Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland on 31 year old US warrant

[charlie]

This is a surprise. I thought any chance of Polanski facing the charges of drugging and raping a minor was effectively moot. Is the long arm of US law about to snatch him back for trial?

Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at the request of US authorities as the film director arrived in the country to receive an award at the Zurich Film Festival.

Polanski was held yesterday on the basis of a 1978 U.S. arrest warrant, the festival organizers said today in an e- mailed statement. The arrest was confirmed by Zurich Cantonal Police spokesman Stefan Oberlin in a telephone interview.

Oberlin wouldn't comment further on the background of the arrest, referring questions to the Justice Ministry in the capital, Bern.

Polanski, 76, left the US in 1978 prior to being sentenced for having sex with a 13-year-old girl, and is considered a fugitive in the country. He hasn't returned to the US since. The director, a French citizen, asked a Los Angeles court in December to dismiss the 1977 case because of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct...

http://www.theage.com.au/world/polanski-arrested-in-switzerland-on-1978-us-warrant-20090927-g7oa.html

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Big deal the Judge was a Batty old wacko ,the DA was willing to say so

it doesn't take away the fact he's a misanthrope ,that victimized a little girl.

[Hannah Bell]

5. the girl's now near 50, & she wants it dropped.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. He made it worse by leaving the country.

It would all be over and done with by now had he stayed and accepted the consequences.

[orpupilofnature57]

11. She didn't want to make a big deal out of it then ,I was her age and then

considering her mother sent her there alone, I assumed as did the world that she like me and millions our age at that time,were sexually experienced.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. Entitlement and eluding responsibility is what it's about Now.

[EFerrari]

61. Polansky settled with her years ago. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

63. No doubt part of the reason she'll speak in his defense. n/t

[proteus_lives]

99. And that makes everything ok.

:eyes:

He's still a child rapist.

[marshall]

124. Many rape victims say they want their cases dropped

They don't want to testify in court, they don't want to relive the trauma, they don't want to drag their families through the mess, they don't want to see their attacker thrown in jail--the reasons are myriad.

[JerseygirlCT]

130. It was a criminal act - whether she wishes to have it dropped or not

is really beside the point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. He could spend the rest of his life in prison if he's returned to the US

[proteus_lives]

4. Good.

Let's hope so.

[Hannah Bell]

6. even though the now middle-aged victim wants the charges dropped.

[proteus_lives]

9. Doesn't change what he did.

He shouldn't be given a pass for child-rape.

[Hannah Bell]

14. you know that, do you?

[proteus_lives]

16. Please explain why he should be given a free pass for child rape.

Because he makes good movies? Because it was a long time ago? Because the victim doesn't want it dredged up?

A rich and famous man used his fame and fortune to get away with a horrible crime. That is wrong and it should be made right.

[Hannah Bell]

34. per the victim, she was neither forced nor virginal, & was interrupted

during the proceedings by angelica houston, yet didn't ask for help. her mother sent her, alone, into the hands of a known lech, at night, to shoot topless photos.

to whom are you making it right?

[LisaL]

70. According to what she said on LKL, she told Polanski no, she

didn't want to do it.
Saying "no" is enough, a person isn't required to physically fight.

[hfojvt]

79. actually being 13 is enough

Even if she says 'yes, please' it is still considered statutory rape. The only way it is not considered rape is if her partner is 13,14,or 15. I believe it is the law in many states that even a 16 or 17 year old would face legal trouble for having sex with a 13 year old, even if the 17 year old is a virgin and the 13 year old is not.

[LisaL]

82. I am pointing out that based on her description of what

went on, it could have gotten him arrested even if she were over the age of consent, which I believe was 14 years old in CA at the time.

[proteus_lives]

96. That excuses his actions?

It doesn't matter. He raped a child. He was an adult who fucked a little girl. To whom am I making right? To all of us because some acts cannot and should not be forgiven. And raping a child is unforgivable.

Why do you think what he did was a-ok? Why does this case turn you into a rape apologist?

