Roman Polanski Arrested

[Green Lantern]

With all the publicity around Roman right now, timing could be perfect. I am not creative at all though. So, take the idea, get with some of the creative folks on the board and go with it. I trust you guys/gals will treat me fairly for spawning the idea.

You can come on stage with us to accept our award at the Oscars. Or the Razzies. Whichever the case may be.

[byu71]

You can come on stage with us to accept our award at the Oscars. Or the Razzies. Whichever the case may be.

Sweet. In those kind of settings old farts hang out with chicks and get somewhere.


Edit: Chicks means ladies over 18 and not married.

[CJF]

Is your issue with Polanski the girl's age or that she had ingested drugs and alcohol? If it's the girl's age I'd like you to explain your adoration or at least contextualization of Joseph Smith, who had intercourse with adolescent girls.

So you equate the two people and their acts to each other? If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith was arrested time after time and ultimately murdered while in custody. I think if anything, most here are asking for a lighter sentence for Polanski. Nice try though.

[LA Ute]

Everyone: It is both grotesque and laughable for SU to bring Joseph Smith into this. Please do not reward him for doing so. He should be ashamed of himself.

[RobinFinderson]

Everyone: It is both grotesque and laughable for SU to bring Joseph Smith into this. Please do not reward him for doing so. He should be ashamed of himself.

Really? Joseph Smith's religious-styled adultery was considered a clear moral breach by everybody except for the true believers.

So maybe the comparison fits... Polanski's defenders are like the LDS true believers in Joseph Smith's day, and everyone else in the world today is like everyone else in the world in Joesph Smith's day. In this way Mormons are very much like the Hollywood elite.

[SeattleUte]

Everyone: It is both grotesque and laughable for SU to bring Joseph Smith into this. Please do not reward him for doing so. He should be ashamed of himself.

Any distinction between Joseph Smith's sexual misconduct and Roman Polansksi's is at most subjective and debatable. My purpose isn't to defend either one of them. They both engaged in morally reprehensible conduct. My point is just that life isn't as easily reducible to K-Dog's forumulation as he would like.

[LA Ute]

Any distinction between Joseph Smith's sexual misconduct and Roman Polansksi's is at most subjective and debatable. My purpose isn't to defend either one of them. They both engaged in morally reprehensible conduct. My point is just that life isn't as easily reducible to K-Dog's forumulation as he would like.

It is grotesque and laughable and you are embarrassing yourself.

[SeattleUte]

Grand Jury testimony is useful for one thing...determining what charges should be brought. Polanski was accused of much more than statutory rape and the accusation was backed by sufficient evidence that the judge decided to throw out the plea deal. I think we both know what that indicated (since we are both acting like sophisticated lawyers).

You make the statement that both Polanski and Smith are guilty of "moral lapses." That generality is like saying an accused murderer who has admitted to firing the gun but hasn't admitted to the premeditation is as guilty of a "moral lapse" as the guy who got in a fist fight at work. Smith may have had sex with a girl who may have been as young at 14 which was legal at the time. Polanski admits to having sex which may have been consensual with a 13 year old who wouldn't be legal for 5 more years when he knew she was 13. One guy committed a moral lapse, the other committed an admitted crime. In the first case the moral lapse was not illegal but may have been illegal if it occurred today. In the second the crime was clearly illegal and may have been illegal in any time period.

Why don't we leave Smith out of this since it isn't relevant?

My only point is that your oversimplificatoins are grotesque. As with Smith, Polanski's life doesn't begin and end with the crime he committed as you said. Smith committed what would have been a crime and put him in prison for a long time today. Even then people were shocked and appalled at what he did. Polanski, probably suffering form a similar hubris and narcisism as Smith, committed much the same sin, but in 20th century America, with a better developed judicial system. You are acting like the mob that lynched Joseph Smith.

[LA Ute]

My only point is that your oversimplificatoins are grotesque. As with Smith, Polanski's life doesn't begin and end with the crime he committed as you said. Smith committed what would have been a crime and put him in prison for a long time today. Even then people were shocked and appalled at what he did. Polanski, probably suffering form a similar hubris and narcisism as Smith, committed much the same sin, but in 20th century America, with a better developed judicial system. You are acting like the mob that lynched Joseph Smith.

