Roman Polanski 'held in Zurich'

As nonsensical as her argument was, as unfunny as she is and as irritating and pointless as The View is, she was trying to make a point- that he was never charged and pled guilty on a plea bargain. She also just wants to know the facts and the nature of the rape before calling judgement. Which sounds pretty rational.

But more importantly right now, the name 'Goldberg' is originally GERMAN not JEWISH. The fact that it offends you that a black woman, who chose a name culturally associated with your religion- of which she claims ancestry- says a WHOLE lot more about you than it does about her.

And I doubt she would care what you called yourself, as thankfully few people care about the opinions of a racist these days.

So you think it is Just to allow a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl abscond and the Justice department should do nothing about it?

Of course I don't think taking a child's innocence is just, that's ridiculous question, but what's happening here has nothing to do with justice. It's political posturing and an American office of power trying to save face.

Would you deny that the funds that the Californian State has spent on this case could have been put to better use, helping victims of crime?

Most of the money California spends on its Justice System could be better spent, I absolutely agree with you on that issue.

However, I think that despite the fact that California spent all that money, Roman Polanski's arrest is just. Whether or not it was money spent wisely. This is a man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl...do you honestly think he should just be released?

The point of your argument seems to be that the justice system should control social policy and budget it's resources instead of solely maintaing the law? Gun control is a separate issue and is something that is legislated and becomes law . The idea that spending money prosecuting a case takes away possible funding for possible cases is a very limited view of economic and legal thinking . The points you make are in different realms of public and social policy and mixing them together is what makes your argument lose its point (which it seems to not have ) .

I'm sorry, but I believe that thinking that social, political and economic factors don't affect the justice system is absolutely naive.

There are countless instances of the justice system providing rulings that create mandates for social and economic change. And there are countless examples of the justice system being used to facilitate political and social economic ends.

And when the state of Texas for instance decides to put more money into say, the maintenance and termination of prisoners on death row, do you not think that the balance of budgets affects other areas of local government?

But all of this whilst moderately on point is diverting from the subject; the reason that the state of California has been chasing this man has not been to exact justice- there can be no justice from this crime at this point- but to save face. And the reason for Switzerland giving Polanski up (however right or wrong you may deem it to be) is because they have been under huge pressure from the US State department over their willingness to harbour funds of criminals and terrorists- another example of the USA bullying independent states when their policies don't immediately suit the interests the US government.

Handing over Polanski allowed Switzerland to submit to US pressure and save face whilst not affecting their very lucrative business of managing funds and maintaining the anonymity of their clients.

Does that sound like justice?

PS You completely missed the point of my statement regarding firearm related homicides in the United States; the fact that so many people seek retribution, or to get what they want by any means necessary, is an indictment of the US as. a. society. Meaning it is entirely representational of the US cultures brand of 'justice'.

Don't blame the victim. Just because RP is a well liked guy, that isn't a logical negation of the fact that he sodomized someone. He should have faced justice 32 years ago in that case. The woman he raped as a teen could have settled her case with him and the matter closed long ago- but instead RP fled. He failed to deal with his offense. It's not like it's an old drug charge! I have also heard "oh..well he didn't know how old she was." Really? Like it would be OK to drug and sodomize an adult? Let's play the sexist game and pretend his victim was a man... :) What then?

he's sorry...he's given her money...give him a break... it was a long time ago...Those are very bad reasons for letting him go for raping and drugging a 13yo kid!

Denica_Cassandra, there are plenty women pedophiles.
I agree that our justice system is gender biased. It is definitely prejudice against men.
http://current.com/items/90872442_state-of-maine-disparate-rulings-one-for-men-a... State of Maine - disparate rulings, one for men and one for women.

I agree completely. Lock his ass up.

So if someone does this to your 13 year old child (drug and rape them because your child appears older) is it your childs fault ? Even though he pled guilty . According to your own words, ' possible ? Absolutely ! ' That is truly some sick thinking.

I would hope my child would not put herself in this kind of situation. She went with a well known Oscar-winning film maker over to someone's house for a photo shoot...

I do not know about you but my parents thought me what this situation entails.

He did wrong but I am sick and tired of hearing that woman is not responsible for herself or her actions. My question stands, WHY WAS SHE THERE?

If my 13 year old, without my knowledge, decides to go pretend to be a grown woman in her twenties, and gets herself in trouble because of it, then she needs to face those consequences. I would certainly never advocate for her to do such a thing, if I had any knowledge that she was even going to attempt such a thing, she would be gravely punished for it.

But to destroy a man's life because of it is not justice being served.