[Hannah Bell]

133. I'm not excusing his actions at all. I'm saying the poster's representation of events is mistaken.

[Maru Kitteh]

148. Bullshit. Your cherry-picked, deliberately obtuse misrepresentation contradicts the

FACTS of the case that it was RAPE by any standard and the FACT that it DOESN'T MATTER if she looked like she was 45 and installed LED runway lights leading to her kazoo - she was only 13 and THEREFORE SHE WAS RAPED by this creepy motherfucker.

You have done little else here beyond make excuses for this rape of a child for days. Shame on you.

[Cetacea]

144. A few weeks from legal age. A non-virgin "child".

And her mother wanted her to be in the movies. Hmmm. I wonder if he even touched her? Were tests conducted? I honestly don't know.

[JerseygirlCT]

131. What the hell does virginal have to do with it?

That's nonsensical.

Sounds to me as if she's laying blame on herself - which is crazy. She was a child.

[geek_sabre]

136. Wait...

what does being "virginal" have to do with anything?

And per the victim, she said "no" repeatedly. Because she didn't put up a fight (13 y.o vs. 44 y.o) as well doesn't make it not rape. Are you serious right now?

[Hannah Bell]

138. per the victim, she said she wanted to go home, once, then she was offered a qualuude &

took 1/3 of it.

"He takes pictures, then he gets in naked and now I'm thinking, "Oh, this is not right." I'm scared and woozy, so I tell him I have asthma and to take me home. I get out, grab a towel, but he doesn't want to take me home yet. That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. I lie and say yes. I take one-third. He takes what's left and tells me to lie down for a minute. I know he wants to have sex and he is not taking no for an answer. I'm intoxicated and afraid and don't know what to do, so I just let it happen.

Then Anjelica Huston knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her. I got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. He took me home and said, "Don't tell your mom what happened." But my sister heard me telling my boyfriend on the phone what happened."


Where do you see the repeated "No"? I don't see it. I don't see her saying "No" even in the presence of Houston, who possibly would have helped her if she'd thought she wanted help, though maybe she's some kind of monster who condones child rape.

[Maru Kitteh]

149. Amazing how you wear the Marx (tm) logo and spend your energy fighting for the privileged and elite

while you belittle "the villagers."

You display the worst kind of hypocrisy.

[Pamela Troy]

74. He wasn't given a "free pass."

What do you know about this case other than what you overheard on the TV while walking through the den once?

[LisaL]

77. As opposed to what you know about the case?

Why, by all means, if you know something not known to general public, do share with us.

[proteus_lives]

97. He fled the country and has lived the high life in Europe for 30-40 years.

Sounds like a free pass to me.

So, why are you a rape-apologist in this case? Because he makes good movies?

[t0dd]

139. If you disagree with anything about what has happened or should happen, you are a child

rape apologist. Don't you know how this works? And if too many child rape apologists sprout up, I'm going to throw a temper tantrum and plug my ears and puke. So watch out!

[orpupilofnature57]

23. Hannah ,you want to cut him slack ,I get it.

[Hannah Bell]

35. i don't care about him except to the extent continuing a 30 year old

dubious sex case against the wishes of the victim smacks of personal vendetta.

[orpupilofnature57]

49. Oh and believe me I agree ,and there are worse atrocities for the Judicial

branch to work on.As I say 30 years ago it was no big deal,and a personal vendetta is ,,when it involves our money and their time.

[Hannah Bell]

76. "it was no big deal" = not my opinion.

[Maru Kitteh]

150. Your actions bear irrefutable witness against you.

Anyone who does a simple search of the last 48 hours will see where your energies are invested and the excuses you have made for this rapist.

[LisaL]

71. Not up to her according to our laws.

It's not Samantha vs. Polanski. It's the state vs. Polanski.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Agreed

I wonder what the deal is? Had he never been to Switzerland in all these years?

[proteus_lives]

10. Maybe.

Or perhaps legal people in the US decided to take another shot at bringing him to justice and made arraignments with the Swiss.

[csziggy]

13. I wondered if it had anything to do with the recent agreements

Made between the US and Switzerland to crack down on tax evaders with bank accounts in Switzerland? Maybe something in the fine print opened up the possibility of arresting Polanski now when he seems to have skated past US authorities in the past. Frankly, I thought he had been back to the US since the child rape and wondered then if the charge was still outstanding.

