Should Polanski Pay?

[mollag]

It obviously wouldnt be an argument if i agreed with you, and i wont be distracted by a criminal age topic, that is for another thread, we have to offer some protection for kids from predatory adults, you advocate its removal, a paedophiles delight, i disagree.

Removing this protection for children is so wrong, It would give the likes of Paul Gad a free reign with immpresionable children and reduce us to the level of third world countries that offer child sex tourism.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am a little unsure about its removal completely.

 

However, I definitely believe it should be lowered to 13. It makes far more sense than having it set at 16. And the issue of the criminal age is very pertinent. What exists at present is some weird standard of assessing how responsible people are for their actions - apparently a ten year old is responsible enough to be able to face the justice system for crimes, yet a 15 year is not responsible enough to have control over their own body.

[Sebrof]

Chinahand,

 

I had always thought of you as worthy but dull. You come across some item in the news, go off and do some Googling, then come here and pose as an expert on the subject. It's rather pretentious, but at least you normally try to be rational and reasonable. I suspect you like to think that you are educating people. Well, there are worse forms of self-deception, and on the whole you are fairly innocuous.

 

With this thread you have thrown away any pretence of rationality or reasonableness. You have made a load of assumptions about Polanski's guilt, having heard only one side of the case, and then made up all sorts of falsehoods about anybody who differs even slightly from your take on the affair.

 

Nowhere in what I have written will you find any support for your statement that: "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."

 

So, please, old chap, I know you feel strongly about this thirty year-old case but that is no excuse for lying. And if you think that "lie" is a strong word, may I trouble you to read what I actually wrote, and then compare it to your statement above:

 

"From reading the girl's evidence, I am prepared to believe that the essential facts might have been much as she described, but her stated reluctance might have been exaggerated. In other words, she might have consented."

 

Notice the "Mights"? The case has not been tried, and until it is, it is wrong of you to claim these things as facts, and it is a lie to say that these "facts" are undisputed. If Polanski didn't dispute them, the charges would not have been dropped.

 

And I am aware that "consent" is not a defence in a statutory rape case, so save your breath on that one.

 

Now run along. You're probably late for your witch-finders meeting. Or are you on lynch-mob duty tonight?

 

S

[Gladys]

Chinahand,

 

I had always thought of you as worthy but dull. You come across some item in the news, go off and do some Googling, then come here and pose as an expert on the subject. It's rather pretentious,

Almost needed a new keyboard with that one! What's the saying? 'Physician, heal thyself'.

 

You spend more time and energy arguing about what you did or did not post then the actual subject in hand.

 

Should Polanski pay? You're dang, tooting right he should.

 

To LDV: Should the age of consent be lowered? Only if you believe that a (say) 13 year old should/ought to live with the consequences of having sex, ie parenting a child. Whether it is legal or not will not make one iota of difference to your average paedophile.

[mollag]

But if we can bang the bastards up then there will be respite no matter how small, gotta be better than giving predators free reign.

This isnt about Romeo and Juliet its about nasty bastards preying on naive children.

[Chinahand]

Notice the "Mights"? The case has not been tried, and until it is, it is wrong of you to claim these things as facts, and it is a lie to say that these "facts" are undisputed. If Polanski didn't dispute them, the charges would not have been dropped.

 

And I am aware that "consent" is not a defence in a statutory rape case, so save your breath on that one.

 

Now run along. You're probably late for your witch-finders meeting. Or are you on lynch-mob duty tonight?

 

S

Sebrof, this is the internet, I acknowledge your "mights" but find it more than a bit ironic that you feel fine tarrying me a "witch-finder" or leading a "lynch-mob".

 

I've always started my posts conceeding your point and so starting at the minimum - a 44 year old man having consensual straight sex with a 13 year old.

 

I've said I think it is immoral, illegal and worthy of imprisonment for around about a year given good behaviour. Do you still want to go on about witch-finders, or to continue playing the Devil's advocate and trying to make analogies to more serious cases, or do you want to to make Gladys' day and actually talk about the case in hand?

 

I do not think it is realistic that Polanski will try and pretend he never had sex with this girl - he's discussed in interviews some of the details of what happened that night. He's admited the booze, the sex; expressed his regret.

 

He's pleaded guilty to slightly less than he's been willing to discuss with press. Just sex with a minor. That was part of a plea bargain, arranged by the girl's lawyer in order to protect the victim from a lurid trial and the publicity involved. It wasn't dropped by the prosecution on the grounds of lack of evidence - the evidence is there in the affidavit of the victim - the prosecution were willing to proceed, but agreed to this on the victims sake. Read the transcript of Polanski pleading guilty.

