Roman Polanski

Okay, so while ZU's Serious Discussion is usually a hotbed of heated debates over religion, god, homosexuals and American politics, I thought perhaps that we might talk about the latest frenzy over Roman Polanski, and whether or not he should be extradited to the United States to face sentencing for his 1977's conviction of child rape.

In case you haven't heard, Polanski was arrested in Switzerland over the weekend and he now faces prison time for his past transgressons (drugging and raping a minor and fleeing the country before being sentenced for the next few decades). You can read up on all of the facts of the case on Wikipedia or indeed any other internet source if you're wikiphobic.

"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop."

Polanski avoided the United States for many years and the countries that would extradite him to the USA in order to avoid going to jail, and subsequently since his recent arrest, those in Europe, Hollywood, and various other apologist dirtbags have brought up a host of mitigating circumstances to excuse Polanski from this disgusting crime -- from the fact that his parents were killed in the Holocaust to the victim's claims that she forgives him (and of course must have been 'asking for it'). Of course, none of those have any legal bearing whatsoever, because Polanski directed 'The Pianist' and other rocking movies, for ****'s sake.

But what's the opinion of the average person here? Should he be sentenced and jailed, as he should have been years ago, or do you somehow believe that since it happened years ago and he's really an 'awesome guy' for making good movies, he's earned his freedom?

here is what you do with all these sort of freak bags take them to a public place, read off their crime then have some one say "This is what happens to child molesters" and shoot him in the head. DONE AND OVER.

Nothing will happen to him. He's a vested member of the cultural elite. Everyone knows him, everyone loves his work. More importantly, he's a very profitable director to have around.

Rapists should go to jail, and for a long time. What I want to know is this: how did America manage to convince Switzerland to extradite?

Honestly? I believe that the penalty for a crime should depend on the crime's seriousness, not the criminal's intelligence or talent. The fact that he's made some brilliant films should have no bearing on his case whatsoever - a less famous man would be jailed, no questions asked.

Also, I can't help but feel that if he truly felt sorry about what he has done, he would have owned up and faced his sentence, rather than flee the United States.

Originally Posted by Fri yoont vee doo

here is what you do with all these sort of freak bags take them to a public place, read off their crime then have some one say "This is what happens to child molesters" and shoot him in the head. DONE AND OVER.

No. Too easy. Put them in jail. It's filled with criminals, and 90% of them even think child molestation is a espicable crime. Trust me they wouldn't make death a quick bullet to the head. There have numerous cases in which child molesters have been all but tourtured to death by other inmates. Apparently that's one of the reasons Paul Bernardo was put in solitary confinement.

As for my feelings on it, I'm tied. My usual philosophy is that if somone is found innocent by a jurry, then they have to right to be free. I know sometimes I don't agree with it, but I don't keep going on about it, or if they did it. However, I recently found out my cousin, who is like a little sister to me, had something happen to her as a child which greatly changes my feelings on this. And I know I probably would carry on if the person who did that to her was found innocent. So while my morals say let the judge and jurry decide, I'm being hypocritcal in saying thier word should be it.

while what he did was disgusting, when even the victim is telling the courts to drop the case it's time to just move on.

It doesn't matter whether or not victims of crime want charges dropped, because the crime was still commited. The girl, for her own reasons, one of may which include self preservation, has moved on. Not to mention she might not want the hassle of being stalked/abused/harassed by the press and Polanski's fans. There is also the additional fact that after he was convicted, he bailed out and fled the country rather than take the sentence. I don't know, but I think that's a felony in many countries and an additional crime to add to his charges.

Originally Posted by Pelagias

It doesn't matter whether or not victims of crime want charges dropped, because the crime was still commited. The girl, for her own reasons, one of may which include self preservation, has moved on. Not to mention she might not want the hassle of being stalked/abused/harassed by the press and Polanski's fans. There is also the additional fact that after he was convicted, he bailed out and fled the country rather than take the sentence. I don't know, but I think that's a felony in many countries and an additional crime to add to his charges.

Exactly. Plus, child molestation is not only a crime against the child, it's a crime against humanity - every time it happens, the entire world becomes slightly crappier for everyone. As much as I think the victim deserves to feel empowered, they can't just erase the crime by their forgiveness. That's why it's called "paying your debt to society". The system has to be shown to work, and it must be made clear that you can't just rape a child and expect to get away with it by skipping bail and being famous. It's necessary that people have faith in the system that promises justice, because if they don't, the world goes to hell: many rape victims already don't bother to report the crime because they have no faith that they will get any justice.