[proteus_lives]

18. Interesting point.

That maybe it. Maybe the agreement had language for other crimes as well.

[Ghost Dog]

20. I suspect you will see more of the Swiss cracking down

on Yanks in general.

[Democracyinkind]

43. LoL. (???)

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Never thought of the Swiss protecting all those Financial Rapists , Hmmm

[hlthe2b]

28. Geebus.... No one here denies the seriousness of the charges

nor wants any less than you to protect children from being exploited. But, this hard-line stance on a crime that appears to have been strictly "statutory" in nature 31 years ago and victimless from the standpoint of the now, 50 year old subject seems ridiculous. Should he have stayed to face the consequences? Yes. Should anyone condone sexual activity with a minor? Absolutely not.

Did he get off free of consequences for three decades? I don't think so. Polanski lost his ability to travel freely nor to live in the US for three decades.... He has rightfully been disgraced worldwide for what he did, with the label of pedophile rapist following him in most settings and statutory rapist, at a minimum, in others.

Big deal, you say? He's paid quite a karmic debt to date, already as well. Many do not realize that his father survived the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp in Austria, but his pregant mother died in 1942 in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Polanski himself escaped the Kraków Ghetto in 1943, and survived the war with the help of Polish Roman Catholic families. Given the recent death of Susan Atkins in prison, the Manson member who brutally murdered Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate and his unborn child, along with several friends staying at his home, it is hard not to look at Polanski's life in totality.

If I had a vote, I'd say the debt is paid.

[csziggy]

30. When the news first came out I was very unforgiving of Polanski

But after I heard about his life and the link to Sharon Tate, I felt more sorry for him. If I remember correctly, after Sharon's murder and the whole Manson trial circus, Polanski was a mess for a very long time.

It is hard to forgive him having sex with a 13 year old, consenting or not, though. Now I do not know how I feel about him being prosecuted so many years later - maybe the jury will be sympathetic.

[eShirl]

31. He drugged a 13 year old and performed sex acts on her against her will.

That doesn't sound like her rape, which he confessed to, was strictly statutory in nature.

[hlthe2b]

36. Conflicting details have emerged over the years...

including those involving the 13 year old girl and her mother....That the now 50 year old "victim" does not view herself a victim and spoke out against the original judge who (apparently for political reasons) killed a plea agreement that had originally been accepted, makes me doubt the truth of all of the "facts" as you state them. I do not defend the action, but the circumstances do not appear as cut and dry as you describe.

[eShirl]

38. I'd be interested to learn the time frame of the emergence of the details

including when the victim sued Polanski and he settled out of court with her.

(I'm basing that on one news story I've read, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-d_n_301095.html )

[hlthe2b]

39. I see that that article also notes the judicial misconduct..

"Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.

Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. Aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-arrested-d_n_301095.html

[eShirl]

41. That's a separate issue from whether or not it was "merely" statutory rape.

[hlthe2b]

42. Yes... I believe I have been talking about the case in totality...

See Hannah's comments re: the discrepancy in the original facts of the incident as well.

What Polanski did was wrong, very wrong. No one is denying that. But, this is not cut and dried in its simplicity, in terms of what should happen now, as some would have you think

[eShirl]

44. And I believe I was commenting only on the characterization of the rape as being "merely" statutory.

I did not indicate whether or not I thought the case was "cut and dried in its simplicity," and I am not trying to make any argument about the case in its totality.

(Also, FYI I cannot view Ignored's comments.)

[hlthe2b]

45. Discussion forums...

are not limited to a single point.

I don't understand your defensiveness, as my points with respect to "simplicity" were directed to "some" and not to you. Apparently the fact you have that poster on "ignore" was important for you to point out very publicly to others here? I truly don't wish to be brought into your disputes with others.

Have a nice day

[eShirl]

46. Nobody is trying to bring you into a dispute with others, and

my mistake for thinking comments written in a reply to me were meant for me.

Good day.

[msanthrope]

104. That's not judicial misconduct....that's what judges are allowed to do.

Polanski was ordered for a 90 day psych exam. That's not a sentencing.

He was released after 42 days.

The judge doesn't have to ratify any plea agreement made by the DA. In this case, Polanski feared the judge wouldn't, and he bailed before sentencing.