 

Now rather than taking his punishment - and it is totally clear in the transcript that Polanski is fully aware that the judge has full discretion in setting the sentence and that could include prison and deportation, and he accepts that reality when he pleaded guilty. But he then absconded and the result is that the victim has had to put up with 30 years worth of speculation etc. Polanski is responsible for that - he was offered the deal to protect the victim, and ran away from this deal; his actions have kept this a live story for 30 years.

 

This thread is meant to about whether Polanski should pay.

 

I've said yes he should. I've not demanded he be castrated, and dragged through Peel to be burnt through the howlings of a birch bearing mob - but I do think he is facing somewhere between one and five years. And believe he is getting off lightly.

 

Sebrof, if that makes me a member of a lynch mob then you are clearly defining a lynch mob in a very unusual way.

 

Polanksi does have a history of such things - a love affair with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 - are you going to dispute that too?

 

Sebrof, I acknowledge your "mights"- how about you have a go at an "if".

 

If Polanski was jailed for less than 2 years, given what you understand about this case, what the victim has stated in her affidavit, what Polanski has admitted in press interviews and pleaded guilty to in court, would you also think he was very very luck indeed.

 

I've said it repeatedly - Polanski has already admitted to enough to make me think he has behaved repugnantly, that he deserves a punishment, and I personally think if its less than 5 years he's been very very luck indeed.

 

As Gladys says - you've hardly commented on this. What do you think Polanski should pay?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

To LDV: Should the age of consent be lowered? Only if you believe that a (say) 13 year old should/ought to live with the consequences of having sex, ie parenting a child. Whether it is legal or not will not make one iota of difference to your average paedophile.

What does the age of consent have to do with assessing the responsibility of people getting pregnant? It doesn't work in practice to stop people from having sex in the first place, it can only exist to potentially punish those who do.

[Sebrof]

Notice the "Mights"? The case has not been tried, and until it is, it is wrong of you to claim these things as facts, and it is a lie to say that these "facts" are undisputed. If Polanski didn't dispute them, the charges would not have been dropped.

 

And I am aware that "consent" is not a defence in a statutory rape case, so save your breath on that one.

 

Now run along. You're probably late for your witch-finders meeting. Or are you on lynch-mob duty tonight?

 

S

Sebrof, this is the internet, I acknowledge your "mights" but find it more than a bit ironic that you feel fine tarrying me a "witch-finder" or leading a "lynch-mob".

 

I've always started my posts conceeding your point and so starting at the minimum - a 44 year old man having consensual straight sex with a 13 year old.

 

I've said I think it is immoral, illegal and worthy of imprisonment for around about a year given good behaviour. Do you still want to go on about witch-finders, or to continue playing the Devil's advocate and trying to make analogies to more serious cases, or do you want to to make Gladys' day and actually talk about the case in hand?

 

I do not think it is realistic that Polanski will try and pretend he never had sex with this girl - he's discussed in interviews some of the details of what happened that night. He's admited the booze, the sex; expressed his regret.

 

He's pleaded guilty to slightly less than he's been willing to discuss with press. Just sex with a minor. That was part of a plea bargain, arranged by the girl's lawyer in order to protect the victim from a lurid trial and the publicity involved. It wasn't dropped by the prosecution on the grounds of lack of evidence - the evidence is there in the affidavit of the victim - the prosecution were willing to proceed, but agreed to this on the victims sake. Read the transcript of Polanski pleading guilty.

 

Now rather than taking his punishment - and it is totally clear in the transcript that Polanski is fully aware that the judge has full discretion in setting the sentence and that could include prison and deportation, and he accepts that reality when he pleaded guilty. But he then absconded and the result is that the victim has had to put up with 30 years worth of speculation etc. Polanski is responsible for that - he was offered the deal to protect the victim, and ran away from this deal; his actions have kept this a live story for 30 years.

 

This thread is meant to about whether Polanski should pay.

 

I've said yes he should. I've not demanded he be castrated, and dragged through Peel to be burnt through the howlings of a birch bearing mob - but I do think he is facing somewhere between one and five years. And believe he is getting off lightly.

 

Sebrof, if that makes me a member of a lynch mob then you are clearly defining a lynch mob in a very unusual way.

 

Polanksi does have a history of such things - a love affair with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 - are you going to dispute that too?

 

Sebrof, I acknowledge your "mights"- how about you have a go at an "if".

 

If Polanski was jailed for less than 2 years, given what you understand about this case, what the victim has stated in her affidavit, what Polanski has admitted in press interviews and pleaded guilty to in court, would you also think he was very very luck indeed.

 

I've said it repeatedly - Polanski has already admitted to enough to make me think he has behaved repugnantly, that he deserves a punishment, and I personally think if its less than 5 years he's been very very luck indeed.

 

As Gladys says - you've hardly commented on this. What do you think Polanski should pay?

