Director Polanski arrested in Switzerland

Director fled U.S. in 1978 after pleading guilty to sex with 13-year-old girl

To me, the fact that he fled justice and managed to evade it for 30yrs is immaterial.
If he were not a celebrity no-one would have a shadow of a doubt about whether his arrest and possible incarceration is justified.

Child abusers inflict a life sentence on their victims with no chance of parole from the memories.

jmho

I would have a doubt. I occasionally watch Cold Case. It's a silly show about old crimes based in Philly and solving them years later. Many times I think the cases should just have been left alone. So yes, I think sometimes the years provide their own punishment.

BTW from the article...
The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Humbert Humbert

I am a little divided on this one, mostly because i think society's stated values have been evolving on this issue, and I'm not sure it's fair to judge a 1977 case based on the 2009 version of those values. In the mid 60s, John Phillips of the Mammas and the Poppas picked up a 13 year old girl in a bar with a blond beehive and a pretty voice, and took off with her. Not only was he not charged, she ended up one of the mommas and the poppas, his wife, and with a writing credit on California Dreamin'. Michelle Phillips.

I think there is no such thing as consentual sex between a 40 year old and a 13 year old, but, having said that, the 13 year old is now 44 and feels vindicated with the solution she and her abuser have come to on their own...justice should be consistent, but should never stand still. I think R. P. should be asked to make a public appology and statement of understanding, and then the world should probably just move on.

He raped a 13 year old child. The years should not matter. Whether or not someone else was charged for doing the same thing should not matter. It is never too late to have him pay for his unpardonable crime against a child. We should not have a society where the rich can avoid punishment. The people I know felt the same way in 1977 as they do now. I don't think values have changed.

John Phillips also raped his own daughter and shot her full of drugs. He should have paid a huge price for his crimes. The fact that he didn't should not change what happens to Polanski. The victims have to do what they can to survive and be as near normal as possible. I think society should never forgive or forget crimes like this regardless of what the victim does to survive. An apology is nothing, means nothing, when it comes to the rape of children.

Fish, excellent post.

The rich and famous having a different experience with the law is hardly precedence, it's a matter of fact. Truthfully, I think had he not been rich and famous the 13 year old model wouldn't have been partying at Jack Nicholson's manse in the first place. Societally I think there has been some learning since 1977. Don't let your 13 year olds go unchaperoned on modeling assignments for one.

She has petitioned to have the case dismissed since 1995. She and Polansky have settled and she moved forward with her life.

The woman at the centre of the three-decade-old sex allegations against Oscar-winning film-maker Roman Polanski has renewed her call for the case to be dropped.

Samantha Geimer, who was 13 in 1978 when Polanski fled the US after admitting "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor, says the continued publication of "lurid" details about the incident "causes harm to me, my husband and children".

Polanski's legal team last month filed a plea with a Los Angeles court calling for the case against the film-maker to be dropped.

Ms Geimer, now 45 and the mother of three children, says the Los Angeles County district attorney's office has since been dragging up sexually explicit details from the case to distract from its own past wrongdoing. The office was accused of engaging in "a pattern of misconduct and improper communications" with the judge handling Polanski's case in the recent documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

In her written declaration to the court, Ms Geimer called its insistence that Polanski appear in person for the dismissal hearing on 21 January "a cruel joke", and instead offered to appear herself.

"If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do," she said. "I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/13/roman-polanski-court-case

A 40 year old raped a 13 year old. He PAID her for what he did. Now he needs to go to jail for the rest of his life. This dude is the worst of the worst and should pay the price. He has been on the lam living pretty dayum well. Time to pay his debt for he next 40 years. When you commit a crime, it is not just the the person that is the victim, but society as a whole.

I'm glad she's moved forward. Now we need to move forward and throw his ass in prison where he should have been from the start. Money to the victim does not erase the crime. It is, in fact, more of his admission of guilt.

apparently he was never tried. Which means they would have to have a trial now, and without the cooperation of the victim, he's going to be difficult to convict, this long after the fact.

