Roman Polanski

15 years ago

It isn't supposed to "prove" anything. I guess, by saying that, you show you DO "care".

I think he should come here, and get the FULL sentence with 5 or so years tacked on for evasion. It is supposed to PUNISH! It is supposed to DETER others!

He ADMITTED he did it, and apparently there is OTHER proof. And a defense is complicated because he DID enter a plea, and RAN!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233362].message }}

Michael Motley

15 years ago

Ok, you got me. I care. i lay awake at night hoping roman polanski will be brought to justice. nothing will right the world like prosecuting a person 29 years after the statutory of limitation on the crime ran out.

This should right all wrongs in one felled swoop. Sleep easier tonight world...justice be done.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233519].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233576].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

One would hope not, after all these decades, especially after the judge at his original trial allegedly planned to renege on a plea-bargain (as was investigated and subsequently verified by another judge).

Certainly it might be in everyone's interests to achieve some closure of the matter, though clearly any further custodial sentence can't conceivably be in anyone's interests at this stage.

His alleged victim wants the charges dismissed. The man is 76 years old. And let's not forget that the offence for which he was actually being prosecuted (and he can't be sentenced for anything else anyway, regardless of how strongly some might feel about some of the issues involved) was one that wouldn't have been against the law in some countries anyway.

As for being sentenced for anything else, it IS kind of open season on that. Once SENTENCED or CLEARED of a crime, you can be retried for anything DIRECTLY RELATED to that.

He was NOT sentenced! He was NOT cleared! This ISN"T directly related! So jeopardy hasn't attached, and he COULD be tried on other things.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233767].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1234284].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

He was not sentenced partly because of a judge's improper behaviour at the time (as another judge later discovered and admitted).

No statute of limitations?

No taking into account the fact that the alleged victim wants the charges dropped?

Whom would you propose to be helping by prosecuting him for the alleged "related matters" after all this time?

Wouldn't reliable evidence worthy of a conviction probably be a little thin on the ground after 30 years?

Don't you have any bigger problems?

Just asking.

Actually, apparently the statute of limitations is to the APREHENSION or notification. He WAS aprehended within the statute. NOPE, people remember it JUST FINE!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1235038].message }}

Scot Standke

15 years ago

Bring him back, sentence him to the agreed upon plea bargain and tack on a few years for fleeing the country.

Who cares what the Hollywood Left says, this guy admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, 30 years ago or not, he deserves to be punished for the heinous act that is against the law in this country.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover A New & Profitable Niche Every Day... FREE Niche Ideas + 2 Killer Bonus Items With Resale Rights!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233663].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

Should he go free, should he be extradited. Personally i dont really care. The 'victim' has even said she doesnt think he should be prosecuted and really what is this going to prove. He's got plenty of money he'll have a crack defense team and its already been proven that with enough money you can get out of murder in this country so its not like statutory rape charges will put him away in prison.

apparently the left in hollywood are trying to rally the troops in his defense.

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

One would hope not, after all these decades, especially after the judge at his original trial allegedly planned to renege on a plea-bargain (as was investigated and subsequently verified by another judge).

Certainly it might be in everyone's interests to achieve some closure of the matter, though clearly any further custodial sentence can't conceivably be in anyone's interests at this stage.

His alleged victim wants the charges dismissed. The man is 76 years old. And let's not forget that the offence for which he was actually being prosecuted (and he can't be sentenced for anything else anyway, regardless of how strongly some might feel about some of the issues involved) was one that wouldn't have been against the law in some countries anyway.

I think the person affected should have the ultimate say. If she wants to go on with her life, that's what we should do. I she wants him prosecuted, then that's what we should do. It seems she wants to go one with her life.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233691].message }}

Jagged

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I think the person affected should have the ultimate say. If she wants to go on with her life, that's what we should do. I she wants him prosecuted, then that's what we should do. It seems she wants to go one with her life.