That's not judicial misconduct. That's a rapist running.

[Hannah Bell]

37. Then we go to Jack Nicholson's house.

I had seen Chinatown and I was thinking "Wow! Jack Nicholson." The maid lets us in and disappears, so as far as I am concerned we are alone, and I'm very far from home. Polanski asks me to pose, drinking champagne. I wouldn't take the wine earlier but when he says champagne, that sounds interesting to me. He keeps refilling my glass. Then he asks me to pose topless again and says he wants to take pictures in the Jacuzzi. I don't have my bathing suit so I get in in my underwear. He takes pictures, then he gets in naked and now I'm thinking, "Oh, this is not right." I'm scared and woozy, so I tell him I have asthma and to take me home. I get out, grab a towel, but he doesn't want to take me home yet. That's when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I've ever had one. I lie and say yes. I take one-third. He takes what's left and tells me to lie down for a minute. I know he wants to have sex and he is not taking no for an answer. I'm intoxicated and afraid and don't know what to do, so I just let it happen.

Then Anjelica Huston knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, "What are you doing in my room?" I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, "Lay back down," and he took off my underwear. He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her. I got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. He took me home and said, "Don't tell your mom what happened." But my sister heard me telling my boyfriend on the phone what happened. My mom asked me if it was true, then called the police. That's when all hell broke loose.

[varelse]

62. She asked him to stop and told him she wanted to go home

she started to get dressed and he took her underwear off to finish the rape. And yes, it was rape - the rape of a 13-year old girl who did not want to have sex with him and who was drugged and coerced into it. How odd that you can paste the same words in that I'm reading now and not see it for what it was. In spite of the respect I generally have for you, Hannah, your attitude toward this crime seems very, very odd to me.

Of course it's not a waste of time to pursue justice - the rape of a child, even one in early adolescence, even one who'd had consensual sex with her boyfriend previous to the crime, requires punishment. The fact that her mother may have traded or sold her to this man for reasons best known to herself, doesn't make it right. Even the fact that the victim would like to let this drop now, doesn't remove the need for justice to be done.

How many other children did this man victimize, whose families were either bought off or intimidated or shamed into silence? Many rape victims, especially early adolescents or children, do not report the crime until years after the fact, if ever. Commonly held attitudes implied by dismissive comments about the child's lack of virginity, her mother's lack of common sense or decency, and the refusal to recognize that consent cannot be granted by either a coerced or a drugged person, and NEVER by a minor, are a major contributing factor to their silence.

I'm disappointed both in you and in DU generally, for missing the point completely.

[LisaL]

78. And you are thinking this is all well and good?

She says he gave her alcohol and quaaludes. She says he was taking photos of her topless. She says he was not taking no for an answer. And she is 13. Are you seriously trying to use this as an argument that what he is accused of doing is fine?

[debbierlus]

52. I agree.

[DevonRex]

68. I agree. nt

[t0dd]

140. Oh, SUREE... That's just what a child rape apologist would say..

:sarcasm:

I'm surprised proteus_lives hasn't replied to your remark threatening to throw another temper tantrum. Thank you for the rational argument.

[proteus_lives]

3. I hope he gets sent back to the US.

He deserves to be in jail.

[mitchtv]

94. So does her mother

(deserve Jail)

[proteus_lives]

100. Yep.

She should be on the dock right after the child-rapist.

[jenniferj]

15. He could die in jail...

If he had gone to jail when he has commited the crime, the could have been a free man by now....Instead he is an old man with
an overdue prison sentance...

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Doubtful ,the reprimand could be merciful ,especially having a victim

who will plead for leniency.Welcome jenniferj

[stray cat]

17. DIdn't he get charged in Switzerland which is why he was arrested there?

[Heidi]

25. No. He was detained, at the request of US authorities, upon entering Switzerland

to appear at the Zurich Film Festival. The basis for his detention is the 1978 U.S. arrest warrant.

[the other one]

19. Statute of limitations?

?

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. He's already pled guilty

I believe the statute of limitations doesn't apply.

[GA_ArmyVet]

123. Most Capitol Crimes

do not have a Statute of Limitations. Murder does not have one, I dont beleive rape does either in most states.