 

 

Why are you so interested in making Polanski pay? You sound like the sort of person who used to attend public executions.

 

I don't know the facts of this case, any more than you do, and unlike you I am not going to speculate, or pretend that I do know the facts, or come up with some silly "tariff" based on something totally hypothetical. The difference between us is that you see everything in black and white, whereas I suspect there is a lot of grey in this case.

 

A custodial sentence has three possible justifications, and retribution is not one of them. The justifications are: deterrence, public safety (by keeping a dangerous person from society), and rehabilitation. Of course, we seldom see much attempt at the last, especially in America and Britain.

 

Taking the first, do you really suppose that taking Polanski back to America and giving him one year, or two, or five, or life, will make ANY difference to the safety of young women in the US? If you do, you are naive, in my view.

 

Taking the second, how can a man in Europe be a danger to females in America?

 

Pity you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you had misrepresented my views.

 

S

[MilitantDogOwner]

I remember watching a Louis Theroux program where he visited a prison which soley houses paedophiles.

 

Scary stuff.

 

Edit to add: The eighth episode in the series is entitled A Place for Paedophiles and was aired on April 19 2009 on BBC2. In this episode, Louis visited the Coalinga State Hospital in California where they try to rehabilitate sex offenders.

[thesultanofsheight]

I don't know the facts of this case, any more than you do, and unlike you I am not going to speculate, or pretend that I do know the facts

 

Great words then you go on to speculate entirely .....

 

A custodial sentence has three possible justifications, and retribution is not one of them. The justifications are: deterrence, public safety (by keeping a dangerous person from society), and rehabilitation. Of course, we seldom see much attempt at the last, especially in America and Britain.

 

Yes you do .....

 

Taking the first, do you really suppose that taking Polanski back to America and giving him one year, or two, or five, or life, will make ANY difference to the safety of young women in the US? If you do, you are naive, in my view.

 

That is pure speculation ...

 

Taking the second, how can a man in Europe be a danger to females in America?

 

Speculation again ...

 

Pity you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you had misrepresented my views.

 

Sadly that's not speculation just bullshit.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

A custodial sentence has three possible justifications, and retribution is not one of them. The justifications are: deterrence, public safety (by keeping a dangerous person from society), and rehabilitation. Of course, we seldom see much attempt at the last, especially in America and Britain.

 

Yes you do .....

I don't think we do.

[Sebrof]

I don't know the facts of this case, any more than you do, and unlike you I am not going to speculate, or pretend that I do know the facts

 

Great words then you go on to speculate entirely .....

 

A custodial sentence has three possible justifications, and retribution is not one of them. The justifications are: deterrence, public safety (by keeping a dangerous person from society), and rehabilitation. Of course, we seldom see much attempt at the last, especially in America and Britain.

 

Yes you do .....

 

Taking the first, do you really suppose that taking Polanski back to America and giving him one year, or two, or five, or life, will make ANY difference to the safety of young women in the US? If you do, you are naive, in my view.

 

That is pure speculation ...

 

Taking the second, how can a man in Europe be a danger to females in America?

 

Speculation again ...

 

Pity you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you had misrepresented my views.

 

Sadly that's not speculation just bullshit.

 

What is the cause of all the unpleasantness and anger on this forum? Don't tell me it's my putative smugness or whatever, because I am far from being the only target of it.

 

It would be nice to see a thoughtful and polite reply to this question.

 

S

[thesultanofsheight]

What is the cause of all the unpleasantness and anger on this forum? Don't tell me it's my putative smugness or whatever, because I am far from being the only target of it.

 

It would be nice to see a thoughtful and polite reply to this question.

 

S

 

You don't take criticism well do you smug boy.

 

My reply was perfectly accurate and reasoned.

 

You criticised someone for speculating and then went on to speculate yourself.

 

I also drew your attention to the fact that what you posted was bullshit. Again pretty fair really. It was, however, better than the usual bullshit you post.

[Sebrof]

What is the cause of all the unpleasantness and anger on this forum? Don't tell me it's my putative smugness or whatever, because I am far from being the only target of it.

 

It would be nice to see a thoughtful and polite reply to this question.

 

S

 

You don't take criticism well do you smug boy.

 

My reply was perfectly accurate and reasoned.

 

You criticised someone for speculating and then went on to speculate yourself.

 

I also drew your attention to the fact that what you posted was bullshit. Again pretty fair really. It was, however, better than the usual bullshit you post.

 

Your reply was as accurate and reasoned (and impolite) as most of your posts, and furthermore it didn't even attempt to answer my question. Which means that I am still waiting for a thoughtful and reasoned reply, but I hold out little hope of getting one from you.

 

S

[Terse]

Switzerland says 'No'