News They finally caught Roman Polanski

[russ_watters]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

 

[russ_watters]

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

First sentence. Consensual in the dictionary sense, as in "I consent".

The quote in the wiki article is:

The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.

So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless...

Not in the legal sense that government X has determined you are to immature to participate in political and judicial proceding therefore your opinion is void. I know there's currently a thread raging about this but I've always found the notion of a government body unilaterally convincing people who have had sex below a certain age that they have been victimized to be silly. If you don't feel victimized then who is the government to tell you that you are a helpless victim. And yes. In many countries "child molestation" is a much greater charge and only applicable to "children"

Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with Office_Shredder:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2374562&postcount=41

The Swiss judges will take into account what Polanski will face in the US and see if that falls within the bounds of what is seen to be reasonable.

One of the criteria for extradition in the treaty I linked is legal compatibility, which means the countries must have legally compatible laws. A notable example where that doesn't exist is with capital punishment, as Office_Shredder noted. Yes, it does happen that with capital punishment cases, negotiations may be made to ensure that the death penalty is not on the table.

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1285/Guilty-Plea-Plea-Bargaining-comparative-perspective.html

It seems that plea bargaining is a hot topic in Europe. I'm finding many papers on it but unfortunately most of them I can not access without subscription.

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.

 

[Count Iblis]

This is not a capital punishment case and both Switzerland and France have compatible laws with the US on rape. So whether Polanski is to get freed on probation or retried for rape and sentenced to 20 years in jail simply isn't relevant to the extradition request/process.

The judge does not purely rule on the law here. If the judge feels that a 20 year's sentence is likely in the US and that 20 years for a 76 year old person for this crime would be way too harsh then the extradition may not go ahead, despite what the law says.

In the US, judges are far more contrained by the law in the way they can rule.

 

[mgb_phys]

It seems rather odd to me that in a system of law that requires a trial there are no negotiations to increase the expediency of the trials.

I think it's perceived as altering the impartiality of the judges/trial process if it means that political and financial considerations come into it.

There used to be a 'offences taken into account' in Britain where a criminal would admit to other crimes and the police would make a statement in court emphasising his contrition and asking for a lighter sentence. Naturally this was abused to the point that every house breaker caught would automatically admit to every other unsolved robbery on the police's books and they could report a 100% cleanup rate.

 

[Galteeth]

I think we differ when it comes to understanding word "violent".

Is it a term applied for legal reasons, or just an adjective?

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

 

[mheslep]

I'll look into this. In the country I live in, plea bargain doesn't exist and would be a non-starter if it ever were to be proposed. And I don't live in Scandinavia, so msheslep is wrong about his claim that outside of Scandinavia plea bargains do exist.

That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

 

[Borek]

Generally when a person has committed an act upon another by force or against their will it is considered 'violent'.

For legal reasons. Legally, physical force, threat of physical force, and drugs are all in the same category.

Even as a loosely applied adjective, though, I would think that it would make sense that using drugs to lower someone's physical and emotional resistance is a form of physical force.

In this particular case, the girl was not a willing participant, hence the rape was a violent act. I believe that it what the poster means.

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?

 

[mheslep]

What is extreme about the manner in which it is used in the US?...

Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:

Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.

That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

The quote in the wiki article is: So it is consentual sex with someone who is legally incapable of consent? That's an obvious logical contradiction that just means they had some trouble explaining the concept. It's like when a dictionary definition uses the word in its own definition. The definition I posted is better because it explains the concept without the contradiction.

Regardless... Ok, so your objection here really is that you don't like the idea of having a legal definition of "statutory rape" at all. Well fine, but that definition exists and we're discussing reality in this thread. I'm not interested in how this case would go based on how you think the law should work - I'm interested in how this case will go based on how the law does work.

We can discuss why there should/shouldn't be a statutory rape in another thread.

Dude, it's not a matter of how the law "should" be, that's how the law IS. Statutory rape is a DIFFERENT crime than normal rape and comes with significantly less severe punishment because the "lack of consent" is due to a legal technicality not the dictionary definition. If you force yourself upon a 13 year old that's just regular rape according to the law. It's only statutory if there was consent in the "dictionary" sense.