He has had 30 years of life wandering around France. If the woman was 35 and DRUGGED and RAPED, would it be ok to let him off with time served?

To: Motherfortruth and Jubal

You guys should read the witness testimony. First off, the naked photos were taken without anyone around and it wasn't exactly a proper photoshoot in a studio with lighting, but a photographer taking a young girl around to take naked pictures in natural settings with natural lighting.

But the bottom line is is that the 13 year old girl told the full grown man to stop several times and that she wanted to go home. The sex was "not" consensual. He got her drunk and gave her drugs, and yet she still said no . . . she still said she wanted to go home.

Also, I could be wrong . . . but I didn't see anything at all that said the girl lied about her age, and the testimony indicates that Polanski knew she was underage.

But it doesn't even matter that she willfully drank alcohol and willfully took part of a quaalude, and it wouldn't matter if she lied about her age . . . the girl "verbally" said to stop and that she wanted to go home. So unless your position is that the victim's testimony is not honest, then Polanski did rape the girl no matter which way you look at it.

If it was a sorority girl it would still be rape, or if it was 35 year old woman like hammy says . . . it would still be rape. Just because she got herself into such a shady position, that doesn't mean that she DESERVED to have a grown man force himself on her . . . No means no, end of story.

testimony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

lucidstone, thank you for posting the testimony.
1) The girl has posed for naked pictures on multiple occasions. She had many opportunities to say no…
2) Polanski picked her up at HER residence on each occasion. I guess he met the mother and I guess the mother did not go along with her 13 yo child on the photo shot...
3) The girl did not tell her mother or anyone about naked pictures after the first photo shot. I guess she was ok with it.
4) On the second occasion Polanski called the girl's mother and they BOTH talked to the mother. The mother asked her if she is ok and the girl said YES, the mother asked if she wants to be picked up and the girl said NO.
5) The girl claims she was drunk and does not know how much she did drink but she had a lot of memories in detail to describe the triangle pill box 1in x 2in, and that after she and Polanski took the pills the contained was empty, and pictures with the glass and with out...
6) the girl has experimented with quaaaude before...
If this 13 year girl did not really know where naked pictures, alcohol, going alone to someone’s house lead to - her mother should have known!
Again I do not defend Polanski actions but this not a simple case of someone kidnapped a 13 year old girl and raped her!

He PLEAD guilty and then fled before sentencing. The case is over, there are no charges, there is no revisiting this. He PLEAD guilty to a sex crime. If this were some shlub from South Central he would have been hunted down like a dog. This is about EQUAL JUSTICE under the law. If you think the law is draconian, change it, or lobby your DA to stop demanding harsh sentences.

Regardless of whether YOU feel this girl asked for it (which is EXACTLY what you are saying) the age of consent in California is 18, and she was 13. End of story.

Good points motherfortruth.

The only thing I would be slightly at odds with is that you don't have to be blackout drunk to be under the influence . . . and that qualudes have a synergetic effect with alcohol, so 30 mins to an hour after she took the portion of the pill her intoxication likely spiked (and she testified that she never took a qualude with alcohol before, making this a previously un-experienced drug cocktail to her)..

But you're right, the girl DID make a number of bad decisions . . . but children are capable of making tons of bad decisions, which is exactly why corruption of a minor is a crime (it's illegal for adults to entice minors to make bad decisions).

And you're right, the rape wasn't overtly violent in nature . . . it was more of a slime ball passive aggressive rape. She didn't scream a blood curdling "NO!" . . . but she still said no repeatedly and yet Polanski kept forcing himself on the child. A timid no is still a no.

I understand the distinction you are making between the stranger who grabs a child and throws her in the van at knifepoint versus Uncle Bob that takes little Nancy into the basement. You're right, there is a difference . . . but they are still both forms of rape.

One more comment. What does a good parent tell their children when one sibling is doing everything he/she can to tease the other. A good parent tells the one who teases to stop this is not appropriate and tells the other one (who has been teased) to walk away as the teasing sibling is just trying to get their attention. The same applies here... Parents, media, schools, churches etc. must teach girls it's wrong to provoke, it's wrong to undress, it's wrong to go to a boy’s/man's home and expect the boy/man must understand the message "NO" after all above actions say "YES". If we do not teach our girls these basic rules then how can we teach our boys to respect and TRUST girls/women?

She was 13, he was 43. HE KNEW what was going in, and what his intentions were, she did not. He is/was a predator that chose a 13 yeard old girls as his victim. I can not believe you are blaming the victim here.

