Its OK to sodomize a drugged 13 yr old so long as

[Old Hippie]

God I love slutty little whores and Korean BBQ...

[Wallenda]

If any kind of sex with someone who is under 18 is called statutory rape, including consensual sex with someone who is 17.9 years old, it makes the term rape almost meaningless. Why can't that just be called sex with a minor? If you are going to be that broad with the definition of the word rape, then it shoudl be expected that people will not think it necessarily too bad a thing when you call someone a rapist. The "statutory" part of the term means 'according to statutes' or in other words according to a particular law. It's a qualifier. It's included in the term in order to basically say: "OK it's not the kind of rape you're thinking of, it's a newly minted legal definition including something other than what you consider to be rape." It's legal-speak in other words. So to call someone a rapist and then cite that what he did qualifies as statutory rape is basically to apply heavy spin, to be disingenuous. You can more fairly say (tho it still applies plenty of spin in my opinion) the guy is a statutory rapist, but you can't fairly call him a rapist, since that is a completely different crime (statutorily speaking, and we have already established that you are indeed speaking statutorily). But of course you'd sound like a total ninny if you called him a "statutory rapist", so of course you wouldn't.

 

Another point I noticed was how someone said it doesn't matter if the girl is 8 or 13,she's still a child. Well, would it matter whether she was 5 or 17? Are there no degrees worth acknowledging? And what about whether she's sexually active or not? And even with 8 and 13 there's a huge difference physically speaking: some girls can look like a woman at 13, have all the working parts (and be using them). That can't be said of an 8 year old. Another point: physical maturation varies from person to person. Laws can't be written that way. They need to be written one size fits all.

 

Has anyone here seen the documentary made about this? Just get it already:

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/92270185/polanski+wanted+desired?tab=summary

 

I keep seeing the point made how anyone who sleeps with a 13 year old needs to be this or that (castrated, sentenced to years in prison, etc). Notice the simple present tense of the verb. The problem here is that this didn't happen in the present, it happened in the mid 1970s. Polanski didn't do this in the world that exists today, so sentencing according to 2010 guidelines would be as wrong as sentencing him according to another country's guidelines. He did it in a year where Brooke Shields was starring as a 12 year old prostitute, totally nude and sleeping (fictionally) with men in a movie. So what was the standard sentence in those days? That was the world Polanski did this in.

 

Regarding the circumstances, Polanski was a notorious womanizer in those days, known for his fondness for fresh pretty faces. He was a well known playboy. The mother of this girl, a girl who was sexually experienced, dropped her off to be alone with Polanski in an empty mansion for what would be hours, to do a photo shoot (note: he's not a fashion photographer, he's a film director) -- so it wouldn't make sense that the mother at least would be shocked or outraged by this, and it would be fair to consider that even the girl herself might not be. The problem here with some people's outrage is that they imagine their own innocent daughters in this situation, not the experienced casting-couch-wannabe this girl was at that time. I don't say that to demean the girl, but it does look pretty obvious everyone involved knew what kind of situation it really was.

 

And all of this is not to say Polanski is innocent. He's obviously not. But he's clearly not guilty of the same thing/to the same degree that, say, certain priests have been found guilty of. This situation includes a lot more gray area.

[Guest lazyphil]

<>

Are you sure?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

 

these just documented cases. and since these girls, back then sexually active did that make further sexual activity, still under age ok?

 

 

[Old Hippie]

If any kind of sex with someone who is under 18 is called statutory rape, including consensual sex with someone who is 17.9 years old, it makes the term rape almost meaningless. Why can't that just be called sex with a minor? If you are going to be that broad with the definition of the word rape, then it shoudl be expected that people will not think it necessarily too bad a thing when you call someone a rapist. The "statutory" part of the term means 'according to statutes' or in other words according to a particular law. It's a qualifier. It's included in the term in order to basically say: "OK it's not the kind of rape you're thinking of, it's a newly minted legal definition including something other than what you consider to be rape." It's legal-speak in other words. So to call someone a rapist and then cite that what he did qualifies as statutory rape is basically to apply heavy spin, to be disingenuous. You can more fairly say (tho it still applies plenty of spin in my opinion) the guy is a statutory rapist, but you can't fairly call him a rapist, since that is a completely different crime (statutorily speaking, and we have already established that you are indeed speaking statutorily). But of course you'd sound like a total ninny if you called him a "statutory rapist", so of course you wouldn't.

