Should Polanski Pay?

[MilitantDogOwner]

You'll always get the string him up brigade, it isn't helpful to a debate, but it's the internet. But what I didn't expect was people coming on here and arguing that there are important extenuating nuances in this case. I really can't see them. And when pushed it looks like every one agrees that what he did was repugnant and they are glad what he did was illegal.

 

I hope you are not referring to me as I have not argued any nuances to THIS case. I was talking in the hypothetical, which you all seem to have missed.

 

In THIS case he has benfound guilty of a crime. Whats to argue about that?

 

Edit: To reduce quote size

[Sebrof]

You'll always get the string him up brigade, it isn't helpful to a debate, but it's the internet. But what I didn't expect was people coming on here and arguing that there are important extenuating nuances in this case. I really can't see them. And when pushed it looks like every one agrees that what he did was repugnant and they are glad what he did was illegal.

 

I hope you are not referring to me as I have not argued any nuances to THIS case. I was talking in the hypothetical, which you all seem to have missed.

 

In THIS case he has benfound guilty of a crime. Whats to argue about that?

 

Edit: To reduce quote size

 

 

Don't worry, MDO. Chinahand has seen both you and I say that we don't condone what Polanski did, but he just can't let go. It's an old and rather minor case, of interest only because Polanski is famous, but to hear some people go on, Polanski is worse than the Yorkshire Ripper.

 

Chew on this, China. Polanski drove the girl home, and she says he has been punished enough. Bit different from the Ripper case, eh, or can you really not see it? Clue: the ripper's victims are DEAD, and died horribly.

 

I suggest you stop reading the tabloids and find something more important to worry your head over. As it is, you have found yourself in the same corner as Hboy, and there can be few nastier places to be than that.

 

Now, stop making unpleasant and untrue insinuations about MDO and me, and get back to Google. You've really lost the plot over this insignificant little case.

 

S

[macmannin]

What relevance has the Ripper case to this one?Another bizarre justification.

[thesultanofsheight]

Chew on this, China. Polanski drove the girl home, and she says he has been punished enough. Bit different from the Ripper case, eh, or can you really not see it? Clue: the ripper's victims are DEAD, and died horribly.

 

Oh so now its ok as he drove her home after drugging and sodomising her. That makes it ok in your book.

 

You and MDO (assuming that you are different posters which I doubt) really take the biscuit. You'll be saying that its ok because he said sorry to her Mum next.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Chew on this, China. Polanski drove the girl home, and she says he has been punished enough. Bit different from the Ripper case, eh, or can you really not see it? Clue: the ripper's victims are DEAD, and died horribly.

 

Oh so now its ok as he drove her home after drugging and sodomising her. That makes it ok in your book.

 

You and MDO (assuming that you are different posters which I doubt) really take the biscuit. You'll be saying that its ok because he said sorry to her Mum next.

 

Oh please.

 

Just to be clear I have not made any reference to any other case. Especially not comparing a multiple murder to a child rapist.

 

And for the denser members I have in no way, shape or fashion said that anything RP has done is ok. I'm still waiting for Hboy to show me the quote that he says I said it was ok.

 

He can't and you won't, because I didn't.

[Sebrof]

What relevance has the Ripper case to this one?Another bizarre justification.

 

The lack of intelligence exhibited by almost every contributor to this "debate" beggars belief. Nobody said the Ripper case justified Polanski. I was just putting it in context. You and others seem to believe it was the crime of the 20th Century. Well it wasn't, and it just isn't worth all your self-righteous pomposity and self-indulgent indignation.

 

S

[hboy]

The lack of intelligence exhibited by almost every contributor to this "debate" beggars belief.

 

You arrogant ignorant bastard.

 

Nobody agrees with you so they are wrong and the standard of debate is poor?

 

Maybe you're just talking through your arse and are not the towering intellect you think you are.

 

Grow up you big kid.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that a 13 year old person who is sexually active and aware is someone old enough to consent to have sex. In such a way, if a 13 year old wants to have sex with an older man then fair do's. However, the issue for me is the basis for the older man's attractions - does he fancy girls even younger, i.e. is he a paedophile?

