FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Amanda]

Is anyone following this news story? I'm sat here fuming because of the many reporters and public figures I've been hearing defend this child rapist. This one (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... roman.html) in particular got my back up, how can anyone say that his arrest is "outrageous". He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, he fled the country

[bud]

I can't get over the tossers who are on his side! But that's Hollywood for you!

[Gilles 27]

If you knew anything about the case, you'd understand why his arrest is outrageous. His trial was basically fixed by a judge who wanted nothing other than to be on TV and the girl in question, as well as her mother basically trapped him in order to get rich from either tabloid coverage or a settlement payment. The alleged victim no longer wants any retribution, nor did she want the original court case to proceed in the manner it did. The guy lost his parents in the holocaust, his wife and children were murdered and he was forced to flee the country he loved because he was set up by greedy people.

[bud]

If you knew anything about the case, you'd understand why his arrest is outrageous. His trial was basically fixed by a judge who wanted nothing other than to be on TV and the girl in question, as well as her mother basically trapped him in order to get rich from either tabloid coverage or a settlement payment. The alleged victim no longer wants any retribution, nor did she want the original court case to proceed in the manner it did. The guy lost his parents in the holocaust, his wife and children were murdered and he was forced to flee the country he loved because he was set up by greedy people.

he has a history of flings with underage girls.

[Gilles 27]

I am aware of this. That is not what is in question. he is being arrested on specific charges relating to the case he fled the US over. That case was a circus and no verdict carried by that court could ever be referred to as justice.

[bud]

whether this case is corrupt or not who cares, he is a pedo and deserves to die alone in prison!

[Hanwombat]

Pedos deserve nothing but to be locked away.... rapists too

[Gilles 27]

Right except that the case which had him branded as a pedophile was carried out in such away that it can't be considered as a legitimate means of judgment. Other allegations made against him have not made it to court so it is unfair to make any kind of judgment on those. Untill he is convicted at a fair trial conducted in the correct manner, it is unfair to brand him as anything, guilty innocent, victimised, whatever. Rittenband was a disgrace to the word justice and any case overseen by him should be examined in terms of it's validity. The terms of Polanski's plea bargain were violated repeatedly by the judge and prosecution and the nature of Polanski's plea and his subsequent fleeing of the USA were products of his pathological anxieties over corrupt and prejudicial prosecution systems resulting from his experience during and after the holocaust.

[bud]

did you think MJ was innocent too?

[Gilles 27]

He was proved innocent in a court case. I was surprised at the verdict and I don't know the details of the case so to be honest, I can't comment on MJ. Sounds like you watch a little too much Sky News to me.

[bud]

He was proved innocent in a court case. I was surprised at the verdict and I don't know the details of the case so to be honest, I can't comment on MJ. Sounds like you watch a little too much Sky News to me.

Na never watch cable news, I use logic.

But you say he was proved innocent, in a judicial system you just previously claimed is corrupt? oh yes thank you.

[Gilles 27]

Well quite, the verdict isn't the be all and end all when it comes to the US legal system. The judge was specifically the problem in the Polanski case and I don't know who it was in the MJ case so it could have been perfectly legit, but with all these high profile cases in the US, they are usually anything but legit.

[Amanda]

Firstly, Roman Polanski admitted to statutory ****, he admitted knowing her age and giving her alcohol and drugs. He has never questioned or denied the testimony that she gave, which states quite clearly that Polanski performed sexual acts (including anal penetration) on her against her will. In fact reading the transcript it becomes clear that she said "no" several times and asked to be taken home.

Secondly, I fail to see why his background as a holocaust survivor is relevant at all. Having tragedy in ones life does not excuse the decisions we then choose to make in the future.

Thirdly, the opinion of the victim in this case is regrettable but that should not stop justice being served. One of the comments posted on the article I linked above put it very nicely:

"I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."

It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child **** and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made."

The simple facts are that he supplied drugs and alcohol to a 13 year old girl and then performed oral, vaginal and anal umpalumpa on her against her will. He then chose to flee. If he felt that his trail was unfair, well that's what an appeal is for.

[Gilles 27]

Polanski did not admit to the original charges, pleaded guilty to revised charges as part of a plea bargain. Any other decision was made impossible by the nature of the prosecution evidence and the US legal system as there was no way to positively disprove the charges. Polanski maintains that the acts committed were consensual and that he was not aware of her age. Such statements were not viable in court as a plea of not guilty would have placed Polanski in a worse position and he was more likely to succeed in reducing his potential sentence on a guilty plea than to win the case on a not guilty plea. This is because of the predisposition in American courts of the defendants as guilty until proven innocent.

Polanski's history is absolutely crucial to understanding both his defense case and his eventual fleeing of custody. I have taken the time to understand this, I suggest you do the same as I am not inclined to describe it in the detail required in order to explain its significance to the case here. It is also important to consider the often overlooked history of the victim and her mother who were both gaining notoriety for setting up situations like this.

The Judeo-Christian legal system's lack of victim orientation is in my opinion, it's greatest failing. Instead what has been created is a vengeance system which serves the interests of very few of the parties involved, particularly in a case like this. This is why traditional trials have contributed little or nothing to resolving ethnic conflicts worldwide.

[Amanda]

Polanski did not admit to the original charges, pleaded guilty to revised charges as part of a plea bargain. Any other decision was made impossible by the nature of the prosecution evidence and the US legal system as there was no way to positively disprove the charges. Polanski maintains that the acts committed were consensual and that he was not aware of her age. Such statements were not viable in court as a plea of not guilty would have placed Polanski in a worse position and he was more likely to succeed in reducing his potential sentence on a guilty plea than to win the case on a not guilty plea. This is because of the predisposition in American courts of the defendants as guilty until proven innocent.

As I said, he pleaded guilty to statutory ****, I made that clear in my first sentence. You can question his motive for doing that as much as you like, the fact remains that he admitted to statutory **** in a court of law. He also admitted to knowing that the girl was 13 in a court of law. Therefore by fleeing he was breaking the law and I see nothing 'outrageous' about extraditing him for being a fugitive, whether you agree with the original ruling or not, he is a fugitive.

Polanski's history is absolutely crucial to understanding both his defense case and his eventual fleeing of custody. I have taken the time to understand this, I suggest you do the same as I am not inclined to describe it in the detail required in order to explain its significance to the case here. It is also important to consider the often overlooked history of the victim and her mother who were both gaining notoriety for setting up situations like this.

Understanding his history and its impact on his decisions is one thing, absolving him of guilt because of that history is something completely different. I am well aware of Polanski's past, that does not mean that he is above the law. Quite frankly he should have thought about the implications of his actions before he decided to have umpalumpa with that girl, then he wouldn't have had to flee.

The actions of the mother and the victim are completely irrelevant. The decision to intoxicate and **** that girl were made by Polanski. The mother may have put her daughter in a questionable position, the victim may have already been sexually active, they both may have made money from this case but that does not mean that it is acceptable for a 44 year old man to **** a 13 year old girl. I thought we'd evolved past blaming the victim.