Please explain to me why Roman Polanski isn't a bad guy

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Hector_St_Clare

Some of us also believe the world was created in six days, and all the species in the world fit on board a big boat.

1. There’s a lot of evidence that having sex at a very young age is bad for you. A 13 year old girl’s body is not set up to deal well with pregnancy, for one thing, and there’s some interesting evidence from hamster studies that early sexual debut may lead to subsequent physical and psychological problems. Given that, it makes a lot of sense to want to protect overly young teenagers (we can debate about what ‘overly young’ should mean here, but 13 certainly qualifies) from sex, whether or not they want to have sex or not.

2. Children are taught to obey adults, and the ability to say ‘no’ is something that you gradually acquire through your teenage years. You can certainly make a case that the age of consent of 18 is too high, but whatever the optimal age is, I’m sure it’s closer to 18 than to 13.

3. She didn’t concent, so this is all irrelevant anyway.

1. Children are allowed to do a lot of things that are bad for them.

2. Not all children are not taught to obey all adults. We really don’t know a lot about how the alleged victim was raised. However, girls especially are usually taught to say “no” to male adults on matters of sex (unless an unscrupulous parent has been training them to use sex as a commodity to barter)

3. She said she didn’t consent. Polanski said she did. She said. He said. But the law says innocent until proven guilty.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@JesterX

Why they do it? My own theory is that people like to pretend they’re all about living by ideals and principles but for the most part, whether they realize it or not, people are really all about other PEOPLE.

Leopold and Loeb were acting from the highest ideals and principles.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@ZPG_Zealot

Anyone that’s going use a seventh grader’s testimony without legal cross-examination or physical evidence backing up their claims to sentence another person to prison time should stay away from the legal process.

It’s worth pointing out the lack of cross examination in this case was a result of a plea bargain. It was not a lack of willingness on the part of the accuser. Polanski is in part at fault for there being no cross examination having taken place.

Was the mother a money grabbing sleazeball? Perhaps. Was Polanski a sleazeball? Almost certainly. Is he guilty? I don’t know. Am I surprised the usual arty fart suspects(and Eurotrash) have defended him all these years? No.

[iiandyiiii]

@ZPG_Zealot

3. She said she didn’t consent. Polanski said she did. She said. He said. But the law says innocent until proven guilty.

Polanski admitted guilt and fled. And he’s admitted to penetrating the victim – his ridiculous defense was that she was enjoying it. Polanski has even said that she is his victim.

So she said she was raped. He said he penetrated her. He admitted guilt in court. He fled the country. And he later said she was his victim. That’s pretty definitive.

[Smapti]

@ZPG_Zealot

3. She said she didn’t consent. Polanski said she did. She said. He said. But the law says innocent until proven guilty.

And he was found guilty, so what’s your point?

[Hector_St_Clare]

@ZPG_Zealot

1. Children are allowed to do a lot of things that are bad for them.

Yes, but they’re also forbidden from doing a lot of other things that are bad for them. We certainly have historical, cultural and legal precedent for forbidding children from doing some things that adults would be perfectly within their rights to do.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@ZPG_Zealot

3. She said she didn’t consent. Polanski said she did. She said. He said. But the law says innocent until proven guilty.

The law doesn’t say that everyone’s testimony is equally credible. If a judge and/or jury thinks that the purported victim’s testimony is more credible than the purported rapist, then they have every right to find Polanski guilty.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

He admitted he stuck his dick in her.

She was de facto 13.

He is, regardless of all other evidence, a statutory rapist. Were she to have claimed complete cooperation and consent, it would be at best slightly mitigating factors, good for a year or two off the otherwise appropriate sentence.

[Monty]

@JesterX

People defend Woody Allen too even though, from accounts given by his adopted daughter (NOT the one he married), what he did to her was just as despicable.

The woman Allen married was not his adopted daughter. She wasn’t even his step-daughter.

[Monty]

@andros

So you’re fine with an adult in a position of power having sex with, say, a precocious ten year old?

I wouldn’t be surprised. We already know she’s not okay with a man even offering to touch a woman’s hand but she has no problem whatsoever with a woman (her) actually grabbing a man’s hands without permission.

[nevadaexile]

Polanski should have done his time, got out and moved on with his career. At the time (sort of like now) California’s prison system was overcrowded , so he wouldn’t have done more than a year or two at MOST. He’d be out and then he could have fought his deportation if they were indeed going to deport him.

