Friends Defend Polanski

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

Run time: 06:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymc6LDd1QPg   Posted on YouTube: September 29, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 29, 2009 By DU Member: Cash_thatswhatiwant Views on DU: 2178

 

[hmorehead]

1. ENOUGH

Let Polanski go.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

3. Polanski plead guilty to raping a 13 year old girl

The nature of the crime and what he did to her is graphic and disgusting. If you or I committed this crime and fled, there would be no mercy for us. The double standard afforded celebrity is wrong. He should face justice and pay for what he has done no matter how much time has past. Polanski is an immense talent and I love his films. But he is a rapist and raped a child. I cant defend his actions and I am surprised you are.

[BREMPRO]

5. I agree there should be no double standard for celebrities, but i disagree he should be further

persecuted for his bad judgment 30 years ago. Clearly he was wrong, but the victim has said she forgives him and just wants to move on with her life. There are mitigating circumstances in the trial, where the judge had reneged on a plea agreement. I think his exile from the states for 30 years is enough. Keep in mind also the scale of tragedies he's had to endure in addition to the exile as a result of this incident. He was a child in Auschwitz where his mother was gassed by the Nazi's. His first wife Sharon Tate, who was pregnant with his child, was brutally murdered by Charles Manson. If the victim felt that he had ruined her life and wanted him prosecuted, i would feel otherwise. She's moved on. This is just the Law and Order LA prosecutors ego at work. Cut him some slack.

[katkat]

7. slack?

Perhaps his defenders can come up with a list of reasons when raping a 13-year-old is okay. I would be interested to know, because, like, I think it's one of the most revolting crimes imaginable. But, hey, that's just me. Then let the rest of us know if it's okay if the victim is one of your family members or neighbors.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

8. The victim has no say in whether Polanski is prosecuted

that is up to the state of California. They made their decision to go ahead with prosecution. She has absolutely no say in that whatsoever. The judge did reneg on the plea agreement but Polanski fled rather than face justice. This is something that happens, it doesn't mean he should be able to flee justice, it means he raped a child and should be punished regardless of what the judge's decision is.

As for his life being tragic and then he should be exonerated for his crime. There are plenty of rapists in the world that grew up in broken homes had horrible childhoods etc. We as a society do not take that into consideration when someone commits a crime, this crime happened in 1977 long after his wife was murdered and much longer after his tragic childhood. It is no excuse and frankly I am a bit surprised that there are so many people on DU excusing a child rapist.

I tend to think that this reaction is part of the problem with our celebrity obsessed culture. Celebrities are held to a different standard than we are, if you or I committed this heinous crime they would make sure we were brought to justice. I am a Roman Polanski fan I love his films but I have always been perplexed that Hollywood and society at large excused him for this. I for one and glad he is going to face justice. He deserves it.

[BREMPRO]

9. You have to ask why after all these years the prosecuters suddently go after him

with a vengence. Ego and career building publicity.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/polanski-misrable/

"Newser, Michael Wolff advances the theory that Polanski was done in by the movies, in particular “Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” the documentary the director’s supporters find persuasive and his critics find utterly unconvincing. L.A. prosecutors, goes Wolff’s reasoning, found it embarrassing.

Prosecutors ignored Polanski for 30 years because it was a terrible case in which the prosecutor’s office and the sitting judge, in the interest of getting publicity for themselves, had conducted themselves in all variety of dubious ways. But then, last year, a documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, came out detailing all this dubiousness. So the first motivation for going after Polanski now, as it so often is with prosecutors, is revenge—Polanski and this film makes the DA look bad. The second is that the documentary reminded everybody that the LA prosecutor must be turning a blind eye to Polanski, wandering freely in Europe—hence the arrest now is the prosecutor covering his ass. The third is—and it’s curiously the success of the documentary that made the LA prosecutor’s office realize the brand name significance of the case—press. The headlines now sweeping the world are the prosecutor’s ultimate benefit. Many careers are suddenly advanced."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

10. I am aware of the film

but frankly the prosecutors reason for going after him now doesnt matter. He pleaded guilty to child rape and sodomy. Who cares their reasoning for doing it now. They should have done it 30 years ago. Again I am really surprised at all the child rape apologists on DU these days.

