime. I don't care what movies he made. He drug, raped and sodomized a 13 year girl!! Not your normal guy. Why would anyone in Hollywood stand up for him? Maybe he will get a pardon.
 
He was forgiven by Samantha and she wants the charges dropped.
Yes, what he did was wrong. It was not consensual., however, from what I've understood is that the circumstances were very odd.

I've heard everything from the parents approving that the daughter be allowed to Jack Nicholson's villa for a PRIVATE photo shoot by herself. Were her parents also to blame? I think so. Was Polanski wrong? Yes.

However, according to his wiki, "Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Following the plea agreement, according to the aforementioned documentary, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain. Consistent with its extradition treaty with the United States, France can refuse to extradite its own citizens. An extradition request later filed by U.S. officials was denied. The United States government can request that Polanski be prosecuted on the California charges by the French authorities."

I've also heard that after the money was accepted by the girls family, and the plea bargin was met. The judge decided to reject the plea bargin and do a full-blown trial.

So I think in terms of the law, after spending time in prison and paying the family he had done his time according to the initial ruling?

Right?
 
Interesting take Evan. I did not know the family was offered damages.

This guy has lived quite a dramatic life

As a child he was in imprisoned in Auschwitz in WW2

His pregnant wife was brutally murdered by the Manson clan

On trial for the 13 year old accusations

-

I can't doubt what he did, but it was testimony by the girl. She also tried to file a civil suit in '88 for damages.

Crazy.
 
This is true, but according the first ruling of the case, he served time in jail and gave money to Samantha Geimer.

If that's what the court decided his punishment to be, than he has paid his debt? No? The judge should be allowed to repeal the plea bargain? The judge talks about the case outside of court? Purposefully to make it into a media circus? The parents of the girl let her go alone or with another girl to chaperone? Why are the parents not responsible for the actions of their daughter? How can it be they allow her to go alone?

If she is a child and is unable to have consent than the parents should have never let her go alone with someone anywhere.

There is blame on all sides of this issue. I don't think that Roman Polanski agrees with what he's done either, and I don't think he's going to commit this particular crime again. The whole situation is over it's done with. If I could find something credible about him paying the family for damages I would post it. It's just what I've heard.

However, if Mrs.Geimer says the charges should be dropped and she's the victim. I think that should be honored. Let polanski go, make him do some kind of community service, or donate part of his income to something that hold the parents responsible or some kind of service for victims.

I can't think for the life of me why any of you think that he gets complete blame. I don't condone what he's done, however when I was 13 I knew well enough not to do things without my parents approval, and at the age of 43 you should know well-enough when you're breaking the law.

Truth of the matter is, everyone is wrong here. I don't consider Mrs.Geimer to be completely innocent in the matter either. Yes, she's young, but knows well enough not to accept alcohol and drugs from anyone at that age.

A combination of parents not being parents, and adults not acting there age. Everyone wants it behind them now. Why put Roman Polanski in jail? What does that accomplish? Why waste tax dollars on this? Aren't there more important dangerous criminals we should be extraditing?

Also, the thought comes to mind, if I had a 13 year old daughter would I let her travel without me or my wife on a private photoshoot to someones house I barely know at all? or anyone for that matter?

The answer is no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top