Your "never say die" attitude is more than admirable:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zKhEw7nD9C4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zKhEw7nD9C4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Chris Rock was on Jay Leno last night and killed. http://www.urbanmusicdirect.com/2009...-leno-10-1-09/


Talking about Polanski (about 2:40 into the clip) he said "She was 13! People are defending him because he made some good movies? He made good movies 30 years ago, Jay. Not even Johnnie Cochran don't have the nerve to say 'Well, did you see OJ play against New England?'"

[LA Ute]

Jack Webb has his say

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rIZ_wEXiAoc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rIZ_wEXiAoc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[UtahDan]

You aren't talking like a sophisticated lawyer here. Grand jury testimony is practically worthless because there's no cross examination, the defendant's lawyers are typically not even allowed in the room. In fact, most grand jury testimony is secret. He pled to statutory rape. That's the only "truth" you know. He hasn't been tried and convicted for any other kind of rape. Children are particularly problematic as witinesses.

Oh come on, SU. Has she repudiated her grand jury testimony? She certainly seems to be in a forgiving mode at this point, she knows the transcript is out there. Has she come forward to say she overstated things? If she really wants things to rest, and that it the reality, it would certainly help. If he is pleading to anything, it is at bare minimum an acknowledgment that the evidence is sufficient to put him at risk at trial. I'm not even sure she gets cross examined at trial, by the way. Do you want to give her an opportunity to say what your client did a second time? Do you want a jury to think you are beating up on a kid? I think there is a huge chance that even in a trial setting it would be a big tactical error for him to do anything other than try to create reasonable doubt by telling his side. In a case like this he has to tell his side. But to act like the grand jury testimony of a 13-14 year old is "practically" worthless dramatically overstates things. What you are pointing out is a caveat, but no more.

I think the analogy between Roman Polanski and Joseph Smith is quite precise. In both instances their defenders ask us to evaluate the whole life and not just the moral lapses. The moral lapses are very similar, except that JS was a repeat if not serial offender. I consider art and religioin to be a common body of work so for me the analogy is quite resonant.

There is an analogy here, I agree. Not a very precise one though. If we were talking about Joseph raping girls, then you would have a precise analogy. That isn't what we are talking about. There isn't any evidence that Joseph did anything against anyones will. In fact, there is evidence that he was turned down many times. It if fair to ask whether he gets a pass for what we would all now agree is immoral behavior because of larger context. I think that is an interesting question too. But putting Polanski's actions and Joseph's actions on equal footing is way off and distracts from an otherwise interesting point.

[TripletDaddy]

Indeed you are confused. You raised speeding as an example of the utter inconsistency of people like me in dealing with the rule of law. Do you need a link?

perhaps I do. I thought I was responding to a question you raised re: traffic tickets or something similar.

[creekster]

perhaps I do. I thought I was responding to a question you raised re: traffic tickets or something similar.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...&postcount=302

You will see in the quoted post you raised the example of speeding. AS you may know, speeding violations are usually dealt with by citation, or tickets.

Of course, you are so clearly trolling here, so clearly willing to elevate the importance of being glib and clever above other values, even on this topic, that I am not sure why I ma bothering to indulge you. But have at it, and enjoy yourself.

[TripletDaddy]

DDD, you're one of my favorite people, and not just on a message board. I don't remember ever really disagreeing with you. I do now. If you're trolling, well done. You got me. If you're being sincere, I'm more than a little disappointed. Let me state that I have not studied this story. I do not know the details you seem to have. I do have a few thoughts.

1- You've always always always been a defender of children and their safety, both physical and emotional. I'm very surprised that you would advocate the dropping of charges of someone who would do something so outrageous to a child.

2- You continue to mention that the victim has forgiven so we should move on. Again, this disappoints me. And again, I've not dived into the details of the case, but as someone who has been sexually abused, forgiveness can be a coping mechanism. It is not healthy to allow someone to hold that kind of power over you. Especially if you want to have normal, meaningful emotional and physical relationships with a significant other later on in life. Forgiveness says more about the victim and where she is in her personal life than it does about what justice should be handed out to her attacker by a free and civilized society.