[BREMPRO]

11. Not apologizing for his actions.

They were inexcusable. What i'm talking about is crime and punishment. What is a reasonable punishment for this crime given the mitigating circumstances? 30 years of exile and the burden he carries of always being associated with this crime, the scorn and ridicule, 30 years of having a red R on his forehead is severe punishment and enough in my eyes for what he's done. The victim agrees. I'm not arguing that the law should not be followed, but a general principle about punishment and the point that this is not just about the crime itself, but the egos and reputations of the prosecutors, who should have more important pressing crimes to prosecute. This is OJ territory (not in terms of the crime, but the publicity). Jury nullification, waste of time and resources to benefit the LA prosecutors. I'm not sure what kind of case they have given the misconduct that has come to light and the fact that the victim will either not testify or testify in his defense. enough. Let him make beautiful films that touch humanity, and let him get on with his life.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

12. Honestly

You actually think Polanski has spent his life suffering for his crime? Lifetime achievement from the Academy Awards, being deified by his peers and fans alike. I am not sure he has spent a whole lot of time suffering for his crime. He did plea guilty for his crime you know. He groomed his victim raped her vaginally, orally and anally while she was basically passed out, and she was 13. I find it confounding that I even have to defend him being brought to justice. He has made many great films and now its time for him to pay for his crimes.

[BREMPRO]

13. Don't listen to me, Here's what the victim says about him being punished

"But, as Gailey has said herself, Polanski has been punished. He lost what was, at the time, a glittering career in Hollywood. He has been publicly humiliated. His name is associated by many people as much with that sex offense as with all his cinematic achievements, from Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown to Tess and The Pianist. He has also suffered separately in ways that few people who stand in judgment of him can understand, in that his then wife, Sharon Tate – who was eight months pregnant with their child – was murdered in vile circumstances by the Charles Manson gang in 1968.

What will be served by Polanski being extradited to the US to stand trial? Gailey will have her privacy invaded once more as the details of the case, already posted in prurient detail around the world, receive more coverage. The case itself is already mired in confusion as a result of allegations of judicial misconduct at the original trial and is unlikely to have a swift conclusion. Some lawyers will benefit, but who else?"

The only people who gain by his arrest are the lawyers, corporate media and tabloids. The last thing we need right now is another celebrity case clogging up the public airwaves. We all lose from the distraction while the media focuses its eye away from health care etc...

You make my point of his suffering- being arrested and diminished once again in the public eye and his family as he was about to receive a lifetime achievement award for his good works. What about his wife and two children? Don't they suffer too? What about the redemption of his career? He's not a danger to society, he's a huge asset. Everyone but the lawyers and the corporate media suffer for this- Polanski, the victim, us- we suffer. So what is the point?

More about Gailey:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/roman-polanski-arrested-ignores-victim

"The real victim in this case has called for compassion. But compassion is unfashionable at the moment, so the chances of her voice prevailing may not be great. The desire to exact punishment, regardless of how the actual victim is affected by it, and to justify that punishment with some grandstanding rhetoric, is the fashion of the moment. Child sex, like the Middle East, is a subject where the normal conventions of debate degenerate very swiftly into name-calling and deliberate misinterpretation. There is no reason to believe that this case will be any different. But the victim still has a right to be heard, even if what she says does not satisfy those seeking vengeance."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

15. And maybe you dont understand how the law works

Even if the victim became Polanski's best pal in the world. The state of California and the district attorney pursued charges against Polanski. Polanski broke the laws of California. Like when you watch shows like Law And Order they annouce the case in the courtroom as "The State Of California against Roman Polanski", not the rape victim vs. Roman Polanski. It is great that she forgives him and she thinks it's a waste of time. The state of California has a different view.

[BREMPRO]

16. The law allows that they can pursue prosecution, or they can drop the case.

It's the DA's office discretion. Their motives for pursuing the case now are suspect and self-serving- not a neutral pursuit of justice. I'm sure there are more pressing cases that would better serve the public that they could use their limited resources on, but then they wouldn't get the publicity.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. Yeah

I guess I go back the the raping and sodomizing of drugged 13 year old girl, I suspect they think about that as well.