[k agathon]

125. Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply If You Run

The "clock" of Statute of Limitation stops once the defendant flees the jurisdiction. For the Statute of Limitations to apply you have to be openly living in the jurisdiction where the crime took place. You can not be living under an assumed name, or trying to hide from authorities for the full limit that the law calls for.

Roman Polanski left the jurisdiction of the court, therefore the "clock" stopped and remains stopped until he return to the jurisdiction of the California courts. He could have hid out for 30 more years and it wouldn't have mattered with regard to the Statute of Limitations.

[appamado amata padam]

24. Aside from people's opinions/feelings,

the fact that the woman wants the charges dropped is beside the point. She is not the plaintiff in a civil trial. And, as opposed to crimes that are considered merely "malum prohibitum" (wrong due to being prohibited), this type of crime is considered "malum in se" (wrong in itself), i.e., that the state has its own interest in prosecuting crimes that are considered a threat to the safety and accepted standards of society as a whole.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and above is not intended as legal advice.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. Thats the Crux of the Biscuit ,Culpability for the action of fleeing.

[Hepburn]

48. After 31 years, he's still a threat?

:shrug:

PS: I am a lawyer.

[Shell Beau]

121. What about paying for the crime he committed?

And do we know that he hasn't since been involved with underage girls?

I can't believe anyone would want him to be given leniency. Whether or not the woman wants the charges dropped makes no difference to me. It doesn't change what happened. And every person who commits such disgusting acts should face prison time.

[appamado amata padam]

132. OK - I contributed my small amount of legal knowledge;

now I will give you my personal feelings.

I'm tired of the double standard for artists/athletes vs. everybody else. If this had been some regular schmo, he'd have ended up as some kind of social outcast, with a sign in his yard telling everybody what a creep he was.

And while Mr. Polanski may no longer be a threat, I believe the state still has an interest in prosecuting him. Do they want to set the precedent that if you can evade capture for over x amount of time, that everything is OK?

[JonQ]

67. Exactly

when, for example, a 30 year old male teacher is caught with a 14 year old female student, do they ever ask if she was ok with it and wants to drop the charges? And if she says yes does that matter one whit in the sentencing?

Fortunately our law system is not designed for individuals to seek revenge, it's about justice. So they can't merely decided to punish or release the person. That's up to the state.

[WeDidIt]

29. This is why I always try to separate the art from the artist

Polanski is a convicted felon pedophile.

That doesn't alter the art, it simply describes the artist.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

32. 'Ironically, shortly after his victim publicly forgave him in 1997, an LA judge decided that if

Polanski returned to the U.S., he would serve no more time in custody, on one condition: the proceedings would be televised. Polanski, now 74, has declined to return, and his case remains unresolved.'

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/romanpolanski/

This is a fascinating documentary on the case.

[aikoaiko]

33. Never to late to pay the piper -- he pled guilty and then ran off

He needs to be punished for fleeing as much as the original charge.

I love his movies, but he's got a legal matter to finish up.

[Cetacea]

143. The judge reneged on the plea bargain. n/t

[aikoaiko]

145. Which I understand is permissable by law.

Judges aren't bound to plea bargains.

[TheCowsCameHome]

40. This time he's on a 31 year old....

...warrant.

[izquierdista]

47. Threads like this are funny

Nothing like Roman Polanski to get the bring-to-justice Chihuahuas yapping their fool heads off. Misplaced faith in an American legal system combined with Puritanical attitudes towards sex is a nasty combination. I would hope the the American pee-pee police are too busy investigating Janet Jackson's wardrobe and making sure that magazines in convenience stores are at the appropriate eye-level to bother trying to export American attitudes. I can see a Swiss magistrate dropping this arrest once he actually reads the charges.

By the way, you do know that the Chihuahua was originally meant to be a food item, nothing more, don't you?

[MattBaggins]

51. Sex with 13 year old gilrs

yaaaaayyyyy. Consenting adults can do what they want but fuck you if you really think disdain for child diddling is "Puritanical"

Giving drugs and molesting a 13 year old and your fine with that.... Creep.