It's not up to her to decide. The crimes he is charged with are crimes against the state...not the indiviual.

When your in court...the docket reads as the "state of california" vs the defendant....

I feel for the woman & understand her pleas to "just go on with her life" but her feelings will have little bearing on if "Pervlanski" is brought to trial...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236502].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Jagged

It's not up to her to decide. The crimes he is charged with are crimes against the state...not the indiviual.

When your in court...the docket reads as the "state of california" vs the defendant....

I feel for the woman & understand her pleas to "just go on with her life" but her feelings will have little bearing on if "Pervlanski" is brought to trial...

And the "State of California" needs to consider the victim's wishes. The exception would be if the accused is considered to still be a threat to society.

Also, I am only offering my personal opinion and am not bound by any laws of the State to say so. If I was a judge/jury, my actions may differ from my opinion, but I'm not, so I stand by my opinion.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236885].message }}

garyv

15 years ago

I find it somewhat incomprehensible that anyone is actually taking this guys side on this one. It was a 13 year old girl, and she was drugged before she was raped. And her testimony of trying to resist him was very disturbing. They guy admitted to it, and then ran. If you do the crime you do the time. I don't care how long ago it was, justice was never served.

PS - When a 13 year old is raped, she is not the only victim. If anyone ever raped my daughter, I would pursue them whether or not my daughter was forgiving them. Being forgiven doesn't mean that you are resolved from facing consequences. Otherwise rapists would be lining up at the local convent waiting for nuns, without fear of prosecution. Punishment is not always based upon what the victim wants. If laws are broken, justice must be served.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1234489].message }}

ASUService

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Scot Standke

Bring him back, sentence him to the agreed upon plea bargain and tack on a few years for fleeing the country.

Who cares what the Hollywood Left says, this guy admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, 30 years ago or not, he deserves to be punished for the heinous act that is against the law in this country.

Originally Posted by garyv

I find it somewhat incomprehensible that anyone is actually taking this guys side on this one. It was a 13 year old girl, and she was drugged before she was raped. And her testimony of trying to resist him was very disturbing. They guy admitted to it, and then ran. If you do the crime you do the time. I don't care how long ago it was, justice was never served.

Exactly, anything short of this would be confirming that the rich, famous, and/or powerful are above the law. Additionally, it gives virtually any offender the avenue to flee the country and not worry about every facing up to his or her penalty. Defense lawyers will have a field day with that ... "Polanski got away with it so you have to let me client slide too".

Now I do believe that he should get his original plea bargain. It appears there is enough evidence to support that the original judge was doing wrong. I've always support plea bargains, at least in the case of first offense, and too many are being overturned by the judges.

Thanks

Signature

Best Regards,
Mike Allton
ASU Service, Inc.
The LAST SMS Platform You'll Ever Need! Easy Money!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236533].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

I find it interesting that after MJ died we had people on this forum come out of the woodwork railing against him for "alleged" crimes, and then come out and support someone who admitted to the crime, but since it's 29 years later, he's old and he makes movies we should simply say "Ah, well... let's forget about it."

He actually committed more than one crime - he fled the country to avoid his prosecution/punishment.

If all of this is forgotten, the message it will send is "Let's flee. They'll forget eventually".

I have someone close to me who went through what the victim went through. She was only 12. The man was never prosecuted. And it affects her to this day.

F%ck Roman "Child rapist" Polanski. He enjoyed a lavish lifestyle while "on the run" (har). Let him pay for his crimes.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236534].message }}

ThomM 15 years ago

He actually committed more than one crime - he fled the country to avoid his prosecution/punishment.

I haven't been following this but isn't that what he is being extradited for?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236568].message }}
- seasoned 15 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  I haven't been following this but isn't that what he is being extradited for?
  