"The same applies here... Parents, media, schools, churches etc. must teach girls it's wrong to provoke, it's wrong to undress, it's wrong to go to a boy’s/man's home and expect the boy/man must understand the message "NO" after all above actions say "YES". If we do not teach our girls these basic rules then how can we teach our boys to respect and TRUST girls/women?"

Basically you said how can we expect boys/men not to rape girls that are taking their clothes off and being a tease . . . and I'm sorry, but I find this whole "she said no, but her body said yes" train of thought to be absolutely disgusting . . . no means no, and that is ALL that guys need to learn.

And Hammy's right, the guy already plead guilty and he's long long overdue to serve his time. There's really nothing to debate . . . unless you 'really' want to try to further justify how the rape victim is responsible for getting raped. -_-

lucidstone, please read the post! If you are quoting someone do it accurately!
Where in my post did I say "she said no, but her body said yes"?
What I DID say was "it's wrong to undress, it's wrong to go to a boy’s/man's home and expect the boy/man must understand the message "NO" after all above ACTIONS say "YES".
Do you see the difference? Do you understand that accepting invitation to a home of opposite sex (men or woman, well in fact the same sex if gay) and walking around naked in their home with and drink and drugs SENDS the message YES to sex?

Let's pretend that she "sent the message YES to sex." When he was asked if he could have it she said NO, and he took it anyway. Also, she was 13...and in California a 13 year old is not legally able to consent, and I agree with the law...do you not?

hammywill,
I completely agree that Polanski’s actions where absolutely wrong (based on what we know about this case). I also believe there is plenty of blame to go around, the victim herself and her mother made a lot of bad decisions, bad assumptions, and sent wrong messages. As I was reading the victim's testimony I could not stop but wonder if her mother had given Polanski an approval for everything that happened. Is it possible? Absolutely! And for those who think otherwise I will say open your eyes mothers are capable to do real bad things to their children. Check the news if you need proof.
We could get angry, seek revenge and say things that solve nothing instead we should choose to look for solutions.
The question is not what is a suitable punishment in fact even the victim does not have a desire for revenge. The real question is how we should protect our children from bad decisions and bad situations.
Realistically there is no one size fits all solution. It is a multidimensional problem that will not be solved by "castration", or "death penalty" or "jail for life", or any other one-sided solutions that accomplish nothing other then promote more violence.

to: Motherfortruth

I didn't misquote, I quoted your statement in it's entirety. my response to your statement was:

"and I'm sorry, but I find this whole 'she said no, but her body said yes' train of thought to be absolutely disgusting"

The quote unquote of "she said no, but her body said yes" isn't used for quotation of your words but for hyperbole to show the comparison of your statement to a the cliche statement of "she said no, but her body said yes".

I'm sorry you got confused on the meaning of what I wrote, but the context is correct . . . and I stand by the comparison of your quoted statement with the quoted statement of modern cliche.

The 2 statements DO come down to the same basic idea that even though the girl said no, her actions said yes . . . and I find that train of thought to be deplorable.

slarabee, I strongly agree.
You raised several excellent points.
"case has only been kept alive by people seeking either personal or political gain" happens more often that many believe.
The justice system is corrupt and manipulated by those who are believed to be protecting it.

Way to go Slarabee, always on your toes.

Some laws are made as a result of emotional backlash and not based on true justice.

A law against drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is based on emotional backlash?

And yet a child of 13 can be tried as an adult in many states.

I am not saying that a 13 year old having consensual sex shouldn't be a crime, but it wasn't more than 70 years ago that people were getting married at 14 and up.

We had an emotional backlash to protect children and not make them adults until 18 and 21, then we went in the other direction when people saw children committing murders and decided that they should be tried as adults.

My point is that justice is not being served when we legislate with emotions.

All laws are based on emotion, at least partially. Since emotions are inseperable from the human condition, to not take them into account is to not be logical or Just at all.

This is just MY opinion of the whole legislation based on emotion thing. Personally, I do NOT think children should be tried as adults, and would vote no, and refuse to support any candidate who thought that such a thing were justifiable. It's also my belief that a 13 year old is not capable of making adult decisions.

Are you implying that it was consensual jubal?

France doesn't have to extradite their citizens to the US.

$$$$$$$$

What are you babbling about? bielski didn't even mention the Holocaust.

Thanks for pointing that out. You forgot to mention that fanatical Jew haters need to see a proctologist urgently to help them see something other than their own rectum.

I can't believe I am actually recommending something you posted. Oh well I guess there are first times for everything.

Cheers!

You assume he is guilty?

He PLEAD guilty. It is not an assumption.