• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Roman Polanski taken into Swiss custody

Status
Not open for further replies.
syllogism said:
It's worth noting the thirteen year old was doing a photoshoot for Vogue and according to her own testimony had already had had sexual intercourse twice. There's a difference between an 8-year-old and someone like her.
Its not worth noting at all unless you are trying to lessen what he did by painting her as a 13 year old whore who is not innocent just because she had sex before. Moreover a lot of sexually active people get raped.
 
LQX said:
Its not worth noting at all unless you are trying to lessen what he did by painting her as a 13 year old whore who is not innocent just because she had sex before. Moreover a lot of sexually active people get raped.
I suppose it's not worth arguing with you considering you think death penalty is appropriate here.
 
syllogism said:
I suppose it's not worth arguing with you considering you think death penalty is appropriate here.

She did not consent (ie. It was rape!!). He should get the worse they can give. Even moreso that he's been avoiding justice for 30 years!
 
The Experiment said:
Eh, I don't know. Seems like it is much too late to really pursue criminal charges.

I'm not going to shed tears for him like some people here (what the fuck guys) but seems kinda late in the game to do this. I think he should go to a jail for like a year and then released.

No, crimes should not expire. "Hey you raped someone, but you managed to get away with it for a long time so it's all cool now."
 
Zenith said:
No, crimes should not expire. "Hey you raped someone, but you managed to get away with it for a long time so it's all cool now."
Statutes of limitations are a fundamental part of every western justice system and have been since early Roman law. To suggest the system, as a whole, should be done away with is ridiculous.
 
SanjuroTsubaki said:
I know! Not reading is hilarious!


What's hilarious is you implying a 13 year old was essentially implicit in her own rape when her statement, and Polanski's admission of guilt clearly show that she wasn't. Furthermore, even if she was, she was THIRTEEN and intoxicated.

I didn't know GAF had a rape defense force, wow.
 
I thought statue of limitations was only for being charged with a crime, he was charged and convicted. So it shouldn't apply should it?
 
soundahfekz said:
What's hilarious is you implying a 13 year old was essentially implicit in her own rape when her statement, and Polanski's admission of guilt clearly show that she wasn't. Furthermore, even if she was, she was THIRTEEN and intoxicated.

I didn't know GAF had a rape defense force, wow.
Its the hollywood liberal defense force that are just going over the top.
 
Slayven said:
I thought statue of limitations was only for being charged with a crime, he was charged and convicted. So it shouldn't apply should it?
No, it doesn't apply in this case. I suppose he may have meant that.
 
Count of Monte Sawed-Off said:
Rosemary's Baby was on HBO a couple of days ago. Crazy.

I think it was on day before yesterday, I watched a lot of it. Excellent film, although Mia Farrow's acting pisses me off like no other.
 
Leave it to GAF to defend a child rapist. Guy needs to fry, I don't care what the victim requests now, or how they judicial system "screwed" him by going back on their deal.
 
Well, there's the rape case, and the fact that he did flee. I dont know the US law, but if he is sent back to the US, isnt he gonna get fucked anyway ?
 
Weenerz said:
Leave it to GAF to defend a child rapist. Guy needs to fry, I don't care what the victim requests now, or how they judicial system "screwed" him by going back on their deal.
You obviously don't also care for the western justice system. I suppose Sharia would be more your thing.
 
soundahfekz said:
What's hilarious is you implying a 13 year old was essentially implicit in her own rape when her statement, and Polanski's admission of guilt clearly show that she wasn't. Furthermore, even if she was, she was THIRTEEN and intoxicated.

I didn't know GAF had a rape defense force, wow.
When did I state rape was not committed? I didn't. I already stated it would be a good thing for him to be extradited and settle this mess.

You are bringing up the age. It isn't far from legal consent in many places. We are talking about a teenager here who was sexually active, not someone in elementary school.

You are talking about her intoxication. It wasn't forced upon her.

