By what reasoning would over 100 directors, producers, writers and actors be so quick to rush to the defense of a convicted rapist?

The man is a legend. Anyone who has an opinion of him has his opinions set in stone.
People will believe what they want to believe. Most will not adjust their beliefs in the face of new evidence or facts.

wasn’t that glenn beck?

He skipped out because he knew the judge was going to renege on the time they had agreed upon in a plea. I am not condoning his behavior, but his original intent was to do the time. He fled to avoid (what he saw as) an injustice.

If he had simply fled in the first place, and had not gone to court, I highly doubt he would have the support he is currently experiencing, fans or not.

All I’m saying is that there are other factors to consider. I doubt these supporters or many others hold the view that ‘Roman Polanski’s rape crimes should be excused because he is a genius.’

Hang him by his balls, stop calling it a sex offence or rape and call it what it is: child molestation (don’t worry, it’s the wiki entry).

I noticed how common it has become for tv-show’s and movies to have a storyline involving a young girl that wrongfully claims she got raped. The people defending him all work in that environment. Where do these storylines come from, the news, writer’s imaginations or behind the scenes gossip?

Why come to his aide? Who knows?
> Some of them might have experiences with very strange fans that call rape after being disappointed by their idol, and feel he is being wronged like they might have been.
> Some of them might have very strange and controversial sex lives themselves (You did mention Woody as an expert, lurve for that).
> Some of them might have issues with seeing their old friend as the scumbag that he really is, and rather deny such heavy emotions.
> Some (being the cynic that I am, probably most) might have commercial/monetary reasons to stick by their friend.

Ps. Since when is France known for this: a country where sex with kids is not frowned upon as greatly?

I can’t help but wonder (hope maybe) that the folks who have jumped to his defense don’t know all the sordid details and just see a colleague – with some unfortunate tragedies in his background – who seems to have been wronged. Things can be spun many, many ways and the facts of this case have certainly been spun in favor or Mr. Polanski. I for one an disgusted with the lot of them. Oh Martin how could you?

@dalepetrie I found this article rather heartening. Basically is says that the jury members of the Zurich Film Festival protested the petition, and on jury member boycotted the festival. At least there are some people who see this guy for what he is.

@dalepetrie I completely agree with you. I do not get it. The strange thing is also that many women – and women and men with kids who should be able to have some kind of empathy towards what a 13— year old feels and actuallyis, ie a child not a ‘young woman’ regardless of her bodily developments – kind of seem to excuse the man. I mean a child rapist is a child rapist no matter how many movies he has made. Some people seem to hang on the fact that the victim has said she doesn’t want to pursue the matter any longer. Come on – she is a woman with kids now – who the hell would want it all dragged up again: I presume she wants to get on with her life and not have to drag her family through the media storm.
Even weirder is that the guy has nod ‘hid out’ in Europe. He has been living the high life – going to parties, getting awards and schmoozing with the French socialites who all know what the hell he did and they do not care. I am disgusted. If we were talking about just any molester would they accept it? I mean an ordinary man, a bus driver, for instance with a penchant for ass raping 13 year olds. Hm….don’t think so.

@SuperMouse
That article says they boycotted the event because Polanski is is detention. They support Polanski and they oppose the arrest.

Even someone like Whoppi Goldberg whom I thought had some sense supports the man saying it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’.

Because as a society, we:
– undervalue women and children
– promote a “blame the victim” mentality
– sensationalize “famous” people
– are inundated with media reports of “false claims of rape”
– believe that different “kinds” of rape are less harmful
– follow media reports instead of engage in an independent investigation of truth

Repeating my statement from another thread:
Let’s review the facts:
Polanski said he did not drug or rape the girl. He says they did not have sex.
The police say he drugged her. Polanski said she had a glass of wine.
The DA said he would charge him with rape, and drugging a minor. Polanski denied it all.
The DA said he would drop the charge to sex with a minor, and recommend to the judge that he be let off with time served. Polanski agreed, to end the nightmare.
The Judge accepted the guilty plea, but told the DA he was throwing out the sentencing recommendation. Polanski asked to be released pending sentencing, to put his affairs in order. The Judge released him, and Polanski fled to Poland.
The girl in question does not want Polanski put in jail.
The DA who was involved with this doesn’t want Polanski put in jail.

