1 of 9
1
Defend Roman Polanski!
Posted: 28 September 2009 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-01-11

This witch-hunt by Obama’s justice department is a total outrage.

I have no way of knowing what actually took place between RP and Samantha Gailey in 1978, nor do any of the current crop of witchhunters… but one need not condone Polanski’s behavior in order to defend him from vicious, unwarranted persecution by officials pandering for votes to the worst elements of popular vindictiveness, puritanism and hypocrisy.

It’s difficult to believe that - with the injured party having long since settled accounts for the incident in civil court - this man is still being hounded across the planet for it 30+ years like some kind of Nazi war criminal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

Such outrageous hyperbole! You certainly do have a way of knowing what actually took place; Polanski pleaded gulity for crying out loud. And, as you pointed out, he settled a civil suit, which suggests the 13-year old girl he had sex with had a legitimate case against him for the suffering she experienced. It seems likely there was prosecutorial misconduct, and given that Ms. Gailey doesn’t wish the case to proceed, I don’t see much of a legitimate purpose to the arrest and extradition, but your characterization of him in terms of near martyrdom is ludicrous and ignores the fact that he took advantage of a child and then he escaped the punishment most people would have paid for doing so by virtue of being rich and famous enough to flee the country and avoid serving his sentance.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 02:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10

I hate him.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  324
Joined  2009-04-23
mckenzievmd - 28 September 2009 02:29 PM

Such outrageous hyperbole! You certainly do have a way of knowing what actually took place; Polanski pleaded gulity for crying out loud. And, as you pointed out, he settled a civil suit, which suggests the 13-year old girl he had sex with had a legitimate case against him for the suffering she experienced. It seems likely there was prosecutorial misconduct, and given that Ms. Gailey doesn’t wish the case to proceed, I don’t see much of a legitimate purpose to the arrest and extradition, but your characterization of him in terms of near martyrdom is ludicrous and ignores the fact that he took advantage of a child and then he escaped the punishment most people would have paid for doing so by virtue of being rich and famous enough to flee the country and avoid serving his sentance.

I agree with this completely!  I am mostly p.o.‘d about what you mention and I bolded above.  Any other person would have went to prison.  He only got away, because of the money and the fame.  Lame that we have one set of rules for the rich and another for the poor.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

You surprised me here Balak. Defend Roman Polanski? Screw Roman Polanski!!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22
Balak - 28 September 2009 02:07 PM

This witch-hunt by Obama’s justice department is a total outrage.

Wrong!!!  Obama’s Justice Department has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office is the organization that instituted the action to return him to Los Angeles.

I have no opinion about the case because I don’t know the facts.  From being inundated with the stories on the news yesterday and today, it appears that there was judicial misconduct which may affect the outcome.  As I see it the new District Attorney who won a very close race recently is probably trying to get himself some publicity and Polanski is an easy target. 

However, this country has far, far greater problems with health care, continuing unemployment, an insane national debt, etc.  Than a single criminal case.  So I’m not interested in this.  I’d much rather it just be handled in the courts rather than shifting our attention away from all the important issues we face.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-01-11

You certainly do have a way of knowing what actually took place; Polanski pleaded gulity for crying out loud.

MVD’s faith in the goodwill of state authorities is truly touching. Kind of like a kid that still believes in santa… 

Plea bargaining is a standard feature of the “justice” system. Completely innocent people plead ‘guilty’ to false charges all the time. This in itself tells you nothing whatsoever about what actually happened.

Another news flash girls and boys! Prosecutors and judges use hot-button cases and issues to build political careers. These were the same dirty tricks they used against the late Michael Jackson, but - possibly thanks to Polanski’s case - he went into the shite-storm a bit wiser as to the workings of the state witch-hunters.

The ceaseless cowering and grovelling of liberals before the right-wing culture warriors - as expressed in their willingness to throw people like Polanski under the bus - is no small indicator of their political impotence on the ‘important issues’ (!) as well.