He pled guilty, he paid her off. Shouldn't be too difficult.

This is from the article:

Polanski, the director of such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," fled the U.S. for France in 1978, a year after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with the underage girl.

Wonder why Elvis was never charged.

ok, i just looked it up, and i was confused on the details of the case. I didn't realize he'd pled guilty. I thought the trial had not been completed.

Any 40 year old who has sex with a 13 year old should get the book thrown at them. I don't care how many have not been convicted or what sentences others get. Polanski should get the full sentence for rape of a child and should get additional for fleeing. Being at a sexy Hollywood party and wasted does not mean Polanski should not pay to the fullest. It means others responsible for her being there and wasted should get punished, too. All adults are responsible for protecting children.

You know what? 13's not that young. A 13 year old is physically able to have sex safely, and enjoy it. In some cultures and different times in history, 13 year olds were married, sometimes to men much older than them, legally, and with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. While i think the idea of a 40 year old man with a 13 year old girl is creepy, in this situation, where the man was not a parent, teacher or other caregiver, and where they met at a drunken party, where her age may not have been apparent, I don't think it should be lumped in with pedophilia.

I found this UK article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/sep/24/sex-under-16-underage

There is no scientific or medical evidence that shows that 16 is the magic age at which people become mature enough to have sex. Sixteen is arbitary. So why stick with it?

In 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is 13 in Spain, 15 in France and Poland and 14 in Germany, Portugal and Italy. There is no evidence that these lower ages of consent result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse.

These countries, most of them staunchly Catholic, would not have low age limits if they thought young people were being put at risk. They realise that the laws against rape and indecent assault provide adequate protection against sexual violence and exploitation.

By restricting young people's sexual rights, this limit actually makes abuse more likely. It reinforces the idea that young people under the age of 16 do not have the right to control their own bodies. This sexual disempowerment plays into the hands of adults who want to abuse them.

Guilt and shame about sex also increase the likelihood of molestation by encouraging the furtiveness and secrecy on which abuse thrives. One way to protect young people against unwanted sexual advances is by promoting sex-affirmative attitudes that challenge the idea that sex is something sordid, and by empowering teenagers to stand up for their sexual rights. Sexually informed, unabashed and confident youngsters are more likely to resist sexual pressure and manipulation, and more likely to report abusers.

Criminalisation is dangerous because it can inhibit young people from seeking safer sex advice, condoms and the morning after pill. It can also make them afraid to report abusive relationships. They may fear getting into trouble, so they stay silent.

The age of consent of 16 inhibits some teachers and youth workers from giving explicit sexual information to the under-16s. They fear being prosecuted by the police, or sued by disgruntled parents, for aiding and abetting unlawful sexual acts. This can make them reticent to provide explicit advice to underage young people.

It is true that sex can sometimes be dangerous and harmful, but not always. At puberty, as hormones kick in, youngsters develop sexual feelings. This is entirely natural and healthy. Some teens, and even young children, innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. It most cases this causes them no harm at all. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of sex per se, but because of emotional abuse within relationships and unsafe sex that causes infections and makes young girls pregnant when they are not ready for motherhood.

Providing it is safe and with consent, sex is good. It is not dirty, shameful or damaging. It is an immensely pleasurable and profound human bond, which involves intense shared fulfilment and happiness. Consensual sex should not be stigmatised or criminalised, not for young people, not for adults, not for anyone.

Greeny, 13 year old girls are still forced into marriages to much older men in many places.

So, what we go by body maturity? If an 8 year old girl starts her period and her breasts grow, she's fair game? Aren't girls maturing earlier now days for some reason? Emotional and mental maturity don't matter?

So, it's ok if it's a stranger and/or they are both at a party and wasted? So, we don't care that the girl should not have been there and anyone who knowingly allowed it should be arrested?

We really disagree on this, greeny.

Girls are maturing earlier now--because of hormones in food, primarily meat and milk. But that is an unnatural adaptation to an artificial stimulus. Women's bodies are naturally prepared for sex at thirteen, usually, and have been as long as i know of.