 

[mheslep]

Plee bargains save tons of money and get a criminal to jail (albeit for a shorter time) right away instead of a court case that could literally last decades.

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.

 

[mheslep]

Well it's a bargain. No one is making you take it. But if you do go through the courts and you lose the punishment will be worse. You're not losing the "right" to anything.

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

 

[Choronzon]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

That's why you have the right to an attorney, and to even be charged with a crime the prosecutors have to convince a grand jury that there is cause to do so. You also have the right to offer up your own litigation if you feel you've been wronged. The government can't make everyone's life perfect, but they can give you legal redress, which Polanski had.

 

[Count Iblis]

That is the third time you've claimed such, and still no backup.

And I now claim this for the fourth time:

Plea bargains do not exist where I live.

And I will not bother to back this up. I have better things to do than waste my time on that.

 

[Galteeth]

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

 

[WhoWee]

I know this is off topic, but do they? I would argue that in a society with so many laws where, practically speaking, everyone is breaking SOME law, the process you speak of is quite common (although it's usually on a more local scale, not a federal czar).


Practical example: White forty-somethings don't loiter. Only blacks, punks, people under the age of 30, etc., loiter. (Although the law isn't written this way, it's enforced this way, and generally understood to be the case.)

I guess you haven't been to the golf course lately? I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

According to Webster: rape - any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. What does "violent" change then? Isn't "violent rape" a pleonasm?

Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.

Just FYI, I think plea bargains are abused in the US, especially since a relevant supreme court ruling several decades ago. I reject the claim though that plea bargains don't exist in Europe.

Very good background reference:

That is, the main argument is that plea bargains, when abused, effectively deprive us of our constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf

I see that this can be the case in some instances but I do not know that this is all that common. I have been to court a few times and saw several plea bargains made as a matter of course, none of which seemed coercive. In fact I received one myself. Had I not I would have gone to jail. Had I been in a civil law court I would have spent what ever amount of time going through the process of being convicted by trial (with out a jury) and then sent to jail.

Be that as it may, saving money does not justify the elimination of the right to a trial by jury.

As already pointed out a plea does not take away your right to a trial by jury. It maintains your right and gives you the option rather than foisting your rights upon you. There may be room for abuse which could lead to a person being tricked into giving up their right to a trial by jury but there is room for abuse in any system and the occasional abuse does not constitute "elimination of the right to a trial by jury". Its like saying that since some police officers beat suspects with their baton police carrying batons is an elimination of the right of suspects to not be beaten.

Spurious. There are plenty of parallel examples in speech rights, where the government or groups have attempted oppressive tactics against free speech that didn't explicitly take the right away, but the courts have reasonably said these tactics created 'chilling' effects and threw them out.

Take for instance your ability to post on the net. Suppose in a US where court had not so acted, that I (as speech Czar) say go ahead and post what you will, but if I don't care for it, I will generally investigate your background, have the IRS run an audit on you, have the EPA check to make sure you never washed a paint brush in the sink, see if you have unpaid parking tickets. And even if this all comes back squeaky clean, BTW I'll be notifying your university that all of these investigations are ongoing. (All of that is analogous to the pressure a prosecutor can apply for a plea). Mind you I am not taking your 'right' to post here, go right ahead, but 'no one is making you' post either. It's your 'bargain'.

The courts have rightfully prevented this kind of thing for happening with speech, but somehow plea bargains have been treated differently and received a pass.

The DA and police use all sorts of methods to coerce and intimidate suspects. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

 

[Galteeth]

I guess you haven't been to the golf course lately? I'm not sure where you are going with your example - it is off topic.

1. Admittedly, it was. My point was in reply to the example about freedom of speech. When there are so many laws, even if a particular action is legally protected, authorities can always find some other law you may be breaking to discourage you.

The "loitering" example is a real phenomenon. I have never seen a police office order a crowd of white forty year olds to disperse simply for standing around, hanging out, but it happens all the time to other groups.


2. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

In general, history has shown that a tool then can be abused WILL be abused. If you don't throw out cases for violations of some principle, authorities will routinely violate the principle because it doesn't matter. (Think about unreasonable searches. If evidence produced from an illegal search was admissible, law enforcement would just always search, there's no reason not to.)




Since this was a bit of tangent, I won't mention this further, but if you'd like to discuss the general concept I would reply to a new thread.

 

[Borek]

Its because the law also accepts the view that having sex with a person who is unable to give informed or uninfluenced consent, although they may participate willingly, is also rape. So underage people who are influenced into having intercourse with an adult willingly through perhaps some form of subterfuge or implied threat is rape. And if you give someone a drug which renders them unable to use proper decision making skills but pliant and willing to have sex this is also rape. There is also rape by threat of violence as opposed to violence itself.

From the confessions of the victim that I have read (links posted by Lisab, although I don't think it was in this thread) I would say then that it was a rape, but not a violent rape.

Basically what I am aiming at is that I have a feeling word "violent" is being abused - and it is a more general problem, not limited to the Polański case. I have seen it in Polish, seems like it is also present in English.

 

[WhoWee]

1. Admittedly, it was. My point was in reply to the example about freedom of speech. When there are so many laws, even if a particular action is legally protected, authorities can always find some other law you may be breaking to discourage you.

The "loitering" example is a real phenomenon. I have never seen a police office order a crowd of white forty year olds to disperse simply for standing around, hanging out, but it happens all the time to other groups.

2. Why throw out a useful tool that can be beneficial to both the courts and the defendant just because it may be abused by some rather than root out the abuse itself which will likely just take a different form in absence of the particular tool?

In general, history has shown that a tool then can be abused WILL be abused. If you don't throw out cases for violations of some principle, authorities will routinely violate the principle because it doesn't matter. (Think about unreasonable searches. If evidence produced from an illegal search was admissible, law enforcement would just always search, there's no reason not to.)

Since this was a bit of tangent, I won't mention this further, but if you'd like to discuss the general concept I would reply to a new thread.

I'm not disagreeing with the observation in total. However, I've observed the police engaging white 40 year-olds in a similar manner after sporting events, around the closing time at bars, at various street parties, etc. I do agree the police don't typically target 40 something white males. If you'd like to start a thread, I'll participate.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

From the confessions of the victim that I have read (links posted by Lisab, although I don't think it was in this thread) I would say then that it was a rape, but not a violent rape.

Basically what I am aiming at is that I have a feeling word "violent" is being abused - and it is a more general problem, not limited to the Polański case. I have seen it in Polish, seems like it is also present in English.

I understand. Its not a traditional usage of the term and it may seem to muddy the idea of what violence is. Legally it is used to distinguish between rape that is done without proper consent versus rape done to a person against their willful resistance (if not physical resistance) which easily makes sense to me. Not all legal definitions are quite the same as traditional definitions as Mav has suggested. At the same time I find it hard to not consider a person penetrating me anally against my wishes to be a form of violence. While it does not have the same seeming as punching, kicking, or stabbing and it seems to define sex as a form of violence itself I would have a difficult time finding another way to describe it.

 

[Count Iblis]

Statutory rape also applies when consent was obtained fraudulently, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994417.stm"

In the state of Florida rape is defined as sex without consent, and since my consent was procured fraudulently it's not valid. The judge agreed and awarded me $27m

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Statutory rape also applies when consent was obtained fraudulently, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994417.stm"

Ok, now that's just ridiculous.

 

[Jasongreat]

Ok, now that's just ridiculous.

That is way beyond ridiculous! I wonder why they say the US is a litigious society.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That is way beyond ridiculous! I wonder why they say the US is a litigious society.

There's no limit to the absurdity of litigation in the US. Read this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...you-cant-sue-a-dream-but-you-can-sure-try.ars

People like this can act with impunity because of the unlimited right to sue and have your "day in court" without consequences for outrageous abuses of the system. I think this post is somewhat on topic since it deals with sexual misconduct (in the plaintiff's dream). Suites like this tie up courts and deny timely access to people with legitimate claims.

