i recommend the film 'roman polanski: wanted and desired' to have a better scope on the opinions being presented here.
Therefore, I would be inclined to say that the documentary's argument is not valid.
wow, disregarding a documentary without seeing it or knowing much more than what i just posted from a synopsis. mindblowing.
i think i'm about done in this thread. this reminds me why arguing on the internet is worthless. everyone is convinced they are right. and no one (including myself) has all the facts.
let's just string the guy up like a pinata and let the victim have some whacks.
I think a documentary made by his buddy and his former PR firm is reason enough to be, at least, highly suspicious of the content without seeing it.
and the people whose job it is to sentence him agreed that he should get probation, and then committed questionably legal tactics in order to try to change that.
Again, a DA only can recommend a sentence. It is the judge's prerogative to follow it, or not.
this has been made clear by many sources, not just the documentary i mentioned. i'm supposed to trust the legal system to give him the sentence he deserves. if the legal system doesn't act according to its own laws and rules, then i think that is a serious conversation worth having, especially if it is acting in accordance to public disapproval and the personal gains are being made by changing the rules. even a rapist deserves a fair and honest trial. and from what i have read, seen, and watched through television, i am not so sure he got a that. again, i'm open to being wrong about that. this could be all a huge campaign to throw the case in doubt, but i don't think it should be disregarded completely.
First, I reject the premise of the article you are citing, and I have stated my reasons why earlier. But for sake of argument, let's say there was something underhanded. Does that negate he fact he admitted to molesting the girl? Should that be a get out of jail free card? No! Innocent men don't plead guilty to molestation charges. They fight to clear their name to the bitter end. Second, how did he deal with the situation? He became a fugitive. Innocent people who are being rail-roaded by the system don't typically plead guilty and flee the country for 32 years, when there is merit to the claim that a judge is doing something improper. No. They go to trial. They shed light on the wrong doing of said judge in court, as it only makes the defense argument that much stronger (for example, OJ's murder trial). Even if they do loose, they appeal. That is how the system works.
and arresting the guy 32 years later seems like a way of them patting themselves on the back for a self-congratulatory "yeah we got him!", and ignoring the fact that if this case had been handled correctly and fairly to start with, they wouldn't need to do this sort of thing. and now the victim is back in the news, old memories and her family unneeded distress and media attention that she does not want for a man she has publicly and personally forgiven ages ago.
The people who "got him" were not involved with the original case. I'd wager a lot of them weren't even born at the time, or were kids when this molestation took place! It is not a CYA like your are portraying it to be. And again, it doesn't matter how long it has been. The reason it took so long in the first place is because Polanski became a fugitive. So it is own fault he is an old man, getting ready to spend a large amount of his final years, if not all of them, in prison. Had he served his sentence in 1977, he would have long since been out. Finally, people forget one part about the victim's pleas for mercy on Polanski. The reason she has publicly advocated the charges to be dropped is because Polanski reached a settlement with her (in other words paid her off).
everyone can and will play moral police and say he's finally getting what is coming to him, but i think there's a valid reason to reconsider whether this needs to be done now. then again, it kinda boils down to what you consider to be justice. regardless, the courts will decide his fate. and hopefully they act in accordance with the law. which may or may not involve stringing him up like a pinata.
It is not a matter of playing moral police. It is pretty cut and dry actually. A 44 year old man molests 13 year old girl, is arrested, a plea deal is proposed (not struck, but proposed), the judge orders Polanski to do a psych evaluation, then is ready to impose a harsher sentence than the DA and defense originally proposed, then Polanski skips out and becomes a fugitive. There is no moral ambiguity, beyond the clouding of the issue by attempting to question the integrity of a dead judge.
that's really all i have to say about the subject.
I have had the pleasure of working on film projects and have been in love with movies all my life. However, I too have been shocked by Hollywood's rush to his side.
As a lover of movies, I can't help but think, "fuck Hollywood, why do you keep giving other people ample ammo to take shots at how fucked up you are?"
Now, I am not ready to put a bullet in the guy's head or anything. As has been mentioned, he has had a fucked up and painful life. But, so have I. So have lots of people. Maybe not to the depths he has experienced, but these are the moments that reveal the kind of person you are.
I don't think he is evil. He is probably very sick. However, he deserves to pay for his heinous crime like any of us would. If you run from the law, you have to know that one day you will pay for that as well. His time has come and I can't defend this ridiculous thought of needing to free him instantly.
If the court system was behaving poorly in regards to the deal he had, if there is more to his side of the case, if he truly deserves more consideration than he has gotten, fine. But you still have to face up to the system and take your chances. You don't deserve to be able to run from this this no matter who you are. Especially when you drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Even if she says it's okay now.
I have not really followed this at all. My only question is was it ever established that he raped the girl, or was it just alleged?
I also always question these type of stories because if you have ever been around young girls and celebrities it is amazing what the girls will try and do. I have watched or had to myself kick out a lot of very underage girls out of back stage areas for trying to get close to band guys. I have had even more young (and I mean YOUNG) girls asking me how they can get back stage and you know none of their intentions are innocent. I know and have seen tour mangers who literally ID girls trying to get back stage or onto a tour buss because the number of underage girls fighting to get access.
Not trying to defend him because he needs to be the adult and should know what is appropriate, but these are never black and white cases and I will refrain from any sort of judgment because I have no idea what really happened and have only read reports that are so removed form any first hand account.
I have not really followed this at all. My only question is was it ever established that he raped the girl, or was it just alleged?
I also always question these type of stories because if you have ever been around young girls and celebrities it is amazing what the girls will try and do. I have watched or had to myself kick out a lot of very underage girls out of back stage areas for trying to get close to band guys. I have had even more young (and I mean YOUNG) girls asking me how they can get back stage and you know none of their intentions are innocent. I know and have seen tour mangers who literally ID girls trying to get back stage or onto a tour buss because the number of underage girls fighting to get access.
Not trying to defend him because he needs to be the adult and should know what is appropriate, but these are never black and white cases and I will refrain from any sort of judgment because I have no idea what really happened and have only read reports that are so removed form any first hand account.
He basically plead guilty to statutory rape. So, any way you dice it, he at least had sex with a 13 year old. The hairy part was how he was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a psyche eval. They let him out after 40 something days and the judge wanted him brought back to the courtroom to face possibly finishing his sentence as well as deportation. Believing he would go back to jail, he fled.
Also this was 1977, not 2009. A lot has changed since then regarding how we teach sexuality to young women (right and wrong). Regardless of the time period, when you are that young (13!!!) your grasp on sexuality and the games adults play and sexual rules is way, way, way, way different than a 30 year old man's (or woman's for that matter). When i was 13 i thought kissing was sex because in movies the people kissed and then the next scene usually showed them waking up in bed. Kissing = sex in my young mind.
and just because a young, underage girl wants to have sex with someone over 18, still doesn't make it legal or right. He was an adult, regardless of who initiated it, if it was consensual or nonconsensual, he had the responsibility to stop whatever was transpiring.
from what i understand, he told her he wanted her to come over and do a pic shoot, then got her drunk during and after, druged her, then put it in her pooper....
