Roman Polanski

[silverfox]

Yes, you're right and many have told how this sort of thing was widespread in the film industry (the casting couch).

However, Polanski, on his own admission, is guilty of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. I agree he should face justice for that.

As for the more titillating acts that surround this case they remain allegations and unproven.

How do you proceed in this case given all the myths and half-truths that have grown up around it? In theory it is a simple objective sentencing issue. A guilty plea has been made and a judge will have a number of possible sentences he or she can impose. If prison, will that cause a howl of protest? if probation is that too lenient? If the judge is male will that upset women? If the judge is a woman will her objectivity be questioned?

This one will be tied up in legal knots for years.

[HAL9000]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This one will be tied up in legal knots for years.

Not if he gets bail and seeks sanctury in Israel by claiming citizenship under the Law of Return.

[DaveR]

"The discussion after all this time is how to proceed. Polanski is in the frame at the moment but if you are looking for celebs to jail for underage sex with boys or girls in the 70s, well, take your pick

Do we say that the 70s were different, we as a society have moved on and don't accept that now or do we say we don't accept it now and we shouldn't allow admissions of it then? Aren't there enough biogrophies (from Led Zepplin, to Bowie, to Jack Nicholson and everyone in between) where underage sex (with groupies, fans, whoever) is frequently alluded to or even described? Are we willing to retrospectively trawl the files until we have have gottem all?"

I think this is relevant in understanding the range of opinions as to the appropriate punishment, and whether the US justice system will deliver the appropriate punishment. Views in the 70s about sex with an under legal age (but physically mature) girl were vastly different to now - in the UK, prosecutions were rare and penalties relatively light. Now it is a crime to have sex with a girl (or boy) over the legal age of consent if you are in a position of trust.

[SimonM]

A guilty plea has been made and a judge will have a number of possible sentences he or she can impose. I

That was what the original plea bargain established - the "punishment"/sentence Polanski would get in exchange for making a guilty plea. He got the lower "sentence" - the psychiatric evaluation which he complied with: in turn the victim did not have to testify at any trial. The problem was the original judge then had second thoughts and decided to renege on the plea-bargain and re-sentence. Polanski then did a bunk as he claimed that had he been facing the sort of sentence now being talked about he'd have insisted on the case going to trial.

One problem of the present coverage by the media and by some people in here is that what was no more than the evidence given by the victim to the Grand Jury is being treated as the incontrovertible facts of the case. We don't know what took place at the time: the girl's version was never challenged in court. This is not to suggest Polanski is any sort of innocent martyr - just that it is a very long way from being proven that he is - or was then - the evil raging paedophile beast some would paint him as.

[iaineasy]

I think if you sleep with a 13 year old girl you are a nonce, the circumstances are irrelevant, he should be locked up as he admitted it, it's understandable the girl/ woman doesn't want to go to court now after all these years as its history for her and who would like to go through all of that hassle after 30 years? She has a family etc and could do without the fame and publicity, also he paid her off at the time, but the fact of the matter is he still did it, he abused a child, and has lived with impunity for all this time with wealth and happiness etc. What signal does that send out? The film industry brushed it under the carpet because of the horriffic murder of his pregnant wife and for that I feel sorry for him, but he should still pay for the crime. As should anyone famous or not who thinks sex with a thirteen year old is ok because they have the opportunity.

[daizie]

30 years ago, 13 year old physically developed girls, sleeping with older men wasn't as frowned upon as it is today. Similar to parents smacking kids, no one batted an eyelid . The girl may have been called a 'slag' but the man was not called a nonce or a paedophile. The era is as relevant as much as his status. It doesn't make it right, just of its time .

[????]

Well, a judge and to a degree his defence team did actually bat an eyelid 30 years ago Daizie...

[daizie]

thats my point, only because of who he was .

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

30 years ago, 13 year old physically developed girls, sleeping with older men wasn't as frowned upon as it is today.

I've never read such bollocks - what country did you grow up in?

[Huguenot]

Well PGC, I think she grew up in the UK and she has a good memory, because that's an accurate reflection of the morals of the time.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I was 15 in 1977 - my father certainly wouldn't have sat back and let anyone, famous or otherwise, get away with that behaviour. Or is the 70s the new 60s: if you remember it you weren't there!

[Huguenot]

Indeed, too true PGC

However, the 70s were also highly polarised, so your Dad's POV might not have been shared by either the legal system (who still considered women to be chattel), or the media (who thought women were pretty but little else).

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Gosh, that Margaret was a pretty little piece!

[Huguenot]

I wasn't aware that she was a woman?

Besides, an exception merely proves the rule. The very fact that everyone was surprised kind of says it all. She had no women in her launch cabinet.

Have a look at this - no birds in the 70s

That was the world of the 70s, and wishing it wasn't so doesn't change anything.

*arms folded icon*

[The Chair]

Please try to stay on topic.

[candj]

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 30 years ago, 13 year old physically developed

> girls, sleeping with older men wasn't as frowned

> upon as it is today. Similar to parents smacking

> kids, no one batted an eyelid . The girl may have

> been called a 'slag' but the man was not called a

> nonce or a paedophile. The era is as relevant as

> much as his status. It doesn't make it right, just

> of its time .