 

[Galteeth]

There's no limit to the absurdity of litigation in the US. Read this:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...you-cant-sue-a-dream-but-you-can-sure-try.ars

People like this can act with impunity because of the unlimited right to sue and have your "day in court" without consequences for outrageous abuses. I think this post is somewhat on topic since it deals with sexual misconduct (in the plaintiff's dream). Suites like this tie up courts and deny timely access to people with legitimate claims.

While I agree with our basic point, the example you provided is of a person who is literally delusional. Generally, people who are literally insane do in fact haver their lawsuits dismissed out of hand.

The dream thing was referring to the plaintiff's self-dismissal, esentially a recognition by the plaintiff that he had in fact imagined the whole thing.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

While I agree with our basic point, the example you provided is of a person who is literally delusional. Generally, people who are literally insane do in fact haver their lawsuits dismissed out of hand.

The dream thing was referring to the plaintiff's self-dismissal, esentially a recognition by the plaintiff that he had in fact imagined the whole thing.

Since it's drifting off topic, I won't belabor the point, but the the fact that a disturbed person can file bogus lawsuits against thousands without fear of consequences reveals a serious problem in the US system of justice. This person has been doing this for years and the system apparently can't stop him because of his "inalienable right to sue". Every suit activates the judicial machinery and requires victims to get lawyers and go to court to respond to the suit. Besides, in cases alleging sexual misconduct, it's not always clear the suit is without merit and can be dismissed.

 

[Galteeth]

Since it's drifting off topic, I won't belabor the point, but the the fact that a disturbed person can file bogus lawsuits against thousands without fear of consequences reveals a serious problem in the US system of justice. This person has been doing this for years and the system apparently can't stop him because of his "inalienable right to sue". Every suit activates the judicial machinery and requires victims to get lawyers and go to court to respond to the suit. Besides, in cases alleging sexual misconduct, it's not always clear the suit is without merit and can be dismissed.

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

 

[Borek]

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ok, just one thing, while i don't necessarily agree, the theory is that if you took away his right to sue, such an individual could routinely have his civil rights violated by others with no means of legal recourse.

Other countries do not have this problem. In Canada and the UK, the losing plaintiff pays court costs and sometimes the legal fees of the defendant if the suit is judged to be frivolous. This in no way denies the plaintiff future access to the courts. I would further say that victimizing innocent people with bogus lawsuits is also a violation of the rights of victim defendants de facto if not de jure.

 

[jambaugh]

Does anyone know what kind of sentence Polanski could face for fleeing the country aside from the rape?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Other countries do not have this problem. In Canada and the UK, the losing plaintiff pays court costs and sometimes the legal fees of the defendant if the suit is judged to be frivolous. This in no way denies the plaintiff future access to the courts. I would further say that victimizing innocent people with bogus lawsuits is also a violation of the rights of victim defendants de facto if not de jure.

In the US you can counter sue for costs in many cases but not all. This depends on the specific laws in the state where you are being sued. Unfortunately it is not much of a deterrent for anyone who is broke and unstable. You may be ordered to pay the defendants costs but if you have no money its rather a moot point.

Does anyone know what kind of sentence Polanski could face for fleeing the country aside from the rape?

He could face charges of "fleeing prosecution" though I am unaware of the exact laws and charges this constitutes. In the news they usually just say "fleeing justice/prosecution".

 

[Borg]

And, now he's free again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_en_mo/roman_polanski"

 

[Pattonias]

If you are wealthy, famous, and popular, you can get away with anything. And be applauded while you do it. If he suddenly dies, we'll forget about what he has done, and give him poustumous cinematic awards for the remainder of the year.

Cite: Michael Jackson

 

[mheslep]

If you are wealthy, famous, and popular, you can get away with anything. And be applauded while you do it. If he suddenly dies, we'll forget about what he has done, and give him poustumous cinematic awards for the remainder of the year.

Cite: Michael Jackson

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Lindsay Lohan will soon be trading in her designer duds for a stiff cotton Los Angeles County Jail jumpsuit come her three-month sentence, likely to be served at the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, California.