 

Another point I noticed was how someone said it doesn't matter if the girl is 8 or 13,she's still a child. Well, would it matter whether she was 5 or 17? Are there no degrees worth acknowledging? And what about whether she's sexually active or not? And even with 8 and 13 there's a huge difference physically speaking: some girls can look like a woman at 13, have all the working parts (and be using them). That can't be said of an 8 year old. Another point: physical maturation varies from person to person. Laws can't be written that way. They need to be written one size fits all.

 

Has anyone here seen the documentary made about this? Just get it already:

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/92270185/polanski+wanted+desired?tab=summary

 

I keep seeing the point made how anyone who sleeps with a 13 year old needs to be this or that (castrated, sentenced to years in prison, etc). Notice the simple present tense of the verb. The problem here is that this didn't happen in the present, it happened in the mid 1970s. Polanski didn't do this in the world that exists today, so sentencing according to 2010 guidelines would be as wrong as sentencing him according to another country's guidelines. He did it in a year where Brooke Shields was starring as a 12 year old prostitute, totally nude and sleeping (fictionally) with men in a movie. So what was the standard sentence in those days? That was the world Polanski did this in.

 

Regarding the circumstances, Polanski was a notorious womanizer in those days, known for his fondness for fresh pretty faces. He was a well known playboy. The mother of this girl, a girl who was sexually experienced, dropped her off to be alone with Polanski in an empty mansion for what would be hours, to do a photo shoot (note: he's not a fashion photographer, he's a film director) -- so it wouldn't make sense that the mother at least would be shocked or outraged by this, and it would be fair to consider that even the girl herself might not be. The problem here with some people's outrage is that they imagine their own innocent daughters in this situation, not the experienced casting-couch-wannabe this girl was at that time. I don't say that to demean the girl, but it does look pretty obvious everyone involved knew what kind of situation it really was.

 

And all of this is not to say Polanski is innocent. He's obviously not. But he's clearly not guilty of the same thing/to the same degree that, say, certain priests have been found guilty of. This situation includes a lot more gray area.

 

 

You seem to neglect the fact that he drugged her, and that she said no, and that he went ahead with it anyway.

 

As for her having been sexually experienced...who was that with? guys close to her own age? or older adult men? As for her mother, the bitch never should have put her in that position unchaperoned.

 

The bottom line is, there is a penalty for what he did, he ran away rather then pay up for his crimes...and the running away is an additional crime. I re.lize that it may just be some dipshit D.A. in L.A> who is grandstanding, but that does not change the fact that he is a fugitive.

[LizardKing]

I don't want to defend him, but how are you sure of that?

 

Again, impossible to comment on a court case where none of us are even on the jury, let along at the site...just not enough reliable info to say.

 

Best course is "no comment.".

[shygye]

You can look at the Grand Jury testimony here.

 

... Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

 

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

 

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him." ...

 

[dave32]

Alright, I know I said it was my last .02, but I lied.

 

The girl's testimony is damning (and disgusting - re: Polanski), but that article leaves out a lot of other testimony. The same girl whose mother was pushing her for fame, had her mother pushing her to see Polanski strung up after the girl was overheard talking about sex with Polanski. And there were definitely players involved exploiting the situation for political reasons.

 

Remember the preschool in S-cal, 80s, where the family running it was convicted of raping all the students? All kinds of horrible testimony detailing grotesque stuff... and then it turns out a decade later to be untrue. Zealous social workers had guided the kids in their accusations. Lots of lives devastated and ruined.