[ Edited: 28 September 2009 06:47 PM by Balak ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 08:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Balak, I have to agree that you’re taking a hyperbolic approach to this issue. Here is my take on the matter:

1. Polanski is guilty of a serious crime: raping a girl. He admitted what he had done and pleaded guilty. There’s no issue on this point.
2. He negotiated a plea bargain that was quite charitable to him. This wasn’t wrong on his part; he has every right to fight for the best deal he can get.
3. The judge indicated that she would not accept the plea bargain. The accusation has been made that the judge did so for political reasons; if the accusation be true, then Mr. Polanski is being treated unfairly. We do not know of a certainty what the judge’s motivations were. It is, however, entirely plausible that the judge objected to the plea bargain because it deviated so much from the typical punishment meted out to similar offenders. In that case, Mr. Polanski is being treated fairly.
4. The victim has forgiven Mr. Polanski and does not desire him to be punished. Inasmuch as the victim is now capable of making an informed decision in this matter, this strongly weighs in favor of Mr. Polanski.
5. Mr. Polanski’s status as a great artist does not in any fashion mitigate the punishment he deserves. Justice is blind.
6. Accusations have been made that this is being done for political reasons. Again, we cannot know if these accusations be true. Certainly the passage of time does not diminish the importance of enforcing the law; I therefore believe that a prosecutor could honorably pursue this course. I recall that, when he left office, Mr. Clinton pardoned Mr. Vesco, a financier who had bilked people out of millions of dollars. I deemed this pardon most dishonorable and my respect for Mr. Clinton, which had been high until that moment, plummeted.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

I’m amazed Polanski has gotten so much support not only from celebrities but nations such as France and Poland.  This guy used qualudes to rape a 13 year old girl. 

Chris makes excellent points, I add a few thoughts:

On point 3, I’m pretty sure judges are elected in California so it would be impossible to say that politics did not play some role.  However, that doesn’t make the decision illegitimate.  As Chris points out, the judge has no obligation to uphold a plea bargain, it’s not hard to imagine this judge was simply outraged at a soft sentence and thought something stronger was appropriate.

I disagree with you mckenzie in part on extradition.  I would want our state and federal gov’ts to pursue serious crimes like rape and murder no matter how much time passes, particularly against fugitives.  I have other reasons too, see my comments on Chris’ point 4 below as well.

On point 4, I disagree somewhat—the victim’s forgiveness is irrelevant in a criminal case, the victim is really a witness not a party.  The state has other considerations such as the administration of justice and enforcement of the law.  It’s hard to argue Polanski has been brought to justice since he has never been punished.  Also, think about what a bad precedent it would be if defendants (especially the rich ones) could flee after pleading guilty and not worry about being pursued—that would make the criminal justice system impotent.  California has compelling reasons to get Polanski back into its courts.  I hope they throw this SOB in jail for years. 

Polanski’s flight is evidence of his knowledge of guilt.  He had access to the best lawyers and no restrictions on presenting a defense.  That he still pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor is pretty damning. 

Polanski has intentionally avoided travelling to countries from which he could be extradited for 30 years while making millions directing films.  Doesn’t that make you a little mad? 

I haven’t read that Obama’s Justice Dept was involved but I hope they aided California in bringing a convicted pedophile to justice, that would certainly be a proper act for the federal government to assist a state. 

Chicken and I mostly agree, even with the use of bold.  Hooray!  grin  I even used an emoticon for the first time ever.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2009 10:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10

I suppose Michael Jackson was not a pedophile? Is the motivation to protest Roman Polanskis innocence because you like the pianist, and Michael Jackson thriller? I don’t often notice people protesting the innocence of unknown pedophiles and rapists I do often notice celebrities getting a free pass.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 05:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I think Balak is making good points. The thing is who cares? I love to see the Cake-eaters get into hot-water. With or without this drama, the Political scene is going to be just as “Political”.
A month or so ago we dealt with the Swiss concerning thousands of Secret-Swiss Bank Accounts of our citizens. The Swiss resisted. Then relented-a little; compromises were made. I think this Polanski thing is part of the Compromise. That’s the sad part.
We get to try and hang Polanski, while hundreds of UBS account holders go unscathed, sheltering their collective Billions from US taxes.
And yes, as we can see from the posts here-the Rub works. Rabid, frothing replies about rape, drugs, intrigue!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-01-11

As the late G. Carlin put it: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Seriously. Doesn’t it give at least a moment’s pause that all of these posts (ok with a partial exception for Vyazma) are identical in small-minded puritanical vindictiveness to those of the christian conservatives their authors ostensibly oppose?

Pavlov’s dog couldn’t actually type like the enlightened liberals above, but he couldn’t possibly have a more predictable reflex in response to the key words ...

“rape”
“drugs”
“children”
“pedophile”

And to top it off, remember kids:

“Justice is blind” (!)

(This is really exquisite… coming from freaking ‘Humanists’, mind you, talking about a criminal justice/prison industry that is unique on the planet for calculated soul-destroying brutality and systemic racism on a mass scale.)

