J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I do concur.
Roman Polanski Finally Arrested?!
- Thread starter Ryan Patrick O'Hara
- Start date
- Status
I do concur.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Oh boy... I'm going to assume that you've never dealt with, or dated, a victim of childhood rape.
Think of it this way... if you lived in a bad part of town and didn't put bars on your windows or forget to lock your doors and your house is robbed, is it your fault? No, because anyone and everyone knows you shouldn't steal. One shouldn't need to lock your doors or put bars on our windows at all, because people shouldn't be breaking in the first place. But we do, because people try and break in anyways, even though it's wrong. But if someone doesn't lock their doors or put bars on their windows, that doesn't put them at fault for someone else breaking in... it just means they failed to take proper measures to prevent someone else from committing that crime against them.
It's the same thing here. Is she responsible for being raped? No, absolutely not. Should she have taken drugs and alcohol from a strange man? No. Was it wrong? In and of itself, yes. Did it put her at extreme risk? Yes. Should she have known taking drugs and alcohol from him would put her at risk of being raped? Eh, she was 13... I don't think getting raped is something a normal kid thinks about. But that doesn't put her at fault for the rape... especially after she repeatedly said no to him. But even if she said yes, that doesn't make it okay, because any man in the U.S. with more than three working brain cells knows it's wrong (and illegal) to have sex with a 13 y.o.
The only person responsible for Polanski raping this girl was Polanski. He was the one who ultimately decided what he was and wasn't going to do. Not this girl, not this girl's parents... regardless of what poor choices they made (and we can all agree they were pathetically bad choices). They didn't make the decision to rape this girl. Only Polanski had the power to make that decision, and he is ultimately the only one who is responsible for that decision.
As to whether or not he did his time and paid his dept... it doesn't matter what the plea deal was. The judge is the one who makes the ultimate decision on whether or not it should stand, and he decided against it, so Polanski ran. So no, he didn't do his time.
Blade Borge
Well-known member
I just look at this way, if it was my daughter...well there'd be blood in that case, but legal punishment is the bare minimum.
This is a very interesting case. The victim, from what I know, doesn't really want Polanski jailed anymore either, she apparently just wants it to be dropped so her name isn't plastered all over the place.
There is a larger question here on the importance of "justice" I think. Are we jailing Polanski because he's a threat to people or because he did a "no-no"? The whole "You did the crime, now do the time" thing is a bit Judge Dreddish to me. I happen to think a guy getting ANYONE drunk and raping them is wrong, but wrong is pretty subjective. I would say it's hateful and destructive and that's the opposite of love. But I'd also think jailing him for 35 years might be completely fruitless and serve no purpose at this point. It's not going to set some sort of example.
I don't see why he shouldn't do some sort of community service or be forced to learn more about his mistakes though. Why not sentence him to a few years of facing rape victims or therapy? To at least get to the root of something he did years ago? I mean, I'm just throwing stuff out there. I don't think "an eye for an eye" is very productive. Punishing someone for doing something wrong doesn't help anybody, but forcing that person to experience other people's suffering and become a better person by giving back with love seems like a way better option.
Easier said than done. My point is, not open and shut. Nothing is.
There is a larger question here on the importance of "justice" I think. Are we jailing Polanski because he's a threat to people or because he did a "no-no"? The whole "You did the crime, now do the time" thing is a bit Judge Dreddish to me. I happen to think a guy getting ANYONE drunk and raping them is wrong, but wrong is pretty subjective. I would say it's hateful and destructive and that's the opposite of love. But I'd also think jailing him for 35 years might be completely fruitless and serve no purpose at this point. It's not going to set some sort of example.
I don't see why he shouldn't do some sort of community service or be forced to learn more about his mistakes though. Why not sentence him to a few years of facing rape victims or therapy? To at least get to the root of something he did years ago? I mean, I'm just throwing stuff out there. I don't think "an eye for an eye" is very productive. Punishing someone for doing something wrong doesn't help anybody, but forcing that person to experience other people's suffering and become a better person by giving back with love seems like a way better option.
Easier said than done. My point is, not open and shut. Nothing is.
Evan S
Veteran
I have, in fact.
So, in theory, you're saying your daughter is a piece of property that you leave in one place. You leave her alone with no supervision at all, and that this girl was raped because her parents didn't lock her door? I don't get it man. She is a child, and the parents are responsible for her well-being. If they couldn't show enough interest in their daughter to go with her on this photo-shoot, than what kind of parents are they? Would you let your daughter at 13 go alone to a 43 year olds house? So how are the parents not partly to blame? Polanski IS wrong, but it's not his fault the parents were not watching her. No matter how bad that sounds it's true.
