So any non-virgin thirteen year old is fair game to be drugged and raped?
In other words, women give up their right to refuse sex the minute they have sex for the first time. Does this apply to adult women, or only to thirteen year olds? How about if nobody gives them Quaaludes and alcohol - is it OK to rape a sober child?
Moreover, any reasonably intelligent thirteen year old should be aware that she is going to be expected to spread her legs whenever she is alone with any adult male, providing there is at least one hot tub in the room. Is that it?
On preview, I think I will reserve further comment for a more appopriate forum.
Personally? I will never watch a Polanski movie. Any action that I can myself do is little actual ‘punishment’. The small percentage of the $5-10 really has only symbolic effect. However I will make that effort, simply because I find him to be a despicable man. If he didn’t flee the justice system, I may have been able to get past what he had done eventually, however I would still think him an awful person.
Age of consent laws are designed to protect children from undue influence from adults who should know better, among other things. Her choice to engage in sexual activity with her peers or other non-adults does not negate that protection as you imply.
I’m with jsgoddess on this one. What do you mean by “responsibility”? What should the 13 year old and her mother be responsible for in this instance? Can you clarify that please?
Perhaps you missed it, but Polanski lied to both the 13 year old and the mother. He claimed he was taking photos for French Vogue Magazine. Would I drop my child off at the house of a person who has mild celebrity claiming that he can help them start a modeling career? Probably not. But if a person is fooled into believing this, are you suggesting that they should expect to be raped? Tell me that’s not what you are saying. I don’t know how to interpret your “responsibility” phrase.
I completely disagree with this. Because other people will be affected is a great reason to boycott Polanski’s work. If people willingly choose to do business with a convicted child rapist, I feel zero sympathy for them and any lost revenue a boycott may create.
If people either knowingly or unknowingly work with Polanski, although not guilty themselves of his crime, their association with him could lead to being grouped with him. It’s like if you do business with a mob boss. You may be clean yourself, but people might associate you with the mob boss and not want to hang out with you anymore. If this pressure against Polanski exists from everyone around him, it sends the proper signal that his behavior is unacceptable.
I can do very little to affect Polanski. My best shot is if these writings influence people to examine his history, and make their own decisions on whether or not they want to support the man. I’ve made my choice.
Shodan,
You’ve got some interesting arguments and I’ve got robust replies at the ready. But I’ve decided on principle not to reply to any more posts that begin with “So you think it’s all right to drug and rape little girls, do you?” Obviously, I do not, and I’m real tired of repeating myself. Sorry.
Hello again. Nobody seems to care what Samantha Geimer, the former 13-year-old girl, now 39, says about the whole thing. In case you missed it,
• she wants Polanski to be able to return to the U.S.
• she hopes that Polanski will be pardoned
• she believes Polanski’s work should be judged on its artistic merits alone.
Are you one of those people who by ignoring her opinion in the matter, is tacitly saying, “I don’t care what Samantha Geimer thinks”?
I would point out that just because one victim of a crime is OK with it, does not mean that the perpetrator should not be punished. One of the reasons for punishment is for the deterrence effect. We have to consider not only the specific victim, but other possible victims who would not be OK with being violated.
Would you be happy if your 13 year old daughter were raped by a known offender who remained at large because a previous victim did not want him punished?
My opinion of Roman Polanski exists independently from Ms. Geimer’s. If a rape victim forgives her rapist, it does not mean he deserves forgiveness from me or from society.
Especially is said rapist is a continuing fugitive.
The state of California does not care that Ms. Geimer has forgiven Polanski either. It still considers Polanski a wanted man. This is entirely correct as a matter of law.
Ms. Geimer’s forebearance should be taken into consideration at sentencing or in front of a parole board. Also taken into consideration should be the decades Polanski has thumbed his nose at the sentence he earned whilst getting his jollies, while living it up on money collected largely from American movie audiences.