Roman Polanski should get the maximum sentence, no parole. If he gets anything less than the maximum sentence, then the argument could be made that since he was going to jail anyway, skipping bail had no negative consequences. The book must be thrown. He can't be allowed to screw the system and then get just a slap on the wrist.

He's rich and famous, unfortunately. He's not gonna get the same punishment he'd get if he were some random dude. Why? Because the judges are terrified. Terrified of pissing off his fans and Hollywood. It's the same with every famous person who gets in trouble with the law.

And shooting him in the head? No, too easy. I say we merge all the prisoners together and let them deal with the molestors/rapists/childkillers their way.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

No. Too easy. Put them in jail. It's filled with criminals, and 90% of them even think child molestation is a espicable crime. Trust me they wouldn't make death a quick bullet to the head. There have numerous cases in which child molesters have been all but tourtured to death by other inmates. Apparently that's one of the reasons Paul Bernardo was put in solitary confinement.

NO GOOD SCUM OF THE EARTH DO NOT DESERVE TO LIVE SHOOT THAT MOTHER ****ER IN THE HEAD AND BE DONE WITH HIM!

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

He's rich and famous, unfortunately. He's not gonna get the same punishment he'd get if he were some random dude. Why? Because the judges are terrified. Terrified of pissing off his fans and Hollywood. It's the same with every famous person who gets in trouble with the law.

And shooting him in the head? No, too easy. I say we merge all the prisoners together and let them deal with the molestors/rapists/childkillers their way.

Actually, there's a reason why he'll get as gentle a sentence as possible, and his fame as a director isn't it. A good (read: sleazy) lawyer need only MENTION the effect that Polanski's wife's murder at the hands of Charles Manson had on poor little Roman's mind, and he'll have the judge eating out of his hand. How it justifies rape, I have no idea, but it'll happen, I guarantee you.

I'm surprised Roman Polanski is even an issue. The only possible debate is between people on what punishment he should get, and until someone actually steps in to defend him, there'll be no reason to discuss this any further.

The interesting thing, as Evilsbane pointed out, is the fact that Switzerland actually cooperated in his arrest. Switzerland, the Epic Neutral nation. I'd argue that they're not being partial however, because a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker and it's not being biased because they're not taking sides really.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Actually, there's a reason why he'll get as gentle a sentence as possible, and his fame as a director isn't it. A good (read: sleazy) lawyer need only MENTION the effect that Polanski's wife's murder at the hands of Charles Manson had on poor little Roman's mind, and he'll have the judge eating out of his hand. How it justifies rape, I have no idea, but it'll happen, I guarantee you.

well this case is no stranger to judicial misconduct.

@Evilsbane= Wait, his wife was killed by Manson? I thought only Sharon Tate and her friend/boyfriend/husband got killed. :/ Apparently I'm not all that clear about this.

Still doesn't excuse him however, even if his parents dying in the Holocaust were true, he still needs to suffer the full extent of law.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I'm surprised Roman Polanski is even an issue. The only possible debate is between people on what punishment he should get, and until someone actually steps in to defend him, there'll be no reason to discuss this any further.

Good point.

The interesting thing, as Evilsbane pointed out, is the fact that Switzerland actually cooperated in his arrest. Switzerland, the Epic Neutral nation. I'd argue that they're not being partial however, because a lawbreaker is a lawbreaker and it's not being biased because they're not taking sides really.

I've been reading up on it, and apparently the US and Switzerland have had an extradition agreement in place for a while now, so it was in fact legally required.

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

@Evilsbane= Wait, his wife was killed by Manson? I thought only Sharon Tate and her BF got killed. :/ Apparently I'm not all that clear about this.

Still doesn't excuse him however, even if his parents dying in the Holocaust were true, he still needs to suffer the full extent of law.

Sharon Tate was his wife.

Originally Posted by Tyras

Sharon Tate was his wife.

Ah. You may now call me a n00b. :3

sharon tate was also pregers with Polanski's baby, he also survived a Nazi death camp, kill him anyway!

Originally Posted by Fri yoont vee doo

sharon tate was also pregers with Polanski's baby, he also survived a Nazi death camp, kill him anyway!

His parents were the ones who went to the death camps (his father survived, his mother didn't). He evaded Nazi detection "with the help of Polish Roman Catholic families". I am in no doubt that he has had a cruel life, but you don't get a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to rape. If you do, the law ceases to have meaning.