Since we don't know what really happened it's hard to comment. It doesn't make it okay if she says yes. Did polanski KNOW she was 13? Angelica Houston says that, "she didn't seem like some 13-year-old girl, and didn't come off innocent and seemed to be 25 and up"
True, I agree. Polanski is wrong.
Read about the judge, it talks about BACK-DOOR deals with the media to SELL the outcome of the case. Polanski ran, because he heard that he was going to be jailed for 100 years.
it's all ridiculous. this is a partly he-said-she-said thing.
But look up pictures of Samantha Geimer on the red-carpet premiere for the Roman Polanski documentary. If she was so hurt, why is she happily smiling and posing for pictures? On a topic SHE doesn't want to talk about.
California's tax dollars can most certainly be put to better use. I think however, some kind of community service for Mr.Polanski would be in order. Like the previous poster said.
my source right now is the CNN.com article.
Last edited:
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Actually, as my pastor explained it to me (no, I am NOT bringing religion into this discussion), that is one of the most often misquoted passages from the Bible. At that time, people would go an eye, tooth, foot, your first born, and a donkey for an eye. That passage was stating not that one should seek revenge, but that a punishment should be just and fair.
And that IS what we are talking about here. Punishment that fits the crime. Imagine a society where child rape only got you community service, murder only anger management classes, and robbery time at a homeless shelter. Maybe if we were all remorseful for what we have done... but many are not. Call me jaded for having worked in news my whole adult life, but the sad truth of humanity is that there are people who simply don't have a problem taking your things, your innocence, or your life. If we find such crimes to be so horrible and heinous, what kind of message does it send that all you get for committing those crimes is some "understanding", a round of cumbaya, and a hug? If that's it, what's to stop those individuals from continually committing those crimes?
Now, if you want to do all that stuff while they're in jail, I'm all for it. Rehabilitate them while they're in jail, though.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I don't care about all the deals and offers that went on around the case back then.
If he drugged and raped a child and then skipped out of the country when he found out that he couldn't buy his way out of it and/or do a short stint in jail, he deserves what's coming to him.
It's really ridiculous that it took this long. That's the only part that turns this into a debate. Had this arrest happened a year or two after he originally skipped out there would be no discussion.
MAH
If he drugged and raped a child and then skipped out of the country when he found out that he couldn't buy his way out of it and/or do a short stint in jail, he deserves what's coming to him.
It's really ridiculous that it took this long. That's the only part that turns this into a debate. Had this arrest happened a year or two after he originally skipped out there would be no discussion.
MAH
Mike Harvey
Veteran
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that she's property. Some of what you said made it sound like you were partly blaming her and the parents for the rape. My point is that if someone commits a crime against me, or you, or whomever... the fact that I could or should have taken precautions doesn't make me responsible for the crime itself. In this case, it just makes them at best pathetically naive, but realistically completely irresponsible and absolutely horrible parents who probably should have lost custody. They shouldn't be absolved of that in and of itself, but at the same time, they aren't to blame for the rape, either (unless they knew he was going to rape her ahead of time, and told her to go anyways)
That would have to be one heckuva mature and well developed 13 y/o to pass as a 25 y/o. I mean, I've met 17 y/o's who could have passed as 21 y/o's... but a 7th grader passing as someone who could be in grad school? I've heard of it the other way before, but...
Then there is the fact that "I didn't know she was a minor" isn't really a legal defense.
I know nothing about the judge, so I won't doubt you that he was a scmuck. But at that time, would child rape really get you 100 years in California? That's not rhetorical... I just don't know California state law from the '70s and didn't see it anywhere in the article. It just mentioned that the judge was inclined to send him back for another 48 days, so Polanski fled.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Werd...
What kind of message does it send to simply throw someone into a big cage and tell them to tear each other to shreds, exactly? How is THAT going to solve a problem?
I don't believe in solving hate with hate. Punishing people doesn't really "set a precedent". It doesn't do anything. Jail doesn't "rehabilitate" people- AT ALL. Jail isn't designed for that. It's designed for punishment.
To be honest, all those ideas you gave for solutions are excellent ones. Really. Of course, perhaps not as simple. I believe in removing murderers from the population so they don't kill more people, but because someone murders someone else, I don't think that gives the right for a death penalty, for instance. And every murder or killing is different. Some people are sick, some people made a mistake, almost all of them need help.
