So what is France's age of consent?

[closeupready]

Am I to believe that the French are okay with such relationships? I mean, give me a break. One would hope we can agree that a 13 year old girl is incapable of consenting to engaging in sexual relations with a grown man or woman.

[kirby]

1. The victim herself says move on... n/t

[closeupready]

2. Are you suggesting crime victims should have a say in sentencing/punishment?

n/t

[kirby]

4. Moreso than random DUers n/t

[closeupready]

6. Oh, I see, you don't really want to have a discussion about this.

You just want to vent. Fine with me.

[kirby]

9. What is there to discuss?

The victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

[sui generis]

17. I have to agree here. The law is protecting NOBODY.

Law for the sake of law alone is an abomination of the idea of law.

[closeupready]

18. Crimes can be both civil and criminal in nature.

n/t

[kirby]

27. I am pretty sure the victim was referring to the criminal...

Obviously, the civil portion was already solved to her satisfaction.

In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."<42>

[Howardx]

20. the settlement very well could have included the requirement

that she do so if polanski was ever extradited.

[MellowDem]

61. Great...

So she was paid huge amounts of money and now feels, because of that, the case might as well be closed. I guess what that says to kids is, hey, you can go ahead and rape anyone you want to as long as you have enough hush money to shut them up and convince them that they don't want their case to be tried.

The reason he should be tried is because it is justice. Otherwise it is unfair treatment based on his wealth. Who cares what the victim thinks? What kind of fucked up thinking is that?

[anonymous171]

109. I agree. Corporate Criminals should also be treated that way.

In fact, all criminals should be given the opportunity to pay off their debt to society (literally, of course.) They should only be thrown in jail if they are unable to cough up the necessary funds.

[hokies]

117. Of course they should

Crime victims could refuse to testify (e.g. Kobe Bryant's rape case) and thus severely hamper the prosecution.

[Barack_America]

3. And future victims? What do they say?

Unfortunately, there is both justice and precedent at stake here.

[Thickasabrick]

37. I think after 35 years we've pretty much established there are no

future victims here.

[Zix]

15. The victim herself, in this instance, is mistaken.

[sui generis]

19. dude. you should work for the CIA in covert ops.

They're looking for telepaths and clairvoyantsisisiss.

[Zix]

62. No.

It is established that a crime has been committed. That's it, there's no telepathy required.

[sui generis]

63. No. A crime has to have a criminal and victim.

The period of time in which someone can be held responsible for a crime expires for most crimes, and varies state by state.

In this case there was a lot of murk in the definitions of both. There are NOT absolute rules at work here, otherwise everyone would simply agree.

[Zix]

66. So what's you position?

That Polanski's being extradited illegally?

[sui generis]

70. Well clearly there is a question or he would already be here.

So my position is wait and see; it's not about whether it's "legal" or not anyway. Legal does not make "right". Beating your wife was "legal" right here in the good ol U.S. of A. for a while, but not any more.

It's about whether it's appropriate at this late stage, when the "victim" herself does not want to be dragged into court 31 years later to continue this settled affair.

So I ask again, who are we protecting?

[Zix]

72. The public good.

Good enough?

[sui generis]

78. NOPE

Good GAWD do not presume to speak on behalf of the public's "good" - unless you feel like telling some people who they can't get married to, for their own good of course.

Zix. This is not the right reason. Laws, particularly laws that can be prosecuted both as criminal and civil (for depriving someone of a civil right), exist to protect people from having someone stomp on their civil rights.

It's kind of dexterish to have to ask why absolute law doesn't work - why law must have a reason to continue prosecuting in order for the process of law to remain valid.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that the circumstances 30 years later are not the same any more. At the time, it was absolutely wrong to take advantage of someone by spiking a drink. It was also irresponsible to not question someone's age, regardless of how "old" they looked outwardly.

But to prosecute someone for raping an underage partner should require intent as part of the equation. Raping an adult partner - not that much smarter, but the difference is an adult can withdraw testimony. The "victim" is now an adult and cannot, because the prosecutor has a hard on for a crime that under any other circumstance would have expired under statute, but can be prosecuted only because the victim was a child at the time. I'm uncomfortable with our laws being stretched for political gain this way - and uncomfortable that we always seem to find a way around the basic protections that the law should afford to the victim.

Now SHE is required to go back to court over something she's been done with for a long long time. How is that in her interests? Or do you care? That's why it seems wrong to me, even though I hate the crime and don't particularly think much of Polanski anyway.

[closeupready]

82. But she doesn't claim she lied, she wants prosecutors to drop the case.

She doesn't get to dictate to prosecutors whether or not a criminal case is pursued. Further, even if victims had the right to veto such prosecution, this is between Polanski and the State of California. He fled the country after pleading guilty.

