Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick...

And even CNN

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSLIYgP7JJRLSRyFVA5vJ_hzhlSgD9B0F3503

The man drugged, raped and sodomized a child. And was convicted. No wiggle room.

So, people want to give him sympathy because he was a holocaust surviovor? IMO this pisses on their memories. By the same token, they should have pardoned Eichmann, Mengele, etc. It's this same kind of moral equivocation that allows the JW's to continually cover up molestation.

Leolaia

I only read the first link .... what's with some people?

Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable.

Funny, I thought it was disgraceful and unjustifiable for Polanski to flee to Europe in the first place, not to mention his original deed that landed him in this predicament.

the Swiss acted on an old extradition treaty with the U.S. and seized him!

Horrors!! Darn those dastardly Swiss!

The judge in the 1977 statutory rape case is dead.

How convenient. Evading the law for 30 years wouldn't have anything to do with it?

Polanski had agreed at the time to a plea bargain, but then the judge reneged on it. Polanski has tried to appeal.

Poor long-suffering Polanski....He tried everything he could, so naturally the only thing left for him to do was skip town.

But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies.

Polanski...the victim. He was so helpless when the girl was thrust on him, he couldn't help it.

The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!)

As if it couldn't get any dumber. What the *bleep* does getting drugged and forcibly raped have anything to do with consent? And being a few weeks from age of consent makes statutory rape okay? And contrary to what is claimed here, California's age of consent at the time was 18 as it is today.

Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.

Again we encounter Polanski the victim. And hopefully everyone else fearing a heavy sentence can manage to flee from justice too!

I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman's sobriety and intelligence.

Looks like the author was utterly charmed too.

avishai

One thing many people don't realize is that Judges can't "renege" on a plea deal. They are set up between the defense and the DA, not the judge. Most of the time, the judge accepts them, but he is not legally bound. He can reject the deal and give the max if he wants, and it happens often, and in this case, the defendant then has the option of withdrawing his plea and going to trial or facing the music. It happens every day.

Narkissos

Cultural gap: "moral" America's national sport of backseat justice (which as "public opinion" has very real consequences in law and court decisions) tends to make me sicker.

California's age of consent at the time was 18 as it is today.

I'm not sure what that means: does that make sex between a 17- and a 18-year old a crime?

sammielee24

He's guilty of a crime no argument - but why now? He's moved freely around Europe living in both France and Switzerland for 30 years, so why now? When stuff like this happens I always wonder who stands to benefit by the action after this length of time because the man has not been hard to find and could have been arrested many times over from what reports are indicating. The victim has herself gone on the record as saying she does not want him imprisoned as she has moved on so although I understand her decision doesn't absolve him of his crime, I still ask why now? sammieswife.

Wasanelder Once

America's tv shows are a training ground that glorifies just this sort of crime. People in the U.S. are not outraged at this sort of action it seems, they revel in it. No wonder they don't have any interest in justice in this case, many have done the moral equivalent of condoning it in thier own living room while sipping a coke. W.Once

Satanus

Yah well, joan z shore is jewish,new york jewish, and appears to be biased. http://babyboomersandseniors.com/mar02/patrickandsam.html At least you don't, in this case avi.

It will be interesting to see if the jewish media gets behind polanski. Even more interesting to see what happens, if they do.

S

Satanus

Maybe, the media already has got behind him.

'He's guilty of a crime no argument - but why now? He's moved freely around Europe living in both France and Switzerland for 30 years, so why now? When stuff like this happens I always wonder who stands to benefit by the action after this length of time because the man has not been hard to find and could have been arrested many times over from what reports are indicating.'

Kinda makes me wonder if the whole thing isn't being staged; the arrest just before the award to make him look jictimish and generate sympathy w the media's help. The goal being to rehabillitate his name before his death, so that his name can be placed up there w the other great (jewish) movie makers.

S

BurnTheShips

Cultural gap: "moral" America's national sport of backseat justice (which as "public opinion" has very real consequences in law and court decisions) tends to make me sicker.

You gotta be kidding me. What this man did to that young girl is monstrous and sickening. He drugged her and sodomized her. I guess I will never understand the French and their moral relativism.

BTS

sir82

does that make sex between a 17- and a 18-year old a crime?

I don't know about California law, but many states have a law wherein if the age difference of the participants is small enough (typically 2-4 years), it doesn't "count" as statutory rape.

E.g., sex between a 25 year old and a 17 year old is illegal, but if the ages are 18 & 17 or 19 & 17, that's not against the law.

Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick...

Share this