I’m at a site for sharing that opinion. Ms. Geimer can come here, too, and share hers. That won’t make either of us relevant, but it wouldn’t hurt.
In what way is her opinion more relevant than anyone else’s? Because if you keep throwing it into the discussion, you appear to be claiming that hers is the opinion that should count. Why?
Unless she was of age and they did have sex, or unless they didn’t have sex at all, then she doesn’t get to consent. Her wishes at that time were immaterial. How can familiarity in any other way make her now able to say there should be a different outcome?
So, there are only two important facts regarding whether he broke a law:
How old was she, and
What happened between her and Polanski.
Her opinion about it now doesn’t change what happened, doesn’t change her age, doesn’t change the conviction, and doesn’t change the fleeing. What does it change?
I don’t know, Walloon - are you one of those people who by ignoring her opinion in the matter, is tacitly saying, “I don’t care what Norma McCorvey thinks”?
I imagine she knows more about Roe v. Wade than you do - should her opinion control what the law says in that case?
The state is the prosecuting authority in criminal matters - not the individual. Polanski deserves to go to prison for the crime he committed against society, not simply against one thirteen year old.
Well, first off, who says I am ignoring Norma McCorvey’s opinoin? I’m anti-abortion and so is she.
But to anwer the broader question, yes I do think the victim’s opinion should bear great importance in a criminal matter. That is why many states have passed laws allowing victims to testify during sentencing and parole hearings, and why I believe the state of California should place great importance on the opinion of Samantha Geimer in this particular case.
This is exactly right. Once upon a time, the police’s hands were tied in cases of domestic abuse- victims would have to press charges in order for them to act, and most were reluctant to do so.
Thankfully, someone somewhere wised up and realized that the abused might not have the best perspective on the issue to make a good choice (by good, I mean for society, as well as themselves). So now, in most, if not all, jurisdictions that I am familiar with, domestic abuse is kicked up directly to a criminal offense against the state, rather than being a civil matter.
Anyway, thje liong and the short of it is that the victim’s wishes do not, and quite often should not, trump the needs of justice in a given situation. Polanski needs to serve time for his offense against all of us.
The analogy applies because the victim doesn’t own the crime in either case. Parole boards and judges may listen to the victim’s testimony and opinion, but they are not bound by it. And that applies whether the victim is advocating leniency or harshness- a car thief doesn’t get a death sentence simply because the victim wants him to.
The reason that the opinions of Ms. Geimer are of little importance to the guilt that Polanski bears, is because the U.S. is a country where what matters is the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man. That being said, the criminal justice system does not ebb and flow on the whims of individuals, but is codified by more than just the victim, or any other individual’s opinion on the matter at hand.
Amongst lying to her to get her to the house, drugging her, and raping her, Geimer said “no” at the time of the incident. Ignoring Ms. Geimer’s age at the time, that is the point at which it became a crime. Regarding her young age, that made it a crime even doubly so. Ms. Geimer’s feeling toward Polanski at this point in time are completely irrelevant to the crime that was committed.
I certainly would not want to live in a society where punishments are meted out based on how we feel about convicted criminals. Would you?
That is how juries decide punishments, and that is how judges decide punishments. Operating within statutory guidelines, they have much leeway in meting out sentences, all depending how they feel about the perpetrator and his crime. The judge in Polanski’s case had the option of a sentence going all the way from no jail time to 50 years in prison, all depending how he felt about Polanski and the crime. So yes, we do live in a society where punsihments are meted out based on how we feel about criminals.
If we didn’t care about how victims feel about convicted criminals, we wouldn’t have laws that gave victims the right to testify at sentencing and parole hearings. Nobody has advocated removing the judge from acting as intermediary in this process. But I have advocated that, given the great leeway allowed in sentencing, the judicial system put great weight upon the victim’s statement in this particular case.
Ok, so lets say Polanski returns to the U.S, turns himself into the authorities for whatever punishment they will give him, and apologies profusesly for what he did back in 1977?