I say, let him withdraw his guilty plea, and give Polanski a trial, or just let him go.

@johanna that’s what I get for skimming!

@filmfann why don’t you read the court excerpts? Polanski has indeed admitted to having sex with her even though he has not admitted to rape. Polanski has admitted to giving her pills and champagne and taking nude pictures of her. The girl was 13 at the time and having sex with a child automatically makes it statutory rape.
The girls opinion is not the issue here either – the law is equal for all – and the court works to find justice, not to do what the victims wants. And who cares what the DA wants? Rape is rape. Who decides which rapists do not need to go to jail for their crimes?

@dalepetrie Lurve, lurve and more lurve for this question.

I was stunned to hear our local Los Angeles radio and TV all downplay his crime by saying “He was convicted of having sex with a 13 year old”. When I heard that I thought “WFT! it was forcable rape!” it really pissed me off.

The charge was NOT ” having sex with a 13 year old.”
It was RAPE. He was charged with and found guilty of RAPE.

Well, don’t you know that the justice system works differently for those with money. Had this guy been you, or someone like you, there would be no contest, you’d already be in prison, getting your ass kicked by the inmates who HATE kiddie rapists.

Different set of circumstances, but look at that fat fuck Rush Limbaugh. On one hand he says all drug addicts need to go to prison, no exceptions, then he gets caught abusing prescription drugs to the extent of getting them thru his housekeeper and fake scripts, and he is still a fucking millionaire, and spreading his filthy lies about everything in the media. If that was me, doing the same drug offense as Rush-baby, where do you think I’d be? Prison, that’s where.

This is why I think white collar crimes (or any crime committed by the wealthy or the famous) should have the same consequences as crimes committed by the general public. The justice system should be fair, no matter who is convicted.

I still say Bernie Madoff should have gotten the chair, and not a La-Z Boy in a special prison.

This is just one more reason I find celebrity worship to be a complete waste of time.

Looks like I will be changing my opinions of more people. There isn’t one viable excuse.

how is statutory rape no different and just as bad as forcible rape?
for the record I don’t know almost anything about the R.P. case but if it’s consensual it can’t be as bad (while it is still a very bad thing!)

@jaketheripper Because no adult with any morals has sex, forceful or not, with a child. The adult is always the one who needs to make the right decision and any adult who even wants to have sex with a child is in my mind a complete and utter as. It doesn’t matter what the child says he or she wants because the child should never even be put in a sexual situation with an adult in the first place.

@johanna true, but that doesn’t mean it should be treated as equal with the violent, traumatic experience of forced rape

@jaketheripper
Of course any case must be tried and judged in a court of law – but morally it is just as bad. Besides who is to say that it there has to be violence involved for something to be traumatic? Imagine a small kid faced with a big naked man. Do you really think there needs to be much violence involved for the trauma to arise? Isn’t the act itself traumatic enough? Rape doesn’t have to involve force – psychological force can be just as traumatic.

@johanna
a lot of the trauma is caused by the subsequent “therapy” that over and over bombards the child with “you have been raped, that was horrible”.
they did this in an organised child molestation case in germany once. they took the children away from their parents and the psychologists programmed the children with the thought that they had been raped by their parents and others. the children then started to hate their parents and refused to have contact with them.
in the end it turned out that absolutely nothing ever happened. there never was any kind of rape or child molestation in any of the cases. but the children still hated their parents for something that never happened.

@peedub – I don’t buy the whole ‘reneged on a plea bargain’ defense. So what? A judge’s job is to dole out justice. If he decided that what Polanski did (and for those of you such as @filmfann who regurgitate Polanski’s version of the facts, rather than what the girl herself testifed to), which you can find here (the first 18 pages where it talks about the champagne and nude photos” and here (the last 18 pages where it details the rape itself). My comment to the idea that he was going to face justice but then found out he was going to get prison instead of the probation he thought he’d plea bargained for is, OK, then appeal, seek a mistrial…if that was indeed true, he should have been able to have his conviction thrown own. But running off to a country where you KNOW they won’t extradite you, that is NOT the actions of a remorseful man. And @markyy, just for the record, I’m not saying that France is a country of child molesters, but since when are they known for having a more relaxed attitude towards sex (including with people who would be considered minors in the US). Since the dawn of the US. I doubt even a French person would disagree with THAT statement, the French don’t have nearly as Puritain a view of sex as we do in the states, and they CERTAINLY don’t arrest you for having sex with a person under 18. Thirteen, yes that’s probably pushing the boundaries even for the French, but they’re not exactly known for prosecuting sex crimes.