  He is a french citizen, and france is AGAINST extradition. He went to switzerland, and THEY are moving to extradite him.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237053].message }}
  
  ThomM 15 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  He is a french citizen, and france is AGAINST extradition. He went to switzerland, and THEY are moving to extradite him.
  
  I knew that Steve.
  What I ment was isn't the charge they are extraditing him on unlawful flight to avoid prosecution?
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237495].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236998].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

Yes, I'm sure that's true. Not arguing with that at all.

Speaking for myself, though, however despicable and criminal his original behaviour was, I do find it kind of understandable that he skipped the country when a judge was reneging on the plea-bargain. Another judge did subsequently investigate and confirm that his colleague's behaviour was improper, you know. And however many times you ignore that, it doesn't make it any less true. Whatever you think of the original offence (which I'm not condoning), that does rather convincingly mitigate against his "fleeing the country", surely?! Or is it ok for people to be tried and sentenced by corrupt judges who do a plea-bargain and then won't stick to it?!

Regarding the "fleeing the country" part (which is actually the substantive legal issue here, after all) there were faults on both sides, you know?! :confused:

Yes, true. But he should have fought it out in the courts - not fled.

He fled because he is a coward.

Not saying the system is perfect - we have people on death row who are innocent. But this failed plea bargain should NOT be an excuse for him to run, and 30 years later, let him off the hook.

If he weren't an oscar winning director, there would not be such hoopla (on either side). They would simply extradite him and put him in front of a judge. This should be no different simply because a bunch of actors and directors come to his aide...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237012].message }}

Michael Motley

15 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Yes, true. But he should have fought it out in the courts - not fled.

He fled because he is a coward.

Not saying the system is perfect - we have people on death row who are innocent. But this failed plea bargain should NOT be an excuse for him to run, and 30 years later, let him off the hook.

If he weren't an oscar winning director, there would not be such hoopla (on either side). They would simply extradite him and put him in front of a judge. This should be no different simply because a bunch of actors and directors come to his aide...

from what ive read, he fled because the judge was going to go back on a deal that was already made for his testimony

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237029].message }}

derekwong28

15 years ago

There is no issue about reliable evidence worthy of a conviction either, he had already pleaded guilty and was just waiting to be sentenced. His crime was much much worse than anything that Michael Jackson had been accused off. If he been apprehended today, he would have got at least a 15 year sentence.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236781].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

Where are the feds for the father trying desperately to get his kidnapped son out of a South American country? Mother took child there - refused to return him or let his Father see him. Mother died two years ago and now the stepfather (her second husband) is keeping the child that is not his.

The US Father has begged for federal help - and got nothing from them even though both US courts and the court for the country (I think it's brazil but not sure) have ordered the boy returned to the Father.

Polanski left to avoid serving his sentence - and has never returned to the US (he can't) - but he hasn't been invisible all these years. Yes, I think Polanski should serve his time - but then again I question how much money we should spend to keep focusing on this one person year after year.

This is politically correct prosecution - putting a priority on an old sex case instead of a current kidnapping case. Sex - and big names - make the news.

kay

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.

January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.

So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236831].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Where are the feds for the father trying desperately to get his kidnapped son out of a South American country? Mother took child there - refused to return him or let his Father see him. Mother died two years ago and now the stepfather (her second husband) is keeping the child that is not his.

The US Father has begged for federal help - and got nothing from them even though both US courts and the court for the country (I think it's brazil but not sure) have ordered the boy returned to the Father.

Polanski left to avoid serving his sentence - and has never returned to the US (he can't) - but he hasn't been invisible all these years. Yes, I think Polanski should serve his time - but then again I question how much money we should spend to keep focusing on this one person year after year.

This is politically correct prosecution - putting a priority on an old sex case instead of a current kidnapping case. Sex - and big names - make the news.

kay

Sorry Kay, but one has nothing to do with the other. We could spend all month listing cases that are higher priority than even the one you mentioned.

However, for a case of rape of a child, I don't think you can put a price tag on that. Roman Polanski deserves to sit in jail - politically charged case or not.