[izquierdista]

53. Fine? No, not "fine".

I'm just amused that what amounted to "contributing to delinquency" has resulted in more police, prosecutor, and court time than the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

[Thickasabrick]

55. I thought it was interesting that the US didn't start actively pursuing

this until 2005. WTF?

[k agathon]

126. They have been trying

Since 1978 there has been an outstanding arrest warrant for Polanski. In 2005 the US Government issued a renewed International Warrant for Polanski.

According to various press reports that there have been at least a half-dozen arrest attempts by the US Government and the US Marshall service, for various reasons those previous attempts had failed.

[uppityperson]

128. raping a 13 yr old = "contributing to delinquency"? WTF?

[aikoaiko]

54. "Funny" also for the ephebophilia supporters....

..who seek to minimize the actions of adults drugging and having sex with underage teens.

[hlthe2b]

56. I must credit you for making a distinction...

It is correct to use the term ephebophilia and not pedophilia--and the distinction does matter, no matter how you come down on the issue.

[aikoaiko]

58. Thank you.

[suzie]

134. Actually no the distinction doesn't matter, except to those who wish to minimize the

damage done by pedophiles.

[Leftist Agitator]

147. There is a dfference between having sex with a pubescent teen and a pre-pubescent child.

No matter how much you may wish that weren't the case, it is.

[geek tragedy]

57. It also brings you "child rape is okay if you're famous" types. nt

[Balbus]

73. I really hope you don't have kids.

Or live near kids. Or are allowed near kids.

You are a sick fuck.

[Odin2005]

89. The guy raped and sodomized a 13yo girl

He also had sex with an actress when she was 15.

He needs to be in jail.

[Thickasabrick]

50. This is ridicoulous. He pled guilty in a plea bargain that the judge

reneged on. This is beyond stupid.

[orpupilofnature57]

59. The Judge was a dirty old Geezer ,should have been arrested for

Obstruction of Justice.

[k agathon]

146. Judge doesn't have to accept a plea bargain.

Read some of the responses from lawyers where plea bargains are concerned. Pay attention to the fact that the judge can reject a plea deal, for just about any reason.

[jakeXT]

60. Could someone explain to me how the laws were back then ? Everthing would be OK if she had been 14 ?

The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html

[orpupilofnature57]

64. All true ,but inconsequential to the law.

[orpupilofnature57]

65. All true ,but of no consequence.

[LisaL]

66. I've heard her describe it during LKL interview.

I am providing the transcript in a post below this one.
If what she describes is accurate, I sincerely doubt it would be o'key had she been 14.
According to her, she had told him no, she did not want to do it.

[LisaL]

69. I sincerely doubt it would be o'key if she is describing it accurately.

Here is transcript to her LKL interview. According to her, she tried to get out of there and told him no.
She said she didn't physically fight him, but physically fighting is not required.

"GEIMER: So I'm feigning my asthma attack, you know, I got out, put a towel on and everything. We walked in the house. And I was going, you know, I really don't feel good, I'm having trouble breathing. I don't remember exactly what I said.

KING: But you said drive me home?

GEIMER: And I was like, yes, I need to go home because I'm not feeling well. And then that progressed to, you know, eventually why don't you come in here an lay down into a very dark room and that's when I really realized, you know, what his intentions were.

KING: Did he forcibly rape you?

GEIMER: You know, I said no. I didn't fight him off. I said like, no, no, I don't want to go in there, no. I don't want to do this, no. And then I didn't know what else to do. We were alone. And I didn't want to -- I didn't know what would happen if I made a scene."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html

[jakeXT]

72. I just want to know how the laws were back then

Age of consent is now 18 in California I believe, and there are some problems if you are more than 3 years apart.
I would like to know if it was legal to have sex with a 14 year old in the 70's, while he is over 21.


Stuff like spousal rape seems to have been not the issue in the 70's as it is now.

Spousal Rape Laws: 20 Years Later
from Victim Policy Pipeline
(Winter 1999/2000 Issue)
Introduction

Until the late 1970's, most states did not consider spousal rape a crime. Typically, spouses were exempted from the sexual assault laws. For example, until 1993 North Carolina law stated that "a person may not be prosecuted under this article if the victim is the person's legal spouse at the time of the commission of the alleged rape or sexual offense unless the parties are living separate and apart." These laws are traceable to a pronouncement by Michael Hale, who was Chief Justice in England in the 17th century, that a husband cannot be guilty of rape of his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract." (1) In the late 1970's, feminists began efforts to change these laws. Currently, rape of a spouse is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (2).

