Should Polanski Pay?

[Declan]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

[MilitantDogOwner]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

 

Well if you care to read my posts I've already said several times what my point was.

 

Hboy said the Roman Polanski is a paedo in anyones book. And I pointed out that in other countries he wouldn't be.

 

Somehow some "contributors" read that as me declaring open season on 13 year olds.

[Sebrof]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

 

The point is that there is no magic cut-off point where a person is a child one day and an adult the next. It varies from person to person. And to complicate the issue, sexual maturity and emotional maturity are not always achieved at the same time. It is arguable too that males achieve emotional maturity later than females.

 

This makes it difficult to arrive at a legal age of consent which protects the vulnerable without criminalising a perfectly normal activity. The result is that the age of consent varies from country to country because different legislations have weighed all these factors in the balance and come to different conclusions. Spanish-speaking countries seem often to go for a lower age of consent than English-speaking ones, which could be described as a victory for pragmatism over idealism.

 

So the crime for which Polanski is being extradited, which is having sex with a person below the age of consent, is based on something very arbitrary, and in some countries Polanski would not have been guilty of an offence. Indeed, in some US states he would not have been guilty of an offence.

 

To answer Ans' point, I have seen nothing so far to suggest that the girl was sexually immature, though facts are hard to come by in this case. As I pointed out before, she herself said Polanski asked if she was on the pill, which suggests she APPEARED to be sexually mature.

 

I personally think that it is tendentious to keep referring to this girl as a child, and ridiculous and dishonest to refer to Polanski as a paedophile. She was a teenager who, as far as we can tell, gave the appearance of being sexually mature, and may perhaps have appeared to be considerably older than she actually was.

 

As for the other offences which Polanski is alleged to have committed, the prosecution dropped those charges, which suggests to me that there was at least some doubt over them. 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. After all, it was her mother who insisted on reporting the matter to the police.

 

We shall never know.

 

S

[hboy]

I personally think that it is tendentious to keep referring to this girl as a child, and ridiculous and dishonest to refer to Polanski as a paedophile. She was a teenager who, as far as we can tell, gave the appearance of being sexually mature, and may perhaps have appeared to be considerably older than she actually was.

 

So you are ok with a grown man shagging a 13 year old then. Great, thanks for clearing that up.

[hboy]

From reading the girl's evidence, I am prepared to believe that the essential facts might have been much as she described

 

Who are you Judge Judy?

 

Thanks for your legal opinion you clearly must be legally qualified and used to making such sweeping decisions based on things that you read in the paper that are 30 years out of date.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Come off it Sebrof - the Suez Crisis was over fifty years ago!

 

Times have changed. They have free votes in the HOC and everything these days.

Hahaha, funny. Though I think Sebrof was alluding to the motives that led to the Iraq War or the changing motives in Afghanistan which do not accord with what the media and government pump out in propaganda.

 

Hboy said the Roman Polanski is a paedo in anyones book. And I pointed out that in other countries he wouldn't be.

Somehow some "contributors" read that as me declaring open season on 13 year olds.

I think you would have done better to say that in LEGAL terms some countries may not have prosecuted him for having sex with a minor, because she wouldn't have been classed as one and just left it at that rather than mentioning whether it is paedophilia or not. Paedophilia is not a legal term.

 

But the age of consent is not a guide to whether someone IS a child or not. How do you define that? In terms of people's use of their BODIES for sex the age is 16, which is nuts. However, the criminal age, i.e. how they use their minds, is lower.

 

Those who think you are declaring 'open season' are just THICK.

[Miss Roo]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

Are you batting for my team now bitch?

[Chinahand]

Sebrof, I find what you are saying extremely distasteful.

 

In the culture we live in and in the culture of the US 13-year-olds are minors. They cannot consent to sex, and ignoring other teenage fumblings, it is no defence to claim that consent was given - most especially when the person is a 44 year old man. Puberty, menstruation etc are all irrelevent.

 

Sebrof seems to totally play down and ignore the testimony of the girl herself. She said she said no to sex, no to being sodomized, but he continued anyway. The alcohol and drugs make the actions of Polinsky even worse: plying these to a minor is also an offense, using them to take advantage even more so.

 

I find the fuss about this whole thing massively over-done; it is yet another example of our celebrity obsessed culture. The man committed an offense, pleaded guilty to it, and then absconded before sentencing. He has now been captured and will be returned to face a court.

 

Are people really disagreeing with this process? Should the law have a special statute of limitations for the famous?

 

I've not really read into this, but I would expect Polanski to be facing 10 or so years in prison, with a high chance of early parole as a result of his age - but as far as I'm aware this isn't the only instance of this type of behaviour from him. If he gets only a few years it will be a travesty of justice.

 

The facts of this case are reasonably indisputed - drink, drugs, sex and sodomy with a 13 year old. Whether she said no, or was gagging for it is irrelevent. What Polanski did is totally unacceptable in the culture he was living in, what might of happened if the case was in Spain or whereever is irrelevent. It didn't it happened in California, and the California justice system wants to see justice done. I agree.

[Declan]

Are you batting for my team now bitch?

 

I didn't realise there were sides!

[thesultanofsheight]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

 

The point is that there is no magic cut-off point where a person is a child one day and an adult the next. It varies from person to person. And to complicate the issue, sexual maturity and emotional maturity are not always achieved at the same time. It is arguable too that males achieve emotional maturity later than females.

 

This makes it difficult to arrive at a legal age of consent which protects the vulnerable without criminalising a perfectly normal activity.

