Nosferatu Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Lock the fiddling bastard up . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 And what about the co-conspirators who sold their silence for $500,000 in 1993 and don't WANT this to proceed? My friend's daughter is 13 tomorrow, and I can't imagine anything more grotesque than what Polanski did to this kid - but my friend's daughter is an innocent child, and the girl in the Polanski trial (and her family) appear to be much more 'sophisticated'. I only know what I've seen here and on the BBC website, but I worry it's a case of prosecuting the user at all costs, rather than the dealers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Stu, this is criminal law. It is the state's opinion that a wrong has been done and is proceeding on that basis - the opinion of the family involved, the perpertrator, or even the victim aren't relevent - and how the 13 year old victim has rationalised the experience over the last 30 years in no way should be seen as reducing the crime. Polanski was caught - he pleaded guilty, then rather than serving his sentence and getting on with his life, he absconded. Now its caught up with him. The law says a 13 year old cannot consent to sexual acts, most especially she can't consent to buggery - no matter how "sophisticated" she was. She also most definitely shouldn't be given drugs to enduce her consent. As far as I am aware none of these things are contested by Polanski. He just ran away rather than face sentencing. Well I hope he can't run away any more. If he wants to plead "sophistication" in mitigation he can do - it MIGHT even reduce his sentence - especially if the victim comes before the court and agrees. But Polanski has to face a court and be sentenced. Pure and simple in my mind. His flouting of the law cannot stand, no matter what arty-farty types are coming to his defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 My friend's daughter is 13 tomorrow, and I can't imagine anything more grotesque than what Polanski did to this kid - but my friend's daughter is an innocent child, and the girl in the Polanski trial (and her family) appear to be much more 'sophisticated'. Sophisticated kids are asking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 This has become more of a mass-media trial than anything else. It's depressing to see so many people getting swept up by sensationalism - yet. again. I urge you to read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I think all people convicted 100% with out doubt that they are dirty fucking peado's should have there hands, eyes and genitals removed. World wide law, so no one is exempt. That way when you see someone walking down the road with no hands and no eyes you can be 99% sure there a peado. Yes but don't eyeless, handless people already have it bad enough, without having to show their genitals to breying mobs in order to prove they aren't paedophiles? In fact, if they have hooks for hands, I see the whole scenario as reciepe for accidental castration. And then they'd have no way to prove they aren't paedos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 How about they just have PAEDOPHILE stamped/tattooed across their heads!!! There would be no mistaking them then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 How about they just have PAEDOPHILE stamped/tattooed across their heads!!! There would be no mistaking them then. They would just prey on dyslexic children then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 He's actually NOT a paedophile. The girl was not pre-pubescent. As Stu says, I suspect the parents have a lot to answer for here, and I very much doubt that she looked 13. By her own account, Polanski asked if she was on the pill, which is not something rapists commonly ask. And especially not if they think the girl is not capable of becoming pregnant. At that time, nobody was concerned that Samantha Fox was baring her breasts in the Sun at the age of fifteen. Some of the girls were probably even younger. The age of consent in many European countries is 14, and in Spain it is 13. Had Polanski and his model been in Spain at the time, he would not have been committing an offence by having sex with her. Like buying a house, it is vital in these matters to consider location. He admitted having sex with her, but not drugging her. Nobody knows what really happened except the two people who were there, and you can bet she came under a lot of pressure to talk up the degree of coercion that was involved. Would any of you allow your thirteen-year-old daughter to go off alone with a Hollywood director? Thought not. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 By her own account, Polanski asked if she was on the pill, which is not something rapists commonly ask. And especially not if they think the girl is not capable of becoming pregnant. Last time I checked, you couldn't get pregnant from being sodomised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 And the reason you checked is....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 By her own account, Polanski asked if she was on the pill, which is not something rapists commonly ask. And especially not if they think the girl is not capable of becoming pregnant. Last time I checked, you couldn't get pregnant from being sodomised. Which is why he withdrew from her vagina and took the other way. It's all in her evidence. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 How responsible of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Which is why he withdrew from her vagina and took the other way. Ahh, that's ok then. Sorry, but this is pretty indefensible no matter which orifice he managed to stick his penis into. She was 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Which is why he withdrew from her vagina and took the other way. Ahh, that's ok then. Sorry, but this is pretty indefensible no matter which orifice he managed to stick his penis into. She was 13. I am not saying it's defensible, but the girl admitted she was sexually experienced, that she had previously taken alcohol and got drunk, and that she had also previously tried the drug Quaalude, so she is rather less innocent and child-like than some are painting her to be. Some girls mature much more quickly than others, and especially in Hollywood But my main point was that it isn't paedophilia to have sex with a sexually mature person. Furthermore, I would bet that a very large proportion of successful pop-singers have had sex with legally under-age girls. It's not exactly uncommon. And the same goes for many Hollywood actors, and many television "personalities". Our jails would overflow if they locked up everybody. All we have to go on is one person's testimony to a grand jury, not to a court. She was never cross-examined, and Polanski has only admitted to having had sex with the girl. Nothing more, but that doesn't seem to prevent the judge and jury on Manx Forums from finding him guilty of every allegation, and of passing absurd sentences. The girl herself, who is the victim, thinks the case should be dropped. Her complaint in the first place was prompted by her mother, feeling guilty no doubt for her role. Let's have less knee-jerking, and a bit more common-sense. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.