So Swiss police arrested Roman Polanski based on his statutory rape case from the 1970's. In case you don't remember, he pled guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13 year old (he was 44 at the time). He fled the country before he could be sentenced. So the question is, should he be brought back to this country to be sentenced for the crime he committed? Remember, statute of limitations doesn't apply because he already pled guilty. I can't believe that he should skip just because he is a famous director and well-respected by the Hollywood elite. He was, is and continues to be a fugitive who shouldn't be treated any different just because he's with the "in crowd". I'll be real interested to see how many of the Hollywood crowd try to defend him.
Amazing that he a hero among Hollywood types. If he were an "ordinary" person that had sex with an underage girl, they'd be calling for his head.
It's been a long time but, yes, he should answer. Same as you or I would have to do if we found ourselves in the same situation.
"They" hadn't arrested him before because he's been living in France and avoiding places that would extradite to the U.S.
If you were in such a situation and there was no real witness against you because the minor did not wish to testify it might get dropped BECAUSE you are 'nobody.' The only reason this went as far as it did it he judge was corrupt, limelight seeking jackass.
The victim, long since a grown woman, is on record stating that she forgives him and wishes everyone else would as well. That is sufficient for me. Extradition shouldn't even be on the table as the guy is already unable to enter the country and isn't that punishment enough at this stage?
^^^^^^^^^^^^??????????????? I know someone who was abused by another director after being offered a spot in a movie. No love lost for people using their position of power to abuse children.
the guy would be written off as a pedophile and rapist if he were a non-celebrity. it's ridiculous that there is any question that he should face justice for a sex crime against a 13 year old girl. he'll probably still only get some kind of deferred sentence or probation (just a guess).
I say bring him back to a courtroom like any other citizen. I wonder why the French are so adamant on keeping him?
Would anyone be on here saying "well the victim forgave him" if he'd beaten his wife? Or if he'd raped someone? He (allegedly, albeit admittedly) broke the law and fled the country. If and when it's possible, he should be tried. End of story.
Then judge should have gotten locked up with Mr. Polanski. A completely unethical shitbag of a jurist. The PROSECUTOR in the case even lambasted him for what he did.
As I have always heard the story he used drugs and alcohol to rape the girl. Then he pled guilty to a lesser charge but the judge threw out the plea and he fled fearing prison. So yes he should be sentenced and it should have happened many years ago.
What are the chances that, were he not a celeb, he would have been faced with a judge who threatened to short circuit the DAs plea agreement in favor of a circus of a trial wherein the victim did not want to testify? I don't think his celebrity helped him, especially as it was based on a type of film art that many found confusing or threatening.
I've heard these stories as well, but we should be clear. Even if he didn't use chemicals... even if the girl looked Polanski right in the eye in a room full of judges and said "I consent to have sex with you", he still raped her. The state of California says a 13 year old can not give consent, and sex without consent is the definition of rape. This is not a technicality, this is the specific intent of the law. So you choose to base your moralistic argument on some arbitrary age limit. Color me not impressed. There were, still are, 13 yo's getting married. Is that rape, too? No, it's not. But, 13 is very young and we do need laws protecting them from 40-some year-old predators (be they male or female). Btw, Mr. Polanski should not be extradited. This is statutory rape, not the same as "real" rape.
You are confused, I agree with you there. We need laws, yes, but that doesn't equate consensual sex with a 13 yo as being "real" rape. And perhaps some, if not all, US states require parental approval now, but did they always? No. And it is not required everywhere else, is it? The US has incredibly disfunctional "sex crimes" laws. There are people on sex registries who shouldn't be there. Maybe you could alleviate your confusion by studying those cases. As far as enforcing the law, there is wide discretion on what laws are enforced and how they are enforced, so yes, there can be a moralistic bent to those exercises.
it wasn't 'consensual'. she says, despite having forgiven him, that it was not consensual and that it was 'creepy'. i can't believe anyone would argue that a man of 44 having sex with a 13 year old (whom he drugged) shouldn't be brought before a court.