[sui generis]

86. Yes the Nationalist State of Kalifornia

oh good grief we are so tired of Kalifornia, authoritarian liberalism and not a shred of progressivism.

We disagree closeup. I think we'll have to leave it at that. I am anti-authoritarian, most certainly to several faults. This is a weird place to defend a creep, but 31 years later we should be ready to move on ourselves.

And fuck California. Really. You guys acquitted OJ.

[closeupready]

87. Yes, we can ATD - reasonable people can.

(Don't forget Prop 8.)

[sui generis]

89. love ya

:grouphug:

thanks for getting my crackpot humor

[Romulox]

94. The requisite intent is the intent to commit the sex act.

There is an intent requirement for virtually every criminal offense. Some offenses require proof of "specific intent" (the intent to bring about some specific outcome,) but many crimes require only general intent (intent to engage in the proscribed behavior.)

Statutory rape only requires the intent to engage in intercourse with a person who is underage. The "under age" part is not part of the intent requirement, however. Knowledge of the underage partner's true age is not material to the charge.

[Zix]

97. ...

>Good GAWD do not presume to speak on behalf of the public's "good" - unless you feel like telling some people who they can't get married to, for their own good of course.

This declaration cleaves away pretty much all political discussion. And, given my sexual orientation, the ending was perhaps a little swift, although I appreciate the sentiment.

>Zix. This is not the right reason. Laws, particularly laws that can be prosecuted both as criminal and civil (for depriving someone of a civil right), exist to protect people from having someone stomp on their civil rights.

Noooo, RIGHTS exist to protect people from having someone stomp on their civil rights. Laws are a means to control society, a nasty idea, certainly, to tiny individuals like you and I, but unfortunately necessary, because society is full of nasty people. The concept of rights, a relatively recent invention, legally, and more than welcome, was instantiated to guard AGAINST inhuman legislation.

Rights do not form some kind of template for a society that laws should be used to prop up, rather, when they are understood properly they provide a framework against which new laws can be measured to see if they are humanly applicable. The fair society that rights point to should be made by people, not laws.

Law isn't about making society fair. Law is about WHERE THE BUCK STOPS. It's about dealing with situations that have ALREADY GONE WRONG. Law happens at the END of the argument, not the beginning. At least, that's how it works in my country...

>It's kind of dexterish to have to ask why absolute law doesn't work - why law must have a reason to continue prosecuting in order for the process of law to remain valid.

You seem to think I have some faith in "absolute" law (I don't know what that means, as opposed to "relative" law?) The whole point of law is to be the end of relativity, where a problem facing humans has got so out of hand that it has to be ended somehow. you seem to think I *want* to use it to control society, nothing could be further from the truth! I regard law as an appallingly clumsy way of dealing with human relations! But there can be NO denying that without it human societies would simply perish.

In this case the law *does* have a reason for prosecuting. What do you think the rest of the world's rich paedophiles are going to think and do if Polanski gets let off? Please don't tell me you don't think they exist.

>I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that the circumstances 30 years later are not the same any more.

What do you mean by this? And why is it relevant?

Some crimes do not take place in private and this crime in particular certainly has NOT taken place in private. This case, whether we wish it to be or not, has become a public debate on whether elderly rapists should be prosecuted and precedent will be set. If you abandon this you cannot complain when it becomes the habit of paedophiles to indulge in whatever their whim may be and bolt to escape justice to friendly territories thereafter. There is no question whatsoever that the precedent set would be raised at their subsequent trial, providing their hypothetical prosecutors could be bothered to track them down, given the projected failure of extraditing Polanski. Is that what you want?

>At the time, it was absolutely wrong to take advantage of someone by spiking a drink. It was also irresponsible to not question someone's age, regardless of how "old" they looked outwardly.

>But to prosecute someone for raping an underage partner should require intent as part of the equation. Raping an adult partner - not that much smarter, but the difference is an adult can withdraw testimony. The "victim" is now an adult and cannot, because the prosecutor has a hard on for a crime that under any other circumstance would have expired under statute

Having known numerous 13 year old girls I'm finding it *extremely difficult* to envisage this "30-looking" 13 year old.

Sui generis, this is a crime against innocence itself, it cannot be simply swept under the rug. Some crimes are sufficiently serious that they must be pursued against the wishes of the victim - for the sake of future victims.

>but can be prosecuted only because the victim was a child at the time.

Given that she didn't consent, the fact that she was a child at the time is actually irrelevant to your argument, though not irrelevant to the crime itself.

>I'm uncomfortable with our laws being stretched for political gain this way - and uncomfortable that we always seem to find a way around the basic protections that the law should afford to the victim.