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1236871].message }}

Flyingpig7

15 years ago

I agree with Garyv. I know people here think it was a long time ago and we should just move on. But! I'm the same age as the victim and I remember the story 3-4years later (even though I'm in the UK). I was an Art student and fancied myself a film buff liked watching arty films (still do) and followed Polanski's films. Until that is I read about this case I was quite shocked/horrified still am, the issue for me is that he got away with it by using his postition, money to move overseas and carry-on with his career. Who knows if he still entices young girls none of you know this he was never held acountable, punished etc... It's all very well for the victim to not want this dredged up I can understand that she wants to move on.
I would like to think some example was made of Polanski a lifetime achievement award withheld or not given in the case of the Oscars(Academy) awards perhaps. Clearly imprisonment or a monetary fine is not going to work here.

This is just my opinion a little extreme but there you have it.
Keren:rolleyes:

Thanks

Signature

Have a great day

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237232].message }}

Michael Motley

15 years ago

people keep saying 'he enticed a young woman'

from the accounts i read, she was given champagne and pills. Nowhere in any of the reports does it say he FORCED champagne and pills on her.

Its possible she was like a lot of other women who were just enamored with him because he was a director and had some fantasy in her mind of how he would fall in love with her when they met and instead she ended up being a playmate for the evening then being tossed aside and she got angry about it.

I dont know, i wasnt there. But again if SHE doesnt want to push on with the issue, why is it anyone else's concern

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237449].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Motley

people keep saying 'he enticed a young woman'

from the accounts i read, she was given champagne and pills. Nowhere in any of the reports does it say he FORCED champagne and pills on her.

Its possible she was like a lot of other women who were just enamored with him because he was a director and had some fantasy in her mind of how he would fall in love with her when they met and instead she ended up being a playmate for the evening then being tossed aside and she got angry about it.

I dont know, i wasnt there. But again if SHE doesnt want to push on with the issue, why is it anyone else's concern

Michael - she was 13 at the time. I am sure she would have been "enamored" with any man giving her champagne and pills. But that's why they're not considered "adults" at 13 and why the adults get prosecuted for the acts - even if they are (ahem) "consensual".

At this point, I think the issue for the justice system is the fact that he ran to elude his punishment. If we can say "If the girl doesn't want to push the issue so we should ignore it", then you can also say "the courts want to pursue it so we should let them...". Why is it anyone else's concern?

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237462].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1237998].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

I hear you; I hear you. But if she was only 13, he shouldn't have been doing this at all, and I do understand people's moral sensibilities about it. I'm not trying to defend him as to the original offence(s) at all.

This, however, is not the substantive legal issue, here.

The issue relates to whether it's reasonable, after all this time, when the alleged victim wants the charges dropped anyway, for him to be extradited over fleeing from a corrupt judge who was reneging on an original plea-bargain, as has subsequently been investigated and confirmed by one of his own judicial colleagues. It relates to that and to nothing else.

That's why I keep asking the questions I'm asking, here. And nobody's able to answer them, apparently. Such is the moral outrage. I understand the moral outrage (I don't actually altogether agree with the extent of it, to be honest, but that's another matter) but it isn't relevant in any way to what I'm asking. Never mind. We all have bigger fish to fry, I suspect (as some people say). :rolleyes:

How wwould you feel if he raped YOU or your DAUGHTER!?!?!?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1238260].message }}

Kay King 15 years ago

In the end - we all have an opinion about it - and it's only OUR personal opinion. What we believe doesn't make another person's opinion wrong.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1238822].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

How wwould you feel if he raped YOU or your DAUGHTER!?!?!?

I would respect the wishes of my daughter, first and foremost. How about you?

[ 1 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239778].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I would respect the wishes of my daughter, first and foremost. How about you?

