Roman Polanski’s Lawyers Reportedly Provoked His Arrest

Walt Fricke
Sep 29, 2009 10:33 AM CST

A childhood similar to that depicted in Painted Bird seems like it could give one a different set of values.  But nothing excuses knowing a girl is 13 and having sex (apparently not consensual, either, though statutory rape is still rape) with her.  And there is no claim of innocence here. 

Had he but gone through with the sentencing, he could have appealed the sentence itself.  And surely California allows withdrawal of a guilty plea if the judge refuses to accept the negotiated sentencing concessions. 

Then he could have had a trial, though it seems he didn’t have much chance of avoiding conviction.

Now the apologists come out of the woodwork.. France and Poland have filed diplomatic protests with the Swiss?  Do they support child abuse?  His lawyers are just doing what they are paid to do - do the best they can to keep him out of jail.  But no one else is under such an obligation.

Flag this comment

B. McLeod
Sep 30, 2009 12:10 AM CST

I would guess it is more often than not a mistake to moon the prosecutors and chant, “Bring it.”

Flag this comment

P. Bryson
Sep 30, 2009 5:22 AM CST

You’re missing the substance of the story Lerend. This isn’t a prosecution, Polanski pleaded guilty. This extradition is about whether he can avoid his sentence by fleeing the country. If he can, it would sound like a good idea to embezzle enough money to have a good life in Nigeria or Venuzuela, plead guilt, and serve the sentence living it up overseas.

Flag this comment

Lerend
Sep 30, 2009 9:04 AM CST

#5 P. Bryson (Are you actually the singer Peabo Bryson? - oh, whatever)

So what if he pleaded guilty? It’s a stupid, sexist law. In the days of slavery, many people plead guilty to helping slaves escape - that doesn’t mean they should be punished for breaking an unjust, unfair and oppressive law.

You can’t say that a 13-year-old is an adult in some cases but not in others. If you can try a 13-year-old who commits a crime as an adult and send that convicted 13-year-old to an adult prison to live with adult murderers and child molesters, how can you say that this 13-year-old is not capable of consenting to sex with an adult?

And the law is sexist because the vast majority of people who are prosecuted under the statutory rape law are men. Yes, some women are being prosecuted more and more (mostly because the families of the male minors complained to the media) but prosecutors automatically prosecute men even in cases where the male adult married the female minor when she reached the age of majority.

Did you also know that in California where Roman Polanski is being prosecuted, a 13-year-old who has a lot of money can file for “emancipation” from the parents? Usually, successful child actors do this. As long as the child actor demonstrates emotional stability and doesn’t have a criminal record, that child actor can file for emancipation.

And there have been cases where 13-year-old mothers have received welfare from the state as well as government-provided housing.

So, a 13-year-old can:

1) be tried and punished as an adult;
2) have abortions without parental consent;
3) keep a child and receive welfare from the state without parental consent;
4) give up a child for adoption without parental or paternal consent; and
5) file for emancipation from the parents

BUT cannot consent to sex.

It is a total travesty of justice.

Flag this comment

Lerend
Sep 30, 2009 10:50 AM CST

Roman Polanski claims that the 13-year-old girl, whose name is Samantha Geimer, willingly had sex with him. She claims he forced himself on her.

You don’t think she may have lied? What would a 13-year-old girl’s parents do to her - especially in that time period - if she said she had consensual sex with an older man. How would some members of society treat her? They would call her all kinds of names. So, she may have lied to protect her reputation - it wasn’t her fault because she was a victim.

And Roman Polanski probably plead guilty because he knew it would be a lost cause if he had a trial. He would have to confront a 13-year-old girl and let’s face it, no one would feel sympathy for him. So, he probably plead guilty in order to get it over with and on the advice of his attorneys. But then, he found out that the judge wouldn’t approve the plea agreement so he fled. He was indicted on six felony counts and he tried to plead guilty on one count so that the other charges would be dropped but the judge wouldn’t go for it.

Just because people plead guilty doesn’t mean that they are guilty. Don’t be so naive. People plead guilty because they are scared, they know that society doesn’t like them because of who they are or because they are just too mentally, physically or financially exhausted to fight any more. Innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit and innocent people are convicted by judges and juries for crimes they didn’t commit - it happens and it happens more frequently than people may think.