>Now SHE is required to go back to court over something she's been done with for a long long time.

IS there any information available indicating that she will be required to testify? I have seen none and you may be able to point me at it. It seems surpassingly unlikely given that he's already pleaded guilty, but I could be very wrong.

>How is that in her interests? Or do you care?

I care very much, but's not only about her interests. This is an ugly truth which I'm sure we'd all prefer to ignore.

My hope is that she will find the courage to do the right thing and retract her statement. If she is required to testify, my hope is that she will. She should not have made the statement. It's more than understandable that she did, and nothing would induce me to bring her to testify under duress, but there are reasons that the decision to prosecute this rape wasn't left only to the victim.

Do you not see where your position points to, sui generis? It ends up in the same place as the torture investigations that everyone's trying desperately to forget about. Would you allow Bush and Cheney their freedom from trial if a significant proportion of the Iraqi detainees decided they didn't want to testify because the memories were too harrowing? Or that they'd "moved on"? What would this say about the torture itself?

Do you not see that you cannot brush away Polanski's guilt without that saying something about rape *itself*? I hope you understand me and will thus appreciate why I can't accept the "delayed action" argument - it simply doesn't matter that so much time has passed, some crimes are too serious for this argument to apply.

We can play games with how we *feel* about prosecuting the law til the cows come home. What's been acheived? A blunting of the law and the whole point of the law is that it's the END of soft reasoning, it's the start of cold, hard decisions.

And the facts of this case could not be more clear. A rapist has gotten away with it. If you're going to start putting mitigating factors in the way of the FACT of the rape then there's no point having a law against rape.

The *implementation* of the law is the job of the court. That's when the mitigating factors come into play, not before. The law is there to deal with *crimes that have happened* and the court is there to decide whether or not they've got the right guy, and then what to do about it. Avoiding taking a known criminal to court because we'd prefer to skip over what the court might do completely invalidates the reason for having a court in the first place. We can't pick and choose what instances of crimes we'd prefer to see punished, or if we'd prefer that we need to take a step back from the criminal activity and find out what it is about it that we want to give to the legal system to END and fix the law so it only picks up cases that fit that. This has already been decided in the case of rape and it's been decided that rape is too evil to go unpunished by law. It isn't "really nasty rape" that's illegal, m'kay? It's RAPE. If you want to argue for "okayish sorta rape that we should, kinda let go"... well, I've seen people who've just been raped and I disagree. That's not a very fair argument, I know, but there you go.

[closeupready]

81. The victim already gave her testimony; Polanski pled guilty. She won't

be dragged back into court. It's more about his flight from justice than her being raped.

[sui generis]

84. well, glad someone's finally saying it.

So it's a political feather in someone's cap, and statute doesn't apply.

What a waste of money and effort, thirty one years later. It's embarrassing.

Also, about that esteemed "justice": have you ever seen inside a court docket with a plea? They don't guarantee leniency, just say they'll try to get it to cut proceedings short. But trial politics trump everything. I'm not defending him, but I'm also pretty cynical about this process as being about far from "justice" as it is possible to be.

It's not justice getting served, just someone's career getting a reach-around.

[anonymous171]

114. Whoever brings this fucker down deserves all the praise they can get.

I hate it when rich assholes like Polanski get off just because they can buy their way out.

[sui generis]

124. oh the stoepid

it hurts.

Where did all these absolutists come from? and why do they keep talking to me? When you use the law to make the law meaningless, then outrage over a miscarriage of justice in pursuit of "the law", law for the sake of law, makes it sound stupid.

Sorry I cannot agree with you, and "rich assholes" do not buy their way out - that's one of YOUR fantasies about the ones that get away.

[Irreverend IX]

115. Who are we protecting? The next young girl some rich bastard considers drugging and raping.

Letting Polanski go sends a clear message: if you're rich and famous, you can rape a child, flee the country, pay off the victim and never be punished. Should the international warrant have been issued earlier? Definitely. Is someone trying to benefit politically by prosecuting him now? Maybe. But neither of those things detracts from the fact that someone who rapes a child should be brought to justice, no matter how long it takes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. As I undertand it,,he is convicted. He fled during a psych eval and prior to formal sentencing

No statute of limitations in that case

[girl gone mad]

103. There is no murk. He raped her.

It's clear cut. She has never backed off of the allegation and he was to plead guilty. He has never denied it and he settled a civil claim.

[Nye Bevan]

40. So if a 5 year old girl was raped

do you think the victim should be asked what her attacker's punishment should be?

How about a 7 year old? A 9 or 11 year old?