Now he has to hope that his flight doesn’t get diverted for bad weather, land somewhere that will extradite him and that he’ll get unceremoniously shipped back to the US to serve out his full sentence.

As far as the Hollywood types who defend him: When you live in a place whose primary function is make believe, you worldview changes to reflect that. That’s why when you read celebrity interviews or watch them on television, you can tell that most of them are so detached from reality that they could easily defend Polanski and see nothing wrong with taking that position.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Amateur_Barbarian

He admitted he stuck his dick in her.

She was de facto 13.

He is, regardless of all other evidence, a statutory rapist. Were she to have claimed complete cooperation and consent, it would be at best slightly mitigating factors, good for a year or two off the otherwise appropriate sentence.

He’s guilty and should have served prison time per his plea agreement. His great artistry is no excuse or mitigating factor. His personal history of tragedy might make for an explanation of his criminal behavior, but it isn’t a defense.

Roman Polanski

His father was transferred, along with thousands of other Jews, to Mauthausen, a group of 49 German concentration camps in Austria. His mother was taken to Auschwitz and was killed soon after arriving. The forced exodus took place immediately after the German liquidation of the Kraków ghetto, a true-life backdrop to Polanski’s film, The Pianist (2002). Polanski, who was then hiding from the Germans, remembered seeing his father being marched off with a long line of people. Polanski tried getting closer to his father to ask him what was happening, and managed to get within a few yards. His father saw him, but afraid his son might be spotted by the German soldiers, whispered (in Polish,) “Get lost!”[28]:24 Polański escaped the Kraków Ghetto in 1943 and survived by assuming the name Romek Wilk, with the help of some Polish Roman Catholic families including Mrs Sermak who promised his father to shelter him.[28]:21 He attended church, learned to recite Catholic prayers by heart, and behaved outwardly as a Roman Catholic, although he was never baptized. His efforts to blend into a Catholic household failed miserably at least once, when the parish priest visiting the family posed questions to him one-on-one about the catechism: “You aren’t one of us”, he said.[39]

I don’t know what sort of defense or mitigation having your family murdered twice, once when you are a child and then again an adult. But I simply do not accept no prison time. I do admire his film* Chinatown.*

[Guinastasia]

I though of an interesting deal for him: if you come back and serve your original sentence, in exchange, we’ll let you have five minutes alone with Charles Manson and a baseball bat.

[Hector_St_Clare]

I’m just glad I never ended up seeing of Polanski’s or Woody Allen’s stuff (not that I remember, at least) so I don’t have to feel conflicted about enjoying their ‘art’.

I do feel conflicted about liking Phil Spector’s music, but at least he’s paying for his crime.

[Fair_Rarity]

Jesus fucking tapdancing christ. She was 13 years old. It’s not ok even before we get into issues of drugging and “consent”. He is a terrible human being, even if terrible things happened to him prior to this event. The support for him in the industry sickens me, especially the personal support.

[Ibn_Warraq]

ZP, unless I misremember, haven’t you spoken fervently and at length on how it’s wrong for men to offer to shake hands with women and doing so is tantamount to sexual assault?

I don’t bring this up as an attack, but it seems bizarre to argue that there’s nothing wrong with a grown man anally penetrating a drugged 13 year old girl without her consent but offering to shake hands with her would be crossing the line.

Could you explain your reasoning please?

[Sr_Siete]

Wait. I don’t get the line of reasoning about his murdered wife. Plenty of people has suffered terrible tragedies, as bad or worse than the one he suffered, and would still not even dream of raping a 13 year old. How is that an excuse at all?

[andros]

I’m not sure anyone would offer it as an excuse, or has.

[septimus]

This reminds of Donald Trump’s assertion that rapist Mike Tyson should have been allowed to buy his way out of prison because of his great economic value to [del]Trump[/del] the U.S.A.

As for Polanski’s rape, wasn’t a defense offered that the 13-year old was mature – she looked like she was fifteen. :smack:

[Grumman]

@Ibn_Warraq

ZP, unless I misremember, haven’t you spoken fervently and at length on how it’s wrong for men to offer to shake hands with women and doing so is tantamount to sexual assault?

I don’t bring this up as an attack, but it seems bizarre to argue that there’s nothing wrong with a grown man anally penetrating a drugged 13 year old girl without her consent but offering to shake hands with her would be crossing the line.

Could you explain your reasoning please?

I recall her making similar arguments in one of the threads about that girl taken from the Roma family that allegedly adopted her, trying to make out that buying a child and grooming her for sex would not be skeevy behaviour.