Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick... (page 2)

AdaMakawee

Polanski deserves everything he gets and no amount of "talent" will ever change him from what he is, a pedophile.

To answer the question:

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

A friend of mine from Washington state's son was arrested on his 18th birthday for consensual sex with his girlfriend, 17. Statutory rape, didn't matter to them that he was not 18 at the time of the sexual contact. He is forever labeled a level 1 sex offender in the state because his girlfriend's mom didn't like him and called authorities. Girlfriend testified in his behalf, it didn't matter.

Now, thats rare, and I don't want to hi-jack avishai's thread but I wanted to answer you.

Ada

coffee_black

In answer to the "why now" question... They knew where he was going to be...so it made it easier to nab him.

I don't care if his crime was long ago. Time does not absolve him of what he did to a 13 year old girl. Making excuses for him or rationalizing his crime is disgusting. Period.

Coffee

Georgiegirl

Totally agree with the fact that his crime is utterly disgusting.

Also totally agree with the questioning of why he is arrested NOW. In thirty years, there has never been another opportunity? Doubtful.

Not discounting the fact that what he did was wrong, and in view of the victim's own stated wishes, I would like to know if he has done it again. In other words, is he a pedophile in the true sense of the word or was he a guy who was enamored with his own power and on drugs who had sex with a minor one time?

Oh and the question is by no means a commentary - just curious. Has he continued to molest children or was that a one-time crime? Most pedophiles don't stop.

Narkissos

BTS,

I didn't say what he did was OK (and I doubt he would say that either). But imo his victim's opinion on what should be done about it now should matter more than yours, mine or anybody else's. Time to get consistent with your "libertarian" poses?

Thank you sir and Ada. Going by Ada's testimony it sounds even more ludicrous than I imagined. No sex at all under 18? As to the age differences (sir)it makes sense to an extent... only. 17-25 (which used to be pretty common 30 years ago) will get you to the crime pages, 18-60 will get you to the celebrity pages... lol.

Big Tex

This is the second time I've read the Huffington Post and the second time I've been amazed at how stupid the writer's position is.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a dumb American guilty of backseat justice but he was tried and convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. I don't know how being a brilliant film director absolves him of a hideous crime.

VIII

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.

Should Priests and JW Elders and anyone else who rapes a child get off because it happened 30 years ago?

Or, just because the person is famous and lived freely in Europe?

The media is implying that he actually paid a price because he has not been able to come to the US freely to make movies. Boo hoo.

Would any of you who are seeming to turn a blind eye to his crime be saying this if he were a former JW or a Catholic Priest?

Of course not.

The hyprocrisy is stunning.

dinah

What kind of mother allows her 13-year old daughter be drugged and raped by a 40 year old man who just happens to be an award winning director?

BurnTheShips

But imo his victim's opinion on what should be done about it now should matter more than yours, mine or anybody else's. Time to get consistent with your "libertarian" poses?

And what is the victim's opinion?

BTS

Caedes

The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8279998.stm

VIII

The Victim reached an out of court settlement with the Convict, so her opinion is clouded by money.

And, her opinion in a criminal procedure is meaningless. Totally meaningless. It is a criminal procedure. The fact that he reached a settlement says a lot.

He is still a convict and a rapist.

But he is also an award winning Director, so that means a lot doesn't it?

Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick...

Share this