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701

"But if you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" ~ Senator Bob Wilson, Democrat, California, 1979

"Damn it, when you get married, you kind of expect you're going to get a little sex." ~ Senator Jeremiah Denton, Republican, Alabama, 1981

"It’s a waste of the court’s time to get into that area…a woman who is in marriage is presumably consenting to sex. Maybe this is the risk of being married, you know." ~ Charles Burt, President, Oregon State Bar (1979)

http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape.htm

[LisaL]

75. She says she told him "no."

So your question is neither here nor there. If she were an adult and claimed she told him "No" but he ignored it, he could still be charged.
A woman isn't required to physically fight. In the eyes of the law, saying "NO" makes it clear there is no consent.

[jakeXT]

101. She wasn't 14 either

I want to know if an adult male could have had sex legally with a 14 year old in 1977 California.

I can't imagine it, even in Europe where there are countries with age of consent of 14, both partners have to be either 3 years apart in age or under 18.

[Hannah Bell]

137. she says she told him she wanted to go home. then she says he offered her a qualuude

& she took it.

[tammywammy]

80. Ahhh, DU where according to some...

An 18 year old in 2009 can't consent to sex with multiple men at the same time, but the 13 year old back in 1978 could consent to sex with Polanski.

[Odin2005]

92. This place swarms with rape apologists.

:puke:

[proteus_lives]

98. It's disgusting isn't it?

I second that :puke:

How on earth could raping a 13-year old girl ever be ok or forgivable?

[Odin2005]

102. Yep, It's sick!

:puke;

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Yeah, but aren't you also one of the ones who argued the 18 yr. old couldn't consent to group sex?

I mean, yes, let's call rape- or statutory rape- what it is, rape.

But this Andrea Dworkin crap about also calling consensual adult sex "rape" as well--- it cheapens the very serious definition of "rape".

[anonymous171]

81. lol

[RidinMyDonkey]

83. The victim believes he already paid for his crimes against her

If that quote is true, I think it should be dropped. I always try honor the victim's wishes. She believes justice for her has already come outside of the jail. who am I to tell her that it didn't?

[LisaL]

84. It's not up to her.

In a criminal case, it's the state of CA vs. the accused, not Samantha vs. the accused.

[RidinMyDonkey]

85. I'm aware of that

I just think the victim's opinion should be taken into heavy consideration.

[LisaL]

86. I don't see why. I am not aware of all the legalities, but

in my understanding, he is not facing a trial at which she would have to testify.

[RidinMyDonkey]

87. She is still affected by it

Testimony or not. She wants to live a quiet and peaceful life without the media bothering her and everyone knowing her story. Why should she be punished by a high profile arrest and trial when it's exactly the opposite of what she wants?

[LisaL]

88. What makes you think there will be a trial?

He plead guilty to having sex with a minor. I believe if he is send back to US, he will be sentenced for that without a trial.

[RidinMyDonkey]

90. My mistake then

I thought you still had a trial when you are sentenced. I admit that I'm not extremely knowledgeable when it comes to court hearings.

But I still find it hard to believe that she wont be bothered by this. His arrest alone must have sent people to her door.

[LisaL]

93. I don't think he is facing a trial.

What does he need a trial for, he already plead guilty to having sex with a minor.

"Mr. Polanski was initially indicted in 1977 on six felony charges that included rape, sodomy and providing a controlled substance to Ms. Geimer. He eventually pleaded guilty to one count of having sex with a minor but left the country after becoming convinced he would be sent back to jail after having undergone a 42-day psychiatric evaluation in state prison. He has not been back in the country since, giving his acceptance speech for an Oscar for directing “The Pianist” by satellite from Europe."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/movies/28polanski.html

[RidinMyDonkey]

95. I already said I was mistaken...

[LisaL]

103. Well to be fair I have no idea whether he can take his plea

back and request a trial.
Still it's not up to the woman in a criminal case on what should be done with him.