I'm just wondering what your cut-off age is where you think a child you has been sexually abused or raped should have some say in the punishment of her attacker.

Personally I am not comfortable with a little girl being raped, then being paid some money by her attacker, then saying that she is fine with it, don't jail him, and then with DUers using this to justify letting him go free. I guess I'm just one of those puritans.

[kirby]

52. Those are not the facts here...

This is a pretty specific case. The victim herself wants him to be forgiven. And she is saying this 30 years later, not as a 13 year old.

Victim impact statements are something that happens in this country.

I guess I'm not so keen on puritans who do not practice to concept of forgiveness.

To me, when the victim herself forgives, all the other concerned people are just part of a mob mentality.

ps. what he did was disgusting.

[winyanstaz]

59. two of my sisters were raped as small children by their father...

and after forty years of therapy managed to forgive him..but we all still sued him and had him tried for child abuse...as he did commit the crimes along with a lot of physical and mental abuse and we wanted to stop him from abusing other children (which I am sure he was doing as he was one sick mean creep).
Because a victim finds it in their heart to forgive in an effort to mend their soul and go on with their lives, it does not mean a crime was not committed. That is the law.
I find your rationalizing child rape disgusting to say the least.

[kirby]

69. Seriously?

The fact that you considered anything I typed as 'rationalizing child rape' says way more about you than me.

And since I am just quoting what the victim herself said, I guess if she got up on the witness stand and said the same thing, you would wag your finger at her, accuse her of rationalizing child rape, and hold the victim in utter content and disdain, since it is not the path you would take.

And I am sorry to hear about your two sisters.

[winyanstaz]

73. It is fine she forgave him...it does NOT excuse the crime of raping a child...

what part of that rape makes it ok to you?>?? That she forgave him many years later?
People forgiving their abusers says they are decent human beings so NO I would not condem her...but yes..she is wrong to let him get away with it.
It sends a message loud and clear to child rapists that if your victim forgives you later...it's ok to rape a little kid.
Victims often bond with their abusers. My sisters still loved their father..regardless of his evil ways. Hell I even loved him as he abused me as well...as he was my step-father and the only dad I ever knew.
It was not easy to still hold him accountable, but it was the right thing to do.
Child abusers don't stop..pedophiles go on to rape and abuse others if not stopped. Thats why they MUST be held accountable regardless...even if you think its ok..its the law and it is not ok.

[Nye Bevan]

71. OK. So for child rapists, the trick is to go on the lam for 30 years

and hope that at that point, the victim (who is now old enough to make an adult decision) wants to forgive and forget. Also, pay her a few million to help her with her decision. Hopefully then the charges will be dropped, because after all, who wants to dredge up ancient history. And don't worry, you will have plenty of defenders on internet message boards. Even liberal ones.

[kirby]

76. A defender?

I am not 'defending' the raping of children! I am simply highlighting what the victim herself said.

I find it amazing that all I have posted is what the victim said and somehow I am defending child rapists or 'rationalizing child rape'.

Perhaps this is the reason the victim wants this issue to 'go away'. She doesn't want to be
judged by people who question her forgiveness as being 'paid for' or her forgiveness as 'wrong', etc.
She is in a no win situation.

If the victim said she wanted him in jail, I wouldn't have ever posted anything.

[Nye Bevan]

80. I never claimed that you were defending the rape of children

But you *are* defending Polanski against prosecution or jail time, by citing the victim's words.

[Raineyb]

98. Works for the church doesn't it?

Isn't there some statute of limitations at work here?

I'm not quite sure why there's a trial now over 3 decades later when ordinarily they'd say that the statute of limitations ran out years ago.

[tammywammy]

99. No, the statute of limitations doens't apply

He had already pled guilty and was awaiting sentencing when he fled. If he had never been indicted then the statue of limitation would apply.

[closeupready]

118. I believe in New York they were lobbying to pass a law making cases older than 10 years moot.

I'm not sure what the status of that legislation is, but it's really fucked up. :mad:

[girl gone mad]

102. Actually, she's given conflicting statements.

At times she has stated that he should be punished, and other times she has stated that she thinks that the damage done to him by the scandal (plus the settlement) is enough punishment. Not that it matters, because victims don't actually determine sentencing in our system of justice.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. So, since the then 13-year old had had intercourse on two prior occasions with some other

males, was she raped by 3 men?

[closeupready]

10. So what are you arguing, that you disagree that 13 year olds can consent to sex?

If not always, at least sometimes?

[sinkingfeeling]

28. No, you said they were incapable of consent. There are probably a couple of million girls

under the age of consent, that have consented to have intercourse, regardless of laws.

[closeupready]

30. God, I hope not. You mean, there are a couple million 13 year old girls

who have had sex with 30 year old men?