Well, it IS a state issue, and I would wonder as to WHY! He didn't simply RAPE her, he did everything one could imagine, outside of hurting her really bad physically.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239815].message }}

Kurt

15 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Well, it IS a state issue, and I would wonder as to WHY! He didn't simply RAPE her, he did everything one could imagine, outside of hurting her really bad physically.

You didn't answer the question.

And if your daughter didn't tell you why she doesn't want to persue it, why don't you respect that?

I had a tragedy in my youth. Due to some strange circumstances decades later, someone forced me to keep living those times again and again. I worked my entire life trying to forget these memories, then someone appears out of nowhere and forced me to think about these things I worked so hard to forget.

I just want(ed) to move on. When I think of these thoughts of the past, I am very sad. But I can forget them and be pretty happy. I'd rather be happy. I'm guessing this woman feels the same.

Who are you to tell this woman she has to relive the pain and sorrow from ***HER*** life? So much for victim's rights.

Like I said above, if she was for extradition, then I'd say fry him. But she isn't and she should come first. The "State" wasn't raped.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239939].message }}

Trader54 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I would respect the wishes of my daughter, first and foremost. How about you?

When? Her wishes when it happened or now.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239817].message }}
- Kurt 15 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Trader54
  
  When? Her wishes when it happened or now.
  
  Seriously, you can't figure that out? Now.
  
  She lived through it, and seems to have put it in her past and has gone on with her life. Forcing her to relive this without her consent is almost a "virtual rape".
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239911].message }}
Kay King 15 years ago

How many times do I have to say it

Five, so far.

Steve - take a chill pill. The court battle was fought a long time ago - and the OP only asked for opinions about a current news topic.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239887].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I would respect the wishes of my daughter, first and foremost. How about you?

Even if that means he gets to walk free to rape again? Sex offenders don't tend to stop simply because they had a "close call"with the law.

Years ago, in our family, one member was molested at the age of 9 by a "trusted" adult. It was agonizing, but it was decided not to push the case because back then (mid 70's) women - even at that young of an age - were treated like pariah's. She would have been made to get up on the stand, face the molester in court, relive the whole thing...yaddayadda.

On the surface, that seemed like a good idea.

But today, this NOW grown woman feels horrible about not going after him because he continued to do this to OTHER girls. So, now she feels guilty thinking she could have prevented them.

At the age of 9 (or 13) they don't know what's right for them to do. Now, it's moot for that woman (in the Polanski case) because any damage that MAY have been prevented to others has long been done, thanks to a "corrupt" judge and a cowardly movie director.

There's nothing cut and dried about this case...that's for sure.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240305].message }}

Trader54

15 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Even if that means he gets to walk free to rape again?

Some just don't get it.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240542].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240569].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

He's been "walking free" for the last 29 years, for heaven's sake! This was consensual "statutory rape". You're making it sound as if he's an obvious threat to society on the loose! I do appreciate that it isn't easy for you to justify your views logically or jurisprudentially, but even so this is surely taking a bit far?!?!

She was drugged up. By law, she COULDN'T give consent, EVEN if she were an adult! And the REASON that it is called STATUTORY rape is because BY LAW you can NOT give consent if you are a minor. So having sex with them is considered rape by statute.

From wikipedia:

The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240599].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

He's been "walking free" for the last 29 years, for heaven's sake! This was consensual "statutory rape". You're making it sound as if he's an obvious threat to society on the loose! I do appreciate that it isn't easy for you to justify your views logically or jurisprudentially, but even so this is surely taking a bit far?!?!

LOL- interesting how in this case it's "consensual", but for anyone else they're called "pedophiles". In fact, I can think of one such person called a pedophile when not only was nothing proven, but those bringing the charges had shadier backgrounds than he did.

He knew he was guilty of wrong-doing way back then. Why else plea?

Oh, wait...corrupt legal system. Forgot.