You are neglecting the parents role into this. I don't think I would send my underage daughter to let's say a strip club looking to find some part time work. Chances are something bad would come of that. Regardless of the intent the photo shoot was already intended to have some level of risque material for a French publisher, tt wouldn't have even taken place otherwise.
 
i just saw the documentary on this, and it makes it feel like a very very complicated situation.

judging from what polanski was saying about his sexual tastes (he admitted repeatedly that he is just attracted to young, and young-looking girls, and that the criminalization of this doesn't exist in france), he seemed to be naive about the laws in place in america. i think that, no matter how fucked up it seems to most people here, this is a culture difference in effect, especially in that era.

plus, if you watch the doc, you'll see how incredibly ridiculous and grandstanding the judge on the case was. he operated from an egotistical point of view in almost every respect, and polanski would have served every bit of sentence and this would be over with any other judge. but this one made severely erratic decisions throughout the case, the most erratic being the decision to further punish him after agreeing to limit the punishment to the original six weeks because of a harmless photo that got circulated after his term was served.
 
syllogism said:
Statutes of limitations are a fundamental part of every western justice system and have been since early Roman law. To suggest the system, as a whole, should be done away with is ridiculous.

Why?
 
syllogism said:
I suppose it's not worth arguing with you considering you think death penalty is appropriate here.
Not really in this case. But yes in the case of these sick fucks like that one that got arrested just a few weeks ago for raping a 2 year old baby. If you do shit like that you deserve to slowly resolve in acid because to me that's a depravity probably lower than murder that does not deserve to be in our society. And nice moving of the goalposts to get around my response.
 
This shit feels like we've dug up Hoffa or something. it's such a relic of a past time, it felt like no one would ever bother to arrest him at this point.
 
I cant believe people are trying to find excuses for what he did :lol

If he was a nobody, people would be calling for his death, since it happen with every other thread about people abusing kids.
 
SanjuroTsubaki said:
When did I state rape was not committed? I didn't. I already stated it would be a good thing for him to be extradited and settle this mess.

You are bringing up the age. It isn't far from legal consent in many places. We are talking about a teenager here who was sexually active, not someone in elementary school.

What the fuck does far from legal consent mean? Either it's legal or it isn't, and if it's not, you don't score points for "being close"

You are talking about her intoxication. It wasn't forced upon her.

Nope, no minor as ever been offered alcohol by an adult and obliged because they thought it would be cool.

You are neglecting the parents role into this. I don't think I would send my underage daughter to let's say a strip club looking to find some part time work. Chances are something bad would come of that. Regardless of the intent the photo shoot was already intended to have some level of risque material for a French publisher, tt wouldn't have even taken place otherwise.

I'm not neglecting shit. Regardless if the parents knew or didn't know, the shit is rape. I can't even believe you're defending a rapist and putting a 13 year old child "at fault" :lol



Pack it up gentlemen. She knew what was going down and she was sexually active so I it wasnt so bad, plus she was "almost" the age of consent, even though she did not consent, and her parents should've been around. Didn't they teach her about talking to strangers and accepting drinks?

I rate this rape 4/10.
 
shinshero said:
Yes.

Now answer why? More specifically, what benefit is there for it to exist for rape/murder cases?
In the United States I don't think any state has one for first degree murder, though some do for rape. They serve various purposes. Mainly they exist to protect a person from being interminably under the threat of a possible criminal prosecution and then forced to defend after witnesses have possibly died, evidence been lost or memory become defective due to the passage of time. Furthermore they encourage law enforcement officials to act swiftly. It's worth bearing in mind the purpose of the justice system isn't to punish criminals.
 
legend166 said:
Good.


Seeing the standing ovation he got at the Oscars was disgusting. It's one thing to seperate the man from his work, it's another entirely for some 'show of solidarity' for a man who raped a 13 year old girl.

Bloody Hollywood.

The fuck? They gave him a standing ovation, despite knowing what he did?

Another reason not to watch the Oscars :lol
 
that HBO doc that aired a year or so ago convinced me that while yes, the judge that presided over his case was crazy and pulled some shady shit, Polanski was also a fucking creep and sleazeball and I doubt this was his first time banging a 13 year old so its hard to feel sorry for him.

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this. For years haven't there been rumors of Polanski's people and the DA trying to set something up where he would come and the charges would be dismissed or he would basically get off and he's just been too paranoid to trust them?
 
syllogism said:
Statutes of limitations are a fundamental part of every western justice system and have been since early Roman law. To suggest the system, as a whole, should be done away with is ridiculous.