[Zywiec]

35. Why does the partner's age matter?

If the girl is 13 she can't consent to sex with anyone. So it must be rape, correct?

:shrug:

[closeupready]

41. So you don't care?

n/t

[Zywiec]

45. Of course I care. Do you care about the people she had sex with

before Polanski?

Where are they now? Why didn't anyone go after them for rape?

:shrug:

[closeupready]

48. I do care, and I don't know why. I presume someone did try to, at some point.

It may be that, at the time, there was a statute of limitations on the crime, and too much time has passed to go after them?, but Polanski's arrest is officially less about the rape and more about his flight from justice.

[girl gone mad]

105. Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws.

If her partner was underage, too, it's not automatically considered rape.

[seabeyond]

111. if you have two 13 yr olds, who raped whom. i would think it would

have to be.

besides, that is normal, healthy stuff

13 may be a little young, but still.... normal

[sinkingfeeling]

46. No, I said there are a couple of million girls under the age of consent who have consented to have

sex. I didn't say a word about the age of their partners. There have been 15 and 16 year old boys charged with statutory rape. I'm just stating that girls, even at the age of 13, can consent to have sex even if illegal. However, statistics do show that it is usually an older man (20 or older) that gets a teen-age girl pregnant outside of marriage.

http://www.happinessonline.org/BeFaithfulToYourSexualPartner/p14.htm

[supernova]

11. Under the law, yes

If you're underaged and you consent, it's statutory rape. If you are underaged and you say No!, then it's still rape.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Under the law, you're correct. I'm just saying that there are , I don't know, tens of

thousands of teenage girls who have 'consented' to intercourse before the law says they can.

[MineralMan]

43. And so?

Adults should not have sex with 13-year-olds. It's that simple. If kids have sex with each other, well...that has always happened. Adults should know better than that.

Lock him up!

[sinkingfeeling]

50. And 13 year olds shouldn't be experiencing their 3rd. sexual partner either. One

could ask where her parents were during her pre-teen years.

[MineralMan]

53. Not the issue, is it?

13-year-olds are not known for their carefully-thought-out decisions. That's why it's illegal to have sex with them, aside from their youth.

That the victim here had had sex before is irrelevant, entirely. The relevant issue is that a grown man had sex with someone just about everyone would call a kid.

Are you defending this Polanski asshole? Really? Are you blaming a 13-year-old girl? Really?

I have never, in my entire life, met a 13-year-old who is capable of rationally agreeing to sex. It happens all the time, with other kids who are equally unready for the act, of course. Heck, it happened to me at 13, with a neighbor girl who had been my friend since we were toddlers. That's a completely different issue than some adult feeding a kid alcohol and drugs, then having sex with her.

And you're defending Polanski and attacking the morals of a kid? Really?

[sinkingfeeling]

67. I'm not defending Polanski nor any 'adult' that sets out to have sex with a kid. I'm arguing that

kids, as you yourself admit to doing, have sex when they under the age of consent and by definition, consented to do so. Whether the consent is 'rational' or not is beside the point.

[MineralMan]

74. It is beside the point when we're discussing the rape

of a 13-year-old girl by an adult man. We'll never stop kids from boinking each other, as biology dictates. It just happens.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. What ever Polansky says it is

[grantcart]

8. She never gave her consent so your question doesn't apply

I was surprised, I thought it was consensual.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib12.html

[closeupready]

14. Yes, of course, you are correct. She did not consent. Which is what makes Polanski's defenders

seem so creepy to me.

[sui generis]

24. nice - because it's all about the poussoire as usual

when the state continues to prosecute something that should have expired under statute THAT'S what creeps me out.

I'm gay - I have no fantasies whatsoever about taking advantage of people or supporting people who do, but this crime is 30 years old and the "victim" is a chimera of our prudish sensibilities about sexual mores.

Why not send Anjelica Huston to jail? Seriously. Why are you cutting her any slack but not for Polanski?

[closeupready]

29. I don't know anything about Ms. Huston, but I would feel similarly if she had done this.

This case, OTOH, is a current event, for better or worse.

[sui generis]

39. You see, Ms. Huston was home at the time of the event

Watching Jack Nicholson's house and taking care of his guests.

Errmmm it's not "current event" that defines statute, just cause the murdochs noticed.

According to her testimony, the 13 year old didn't look any different from any other 30 year old female guest. The focal idea of underage sex rather than non-consensual sex is what's at play, and always has been. I don't believe he would have had a fair trial following the indictment, also don't believe he should have run, but it is now 31 years later.

Make no mistake, I think he was a slimebag at the time. I don't know anything about him presently, but I do know the case was settled out of court and that the "victim" wants to move on too.