Only a total idiot would put himself/herself at the tender mercy of that monstrous apparatus… fortunately Polanski figured this out before it was too late.

[ Edited: 29 September 2009 10:42 AM by Balak ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

I used the words rape, drugs, child and pedophile because they all apply.  How would you describe the crime that Polanski confessed to? 

Justice is blind?  What does that even mean in this context?  That quote is used to describe how a defendant should be treated— Everyone gets a right to a fair trial.  How was Polanski treated unfairly?  Was he denied legal counsel?  Was he tortured into confessing? 

Who isn’t outraged by child rape?  Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t be more upset about this crime than shoplifting?  Are you suggesting that we should not punish different crimes more or less seriously? 

(This is really exquisite… coming from freaking ‘Humanists’, mind you, talking about a criminal justice/prison industry that is unique on the planet for calculated soul-destroying brutality and systemic racism on a mass scale.)

This is pretty funny really because other prisons around the world are so humane and sweet. 

Let me ask you Balak, 30 years ago and you are a judge in California.  A rich man stands before you next to his $500 an hour lawyer and he has confessed to raping a 13 year old girl in part by forcing alcohol and mind altering drugs on her.  What would be the proper punishment?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-01-11

The loaded, hot-button words ‘apply’ because you, the prosecutors, the media, and rest of the moral panic brigade keep applying them - evidently in order to whip yourselves into self-righteous hysteria (the actual charge was not ‘rape’ but something like ‘unlawful sex with a person under age.’).

As I pointed out, neither you nor I know what happened between Polanski and Gailey 30 years ago.

The decisive moral criterion for the religious believer is the violation of a law/taboo/commandment.

The decisive moral criterion for the humanist is the infliction of harm.

If Gailey has come to an agreement with Polanski about this matter to repair whatever harm she may have experienced - who else has any business interfering?

The only possible basis for persecutiing Polanski now (and vicariously grooving on his persecution) is that a ‘law’ has been flouted.

Law that punishes people for ‘crimes without victims’ is definitely an Ass.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 02:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

I now see the basis of your reasoning, Balak. I take it that, were the victim to express a desire to see Mr. Polanski punished, you would support his prosecution. Am I correct?

You seem to think that the basic facts of the case are in question. They are not. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty and admitted to drugging and having sex with a 13-year old child. It is broadly acknowledged in most societies that a 13-year old child is not capable of giving informed consent to a sexual act. Therefore we have the concept of statutory rape—which is in fact enforced in all Western nations and many others as well. So let us not waste time on the facts; they are clear. The issues concern Mr. Polanski’s punishment.

I agree that the victim’s willingness to let it pass is a powerful argument against prosecuting Mr. Polanski. However, there are two counterarguments. First, the state does have an interest in enforcing criminal law even when the victim forgives the perpetrator. This gets us into some serious complexities that I shall delve into only if you wish to examine that part of the argument.

The second counterargument is that the victim has stated that the press’s treatment of her was much more injurious than Mr. Polanski’s actions. It is clear that the victim does not wish to undergo another round of such press coverage. If this is the dominant factor in her decision not to support his prosecution, then I think it complicates the case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 September 2009 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Balak - 29 September 2009 01:33 PM

The loaded, hot-button words ‘apply’ because you, the prosecutors, the media, and rest of the moral panic brigade keep applying them - evidently in order to whip yourselves into self-righteous hysteria (the actual charge was not ‘rape’ but something like ‘unlawful sex with a person under age.’).

As I pointed out, neither you nor I know what happened between Polanski and Gailey 30 years ago.

The decisive moral criterion for the religious believer is the violation of a law/taboo/commandment.

The decisive moral criterion for the humanist is the infliction of harm.

If Gailey has come to an agreement with Polanski about this matter to repair whatever harm she may have experienced - who else has any business interfering?

The only possible basis for persecutiing Polanski now (and vicariously grooving on his persecution) is that a ‘law’ has been flouted.

Law that punishes people for ‘crimes without victims’ is definitely an Ass.

Your exhibiting signs of some personal stake, or connection to this. Who cares?! Why all of the sudden are you crying out for this Bozo?
I’ve seen other posts on here before, by you, concerning justice, and Equality- but this? This is hardly the poster child case for Justice.
Who cares? Sometimes the High Life catches up with ya! Time to pay your dues sucka!!  vampire

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 9
1