Paris Hilton served 23 days of a 45-day sentence at the same jail for violating her probation in a DUI case and was sprung early for good behavior.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/12/lindsay.lohan.ppl/?fbid=QMmnUQwG2Bx

Ryder was convicted of grand theft and vandalism, but was acquitted on the third felony charge, burglary.[77] In December 2002, she was sentenced to three years' probation, 480 hours of community service, $3,700 in fines, $6,355 in restitution to the Saks Fifth Avenue store, and ordered to attend psychological and drug counseling.[78] After reviewing Ryder's probation report, Superior Court Judge Elden Fox noted that Ryder served 480 hours of community service and on June 18, 2004, the felonies were reduced to misdemeanors. Ryder remained on probation until December 2005.[79][80]

Michael Vick [NFL star quarterback ...] The admitted dog killer was transported from the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is serving a 23-month sentence for conspiracy.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/mvick2008mug1.html

 

[waht]

The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision, and the wishes of the victim

I can understand the victim not wanting to pursue this any further, but national interests were taken into account? I can't fathom that.

 

[Borg]

I can understand the victim not wanting to pursue this any further, but national interests were taken into account? I can't fathom that.

I found the "national interests" statement to be odd when I read it also.

 

[Proton Soup]

i would think the biggest national interest of the swiss would be their banking industry, the level of discrete service their customers have come to expect, and the sort of legal precedents and perceptions that could be set by the swiss detaining arriving customers that the US has taken an interest in.

 

[russ_watters]

And, now he's free again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_en_mo/roman_polanski"

Very disappointing.

 

[russ_watters]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no...

None of those had the forethought to just move to a different country.

...though Polanski probably has a lot more pull overseas than they do.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Those people are famous, not popular

 

[mheslep]

Those people are famous, not popular

NFL QB Vick? Winona Ryder? They're as popular as Polanski, I'd guess.

 

[Office_Shredder]

NFL QB Vick? Winona Ryder? They're as popular as Polanski, I'd guess.

I don't know much about Ryder, but after the allegations came out nobody liked Vick. That's kind of a side point though, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek

 

[j93]

I don't know much about Ryder, but after the allegations came out nobody liked Vick. That's kind of a side point though, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek

How could one like someone who fights dogs.

A child rapist on the other hand.

 

[Pattonias]

Well look at it this way, if Lindsay divulged her drinking habits 15 years from now instead of while actively using them we would heap sympathy on her and some would buy her book.

If Michael Vic had been accused of fighting dogs 5 years after he retired from football with 2 superbowl rings, he would make a tear filled apology for his wrongdoings toward animals and make a donation to an Animal rights group or start a foundation and then still make it in the hall of fame.

Speculating about careeer success asside we often look less harshly on things if they happened in the past to a celebrity.
(Mheslep I know what you meant )

 

[j93]

Well look at it this way, if Lindsay divulged her drinking habits 15 years from now instead of while actively using them we would heap sympathy on her and some would buy her book.

If Michael Vic had been accused of fighting dogs 5 years after he retired from football with 2 superbowl rings, he would make a tear filled apology for his wrongdoings toward animals and make a donation to an Animal rights group or start a foundation and then still make it in the hall of fame.

Speculating about careeer success asside we often look less harshly on things if they happened in the past to a celebrity.
(Mheslep I know what you meant )

These are not accusations that happened 5-15 years after the crime was committed (they happened the day after), your comparisons are completely irrelevant unless you are possibly arguing that if someone escapes before they go to jail and spend 10-15 years abroad society should forgive and forget .

people who might agree with you
James J. Bulger
Osama Bin Laden

people who have forgiven their perpetrators despite no monetary compensation
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/44321787.html
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105968Regardless there are crimes that are forgive and forgotten by society hence statute of limitations

murder isn't one of these
anal rape of a drugged 13 year old is not one of them

 

[Office_Shredder]

anal rape of a drugged 13 year old is not one of them

Are you trying to argue that Polanski is not popular, or that there is not a large portion of society that has forgiven him?