Crikey, I don't think that's true at all! 30 years ago a 13 year old girl was a 13 year old girl. Perhaps 300 years ago no one would bat an eyelid, or if you live somewhere like Yemen.

[Huggers]

Relevent to this- how about the withdrawal of the photo of a made-up naked Brooke Shields as a child from the Tate Modern today? It's picture we today find hard to stomach even as a statement about the times it was taken in. It was taken in the early seventies, with the approval nay encouragement of her mother and was apparently in Playboy. Maybe it does say something about the times- something horrible- and about Hollywood morals.

Whoever said this was a 'one off' for Polanski, remember he had a long relationship with a very young Natassia Kinski. 'Tess' is all about expoitation of innocence,Maybe it was meant as expiation.

[iaineasy]

30 years ago, 13 year old physically developed girls, sleeping with older men wasn't as frowned upon as it is today. Similar to parents smacking kids, no one batted an eyelid . The girl may have been called a 'slag' but the man was not called a nonce or a paedophile. The era is as relevant as much as his status. It doesn't make it right, just of its time .

------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I can tell he drugged her by spiking a drink with barbituates, that I am afraid blows the argument out of the water that it was a crime of it's time and definatley makes Polanski a peadophile because peadophilia is about control of the child and this is a predatory way of controlling a 13 year old to get what he wanted. No question about it Polanski is/was a nonce and should be punished as such.

[Timster]

Am I the only person slightly perturbed by the use of the term 'nonce' on this forum?

It does strike me that as soon as you introduce the word 'paedophile' into the debate then all rational analysis goes out of the window. There are never going to be circumstances where it is acceptable for a middle-aged man to sleep with a 13 year old - and certainly not when he has spiked her drinks. But sleeping with a 13 year old girl does not automatically make you a paedophile even if it does make you a criminal. If the girl had been 16 then he probably wouldn't have been charged with anything - would that have made what he did any more acceptable? What if he'd slept with a 16 year old who looked and acted like she was 13?

The circumstances of what happened are nasty and murky but the fact that someone does something so morally reprehensible doesn't always make it a crime. The age of consent is there because you have to draw a line between where a woman is deemed to be able to take responsibility for her actions and where she is deemed too young and should be protected from men like Polanski taking advantage of her. But the reality is that plenty of adult women are taken advantage of by men like Polanksi and that isn't, I'm afraid, a crime.

In this case, Polanski did commit a crime - but I suspect things like this happened a lot in the circles he moved in and often there was no chance of a criminal conviction being brought.

On balance, I'm inclined to think, having read all this, that he should do the time for his crime - but those people on a moral crusade should bear in mind that half of Hollywood would likely be locked up if we applied the same standards across the board. There are nasty immoral men in the world - lot's of them use power to take advantage of women - but this isn't - perhaps unfortunately - a crime...

[Huggers]

Timster, interesting points about the morality/amorality of Hollywood specially as we've just had the removal from Tate Modern of the highly sexualised photographic image of Brook Shields as a child, taken at about the same time as the Polanski 'event' and with the approval and collusion of her mother and which was printed in Playboy. We would never accept that today, and indeed we couldn't accept it's display even as a critique of those times, hence its removal.

By the way, didnt Polanski 'date' the underage Natassia Kinski while directing her in 'Tess', itself a kind of cinemagraphic apology for the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.

[HAL9000]

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... But sleeping with a 13 year old girl

> does not automatically make you a paedophile even

> if it does make you a criminal.

Under US and UK/EU criminal laws an adult who knowingly sexually molests an underage child is (by definition) a paedophile.

> If the girl had

> been 16 then he probably wouldn't have been

> charged with anything

So you think spiking a drink with a date-rape drug is OK as long as the victim is an adult? What planet are you posting from?

> The circumstances of what happened are nasty and murky ...

He pleaded guilt to having sex with a minor - he is a self-confessed paedophile. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[daizie]

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I the only person slightly perturbed by the use

> of the term 'nonce' on this forum?

>

>I hear what you are saying.

Is sleeping with a physically developed 13 yr old girl the same as molesting a 3 yr old ? Im not so sure they are the same thing . However, It is all wrong .

[Cassius]

Maybe if he'd been a bit more careful in which US state he had done this act in it might not have even been illegal. It was morally corrupt and obviously Polanski thinks himself a bit above the mores and morality of normal unartistic mortals. By the way how old was Mandy Smith when Bill Wyman got his claws into her?

[The Chair]

Several messages in this thread have been purged on grounds ranging from simply wandering too far off topic to resembling a feedback page of "The Sun" on a bad day.

To clarify:-

1) Libellous, or potentially libellous, messages will be vaporised.

2) The dictionary definition of "paedophile" is simply "a person sexually attracted to children"

[Timster]

daizie Wrote:

> Is sleeping with a physically developed 13 yr old

> girl the same as molesting a 3 yr old ? Im not so

> sure they are the same thing . However, It is all

> wrong .

Yes, but the legal system has the uncomfortable and unenviable job of deciding which one is worse. Should the person who molests 3 years old face the same sentence as the film director who once slept with a 13 year old? We might not like having to make that distinction but it's one that has to be made by the courts.