Are you kidding me? You think that the drugging and forcible vaginal and anal rape of a 13 year old child (i.e. not statutory rape) by a 44 year old man wouldn’t have been prosecuted in the 70s? I can’t believe they were THAT different.
Allow me to repeat, for the one thousandth time, that this is not an issue over age of consent. This was forcible rape, which is a crime regardless of whether the victim is thirteen or twenty-five or fifty.
For a very long time being able to prove the minor in a statutory rape case was promiscuous (i.e. basically not a virgin) was a get out of jail free card for the defendant. This was not a matter of jury nullification, it was actually part of the law codes relating to the existing statutory rape law. Polanski maintained that the sex was consensual. Given that, the accuser’s previous sexual history, and the lack of rape shield laws at the time, had Polanski been the average guy he probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted.
For the one thousandth time, Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape only. At the time, he maintained the sex was consensual.
I thought there were very few things that we’d agree with in America in 2017. But I thought that the prosecution of a man guilty of the forcible rape of a 13 year old child would be one of those things.
But as I’ve seen various posters try to find an avenue around that, I’ve been proven wrong again. 
One of the few things most of us on the Dope would agree with in America is that no one is guilty until proven so in a court of law.
I personally look down upon anyone who has a choice and chooses to enable his lifestyle and aids him in escaping justice. That he was still able to make movies and find employment is a terrible outcome.
That is a contraction in terms; a minor cannot consent to having sex with an adult by definition, notwithstanding that he admitted to providing her with Quaaludes and alcohol to consume prior to engaging in sexual acts.
Stranger
What he was actually found guilty of was unlawful sexual intercourse, wasn’t it?
What would an auto worker in Detroit have gotten for that in 1977?
It’s not a contradiction in terms, it merely highlights the difference between the legal and common definition of the word “consensual”.
You are thinking about how statutory rape laws exists and are interpreted now, not how it was in the 1970s. Until the late 1970’s “promiscuity” (which usually meant any previous sexual intercourse) basically rendered the existing age of the consent laws null and void. Providing drugs and alcohol to a minor in 1970s Hollywood would not have been viewed as anything bad (unless the drugs or alcohol were of particularly bad quality) especially when the minor in question had come alone to a topless modelling shoot.
ZPG Zealot I would request cites consisting of statutory provisions and caselaw to support your claims.
It’s not about statutory provisions or caselaw, but rather social mores. Lori Maddox and Sable Starr were both sleeping with numerous rock stars when they were 14 and no one gave a shit. These days Bowie, Jagger and Jimmy Page would all be doing long prison terms.
I suppose the difference is that the groupies were actively seeking out and planning to have sex with the stars, while Polanski took advantage of a passed out girl who had no interest in him, which I guess was too much even by the decadent standards of 1970s California.
No, promiscuity was a valid legal defense in statuatory rape laws. Can’t vouch for a 13 yr old in California but ZPG Zealot is not just talking about different social mores. She’s incorrect if she thinks it ended in the 70s though.
Here you go AK84:
He did . And there are two things that I’m fairly certain were the same both in the '70s and now.
-
You don’t plead guilty to a crime unless you think that he result of going to trial will be worse. That could mean anything from pleading guilty and paying a $100 traffic ticket to avoid spending a few days in court, to pleading guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid the chance of a felony conviction to pleading guilty to one felony to avoid being convicted of a different felony with a longer possible sentence.
-
When you take a plea without a sentencing agreement, you are leaving the sentence to the discretion of the court. And the court may decide to sentence you to the maximum term allowed for the crime that you have been convicted of by virtue of your guilty plea. I’ve heard a lot about how Polanski didn’t expect to be sentenced to prison, how this one and that one recommended against prison time - but not one single word about probation being *promised *in the plea agreement.
Her point was that his guilt of forceable rape was not admitted to nor proven in a court of law. So we can’t say “Lets not forget he forced a girl into unwanted anal sex” without some caveats.
Out of curiosity, did Polanski ever publicly state he wanted to return to the U.S., and would do so if the matter was resolved?
Actually a lot of decadent Hollywood of 1970s didn’t think Polanski’s behavior was unusual or inappropriate at the time.
Notice also how casually the drugs are discussed. It really was a different era.
Yes, he’s had his lawyers working on it for some time now.
As far as I can tell from the news reports, his position is that he will come back to the States and appear in the California court if he gets an assurance in advance that the court will give him favourable treatment.
The California courts have rejected those arguments, saying that fugitives from justice don’t get to dictate the terms of their appearance to the court.
The most recent application was a few weeks ago. That’s the one that Ms Geimer appeared in.
I think he made a similar application around the time of the attempt to extradite him from Switzerland.
Recent article: Roman Polanski compares US court system to Nazi Germany
I don’t think it ended in the 1970’s by any means, but I do believe it was more pervasive as a belief and more persuasive as a legal defense argument in the 1970s. When the original age of consent laws were written in many states, the bona fide non-promiscuity of the alleged victim (basically the girl had to be a virgin) was an actual legal requirement for the act to be considered statutory rape. It was only with second wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s that lead to the passage of rape shield laws and the idea that a minor because of age (and regardless of sexual history) could not consent to intercourse.