However, in this case it is rape. He raped her. He gave her drugs, made her more susceptible to suggestion and submissive then fucked her when she didn't want sex. That is the big problem and that is what I'd have thought would have been the issue. Not simply having sex with a minor.

[mollag]

If the girl in question had been say 10 years old and consensual, would that be fair do's?

[Chinahand]

Don't worry, MDO. Chinahand has seen both you and I say that we don't condone what Polanski did, but he just can't let go. It's an old and rather minor case, of interest only because Polanski is famous, but to hear some people go on, Polanski is worse than the Yorkshire Ripper.

 

Chew on this, China. Polanski drove the girl home, and she says he has been punished enough. Bit different from the Ripper case, eh, or can you really not see it? Clue: the ripper's victims are DEAD, and died horribly.

 

S

I was going to ignore this, but what the heck. Sebrof, I think it is not unreasonable for Polanski to be heading for a prison term for what he has done.

 

You, as ever, are going to dispute the facts of the case, either say she has made most of it up, or was gagging for it, wanted it up her arse, and understood what the booze and drugs were all about and happily took them etc. I disagree and believe the facts are pretty clear - I think it is not disputed that she was plied with booze and drugs and sodomized.

 

If a 44 year old man has consensual sex with a 13 year old (not buggery), I'd hope for something like a 3 year sentence, serves between 1 and 2 depending upon behaviour, is put on the sex offenders register etc.

 

The more it is transformed into the affidavit the girl swore the more I think he should be heading towards 10 to 20 years.

 

Polanski is also responsible for drawing out this case for 30 odd years and the emotional effect that has had on his victim - that is down to his actions, not the state of California's. If he had taken his punishment when he pleaded guilty then that would have been that, and none of us would need to be debating it and helping sell tabloids. So, given his unwillingness to face the consequences I see no reason why he shouldn't also be punished for absconding.

 

In many ways I really don't want to hear you playing Devil's advocate to what I've written - I've said it multiple times, I think this is a sad, dispicable case; and I am amazed at how many people have tried to down play it. I think it is a serious offence and to have you and MDO dancing on pins about pubesence and the age of consent is hugely distasteful.

 

This was a 44 year old abusing a 13 year old in a most henious way. You claim to agree with that, but can't resist insisting you have a superior understanding of the matter than those who think differently. Good for you, I'm sure your proud of your contribution to this thread.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If the girl in question had been say 10 years old and consensual, would that be fair do's?

Well considering the criminal age is ten years old I wonder why the age of consent is this young. But a ten year would have only just become sexualised or may not have ever reached puberty. I did refer to 13 year olds who were sexually active.

[mollag]

Surely all this is assumption, maturity doesnt come on a set age coincidental with a birthday and age of consent cannot be subjective, you have an age you are content with, mine differs, so necissarily the law must draw a line--agree or disagree it is the law.

Also into this we must factor in mental maturity apart from physical maturity

It would be a brave person who tried to have the age of consent lowered to 13, does anyone posting really advocate this?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I do. Absolutely. 13 to 16 year olds are having consensual sex a lot these days. I don't want them to be classed as criminals for making use of their bodies for pleasure. They may not make sensible decisions, but they can make better decisions if they are given a thorough understanding of themselves in respect of their sexuality, understanding of sex, and precautions. Classing them as criminals is wrong and doesn't serve to protect them, but potentially can serve to punish.

 

But it does take a brave government to introduce something like that in a society where there is so much repression and stigma surrounding sex.

[mollag]

I heartily disagree, it isnt just about two fifteen year olds having sex its about sexual predators taking advantage of immature children, girls and boys, we call them paedophiles, im shocked that anyone would seek to remove this protection from children.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It clearly isn't a protection. Just because people are punished doesn't mean it protects the kids. It is shocking how little society actually does to protect children, especially when people get so angry about child abuse. We teach children very little about sex and act all gormless and incensed when a child is abused.

 

As I have said, consensual behaviour between roughly similarly aged people occurs all the time. However, such behaviour is considered criminal.

 

If you really won't have any of this argument then I assume you believe that the criminal age should be increased to 16 then?