 

I've read and re-read that statement and I can't believe how incredibly creepy it actually reads.

 

I agree with Chinahand yours really is an unbelievably distasteful post.

 

I can't understand why people are trying to justify (that's what it reads like anyway) Polanski's actions by saying "Having sex with a 13 year old girl is legal in some countries" as if that make's it ok.

 

What is also quite disturbing is to read grown men debating when sex with a 13 year old is or is not paedophilia. HE WAS 44 this was not two teenagers having consentual sex.

[Sebrof]

Sebrof, I find what you are saying extremely distasteful.

 

In the culture we live in and in the culture of the US 13-year-olds are minors. They cannot consent to sex, and ignoring other teenage fumblings, it is no defence to claim that consent was given - most especially when the person is a 44 year old man. Puberty, menstruation etc are all irrelevent.

 

I am surprised that you have allied yourself with sentimentality rather than reason.

 

There is a difference between legal consent and actual consent, which you seem to be overlooking. As a matter of policy, most countries declare that legally a person cannot consent to sex below a certain age. But that this age is purely arbitrary is shown by the wide range of ages at which people are deemed to be capable of consent. In other words, it's a public policy matter, not an ethical or practical one.

 

Sebrof seems to totally play down and ignore the testimony of the girl herself. She said she said no to sex, no to being sodomized, but he continued anyway. The alcohol and drugs make the actions of Polinsky even worse: plying these to a minor is also an offense, using them to take advantage even more so.

 

People don't always tell the truth, Chinahand. For the Nth time, I am not condoning Polanski's behaviour but the man is entitled to a defence (though not, it seems, in your eyes), and he is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty (though not, it seems, in your eyes).

 

I am attempting to provide a bit of balance in a thread that has mostly been hostile, emotional, and irrational. I don't know what actually happened, and nor does anybody else, but it would not be the first time that somebody had lied before a court or a grand jury.

 

I find the fuss about this whole thing massively over-done; it is yet another example of our celebrity obsessed culture. The man committed an offense, pleaded guilty to it, and then absconded before sentencing. He has now been captured and will be returned to face a court.

 

Are people really disagreeing with this process? Should the law have a special statute of limitations for the famous?

 

You're overlooking the fact that a deal was struck to avoid a trial, and the judge is alleged to have reneged, thus precipitating the flight.

 

I've not really read into this, but I would expect Polanski to be facing 10 or so years in prison, with a high chance of early parole as a result of his age - but as far as I'm aware this isn't the only instance of this type of behaviour from him. If he gets only a few years it will be a travesty of justice.

 

The victim said recently that he was not a serial offender, as you are suggesting.

 

The facts of this case are reasonably indisputed - drink, drugs, sex and sodomy with a 13 year old. Whether she said no, or was gagging for it is irrelevent. What Polanski did is totally unacceptable in the culture he was living in, what might of happened if the case was in Spain or whereever is irrelevent. It didn't it happened in California, and the California justice system wants to see justice done. I agree.

 

The alleged facts ARE disputed, which is why the prosecution dropped all the charges except having sex with a minor. Unlike you, I personally don't see how justice can differ from one country to another - laws yes, but not justice. And incidentally, I believe that having sex with young people is and has always been commonplace in Hollywood, and very much a part of the culture.

 

S

[Sebrof]

What is also quite disturbing is to read grown men debating when sex with a 13 year old is or is not paedophilia.

 

I agree. It shows an alarming degree of ignorance to suggest that having sex with a sexually mature person is paedophilia.

 

S

[Sebrof]

MDO you have pointed out that in other countries it is ok and legal to have sex with a child, we know this but why would you even state this?

 

In the midst of all the hysteria this point remains unanswered. Basically, MDO what is the point you're making?

 

The point is that there is no magic cut-off point where a person is a child one day and an adult the next. It varies from person to person. And to complicate the issue, sexual maturity and emotional maturity are not always achieved at the same time. It is arguable too that males achieve emotional maturity later than females.

 

This makes it difficult to arrive at a legal age of consent which protects the vulnerable without criminalising a perfectly normal activity.

 

I've read and re-read that statement and I can't believe how incredibly creepy it actually reads.

 

 

I was saying that sex generally is a perfectly normal activity. The age of consent in this country is sixteen, and in California it is 18. It is perfectly normal for seventeen year-olds to have sex, but it is criminalised in California, which I think is bizarre.

 

S

[thesultanofsheight]

What is also quite disturbing is to read grown men debating when sex with a 13 year old is or is not paedophilia.

 

I agree. It shows an alarming degree of ignorance to suggest that having sex with a sexually mature person is paedophilia.

 

S

 

Once again underlining that you seem to think that a 44 year old man having sex with a sexually mature 13 year old totally is acceptable, and indeed normal, because in some places it may be legal.

 

I feel very sorry that you feel that way.

 

Your clearly the leader of the gang tonight.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What is also quite disturbing is to read grown men debating when sex with a 13 year old is or is not paedophilia.

 

I agree. It shows an alarming degree of ignorance to suggest that having sex with a sexually mature person is paedophilia.

I do tend to agree in the sense that the 'types' of people referred to as paedophiles who keep pics of kids, want to and do have sex with children under eleven or ten are quite a different thing to those people of whatever age who have sex with a teenager. Nevertheless, I think it still possible to label him as a paedophile in the sense that a person's sexual maturity is not the only indicator of whether they are a child or not. I don't even think it is the most important consideration in such a judgement.