We're not talking "forced"--are we? Who mentioned forced? I agree--arranged marriages are evil. And who said "fair game"? Even if you do lower the age of consent, that doesn't weaken or negate laws that exist against rape and exploitation of adults, as well as children. I also think lines need to be drawn where there are systemic power differentials between sexual partners--cases of teachers and students, or therapists and patients, or coaches of sports teams...but none of those are true of this case.

I agree that the girl should not have been at that party. If she'd been my daughter, she damn well wouldn't have been. But there's not evidence that rp was the reason she was at that party, or that he should be held accountable for the misguided decisions that led her to be there. Are we prepared to round up everyone at that party that saw her there, and hold them criminally accountable? Whoever served her alcohol and drugs could be held accountable these days under the underage drinking laws, but in those days, those laws held weaker penalties and were much more weakly enforced then they are now, and that's providing anyone even knew she was underage. Have you seen some of the thirteen year old girls out there? Some of them are fully grown at that age. And fully developed. You can't assume that she necessarily looked underage. Are we prepared to hold her parents accountable, for having no idea where she was?

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't wrong. I'm just saying, it's not Ted Bundy wrong. There are different levels of wrongdoing.

I watched a really REALLY good documentary about that trial...and I don't blame him one bit for leaving.

New evidence in the HBO docu "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," directed by Marina Zenovich, revealed misconduct by Santa Monica Judge Laurence A. Rittenband, who has since died, during the trial against the director in 1977.

The script and DVD of the docu, which aired on HBO in June, were used by Polanski's lawyers as part of the request to have the case dismissed.

In February, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza agreed the new facts suggested misconduct took place, but said he could not throw out the conviction without Polanski's presence in his courtroom.

After watching the pic, Espinoza said, "It is hard to contest that some of the conduct portrayed in film on that documentary was misconduct."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009235.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=bd_film

i have heard about this documentary. this is the one made last year right? how much "impartiality" does it have?

Greeny, you wrote this:

"In the mid 60s, John Phillips of the Mammas and the Poppas picked up a 13 year old girl in a bar with a blond beehive and a pretty voice, and took off with her. Not only was he not charged, she ended up one of the mommas and the poppas, his wife, and with a writing credit on California Dreamin'. Michelle Phillips."

Michelle married him in 1962 and she was 18 years old then. She was born in 1944. Maybe that's why he wasn't charged with anything. He should have been charged with shooting up his own daughter with heroin and raping her.

Chaos, he pled guilty. He did it. IMO he should pay.

Greeny, you yourself said it was a Holliywood party where everyone was wasted. So Polanski took advantage of a 13 year old girl who was wasted. I said "fair game" because it seems to me that is what you are saying. Some stranger, the girl is wasted, age doesn't matter. She's fair game because she was too wasted to say no and he was too wasted to care. I don't give a damn how mature she looked. An adult is supposed to be the sensible one. Yes, a lot of people should get in trouble when kids are allowed in such situations.

Greeny, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

I've been thinking about this.

I think what i'm really objecting to is the watering down of the concept of rape. Rape is rape. Forced sexual intercourse. And REAL rape is heinous. I think it takes away from the seriousness of true non consentual sex, when things like underaged sex are lumped in with it.

But again, i'm not saying he should get away with it, scot free. I don't think that. But i also don't think one drunken night at a party makes him a pedophile.

And John Phillips was a narcisistic asshole, there's no question. I didn't know until yesterday that he raped his daughter--but i did know that she credited him with giving her her first mainline heroin experience. Which is bad enough. As for Michelle Phillips though...that's a trickier question. If you asked her today, she'd say that the momma and poppa years were the best years of her life. She'd say her relationship with John Phillips was a consentual dream come true. Maybe by today's standards, she should never have been allowed to make that decision for herself, but...

whatever decisions led to it, she ended up THERE. In the middle of it all. In the virgin islands with cass elliot and john phillips, when they wrote the very best of their songs. She ended up with a co writing credit on one of the most popular songs of the 60s. I guess it's really hard to see her as a victim.