other people have said it over and over. the fact that some people refuse to accept it doesn't change anything. she was 13. he was 43. she said no. he admitted it. that's it. end of story. i don't care if the mother left here there stark naked and told him, "have at it, big boy." he still did it.
i've been discussing this elsewhere and am quite heartened that people of wildly divergent political extremes can still come together over an issue that requires only some sense.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/28/04
That's because your friends aren't French, papa. They're apparently very good at letting bygones be bygones.
As long as it's someone ELSE'S bygones....
Crime has a short shelf-life in France.
I agree completely, Papa, and never intended to imply that the mother's stupidity took the responsibility off Polanski in any way.
That being said, I think the mother was astoundingly irresponsible.
The cries of support for Polanski coming out of Hollywood, and the folks at the film festival in Switzerland are extremely disappointing, yet not surprising.
Being a movie star, or a creative filmmaker does not exempt you from the law.
I'm disappointed in these 'stars'.
...I have to say: I pretty much agree with this guy's blog:
Pleading guilty to unlawful sex with an underage girl, the drugging, raping and sodomizing of a 13 year-old isn't stopping Hollywood from ginning up an indignation campaign over the possibility of fugitive director Roman Polanski being held accountable for his crimes. Yes, these are the values of those who control the most powerful propaganda device ever created. Which begs a question: If his unspeakable deed doesn't meet the standard, what exactly would Roman Polanski have to do in order to become a pariah in this town? I mean, besides vote for Sarah Palin?
The surprise detention of Roman Polanski has been met with indignation in Hollywood and sparked a flurry of media speculation over the real reason behind Saturday night's arrest in Zurich.
Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has got behind a campaign by French film-makers calling on US authorities not to extradite the Oscar-winning Polish director in connection with a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor dating back more than three decades.
Weinstein entered the fray at the personal behest of Cannes film festival director Thierry Fremaux and will now use his considerable influence and campaigning heft to enlist the support of Hollywood.
"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation" Weinstein said, reviving a theme he adopted earlier in the year after he bought international distribution rights at Sundance to the HBO documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.
(you can read the rest of the article in the link)
I wish there was an effective way to let the Hollywood moguls know that I don't support their actions and statements.
Hollywood supports Polanski
I wonder, if this girl had been Harvey Weinstein's 13-year-old daughter or sister, if he would still be launching such a campaign.
That pretty much sums it up, Besty.
Pathetic.
Not only that, but it wreaks (and I mean really STINKS) of a publicity campaign on his own behalf ...
""We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation" Weinstein said, reviving a theme he adopted earlier in the year after he bought international distribution rights at Sundance to the HBO documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired."
He probably figures either way, whether Polanski is brought to trial or goes free, he still can draw attention to his newly acquired documentary. As long as he makes a big enough stink.
Mission accomplished, Harv.
Truly pathetic.
I won't watch his documentary, but I wish there was a truly effective way to let him know how offensive I find his statement.
Speaking as a mother of 2 daughters; if it were my daughter I'd want this repulsive piece of scum hanged (hung) by his you know what sack.
I have never believed in an "eye for an eye" but in this case I just may have a change of heart. I hope this guy ends up with a new roommate named Bubba.
(gawd I hope this does not get the thread deleted)
It's interesting that most of the people who are screaming that he took advantage of a child would be insisting that she be tried as an adult if she had killed someone.
13 year old having sex is a child
13 year old killing someone is an adult.
What hypocrites most Americans are.
Its also interesting that the victim claims that the court system has hurt her far worse than Polanski ever did.
Victim: Courts did more harm than Polanski
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/28/04
"It's interesting that most of the people who are screaming that he took advantage of a child would be insisting that she be tried as an adult if she had killed someone."
Who are these people? No one here, as far as I can see.
Really?
Read the comments on the case about the 14 year old who killed his gay classmate. Everyone was screaming that he should be tried as an adult and sent away for the rest of his life.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/28/04
I don't even recall the thread you're referring to. And I wouldn't have said anything like that anyway.
So who's "everyone?"
And your "hypocritical" comparison between being a drugged and raped 13-year-old girl and a hostile 14-year-old murderer is very bizarre, to say the least.
They're not remotely the same scenario. Let me walk you through this ... One committed the crime of murder at 14. The other is a victim of a drug-induced rape at 13.
My belief is children are children.
If you have sex with one, then you get charged.
But you also do not charge a child as an adult no matter what the crime is. You don't let them go free but you take into consideration that their mind is not fully developed.
When I originally posted I was referring to all of the outside commentaries not about the individual posters on this board - though it does apply to a lot of them as well.
Yes, when a victim is 13, they are ALWAYS a child and rightly so. When a 14 year old commits a heinous crime, charging them as an adult SHOULD be considered. I see absolutely nothing hypocritical about it. You're comparing a victim with an attacker. That makes no sense.
Yes, but you're still comparing the situation of an underage criminal to the situation of an underage victim. A vast leap of logic.
You are inferring, even if you don't mean to, that this 13-year-old girl did something illegal.
She was RAPED.
And although she was drugged and told him "no" repeatedly, even if she had been the aggressive instigator of this sex act, 43-year-old Roman Polanksi was still guilty of statutory rape. Our laws say that she, at 13, is incapable of making this "consensual" decision on her own. But he is completely responsible for his actions as a 43-year-old adult.
And I don't buy this "I didn't know she was 13" bullsh*t. You don't ask the mother of an adult young woman if you can photograph her daughter. Not once. But twice. He asked for the mother's permission to do the shoots, because he KNEW her daughter was underage. Or he wouldn't have bothered to ask.
Yes, we have strict laws in the U.S. protecting minors. They can't vote, drink, own property outright, etc. They are not full-fledged citizens with legal rights like adults. And there is a good reason for that. They aren't adults! The law agrees with you that they are not capable of making "adult" decisions on their own.
But comparing the situation of a rape victim to the situation of a cold-blooded murderer, even with both are minors, is seriously messed up.
Depending upon the state, murder committed by a minor usually brings a maximum of 20 years when sentenced in family court. They could get out in just a few years with good behavior. When charged as an adult, it brings 30 to life. If someone, regardless of their age, violently murdered your child, would you want them able to walk the streets in 4 years?
I can't imagine I would. It's a very touchy subject and I think it depends on the case and the minor involved. I would want it to at least be a consideration.
a court would not be deciding that for me, jg2.
This case has always raised questions in my mind but with this thread and links I now know more about it. Jack Nickolson in a Playboy interview once defended Polanski saying that in Poland Polanski would not have been prosecuted at that time for such an act. Perhaps, but in Poland the legal age of consent was 15 or 16 at the time (I'm fuzzy on this) regardless if the case would have never gone to court. More important, when you are in a foreign country you are bound by the laws of that country, not your own. You are in a foreign jurisdiction.
Anyway, Thanks all for your links and comments. I find Best12's comments closest to my own opinions, except from reading the court transcript I'd call it forceable rape. She was saying No not Yes. She was resisting but Polanski was using power of intimidation, an adult telling a child what to do, not to mention drugging the child.
Polanski's giving the victim a monitary settlement makes no difference. If that's all one had to do to avoid the law then wealthy people would not be presecuted. Law would apply only to the not-so-wealthy. He did it, he needs to face the consequences.
Law would apply only to the not-so-wealthy.
Unfortunately, that is often the case.
Marc--the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Apples and oranges.
How utterly appropriate, Woody Allen among those signing petitions and "demanding" Polanski's release. Demanding, mind you!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/
Videos