I understand for minor offenses such as parking tickets, but why should someone be rewarded for being adept at concealing a crime or evading the law?
 
Zenith said:
I understand for minor offenses such as parking tickets, but why should someone be rewarded for being adept at concealing a crime or evading the law?

it probably has to do with the right to a speedy trial. Think about it from the other end, if someone was being suspected of a crime they didn't commit. You can't have some crooked DA holding a murder charge over someone's head for 30 years.
 
This guy received a standing ovation at the Oscars by half of the audience... Thank God the other half has some dignity.
 
gumshoe said:
This guy received a standing ovation at the Oscars by half of the audience... Thank God the other half has some dignity.

It really is amazing that this kind of behaviour gets a 'pass' from certain members of the entertainment industry simply because he is a skilled filmmaker.

Is an asthetically pleasing house still beautiful if it was build using slave labour? Had to debate that one in Grade 10 english class.
 
Zenith said:
the people saying he should get off lightly due to the time gap.

I think I misread a few prior posts.

At any rate, I get it, what with the speedy trial and whatnot. But my understanding that there were certain crimes that had no statute of limitations attached. I would suspect rape would be one of them.

I was listening to O&A like last year or something, they were talking about this one airline stuardess that decided, 9 months after being showin inappropriate images by a passenger, that she wanted to press charges, and they were tearing her to shreds lol. Patrice O'Neil suggested a 2 hour statute of limitations :lol
 
SanjuroTsubaki said:
When did I state rape was not committed? I didn't. I already stated it would be a good thing for him to be extradited and settle this mess.

You are bringing up the age. It isn't far from legal consent in many places. We are talking about a teenager here who was sexually active, not someone in elementary school.

You are talking about her intoxication. It wasn't forced upon her.

You are neglecting the parents role into this. I don't think I would send my underage daughter to let's say a strip club looking to find some part time work. Chances are something bad would come of that. Regardless of the intent the photo shoot was already intended to have some level of risque material for a French publisher, tt wouldn't have even taken place otherwise.

Wow... why do I get the feeling that some Gaffers have never been out of their basement before?
 
aztrex said:
It really is amazing that this kind of behaviour gets a 'pass' from certain members of the entertainment industry simply because he is a skilled filmmaker.

Is an asthetically pleasing house still beautiful if it was build using slave labour? Had to debate that one in Grade 10 english class.

Things are not so simple...

_His crime stay a crime, despite all his art achievements.
_His career stay brilliant and worthy of all achievements, despite his crime.

People just know how to separate a man from his job.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
it probably has to do with the right to a speedy trial. Think about it from the other end, if someone was being suspected of a crime they didn't commit. You can't have some crooked DA holding a murder charge over someone's head for 30 years.

but wouldn't it be better if the statute of limitations didn't cover people who skipped bail? this means it would only apply if the burden was on the state to bring it to trial.
 
orioto said:
Things are not so simple...

_His crime stay a crime, despite all his art achievements.
_His career stay brilliant and worthy of all achievements, despite his crime.

People just know how to separate a man from his job.

Pretty much.
 
Zenith said:
but wouldn't it be better if the statute of limitations didn't cover people who skipped bail? this means it would only apply if the burden was on the state to bring it to trial.
They don't, it just means the legal proceedings have to be initiated within certain time period and in this case they obviously were initiated ages ago.
 
syllogism said:
In the United States I don't think any state has one for first degree murder, though some do for rape. They serve various purposes. Mainly they exist to protect a person from being interminably under the threat of a possible criminal prosecution and then forced to defend after witnesses have possibly died, evidence been lost or memory become defective due to the passage of time. Furthermore they encourage law enforcement officials to act swiftly. It's worth bearing in mind the purpose of the justice system isn't to punish criminals.
I agree with you, though I don't think other people would. Some people still do some witch-hunting whenever they could.
 
That documentary really put some perspective on how much of a retard the judge was in the case. IIRC the prosecutor even said he didn't blame Polanski for leaving the country because the judge was being completely unfair and wanted to put on a show in front of the media.
 
aztrex said:
Is an asthetically pleasing house still beautiful if it was build using slave labour?

Interesting issue considering both the White House and the Capitol were built using slave labor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom