New York, 3:58 PM
Thu Dec 10
68 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
| posts about #romanpolanskiwantedanddesired more → |
Roman Polanski Wants Rape Case Dismissed Through Documentary |
Which Is Worse: Roman Polanski Banging A 13-Year-Old Or Hollywood Blindly Embracing Him Despite It All? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Jezebel 
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
I'm kinda fascinated by how this will play out in the "victim's rights" community.
What happens when the victim ISN'T calling for the perp's head in a basket, but has forgiven him and wants it put to rest? If victims do have "special rights" in a criminal case, should they be respected in and of themselves, regardless of whether we agree with how they choose to exercise those "rights"?
It reminds me of the freedom of speech conundrum: I disagree with everything you say but will fight for your right to say it.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
That is a line from a skit of the Vagina Monologues in which a grown woman gives a 13 year old girl alcohol [drugs her if you may] and then has sex with her. Thousands of women support The Vagina Monologues including women on this site and didn't have a problem with the skit [it has since been changed] even Eve Ensler herself said she had no problem with the skit because that was that woman's experience but everyone here is ready to throw Roman Polanski under a bus.
I'm not saying what he did was right but i just find the hypocrisy and double standard troublesome.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
I agree with you that inebriation and youth mean that the girl could not give consent and that she was raped. I was taken advantage of by an older man when I was a young teen, and though I "consented" I did so under pressure and manipulation to show how sexy and grown up I could be. That was rape, though I didn't say "no" So I'm with you on sex between adults and children=rape. However, I support TVM because it's about sharing women's authentic experiences with their bodies, not educating the audience about responsible actions. There's really not a correct way to feel after rape. It's such a routine experience for many women; we grow up surrounded by messages that our bodies are owned and owed to others.
12/04/08
12/03/08
MR. GUNSON: Mr. Polanski, before you can plead guilty, you must understand the possible direct consequences of your plea. Do you understand you are pleading guilty to a felony?
MR. POLANSKI: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?
MR. POLANSKI: It's 1 to 15 -- 20 years in State Prison.
MR. GUNSON: Do you understand it is also possible you could be placed on probation, with or without being required to serve up to 1 yr in County Jail?
MR. POLANSKI: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: Mr. Polanski, because this offense involved a girl under age 14, it is mandatory that MDSO proceedings be instituted...
Mr. Polanski who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?
MR. POLANSKI: The Judge.
MR. GUNSON: Who do you think will decide whether you get probation?
MR. POLANSKI: The Judge.
...
MR. GUNSON: Do you understand that at this time, the court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?
MR. POLANSKI: (No response.)
MR. GUNSON: Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?
MR. POLANSKI: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: Further, do you realize that this court will not make any decision regarding sentence and probation until after it has read and considered [the probation report and argument from the prosecutor]?
MR. POLANSKI: Yes.
MR. GUNSON: Mr. Polanski, do you understand that at the time of sentencing the prosecutor may argue that you should be sentenced to State Prison or be incarcerated in the County Jail?
MR. POLANSKI: Yes.
12/03/08
Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere; I've been looking on Wiki and Smoking Gun. Pretty horrific what he did to the girl, regardless of how the judge acted. I know, though, that screwy attorneys or judges can screw up an entire case.
I say he should come back and face the charges. I can understand fleeing, but it's 30 years later, so come back and try to sort things out here, you coward.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
(Am I remembering this right?)
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
You will see.
12/03/08
It's probably best for all of us not to get bogged down in the details again, but suffice it to say that Jessica deserves some real respect for coming back to the subject again and trying to do it justice.
12/03/08
'Twas the thread that dare not speak it's name.
Although, I have to say, as intense as that battle was, it's been a while since there was a good knock-down-drag-out fight 'round these parts. I don't wish a repeat of that particular discussion, but I have a hankering for a small soupcon of of feisty discussion.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
@ASmallTurnip: oh, there were later, bigger fights.
12/03/08
But kudos, Jessica, for addressing the issue again, and with a lot of thoughtfulness. You've got stones, I mean it.
12/03/08
After reading the articles, I see that is certainly not the case. Anyone else hear this story?
12/03/08
12/03/08
But I have to say, there's no two ways about this case. He had sex with a minor. That was illegal then, and it's illegal now. Irregardless of any of the intricacies of the case, or social mores, or whatever, he knowingly broke the law. End of story.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
First of all, it's not our legal system, it's your legal system.
Second of all, I'm not really commenting on the workings that of the legal system, just whether what he did is ultimately wrong. Which I think, it was, irregardless of anything else and all the he said/she said. Because he actively knew he was doing something illegal, and did it anyways.
Please don't jump to conclusions.