@Jack So a man drugs you and rapes you, you are scared, and submit. Or, a man attacks you, beats you, holds you down and rapes you every which way. Would you want him to get a lesser sentence for the first than for the second?

@tinyfaery – I assume by @Jack, you’re addressing @jaketheripper, and if so, I would add that in a case where an underage girl fully and willingly agrees without being scared or pressured or coerced in any way to have sex with a man over the age of 18, perhaps even intitiates the activity, I wouldn’t see that as being quite as morally bad as forcible rape. Though I think a person who may be fully physically developed may not yet be emotionally developed enough to know what she is submitting to, let’s face it, wasn’t that many centuries ago when 13 was considered middle aged…you had kids by that time in your life because you weren’t going to make it to 30. Our culture basically keeps kids “young and innocent” longer than biology unfettered would, and societally speaking, I believe to a degree that’s for the greater overall good, because emotionally and psychologically, people have a lot more growing up to do before they have to deal with the real world…in medieval days your concern was survival, now there are a litany of things a “successful” adult must now and master to consider himself or herself a grownup (I really didn’t feel like a grownup until I was in my 30s to be quite honest). So a 13 year old girl is not intellectually able to consent in our society, she’s not prepared for some 44 year pervert who seems to be quite rich and powerful, in whom her parents seem to have placed very strong trust, to take her to a secluded place, give her booze, drugs and then force his penis into her. A more mature woman might have had the ability to know what to do, this girl clearly from her testimony, even though she’d gotten around a “little” for someone her age, was still quite ill equipped to know what was going on and how to deal with it. He had a clear position of power over her and she was afraid not to do what he told her. And despite her own admitted past transgressions, she was still quite innocent (she said he performed “cuddliness” on her when referring to cunnilingus for Christ’s sake!) So yeah, this was not STATUTORY. This was NOT a case of a girl too young giving off signals to make it seem like she was willing. This was a guy who targeted her on multiple occassions, who took the opportunity when he had a position of power over her to both mentally and physically coerce her into doing what he wanted. Nor was this a “crime of passion”, he had the mental prescience to acertain whether or not he might get her pregnant and then formulated a back up (or is it back door) plan. Nor was it isolated…a couple years later, he DATED a 15 year old girl.

The man is a pedophile, a child molester and a child rapist…31 years of living the high life in Europe does not change that FACT. Fear that he was going to be sentenced to more time than he thought he was supposed to get was no excuse to run. As I understand it, he copped a plea agreement to a lesser crime than what he ACTUALLY committed, he should have felt lucky to be able to do so. He was told he could expect that he’d have a 90 day psychiatric evaluation, but no jail time. But he found out the the judge was likely to give him jail. Well, either the judge has the ability legally to set aside the plea agreement or he doesn’t…if he did so without the law being on his side, Polanski could have done something and quickly secured a new trial. And if the judge was intending to hold to the sentencing guidelines for the crime for which Polanski was convicted (again a much lesser crime than he actually committed, which leads me to question how our legal system can even survive with such a shitty loophole) allowed, perhaps those guidelines did say 90 days evaluation was one possibility, prison was another, and perhaps he would have gotten prison instead, well you can cop a plea but you can’t cherrypick your sentence, sorry. And if sentencing guidelines for the bullshit charges he actually agreed to get stuck with did NOT include prison, but the judge sentenced him to prison anyway, again, grounds for a mistrial. The fact is, he used his wealth and power to run and hide because he did not want to pay for the crime he committed, what he wanted was a modest sentence in line with the most lenient guidelines for a much lesser crime, and yes, to me it is a much lesser crime if you don’t coerce someone, but make no mistake about it, this girl WAS coerced. When he found out he couldn’t get what he wanted, he thumbed his nose at the authorities. And we should now let him off because he got away with it for 3 decades? I simply can’t fathom that all these creative people, many of whom I respect deeply, can dismiss this so easily.

I don’t disagree Dale. I’m all for teens being able to have consensual sex. I also think consensual sex should be applicable to teens over 14 who have sex with someone no more than 4 years older. I was having sex at 15 with my 18 year old boyfriend and it was completely consensual.

