?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Roman Polanski: consider this aspect - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness Page 2 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Zoethe

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Roman Polanski: consider this aspect [Sep. 30th, 2009|07:33 pm]
Zoethe
It may be that Roman Polanski should not be sent to jail.

Now, hear me out.

It may be that he has indeed suffered enough. It may be that his mental state at the time of the crime was still deeply affected by the brutal murder of his wife and unborn child. It may be that the reparations paid to the victim are adequate to ameliorate his jail sentence.

But the authority deciding this? Should be the judge and jury of the Los Angeles County Court.

Not Roman Polanski. Not Roman Polanski's friends. Not the kangaroo court that is the internet. Polanski's return to the U.S. to finally face sentencing does not immediately translate to "Polanski will be in jail for the rest of his life and does/doesn't deserve that!!" as the hysteria claims.

I don't know what Polanski deserves. Neither does anyone else out there. No one will know until the evidence is laid out in court.

That, more than any other reason, is why he should be brought back to the U.S.
LinkReply

Comments:
Page 2 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-10-01 10:45 am (UTC)
The sentencing process is a separate process, and for the original crime he would have to be sentenced by the standards of the time. The evidence at sentencing is different and things like state of mind can be ameliorating. There weren't mandatory sentencing requirements at the time. Sentencing is still an open question with a lot of discretion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: celamity
2009-10-01 05:29 am (UTC)
Hear, hear!

And I, for one, will never be able to take Whoopi Goldberg even remotely seriously again.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: interactiveleaf
2009-10-01 05:48 am (UTC)
Why? Don't you see the intuitively obvious difference between rape and rape-rape?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chayatapa
2009-10-09 01:45 am (UTC)
Actually, Whoopi was making the important observation that he was never convicted of rape. He plead guilty to sex with a minor. That's what she was trying to make clear.

Do you not see the difference between rape and sex with a minor?

(Note: he may actually have raped her. That's not the conclusion the legal system came to.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: interactiveleaf
2009-10-09 05:44 pm (UTC)
I don't give a shit what conclusion the legal system came to. No one's ever called the victim a liar, and all her statements plus the physical evidence show that e gave a thirteen year old alcohol and Quaaludes, then vaginakky, orally, and anally raped her while she cried "no, please stop" and asked to go home.

There is no "may have" related to the fact that he raped her.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chayatapa
2009-10-09 08:38 pm (UTC)
Actually, Polanski himself said that her involvement was entirely consensual (unsurprisingly). I'm not saying I believe him.

Unfortunately for enthusiastic retributives such as yourself, the law requires a standard of proof a damn sight better than "he said - she said". And the law is what the entire OP was about.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-10-01 10:48 am (UTC)
I said elsewhere that I'm simply not looking at the list because I don't want to be pissed off.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bart_calendar
2009-10-01 09:06 am (UTC)
Of course, his lawyers argued over the summer that he was considering coming back and facing sentencing if they would agree to a change of venue.

He doesn't trust the L.A. Court system and given their history I can't blame him.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: k425
2009-10-01 11:54 am (UTC)
Hear hear.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: spreadsothin
2009-10-01 03:57 pm (UTC)
I think strict liability in statutory cases is a mistake. I know in NY, ameliorative circumstances don't matter and a good friend who was studying to be a teacher at an Ivy League school can no longer ever work with kids because he had sex with an underage girl who traveled from another state to meet him, making it a felony. He had no idea that the girl was not the age she presented herself as. I think strict liability is a mistake.

I think the United States often infantilizes teenagers, as though they were unaware or incapable of making good decisions.

I think that many rape crimes are not prosecuted, out of respect for the victim.

I think that rape needs to be taken seriously, that rape happens way too much, way too often and too many many men rape without thinking about it clearly.

Rape is not acceptable. Child rape is not acceptable.

And yet, many people have left the US for countries that don't continue extradition. Things like dodging the draft, or even just a refusal to pay taxes for the wars abroad. And they are guaranteed some sort of security. I think that is what the international community is responding to, rather than the original crime.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-10-02 12:19 am (UTC)

Let's keep the argument simple

There is a very big difference between leaving the country because you believe war in immoral and leaving the country because you ignored the pleas of a girl and anally assaulted her (just to take the age and consent issues out of the picture).

And tax evaders should be extradited.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chayatapa
2009-10-09 01:32 am (UTC)

Re: Let's keep the argument simple

But he only plead to the underage sex (and giving drugs to a minor) charge, not to rape. That's an important distinction. That he raped her was never proved in a court of law.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2009-10-09 11:46 am (UTC)

Re: Let's keep the argument simple

He committed statutory rape and pled to that. There wasn't going to be a trial on the rape question. You might disagree with the law, but it is still the law.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chayatapa
2009-10-09 08:44 pm (UTC)

Re: Let's keep the argument simple

In the post I was replying to, you stated that he fled the country because he sexually assaulted a girl against her will. I was simply pointing out that that fact was never legally established.

You said that he "ignored the pleas of a girl and anally assaulted her (just to take the age and consent issues out of the picture)."

The fact is, if you take age issues out of the picture, there was no crime (as established by the courts; it's very possible an actual rape occurred).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
Page 2 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>