She was not old enough to fully understand the situation. To say Mr. Polanski should not be held accountable because someone he very well could have broken, and who has tried to move on, says she has forgiven is not a valid defense for freedom in my opinion. Possibly for leniency in the form of sentence.

3- Is there a statute of limitation on this? Or did that become obsolete when Mr. Polanski agreed to a guilty plea? Just curious. If no limitation, I have full expectations for him to serve his time, even if it is only 1 day. The message to society has to be if you harm a child it does not matter how famous, how rich, how talented, how far you run, eventually you will endure a punishment handed out by the system the rest of us are living under.

4- I'm obviously not a lawyer. I don't know what is normal, but from watching and reading the news for the last 36 years, criminals don't get to pick their punishment. While living a posh life in Europe and avoiding the US might be miserable for some, I think most here would take that over serving hard time as a child abuser/rapist in prison. I understand why he ran. Heck, I probably would do the same thing. But I would expect to have the book thrown at me if and when I got caught again.

I love you DDD, but this is something I just can't understand where you're coming from.

I appreciate the love and it is definitely reciprocated back atcha. I think you are misunderstanding my point. First, no I am not trolling.

My initial post that got this ball rolling was introduced with an emphasis on forgiveness....a gospel perspective. If the victim can forgive, why can't we? She wants to move on, let's just move on.

I am definitely against the rape of child. Or of any person, regardless of age. But the issue right now with Polanski is not whether he raped someone. This is a huge strawman that everyone here keeps perpetuating. That he raped the girl is NOT in issue. He had already pleaded. In fact, he was already serving time in jail. His issue at this point is fleeing the sentencing. Given the plea deal, he was likely not going to serve much time anyway. So my point is focused on that reality.....had he never fled, he would barely get any jail time. So why, almost 40 years later, is it so critical that he come back to serve barely any jail time? I just don't see it accomplishing much.

You have referenced the coping mechanisms used by victims. I don't disagree. But your stance also requires speculation. You have no idea whether Samantha is faking or whether she has truly processed it and moved on. Again, from a gospel perspective, I believe that God does strengthen us individually to be able to eventually forgive. I will take her words at face value, instead of basically saying, "that is nice, but you are being dishonest. You don't really feel that way."

Also, you don't have to be a lawyer to figure out that living in Europe is not the same thing as living in a jail cell. But I have already addressed this. Our judicial system is not set up exclusively to make criminals miserable. Sometimes we just want bad people out of our country. Polanski has been banished. He definitely paid a price. Using your logic of comparison, let's say Polanski was given a 24 month stint in jail (given his immense popularity at the time, most assuredly in ad-seg for his own safety)....would you take that over being kicked out of the US for the rest of your life...and btw, your butchered wife is in the US and you will never ever visit her grave again...and you will never have access to the epicenter of your trained profession.

I am trying to measure the totality of the circumstances. Most of the responses here seem to say....child rape: go to jail.

creekster's Elizabeth Smart comparison is also not a great one. Smart was kidnapped, raped repeatedly for months, and definitely does NOT feel obliged to release her attacker. Her attacker maintains that he was told by God to do these things. The Polanski incident happened once, he admitted he was wrong and that he made a mistake. He plead guilty. Smart is certainly not using acceptance as a coping mechanism, so that seems to weaken your premise that all victims accept their attackers as a means of coping. Maybe that is not what you were saying, but it seems that you were implying that Samantha was likely being agreeable simply to cope with the trauma (I do admit that this is definitely possible, despite what she says to the press).

On that note, I see that everyone is again attacking SeattleUte's comparison to Joseph Smith? The rebutalls seem desperate. People aren't really distinguishing anything other than calling SeattleUte names.

Ultimately, I don't see this as an attempt to determine whether Roman Polanski committed this crime. He obviously did. This is about the worth of bringing this guy back to put him in jail for a brief period of time, against the wishes of the victim and despite the fact that the criminal in question appears to have rehabilitated his life. From a gospel perspective, vengeance is not mine. It is my duty to forgive. That is all I am saying.