And...he was "walking free" illegally. What he did was wrong. He's probably too old now to be much of a threat. Besides, based on the history of MOST sexual offenders - pedophiles too - I am sure he REMAINED a threat all throughout his glorious freedom, taking liberties with other children, having "consensual" statutory rape.

I am not a lawyer (are you?), so I am not all that versed on "jurisprudence". But frankly, I don't really care about it being 29 years later. He should have PAID for his crime 29 years ago. What he did to that young girl was despicable. Plain and simple.

I think I'll do the same thing you mentioned in an earlier thread - bow out of this discussion now. It's pointless anyway. I'm sure he'll skate on this too. That's what having fame and money buys you.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240689].message }}

tommyp

15 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

LOL- interesting how in this case it's "consensual", but for anyone else they're called "pedophiles". In fact, I can think of one such person called a pedophile when not only was nothing proven, but those bringing the charges had shadier backgrounds than he did.

That's because most people are ignorant or stupid about these things and don't realize a child is a prepubescent and pedophilia involves prepubescents, so they use the word wrongly.

They also have no sense of the difference between a child and an adult and what those two things mean in the real world and what those two words mean in a courtroom, which is often considerably different.

However to the best of my knowledge even if the average 13 year old, even 12 for many females, is a post pubescent age, generally they are considered a child up to and including the age of 13, at least in the USA, even if at 13 most people are past pubescence.

That's also why I think they use a "13 year old" and not a 15 or 16 year old on "To Catch a Predator" because then it wouldn't be what they are trying to nail guys for and use the youngest looking woman they can find who would be legal to be involved in such a setup, which would be 18, training them to act childlike who will look 13 after dressing them up and have them stand 25 feet away. They would likely be severely challenged to find an adult that looks 7 or 8 so 13 being the oldest they can pretend to go and 18 being the youngest they can use to play the part is the most suitable gap to serve their agenda.

That's why until recently 14 was legal and considered acceptable in the state of Hawaii. 16 is also legal and considered a young adult or similar term in most states in the USA for sexual activity even though it's a "minor" for other activities and under 18.

This probably wouldn't even be a statutory rape case before the invention of "adolescence" or at least 150 or 200 years ago. It would either be the rape of a "woman" or it wouldn't be.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1242112].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Alexa,

The statute of limitations should be to set a reasonable limit on things. MY understanding is that it is to notification. HECK, I was sued once because I was paid by someone that went bankrupt. THEY caused the problem, THEY owed, and *I* was sued to pay! Is THAT just? well, they held the statute to mean to NOTIFICATION! I SWEAR, they notified me on like the DAY the statute expired! There was even a statute about WHAT they could take back! I cashed a check some time BEFORE the statute started, but the last bank cleared it 2 days AFTER! THAT was the date they used.

And THAT was on something THEY should have been sued for. Alas, the bankruptcy court even let them break laws pertaining to bankruptcy, and they used laws to hurt many like me! Polanski was guilty though, and HE should PAY!

To follow your reasoning, a person could be charged with a crime, jailed, escape for a few years, and consider himself FREE!!!! you are saying EXACTLY that!

ALSO, what if they are caught one day before the expiration? If it takes a day to get the jury, I guess they are set free, huh?

Since the statute no longer LEGALLY applies, because he was notified, are you saying this is SEPARATE from the statute? One could go on a murder spree, be captured, escape, and be FREE!?!?!?

Where does it stop?

BTW it is FINE to be against the iraq war. But cutting back on the ability for them to get the zealots that are a part of this, and limiting their defenses IS failing to support the troops and unpatriotic. Frankly, I think we should have had a CLEAR goal, and should have just done it and gotten out.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239801].message }}

Alexa Smith

Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239837].message }}

seasoned

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

If you live in a society governed by the rule of law, it stops when the statute of limitations says it stops.

Steve, I apologise for the fact that I was editing my earlier post while you were replying to it (which I hadn't realised) - please excuse me; this wasn't intentional.