If someone raped someone, throwing them in jail won't cure them of rape. Perhaps removal from population temporarily? Therapy, education and close monitoring of them similar to house arrest? I'm just trying to explore new ideas. These people aren't monsters- they're people that did terrible things. Let's not cast them off into some jail and dust our hands off.
Now, non-violent crimes, or crimes where people don't get killed or hurt, I think we can agree, should have nothing to do with jail. Really.
But if I burglarized a neighborhood, I might get something like 15-20 years in jail because of the several counts. I could go to jail, or I could be put into a program similar to house arrest where I had to actually give back to the community. Where I DID have to do community service, maybe look into the eyes of homeless people. If someone robbed me at gunpoint, I'd rather see him forced into a program like this than thrown in jail for 20-30 years. Imagine that! Just for mugging me! That's ****ing terrible. And it's not doing me any good. Even if the guy cuts out my tongue. Why would I care if he "suffers" in jail? Force him to revaluate his life. But "justice" is silly, I think.
Of course, all theoretical. If someone raped my sister, yeah, I'd want to choke him to death. Does that make me right? No. And that isn't what should be done. Killing the guy wouldn't unrape my sister, or give me any rest.
End rambling.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
"He's a rapist! *slap* He's a filmmaker! *slap* He's a rapist! *slap" He's a filmmaker! *slap* He's a rapist and a filmmaker!"
Thought I'd lighten the mood. If you don't get it, I'm sorry.
Thought I'd lighten the mood. If you don't get it, I'm sorry.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
It was definitely needed.
This conversation is definitely landing squarley in the "politics" realm now.
There is no reason to be discussing the death penalty, or any other such general topic.
The topic of Polanski is one that may have some special relevance here given that we are a filmmaking community -
but if we can't find a way to discuss this without going over the political line, then we may have to cut this short.
If you want to discuss it - then keep it on the specific topic of Polanski.
Otherwise, please keep any political beliefs and/or arguments to yourselves... or go to PMs if you'd like.
Thanks.
ChipG's is the perfect kind of insane attitude I've been addressing. How is THAT not name calling or being ignorant? How is that adding to an intelligent discussion?
And without a moderator freaking out for once (this is a message board, where people, I believe, can talk without spamming the boards or anything), isn't it insane to kind of reprimand me because I brought up the death penalty? Why are we not allowed to talk about politics? I'm not pushing any kind of agenda here, I was articulating a point.
And this is in the "Cafe" forum and we're talking about a man being arrested for a crime he committed 30 years ago. It's a complicated issue that stretches over several countries and has to do with laws and moral issues and whatnot. It's going to touch on politics. It has touched on politics. Not quite sure why this is...so bad, but I suggest closing it down now unless you simply want a "He's good!" or "He's bad!" thread, which is silly.
I'm not looking to argue this point any further, but I'd like to know whether or not it's a waste of time to even be here if we aren't "allowed" to speak certain things that DO have to do with this issue, even if it rubs someone else the wrong way.
And without a moderator freaking out for once (this is a message board, where people, I believe, can talk without spamming the boards or anything), isn't it insane to kind of reprimand me because I brought up the death penalty? Why are we not allowed to talk about politics? I'm not pushing any kind of agenda here, I was articulating a point.
And this is in the "Cafe" forum and we're talking about a man being arrested for a crime he committed 30 years ago. It's a complicated issue that stretches over several countries and has to do with laws and moral issues and whatnot. It's going to touch on politics. It has touched on politics. Not quite sure why this is...so bad, but I suggest closing it down now unless you simply want a "He's good!" or "He's bad!" thread, which is silly.
I'm not looking to argue this point any further, but I'd like to know whether or not it's a waste of time to even be here if we aren't "allowed" to speak certain things that DO have to do with this issue, even if it rubs someone else the wrong way.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
I wasn't reprimanding you, I was issuing a warning to the entire thread.
It's about the thread as a whole.
Your choice of topic was used as an example - but the entire conversation had been moving into a political direction for a while.
Because it's against the forum policies.
No politics, period.
You can read the policies in more detail here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=98521
and here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/announcement.php?f=182
There are plenty of places to discuss politics online - DVXuser just doesn't happen to be one of them.
I agree, that would be silly.
And given that there seems to be no other route on this, I suppose you're right.
Hopefully everyone had a chance to have their say.
- Status