[RidinMyDonkey]

105. I know that, legally

morally, is a different story.

[LisaL]

108. How so?

We wouldn't need juries or trials if we just allowed victims to decide what to do with the accused.

[RidinMyDonkey]

110. Obviously I didn't mean we should allow victim's to be judges.

I do think their opinions and feelings should hold up in court, especially when it's going to interfere with their life.

After cases are over the judges are juries go home and go on living their perfect normal lives. Something she wont get to do.

I guess my point is that it's not fair for her life to be any worse than it already is because of this man. We should honor her wishes.

[LisaL]

111. What if the victim demanded the head of the accused on a silver

platter? We wouldn't allow that to happen. She doesn't get to decide what happens to him-I think it's a very simple premise.

[RidinMyDonkey]

112. If that was the case, then they should go after the heaviest punishment availble for statutory rape

But since it's the opposite, they should go for the lightest.

I never once said that we should leave the decision up to her, but rather she should get some input. I do not understand why that is so unreasonable.

[LisaL]

113. It's been reported she settled with him civilly.

Do you think it's in society's best interests to allow people with means to settle cases civilly rather than face criminal prosecution?

[Capn Sunshine]

114. The story behind it is why

granted this is what came down the vine from the pro Polanski camp at the time, but the whole thing was a setup; the mother planned it to reap a financial settlement, she gave her daughter drugs , sent her after the guy (not the first time for that either) and told her to jump his bones. She did as told.

not justifying Polanski's bad judgement but this was a most foul entrapment. It will come out in any trial.

[LisaL]

116. That's not what the girl has been saying.

Anyhow, the girl was 13.
I believe that means he couldn't legally have sex with her, even if he claims it was as consensual as it possibly could.

[Capn Sunshine]

118. that's true

but she was loaded on quaaludes from the moment she grew curves.No telling what she remembers. Mom had a rep around here as a mommy dearest/stagemom trying to get her baby into the thick of things. Think Brooke Shield's mom only worse.

[RidinMyDonkey]

117. I guess that depends on the crime

I'd have to think of it on a trial to trial basis and if they are repeat offenders or likely to be.

In this case, I do think so. Since it has been over 30 years and he hasn't re-offended. It's not helping society to keep him locked up. It serves no purpose in keeping anyone safe.

[LisaL]

119. But it might serve as warning to people who might decide

to skip the country to avoid sentencing. Sorry. I can't believe you think someone should be allowed to just skip the country and go off like that, and US shouldn't do anything about it.
Frankly I am amazed it took that long.

[RidinMyDonkey]

120. I do believe he should be prosecuted for fleeing

The rape charges are different...

[uppityperson]

129. after reading this thread, I must say thank you for what you write.

I hope you can see this. Thank you for writing what you have as I would have written the same.

[Odin2005]

91. He should be in jail for the rest of his life.

[Paladin]

107. Prepare Yourself For A Huge Disappointment. (n/t)

[LisaL]

115. Hey, he is 76,

At that age, it doesn't even have to be that long a sentence.

[k agathon]

127. for Polanski

rest of his natural life is subjective. Subjective to the manner of prison and cell block he is housed on. I would not want to go to the joint at 76 years of age. Kinda hard to fight the young thugs in the yard when you are that old.

[LeftyMom]

135. Celebrities don't wind up in gen pop. Neither do pedos.

Both wind up dead quickly. Combine the two and throw in the international media spotlight? He's going to spend his visit to one of California's lovely state facilities in very careful protective custody.

[Canuckistanian]

109. Regardless of the time passed and the willingness of the victim to forgive

Polanski should still be prosecuted and punished.

This is why the state prosecutes cases of statutory rape. Victims can recant or "forgive" for a number of reasons, but for societal reasons, statutory rape can NOT be forgiven or forgotten.

Any less would give legal wiggle room for child rapists.

[saltpoint]

122. Well folks, if anybody's in town looking for a third-rail topic, I suggest

this one.

[era veteran]

141. Money talks

A poor rapist goes to jail but an artsy rich guy is given a free pass by too many people. He knew what he was doing!

[rpannier]

142. My guess is this will sink this festival and relegate it to a non-event

Polanski is very popular among many in movies and many will likely shun this event