12/03/08
First, not to nitpick but irregardless is not a word.
Second, you are commenting on MORALS. That is not what this is about. This is about the legal system that screwed him over. Yes. He did something illegal and morally reprehensible. But last I checked if someone does something immoral it does not preclude them from receiving fair treatment within the justice system.
This idea that "regardless of anything else" is ludicrous. That's not how the court system in the United States works and a morally reprehensible act does not justify that a judge was involved in misconduct and according to MY legal system that means that Mr Polanski did not receive a fair shake.
12/03/08
12/03/08
That may be what the case ultimately comes down to, but that's not really what's being discussed here. Take out your issues on somebody else.
12/03/08
12/03/08
And I'll use made up words if I want to, thanks.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
You have the bad habit of jumping all over people for things they didn't say and getting into massive discourses that are of no interest to anyone but you. Check yourself.
12/03/08
Oh, I don't feel bad. I was at one point an English major. I'm very well aware of that. I actually like using irregardless, because it's a commonly used word that's well understood - irregardless (haha) of having a place in the dictionary, and it pisses people exactly like Miss. Rouge off.
12/03/08
...Before you wreck yourself?
Thanks. Exactly.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
. Irregardless of any of the intricacies of the case, or social mores, or whatever, he knowingly broke the law. End of story.
As if to say he broke the law, end of story, he doesn't deserve to have the case thrown out. I could be wrong as to whether or not that was the argument the OP was putting forth but that's what I took it to mean. I could be completely off the mark. I was simply responding that I feel that that is not the end of the story. That intricacies of the case (and every case) are very important to the ultimate result. That's all.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
Yes. Exactly. And if Miss. Rouge would only read the other threads in this discussion, she'd find that I'm not the only one discussing the moral, as opposed to the legal, issues in this case.
She's getting all tied up in knots for whatever personal reason she has that she needs to inject herself at random into other peoples perfectly polite discussions and make vaguely bitchy declarations at will.
I even think the information about the Judge's flip flop may well be a legitimate reason to dismiss the case, but that just didn't happen to be what I felt like commenting on.
12/03/08
12/03/08
Whatever. Believe what you want to believe. And then go back to Gawker. Thanks.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
If you've ever read accounts from people who've been raped or sexually assaulted, her testimony rings very true.
This wasn't some case of "Judge, I swear she looked over 18!" or "age is just a number". The girl said no and he ignored her, and she wasn't able to fight 'cuz she had alcohol and drugs in her. He's lucky he only was convicted on the statutory charge.
And what makes it total bullshit is that he wasn't facing a long sentence. If he'd just shown up like any other non-famous person would've, it would be a footnote in his life. Instead, he thinks he's too special to endure prison, poor baby. Now I know that the victim has forgiven him and such, but he's still a fugitive. At the very least, he's shown that he has no respect for the American justice system. So fuck him and the underage horse he rode in on. Unless he comes back to get his sentencing and serve his time, let him die a fugitive and be forever known as a rapist and coward.
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
*ugh*
12/03/08
12/03/08
[www.thesmokinggun.com]
12/03/08
I know that the law may not reflect your experience but i think that a line has to be drawn, in order to protect those who aren't safe, or fully cognisant of the ramifications.
Where do are toy suggesting we (as a society) draw it?
Recently, a 21 year old bloke in Western Australia tried to say that he shouldn't stand trial because he had the 'consent' of the 10 year old he was accused of raping.
It may be a very (very!) extreme example (and I don't mean to suggest that it's a situation similar to yours), but it's one that shows that legal boundaries to "consent" should be in place, somewhere.
12/03/08
You, dammit. Not toy!
12/03/08
The victim in this case was drugged and said know. Her RAPE has nothing to do with YOUR CONSENSUAL SEX.
12/03/08
*headdesk* ...first jez comment in months and I start off with typos...
12/03/08
Even if you discount the fact that she was drugged and raped, it doesn't matter if you think you're ready when you are 13. You can't legally consent. A grown man who knowingly has sex with a 13-year old, whether she resists or not, is a pedophile and deserves to be punished, period. A 13 year old is a CHILD.
12/03/08
Now, I also know that my situation is much different then hers, and I didn't mean to sound so unsympathetic. I know I am pretty different. But when the laws are so black and white like that, it can make things very difficult for innocent people.
12/03/08
Who cares about your personal experience? It's great that you had consensual sex at 13. It really is.
However this is not about you. Try to understand that. Please
12/03/08
12/03/08
It's irrelevant.
12/03/08
12/03/08
watch the documentary, do some research and educate yourself.
12/04/08
And it is completely irrelevant. No one gets a free pass to rape little girls.