So now the U.S. is going to take her and put her back in court after all is said and done and masturbate in the media for the next year over this? To gain what?

It's a waste of our tax dollars.

[Maru Kitteh]

119. SHE SAID NO! HE RAPED HER. SHE SAID NO! SHE SAID NO! SHE SAID NO! SHE SAID NO!

HE RAPED HER. HE RAPED HER. HE RAPED HER. HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO READ THAT BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

It does NOT MATTER how old she 'looked.' SHE SAID NO. HE RAPED HER.

There is no statute of limitations on hideous acts of violence like rape and thankfully there probably NEVER will be.

And how STUPID to try to equate A. Houston being in some other part of the house to sick fuck Polanski drugging up and raping some kid.

[sui generis]

121. did your head blow up?

He plead guilty. He agreed to do time. The judge had other ideas about honoring the quid pro quo.

Now take your hysterical little self away from me. I get that rape is bad. It is NOT the worst crime, and quite frankly your sweet innocent 13 year old wasn't all that, mkay?

I am NOT saying that it was acceptable by any means to put a pill in someone's drink, but it was also THE SEVENTIES and the drug culture and sexual culture would have been foreign to someone like you, and always will be.

It HAPPENED 35 years ago. When I was 13 I was sleeping with anything that had at least one leg, and it by golly wasn't rape toots.

Your lurid frothing description has nothing to do with the real story and you just hurt yourself by working yourself into a state. Do some homework instead of second hand blogwork - it will make you smarter and more effective even IF you still think it was all that.

[grantcart]

33. Until I read the grand jury testamony I thought it was consensual etc.

Her age is really immaterial, this would have been considered rape at any age.

[seabeyond]

56. me too. i was leaving it alone until i read that. nt

[sui generis]

12. what's statute on this crime?

This is the most boneheaded thing I think I've ever heard of besides the middle ages - and Switzerland ought to be ashamed.

let's see: didn't Geneva lure Servetus there for an honorarium and then burned him alive at the stake? I suppose history repeats itself in their tactics at least. In addition to Servetus, Calvin also had something like 40 women burned at the stake for "causing the plague", also in Geneva. Wussup with that? I know, it was like, the middle ages and shit, but doing it for the new papacy in America is so, uh, medieval.

Switzerland, really. Someone tweet them and tell them the 15th century was over a bunch of centuries ago and that extradition on these particular terms should essentially be an international crime.

[MineralMan]

13. Age of consent in France is 15.

[closeupready]

16. Is that too high?

n/t

[MineralMan]

34. I don't think 15 is too high at all.

It's pretty universal in Europe. I think 13 is way too low, though. I know some 13 year old girls, and they are most certainly not capable of reasonable consent to sex. By 15, there's little that can be done to prevent kids from having sex with each other, at least. I still think it's unconscionable for an adult to have sex with anyone under 18, though.

Adults should know better than to have sex with kids. It's just plain wrong. Let the kid's grow up. If they have sex with other kids, well...that's how it goes. But it should be hands off for adults until they're 18, at least.

[closeupready]

44. I basically agree with you here. And I lived in France a while back, and

while that doesn't make me French, I daresay I know that any 30 year old man who had sex with a 13 year old would be endangering his life, regardless of what the laws say.

[winyanstaz]

60. I agree...an adult that wants to have sex with a child is sick.

[proteus_lives]

47. Too high for Polanski.

[seabeyond]

49. it is you men that i am listening to here on these threads

it is you guys really, that is my saving grace right now. gosh, what i would be thinking, feeling if i wasnt listening to so many men on du appalled and outraged and clear line with this rape. she said no too. so not just cause young.

but each one of you guys, thank you, for feeling just as strongly on this.

huge thanks

[proteus_lives]

101. I want to thank you and every other voice of sanity on this issue.

This is astonishing to me. I know we live in a mostly gray world but there black and white issues. And rape is one of those issues. I mean goddamn, he raped a fucking child! How on earth are some people ok with this?

I'm telling everyone I know about this. I want people to be aware of it and stand up and say, "No, this behavior and attitudes are not acceptable."

:fistbump:

[seabeyond]

23. so it is rape in france too? just ok to rape cause he is such an artist. i see. nt

[MineralMan]

36. I don't understand how anyone could think

that an adult having sex with a 13-year-old is OK. I just don't.

[seabeyond]

38. i understand, and disgusted by all of this. which is what i have been yelling about

for a year now, watching it progress, and here we have, govt officials in france, saying, you are not nice. making him pay price for rape. our official here and across the ocean show not an iota respect for females, of any age

i am so very disheartened, disgusted,

[MineralMan]

42. Yeah, I'm disappointed too, and especially by the

defense of Polanski I'm reading here on DU.