[BREMPRO]

18. Not so morally black and white as you want to make it

The man has paid a big price for his crime already, has received forgiveness and requests to drop the charges from his victim, and is no threat to anyone. This is a big waste of limited public resources that serves zero public safety function. LA County has a 10 year backlog of 13,000 rape kits that haven't even been tested. This is about prosecutor publicity and ego, not justice.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/09/roman-polanski-still-being-stalked-by-la-county-prosecutors.html

"With the state Legislature forced to make dramatic cuts in the prison budget and a three-judge federal panel having recently ordered California lawmakers to release as many as 40,000 inmates in response to the scandalous overcrowding of the California state prison system, it seems like an especially inauspicious time for the L.A. County district attorney's office to be spending some of our few remaining tax dollars seeing if it can finally, after all these years, put Roman Polanski behind bars."

"But at a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you'd hope that L.A. County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski's victim wants to put behind her. As Marina Zenovich's 2008 documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," ably chronicled, the original prosecution of Polanski was marred by all sorts of embarrassing missteps and strange behavior, largely by Laurence Rittenband, the original presiding judge.

Still, actions have consequences, and Polanski's sins have not been forgotten. He has been barred from returning to the U.S. and prevented from traveling to other countries, including England, because of extradition issues. His career has clearly suffered from his inability to work in Hollywood, where he made such celebrated films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby." He has been embraced by many -- having won a number of awards over the years -- but also shunned by a number of detractors. as he put it in his autobiography: "I am widely regarded, I know, as an evil, profligate dwarf."

[spiritual_gunfighter]

19. That being said

It is really hard for me to have sympathy for a guy that raped and sodomized a 13 year old. He would not have been barred from returning to the U.S. and he would have gotten to make movies in Hollywood had he not fled and served whatever time he was given.

[proteus_lives]

20. Slack? For a rapist?

No, never.

Rape isn't "bad judgment" it's a fucking crime.

And there thousands of Holocaust survivors and relatives of murder victims who never felt the need to rape little girls.

You're an rape apologist because of his fame and talent. Nothing more.

[hmorehead]

22. On the word of a 13 year old girl, who was allowed by her mother unaccompanied

to solitary place with only an adult male to take swimsuit shots in a pool and hot tub. This was not the first time for this girl or her sister(s). The mother had a reputation for this type of behavior. Its 30 freaking years later and he hasn't repeated the crime. The victim wants it left alone fer Pete's sake. The judge and prosecutor lied regarding a plea agreement. What the heck is all this vindictiveness about? PLEA AGREEMENT. You know where both parties decide the origional complaint had factors the mitigated the punishment required, as in justice. For political reasons the judge and prosecuter were renegging the plea agreement. He skipped and in the meantime he was a productive citizen who has not been arrested again. He's been rehabilitated and he gets a little bit of a pass for the then recent murder of his wife and unborn child.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. Whoopie is that you? n/t

[hmorehead]

24. Don't dispute the facts, make an ad hominem - oh you already did

Frankly I probably agree with Whoopi on a lot more issues than I do with most folks. But that doesn't make her or me wrong, its just that the lowest common denominater is a low standard and most tea baggers fit right in.

[katandmoon]

2. "Aside from pleading guilty to drugging and raping a minor, he's a great guy!"

[ensho]

4. he and his friends are no friends of mine

raping a 13 yr. old is not forgivable

[hmorehead]

14. And just because he is also no friend of mine he shouldn't be

punished beyond the crime. Even the victim wants it left alone and the girls mother had some culpability, too. She put this girl and her sister(s) in situations where they were alone with men who could further her ambitions for herself as well as her daughters.

[BeliQueen]

6. This also speaks to a deeper societal issue

of how people take violence--sexual or physical--against girls and women so lightly. This is the reason why a man serving a 50-year sentence on the abduction and rape was set free on probation after serving only 10 years, and was allowed to abduct, rape, and hold hostage another child for 18 years.

And why is the time-lapse a factor?

If you rape a 13-year-old girl, actually serve your sentence, and 30 years later the girl you raped forgives you, should the state be required to expunge your record and apologize for the time you served?

This has to stop.

[joeglow3]

21. Holy Fucking Shit

Am I living in some bizarro universe? If the circumstances were the same, but it was a Klan member raping and torturing a 13 year old black girl, would these loons have the same position? Hime being in "exile" for 30 years was HIS choice. Sorry, but you don't get to choose what your punishment is for your crime.

I honestly cannot find ANY rational reason why someone would defend this?