I read your link, and I have read other stories. It was rape, plain and simple. I’m no fan of the legal system, but any judicial or legal impropriety is just noise.

I am a citizen of CA and I want this man prosecuted. It is horrible that he walked free for so long. If his case is dismissed, it will be even a worse failure of the criminal justice system.

@dalepetrie It wasn’t really meant to be a ‘defense,’ just a key point that should be addressed, which you left out. Do you have any clue how long he might have had to wait in prison before being granted an appeal? Or, how difficult that process can be? I do; I am studying criminal law right now. It is not as easy as you are implying, nor is it in any way a sure thing. Just because you despise rapists and child molesters, as do I, doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to the same just legal treatment we have established by way of common law and the Constitution. I am not implying that he did not deserve to spend many years in prison, I’m just saying that he was on track to pay for his crime, and that he, like anyone else, deserves fair treatment. If an agreement was made, the parties involved should be obligated to stick by it. Plain and simple.

I think those acts are beyond disgusting. Nevertheless, getting worked up and putting you emotions in the driver seat is not a very rational way to have a discussion.

@peedub – doesn’t matter to me how long he might have had to wait in prison before being granted an appeal, or how difficult that process might be. First of all, I never said it was easy to gain these things, it’s not supposed to be, I mean these are people who were convicted of a crime after all, are they not? But one would have to be blind, no matter how intimately familiar they were with the criminal law process to believe that the kind of money and power Polanski had would not have made it a bit easier. Lawyers are not paid to get to the truth, they are paid to either get a conviction or an acquittal, by any legal means necessary, and that means your best lawyers, the ones who can get acquittals, even if using a whole slough of sleazy technicalities, are in high demand and can demand high pay, the kind of pay that only guys like Polanski could give them. If there’s a way to speed up the process, someone like Polanski could have gotten it done. Yes, he would have spent some time in jail, but in my opinion, so what. What he did was vile, it was a violent, predatory crime, he was a sexual predator who preyed on children. There’s a reason even criminals hate people like this so much that they frequently don’t live to serve out their sentences, it’s because no matter how stiff a sentence someone can dole out, it pales in comparison to the damage they’ve done to their victims. Personally, and you can decry my emotions being in the driver’s seat all you want over this one, but even years in prison in my opinion would have been too good for anyone who did the things he did. Now I agree with you that he deserves fair treatment and if an agreement was made, people should be bound by what they agreed to, but if one makes a deal then renegs without legal basis (and do you know for a fact that this judge would not have had legal basis to reneg, or that he even was reneging, as opposed to just applying a harsher but yet still appropriate sentence for the crime for which he was convicted?), then our legal process gives the person who was harmed by this the opportunity to seek justice. As I see it, worst case scenario for him would have been to spend some time behind bars, something that was appropriate for what he did, as I see it, he didn’t want to do the time for the crime, he was a priveleged, self important prick who never got what he deserved, and now he and his cohorts are whining like a bunch of little bitches about it because the party has finally come to an end.

@ragingloli – that sounds like an interesting program, purposely screw up kids lives to prove a point. Did the government then provide more therapy to straighten these kids out, no that wouldn’t work, they already proved therapy is counter productive.

Guess these kids just went through the rest of their lives hating their parents?

”Guess these kids just went through the rest of their lives hating their parents?”
yes

sounds like tax money well spent!

what’s more, they even got the kids to tell them details of the fictional molestation, because that is what the therapists wanted to hear.
all this shows that children are incredibly easy to manipulate.
and maybe the polanski-kid’s testimony might also be a false memory planted by an overzealous psychologist.

@johanna Court records? Since he was never actually on trial, are you refering to his acceptance of the offer from the DA?

@anthropomorphism
Oh excuse my English
Grand jury testimony.

@ragingloli But that is a completely different matter though and has nothing to do with weather Polanski or other child rapists should go to jail or not.

@dalepetrie I didn’t ask about France because I didn’t agree with you. I was simply curious, now I know. Besides the french can fight their own battles, oh wait..

Anyway it was on the news today that France has reconsidered and is dropping their support for Polanski. Still it’s Switzerland that actually caught him, so don’t know if he’ll be extradited.

@markyy – not a problem, I probably didn’t make what I meant exactly clear, I can see how it might have been exaggerated in the mind of the reader, thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.