No adult man should have sex with a 13-year-old, under any circumstances. It's just wrong on its face. It doesn't matter whether the child is virginal or not. It doesn't matter if a stage mom sent her over there. None of that matter. It's just wrong and should be punished.

Worse, Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs before having sex with her. Sheesh! How can anyone defend such behavior? Lock the asshole up.

[girl gone mad]

108. As someone who has been a 13 year old girl..

I completely agree.

At that age, I probably would have gone along with a lecher like Polanski because I was absolutely terrified of men. My father was somewhat angry and abusive and other male relatives were strict authoritarian types. There's no way I would have been making a decision based on informed consent or sexual desire. I'm really grateful that I didn't have any horrible early sexual experiences like this. I have friends who were sexually abused and raped by older men as children and they all seem to struggle with relationships.

[grantcart]

65. she didn't consend she was raped

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

[texasleo]

106. brb, going to France

kidding.

[Brickbat]

21. Age of consent doesn't matter. She was drugged, given alcohol, and said "no."

[seabeyond]

32. yes. nt

[supernova]

22. 15, according to Wikipedia

France

The age of consent in France is 15, as specified by Article 227-25, which reads: "The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a child under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000."
French Penal Code

There was a movement among some French intellectuals in the late 70s to have age of consent laws abolished. They didn't get very far if that's the case. I wonder if it's them who are hollering now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#France

[closeupready]

31. I wonder the same thing.

n/t

[librechik]

25. I dunno, but they let 8 year olds drink wine

different standards

[sui generis]

68. yep. I grew up in Europe

and I drank lots and lots of wine and port and beer, with my family and dad was a doctor. Not hard liquor, although it would not have technically been illegal at the time.

Now let's define "lots" as a smallish glass of wine or wheat beer with dinner many days of the week, started or finished with an aperitif. It maybe did make me mean as a bobcat wit no asshole in my adult age, but that might justa been my mean ass bobcat genes too. :P

Seriously, Americans are total prudes, as a rule.

[AnneD]

51. The age of consent in the state of New Mexico is 13....

unless they changed it in the last few years. Shocked the shit out of me but it was a cultural thing (hispanic). Young women married older more financially stable men. That thought is not that uncommon world wide. Before you flame me-I am just reporting the fact not agreeing with them.:hide:

[closeupready]

58. Interesting. I did not know that.

I know that it's a similarly young age in Spain. Really TOO young, if you ask me.

[AnneD]

79. My daughter was 11 when we first moved out.....

and turned 13 while we were there. Had anyone touched her, he would have been dead meat. Good thing they don't give out the death penalty too readily either. I figured I could just get a few parents with young daughters on the jury.......Of course if it had been a young kid....I am much more forgiving-more than most. Kids are kids. But adults should know better even if the child does 'consent'.

[MineralMan]

75. Nope. It's 16. I don't know when it changed, but it's 16.

[AnneD]

85. I left in 2003.....

That age of consent always bothered me and I know there was pressure to raise it. I think it is still lower on the reservations. That is a good question to ask.

[stray cat]

54. In Afghanistan the child could be married to a 60 year old as a 3rd wife....

although I don't think we should adopt a similar practice

[RedCloud]

55. You really don't want to know about cave people age of consent!

Remember, many were dead by age 20!

[seabeyond]

57. and i am sure males raped without repercussion. so????? nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

64. According to this, it's 15 years old

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

It was 13 years old until after the war, when it was raised to 15. According to that wikipedia page, Spain's current age of consent is 13, Portugal, Italy, and several eastern or central European states is 14, and most others are 15. The UK's age of consent is 16. Only European nations Turkey and Malta set it at 18.

[Odin2005]

77. The French government's response was disgraceful.

A government protesting the arrest of a child rapist. Pathetic.

[seabeyond]

91. not one mention of raping a girl. she is insignificant. and this, from a country, for the world to

hear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. Reading through this whole outraged thread, all I can see is that everybody

is missing the point.

He did the crime. He admitted to it. He agreed to a guilty plea. Then, an overzealous judge decided to abrogate the agreement that led to the guilty plea and was prepared to give him a sentence ten times longer than agreed - a sentence that was, even then, far out of proportion for equivalent crimes.

The result was Polansky fleeing and being exiled from the US for 35 years.

This man is not a serial child abuser - there has been absolutely NO reports of such behavior since then. Men who have committed serious, violent rapes have served far less time than he was threatened with. OF COURSE he fled. He was ready to pay an appropriate penalty for what he did, but a 30 year sentence for a single count of rape is damn near to a violation of the constitutional protection against 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

The young man who raped my 13 year old step daughter was out in two years. I strongly believe he was released too soon. But as much as I despise him and what he did, I wouldn't think a 30 year sentence to be appropriate for him, either.