Have you forgotten the recent case of a Hofstra University student who accused a number of boys of raping her on campus? It turned out she lied. By the way, she won’t face criminal charges for lying. She will just have to do community service and undergo some mental health counseling. Personally, someone who falsely accuses someone of raping them should spend the same amount of time in prison as an actual rapist. You can actually spend 5 to 7 years in prison for filing a false police report. But she just walks away.

Typical - when men do something wrong, it is a criminal issue but when women do something wrong, it is a mental health issue.

Flag this comment

tim
Sep 30, 2009 1:13 PM CST

Can we get Roman Polanski listed on the sex offender list?

Anyone who supports these rapists and pedophiles is a sick freak?

To all those that think what he did is no big deal, please send over your 13 year old daughters.  I am sure we can find a few good hoolywood perverts to rape her too.

If Hitler or Stalin made a few good movies would we let their crimes slide too?

A 13 year old cannot consent - that is statutory RAPE.

A 13 year old is a minor - that makes someone who rapes a 13 year old a PEDOPHILE.

You can’t justify what he did to a 13 year old girl.

Lock him up for life!

Hollywood sees nothing wrong with old men raping and sodomizing little children.

Flag this comment

Walt Fricke
Sep 30, 2009 5:14 PM CST

Lerend

Actually, adult women who have sex with underage boys do get prosecuted.  You see the notion is that kids don’t always have good judgment, especially when enticed by older people.

I take your point about abortion/adoption for unwed mothers, but nature is the sexist here - the boys don’t bear the child.

And the same deference to the womb applies to adult women.

This brouhaha is wonderful, as it exposes the taffyheads in Hollywood and elsewhere:  apply a different standard to this fine fellow because he has talent..

Flag this comment

Lerend
Sep 30, 2009 8:30 PM CST

Your defense of the 13-year-old female without even considering the possibility that Roman Polanski could be innocent is what is sick.

You don’t think that 13-year-old females can lie? She claimed that she was drugged; yet, when she was tested no drug was found in her system. The prosecution charged Roman Polanski with furnishing methaqualone (a sedative) to a minor even though methaqualone was never found in her system. So why did they charge him with it? Because they found it in his possession and she claimed to have been drugged so that must have been the drug he gave her even though tests did not reveal the presence of methaqualone in her system.

Why did he have methaqualone in his possession? He had been taking it in order to sleep. Ever since the brutal murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family years earlier he had been using sedatives to fall asleep.

Eventually, the prosecution dropped all of the charges (including the drug charge) in exchange for pleading guilty to one but the judge (who is now deceased) wouldn’t allow it and even the prosecution said the judge was too harsh.

There was evidence to suggest that the sex was consensual (prior relationships with other older men) but it didn’t make a difference because Roman Polanski admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old so the prosecution didn’t care whether the sex was consensual or not because of the statutory rape laws.

And by the way, there were cases of women sleeping with underaged males at the time of Roman Polanski’s case but they were not prosecuted. Perhaps they felt as you do Walt Fricke in #13 “deference to the womb.” So because a woman has a womb she can’t be a sexual predator? Even if she sleeps with a male minor she is the victim? And because she has a womb she can’t consent to sex the way a man can? Is she dumber because of the womb?

Yes, nowadays more women are being prosecuted for having sex with minor males but usually after the families of the male minors complain. When there is proof that a man had sex with a minor female he is arrested almost immediately even in cases where he married the female when she reached the age of majority. But when a woman sleeps with a minor male, she is warned to stay away in many cases and only when she ignores these warnings is she prosecuted.

No, I wouldn’t want my 13-year-old daughter or son to have consensual sex with an adult but if it does occur, I am not going to just claim that my 13-year-old is so innocent and insist on prosecuting the adult when the sex is consensual. I would try and provide counseling to my child. After all, the state will prosecute my 13-year-old daughter or son as an adult if she or he commits a crime so why can’t we treat a 13-year-old as an adult when she or he has consensual sex? Be fair.

By the way, tim in #11 your third comment (about sending over 13-year-old daughters) is just plain sick and even though it may be sarcastic, it could result in criminal prosecution. I wouldn’t be surprised if your IP address is cataloged.

Flag this comment