But the statute of limitations never came into play!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240193].message }}

derekwong28

15 years ago

I have to agree that although important, you cannot always take the wishes of the victim as the overriding concern. What if the rapist was her father and she wanted to protect her father. What if Eliizabeth Fritzl did not want to prosecute her father? What if Jaycee Dugard did not want to prosecute her kidnapper? Women who are raped often feels very ashamed and does not want to pursue matters.

Alexa, the statute of limitations apply to crimes that have not been proscuted. In Polanski's case, he had already been convicted and was awaiting sentencing. Therefore the statute of limitations does not apply.

The timing of this may be a bit funny, but the matter has been blown out of all proportion by a number of famous people in the entertainment industry who seems to imply that raping a 13 year old girl is a minor affair. The prosecutor in that documentary is withdrawing his allegations of colluding with the judge. In any case, any judge today would feel that 45 days is an inappropriate punishment for rape of a minor.

Michael, this crime was much more serious than anything that Michael Jackson was accused off and that includes the first case which never came to court. The days of blaming the victim for rape are over. What this girl and her mother did was no different to what many other girls and their mother did, including Brooke Shields.

Thanks

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239845].message }}

Alexa Smith Banned 15 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239920].message }}
- KimW 15 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith
  
  ..........- what kind of "justice" would that be?!
  
  Let's not confuse the law and justice, they aren't the same.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Read A Post.
  Subscribe to a Newsletter
  KimWinfrey.Com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239950].message }}
- seasoned 15 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith
  
  Certainly, and so would I.
  
  But people are sentenced at the time of their trials, not 29 years later after public opinion has (perhaps?) changed.
  
  Actually, that isn't true! They are to be sentenced as quickly as they can be. If that is 70 years, due to THEM, so be it. And he had his arraignment. He OBVIOUSLY wasn't sentenced, because he said he ran because he heard they would give him a different sentence. A case COULD be made if the delay were due to the courts.
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240230].message }}

Scot Standke

15 years ago

I didn't realize that he was copping to a plea that had him sitting just 45 days, that is utterly ridiculous!

Tell me that DA wasn't influenced by his fame and notoriety.

Who among us mere mortals would get just 45 days for such a heinous crime?

I totally respect that judge for wanting to hit him with more time.

I mean, come on!

Scot

Thanks

Signature

Discover A New & Profitable Niche Every Day... FREE Niche Ideas + 2 Killer Bonus Items With Resale Rights!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239949].message }}

derekwong28

15 years ago

Alexa, I don't think you have read the case properly at all.

1. He had not been sentenced before he fled.
2 .The extradition request was for him to attend the sentencing hearing for that crime alone for which he had pleaded guilty. There is no issue of a new trial. If the judge then decides then to honour his original plea bargain, I don't think anybody would have issues with that.
3. He was given permission to go overseas to work before sentencing. He decided not to come back back. Whether they are going to charge him for that is uncertain.

The issue of safe havens is an extremely sensitive one. You don't want people committing murder and then flee to another country with impunity.

What has really riled people around, including France and Poland is downplaying of that crime by his colleagues in the entertainment industry including, of all people, Woody Allen. They tried to downplay that "event" as a "youthful indiscretion????" and tried to shift the blame onto the victim. Even more disturbing, Harvey Weinstein's described the offense as a "so-called crime." Whoopi Goldberg called it a not a "rape rape" although she "seemed" to clarified it a bit later.

Thanks

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239997].message }}

derekwong28

15 years ago

Alexa, if you have read the case carefully, you would not have brought up the statute of limitations repeatedly which simply just does not apply. In your previous posts, you also seem to think he will get a new trial where the witnesses and the evidence will be examined again. This is not what is going to happen.

Thanks

Signature

Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240160].message }}

Roman Polanski

Trending Topics

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

A Very Strange Internet Problem

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates

Melb, Interat, Flower Show 2024