 

I'm not saying that is the case here. For one thing, there's no doubt he had sex with a 13 year old girl and is guilty as sin on that. But past that, you're not quite sure what was going on. I'm saying it's difficult to be detached in these situations and get at the truth. I read that one grand Jury excerpt and I want to get Polanski too. But there is grey area, and we really don't know exactly what transpired. Samantha is asking to let it go. I don't know. The whole thing leaves a bad taste. Sad.

 

I agree with Phil, this should've been resolved a long time ago.

 

Alright, that's really my last .02

 

This topic gives me a fucking headache. I have no desire to defend Polanski. But.

[Hugh_Hoy]

...and we really don't know exactly what transpired...

 

Do we really need to know if Polanski used a condom, spewed on her face, shaved her first?

Come on, man ! Who gives a shit about the other stuff, including her mother's role in putting the victim in an "awkward", uncomfortable, and jeopardizing situation. Polanski had a chance to plead not guilty, go to trial, and defend himself. He doesn't need your help now to try to mitigate his crime. If his attorney's thought that "other shit" would've gotten him off, don't you think they'd have tried it? (Ok, unfair question since you said that your last post on this is really, really your last post on this.) Question withdrawn. :content:

 

HH

[dave32]

Alright, this is really, seriously, my last post on this.

 

ahhhhhh, fuck it. nevermind... (let me go find an Obama thread somewhere to have my revenge)

[Wallenda]

It would be a lot easier to talk about the details if other people were aware of what they were, as it is, it's exhausting to have to keep mentioning what really happened, since people here seem to fill in their own imagined scenarios of how it played out. Dudes, watch the doc.

 

Polanski did turn himself in. He was appearing in court. He had his own attorney and the girl's case was being prosecuted by a D.A. That D.A. was not grandstanding, he's actually a professional prosecutor who, from what I could tell, was trying to do his job responsibly. The judge was the problem. The judge had himself assigned to this case, and had a history of trying to be involved in high profile cases involving celebrities as often as possible. He kept a scrapbook with newspaper clippings of all his high profile cases.

 

So the way it really played out was that Polanski, his atty, the DA and the judge worked out a plea bargain for his sentence. For that he was supposed to serve 3 months being psychiatrically examined, but inside a prison facility. Polanski did it. The big hitch wqs that for some reason the facility decided to release him a month and a half short of 3 months. At that time he got persmission from the judge to travel to Europe where he was scheduled to do some kind of prep work for his next film. He went there, and a photo appeared in some magazine of him sitting at Oktoberfest sitting next to some woman. It wasn't a woman he was involved with, but the photo took on a life of its own. The judge saw that and was furious. He rejected the explanation. In media, it was egg on his face for having allowed it.

 

So when Polanski came back, despite the fact that Polanski had done his end of the plea bargain agreement, the judge was giving every signal that he was going to reneg on his end of the agreement and instead hand him a much greater sentence.

 

There were other aspects of it where the judge was telling both the DA and the atty to stand up in court and say this or that, so that he could then rule -- so basically stage managing the trial as a kidn of show for the media, which both sides were outraged by.

 

Anyway, I'm not saying Polanski didn't do something wrong -- he did, obviously. One point: people often repeat the point "He told the girl he was shooting photos for Vogue" strongly implying that he tricked her -- according to the film at least, he really was shooting photos for Vogue. Just another example of one way some inflame this story, whether they're aware or not.

 

He should have received the correct sentence back then at the time. He didn't mainly cuz the judge was a fame whore not doing his job professionally. He thoroughly botched the situation. And he's dead now.

 

From my reading, it looked like the judge initially was trying to get Polanski off with as light a sentence as possible and still maintain his own image. Then when that went wrong, he was again trying to issue a sentence that would protect his own image -- so a harsh sentence, to quell the public outcry.

 

So yeah, surely he deserves more than a month and a half. Goes without saying. But what? And you would have to have the sentencing based on what was standard then, not now. In those days, like the Ringo Starr song says "You're 16, you're beautiful, and you're mine" -- attitudes were much more lax.