This is not about Polansky and the crime of rape. This is about a judge and the abuse of power. If the judge had stuck with the agreement, this would have been over 25 years ago.

[sui generis]

88. thank you for that

it was overdue.

God all the people who feel superior whenever they're a holding a pitchfork and a torch lit with pure outrage . . . it happens a lot, and we used to make fun of it when people over on THAT OTHER SITE THAT MUST NOT BE NAMED did it.

Well, at least their hearts are in the right place, if not their heads.

[seabeyond]

93. god that people dare be outraged by rape. nt

[sui generis]

120. worse, that people dare to not be outraged by borrowed outrage

Oy vay.

You are holy and superior, pardon me while I bow and scrape.

Oh and thank you for aligning me with rapists - now move along while I can still be civil.

[seabeyond]

122. being opposed to rape = holier than thou? what a brilliant person you are. nt

[sui generis]

123. okay, you're not real bright

I get that.

The opposite of over there is not over here, and for the record, have you stopped beating your wife.

No, you're playing holier than thou because I haven't stopped beating your wife - straw woman argument.

The circumstances aren't as clear as you pretend, and you are ignoring the entire history of that particular case. They call them cases because they're tried in a court of law on a case by case basis.

You're just frothing because it's all about the war between the dudes and the helpless females, and it validates that men are inherently evil rapists in your mind. When I was thirteen I slept with anything that wasn't dead, and age was certainly no barrier. If some stupid adult told me I had been "raped" I would have done everything in my power to file a lawsuit - that if I can be tried as an adult for certain crimes I am certainly able to distinguish when I should leave a party or what might happen if I stay.

It was the seventies. He did admit to it and did agree to accept sentencing for it. Do your homework. When a judge makes a mockery of the judicial system, you lose your right to demand my outrage.

[seabeyond]

125. she said no. that is rape, even in the 70s. and what the judge wanted was him serve 48 days

the rest of the 90 he had given him for psych eval.

[sui generis]

126. but his attorney learned that the judge was going to hand

down a multi-decade sentence instead of honoring the plea deal, and it certainly seems in retrospect that the judge was indeed planning on doing just that. I don't think a film-maker would lightly flee EVERYTHING he had built here on a rumor if he had already been prepared to accept a fair punishment.

don't get me wrong, I do think he's a slimebag, and at least worst definitely pathological. But our justice system has a duty to the ideas of justice not to be dishonest in the pursuit of it. It makes the idea of "the law" meaningless.

The fact of the case is the bigger slimeball is the LA DA who is politicizing this case for personal gain. Even if nothing happens, the DA will still get to write a book about a topic of "the one we caught" or "the one that got away" - probably already has artwork for both covers; so color me dark cynical on this.

[Thickasabrick]

90. +10000 :-)

[seabeyond]

92. she said no. he raped her. the "appropriate" penalty? nothing. judge reconsidering plea

because the man in his face and the world taunted with his behavior.

and still.... we all have to face the judge regardless. he didnt and had a country to protect him. further

this now 45 yr old man immediately went to france and began fucking a 15 yr old

so make your excuses for the man

france ignored a rape adn told the world she didnt matter.

[Romulox]

95. Rapists don't get to choose their own sentences. That's for society to determine.

That's the only way civilization can exist. We are nation of laws, not of celebrities with a quick exit from the country and a villa in France. :eyes:

[anonymous171]

107. How many poor people have suffered from the wrath of an overzealous judge without an ounce

of sympathy from hollywood or DU's rape apologists? I will tell you: FUCKING NONE. My uncle was falsely accused of rape by his ex-gf (who later recanted) and the overzealous judge got him chucked in jail for over 3 years. He couldn't get out because he could not afford a fucking lawyer and even if he did get out he couldn't run off to France because they would of course have nothing to do with him. Fuck France and fuck Polanski I hope he gets thrown in jail for the rest of his life.

[girl gone mad]

110. To be fair, he has money..

he can buy sex with children if he wants. There is a thriving child prostitution industry in Europe. Just because no one has come forward to claim rape doesn't mean that he isn't abusing children.

[seabeyond]

112. immediately getting to france hooked up with a 15 yr old. legal in france. nt

[suzie]

116. Thank you.

The idea that because we never heard about it, he never abused children again is so completely naive, it's unbelievable.

[LeftishBrit]

96. 15 (nt)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

104. Her age is irrelevant. She said no, more than once. She could have been 100. It was rape.

[seabeyond]

113. yes. nt