Roman Polanski FINALLY arrested....

[jabe]

You don't think a man who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl isa complete monster? Interesting definition you have there. Where I come from, people who force their penises into the asses of little girls are monsters. I don't care if they do it only once or do it for 20 years.

This is incorrect. Drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is not a mistake or "something stupid". Accidentally sending an email to your boss that you intended for a friend is a mistake and "something stupid". Leaving your car keys locked in your car is a mistake and "something stupid". The idea that rape can be classified as just "something stupid" is an insult to rape victims.

There are no shades of gray when it comes to rape. Rape is rape. Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. There is no gray there. I actually find it disturbing that you're quasi-defending this fucking animal.

Well said, Electrophile.

[Mona]

You don't think a man who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl isa complete monster? Interesting definition you have there. Where I come from, people who force their penises into the asses of little girls are monsters. I don't care if they do it only once or do it for 20 years.

This is incorrect. Drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is not a mistake or "something stupid". Accidentally sending an email to your boss that you intended for a friend is a mistake and "something stupid". Leaving your car keys locked in your car is a mistake and "something stupid". The idea that rape can be classified as just "something stupid" is an insult to rape victims.

There are no shades of gray when it comes to rape. Rape is rape. Roman Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl. There is no gray there. I actually find it disturbing that you're quasi-defending this fucking animal.

*sigh*

You know what, never mind. I don't care. I can debate you people all I want, I know that nothing I say will change anyone's mind, or whatever. I don't even know what I'm aruging about or why, and it doesn't matter. I would like to have a civil discussion or debate with you people for once, but I ought to know better than that, because everything has to become a war over here. Have fun, everyone, because I'm out. Cheers.

[Mona]

Before I wash my hands entirely of this thread, I have a few questions to ask those of you who seem to think that he should be castrated/executed/whatever:

Would you still feel the same if the girl in question had been over 18? If not, then rape isn't as serious a subject to you as you think. If you think the crime was worse because she was only 13, then you better start a campagin to get Jimmy Page arrested. Hey, Lori Maddox was 14 when she slept with him. It might have been consensual, but it's still technically statuatory rape. And like Electrophile said, "there's no gray area with rape."

Also, those of you who feel like rape is a worse crime than murder, do me a favor: read up on some famous murder cases. Look at the crime scene photos, read an autopsy report or two. Listen to the testimonies of those who lost someone they loved to murder. If you had to chose, would you rather be raped, or murdered? Would you rather someone you loved be raped, or murdered? Think about what murder actually means, and then come back here and tell me that rape is worse than murder.

I know the mods will probably delete this, since all other references to Page have been. But if you see this before they take it down, think about if what you are saying is actually logical or fair. I'm not defending what Polanski did in anyway. He needs to be punished. But I think you people are being rather illogical, unfair, stupid and outright hypocritical about it.

See you around,

Mona.

[SteveAJones]

Polanski needs to be taken down a few pegs - he got to live the high life and win some Oscars the last 30 years, all the while thumbing his sick little nose at the US justice system.

...because we all know the US justice system is infallible.

[SteveAJones]

This says so much about Hollywood, the Super Rich and Celebrity, that their Morals are as low as a Human Beings could get in my opinion

My, how we do paint with broad brushes in this thread...all men are beasts, Hollywood, etc...

[Pb Derigable]

Everyone, listen up, whatever you say, just don't say Jack Nicholson was here. We got this. Okay good, lets go get the girl.

[Katuschka]

You don't think a man who drugs and anally rapes a 13 year old girl isa complete monster?

A complete monster?

No. A "sick perv," a reckless and characterless louse, a deviant. A threat to the society as we know it who certainly deserves to be punished for what he did, but who still does not deserve to be put on the same level with for example Mengele, who fits into my definition of a complete monster.

Maybe if he killed her in the process...

And by saying this, I'm not advocating Polanski, but rather common sense. Ever seen pictures of methots of torture practised by Red Khmers? You don't want to put an equation there, or do you?

You know, I believe that every human being has a potential to become a "complete monster." We just create cultural and moral restraints to prevent it. Polanski violated one of these restraints, but it's still a long way to become a "complete monster."

Where I come from, people who force their penises into the asses of little girls are monsters.

That's not a relevant argument.

[longdistancewinner]

Mona, this thread was a hell of a lot longer before they deleted the stuff I posted. Which was arguing Jimmy's case, too. Seems no one likes that comparison... You can be a dirty, old pervert finally paying for your crime. Or you can be a guitar god who was just living wild, back in the day.

I get what you're saying. I, too, wouldn't class him as being anywhere near as bad as Manson, but I wouldn't let him off lightly, either. What he did was abhorrent, but I just don't have it in me to see him as a monster. I don't care much for his films, nor would his wife's death persuade me, either. He may be a 'monster', but what about the kid's parents? Where were they? I don't care if it was 1979 or 2009, no child of mine would've been hanging out at some actor's pad, alone. What 13 year old models, anyway? And why was she there in the first place? What did her parent's think Jack Nicholson did? Host tea parties? That all his guests wouldn't be just as fucked up, either? Because drugs in Hollywood weren't just about as commonplace as a whore in a brothel...

This doesn't mean Polankski's not to blame, because he is, but more could've -- should've -- been done to prevent this from happening. And it was bound to. Maybe not by him and not to her. But it was bound to. And I wouldn't be surprised if it did. The whole lifestyle and time was fucked up from start to finish.

[Electrophile]

Before I wash my hands entirely of this thread, I have a few questions to ask those of you who seem to think that he should be castrated/executed/whatever:

Would you still feel the same if the girl in question had been over 18?

All rapists should be castrated, whether they rape a man, woman or child. Hell, throw in forcing yourself on an animal too. Rape is abhorrent.

[Electrophile]

That's not a relevant argument.

In what way? That is exactly what Polanski did. And that is exactly what makes Polanski in my opinion, a "complete monster". Have there been other far worse scourges of humanity than Roman Polanski? Absolutely. That doesn't mean however, that he isn't one just because others have been and done far worse things. A murderer who kills one man is no less a murderer than someone who kills a hundred men. So it doesn't matter that he raped this one girl and only this one girl. He is still no better than any other rapist out there and rapists are in my view, complete monsters.

If other people here want to qualify that and say "oh well he isn't as bad as ______________" or "her parents should have been there/done more/said something" or "it's been X number of years and he's lived an exemplary life since then"........much like Mona not understanding how I feel the way I do, I don't understand how you choose to feel that way, but it's how you feel. I can't change it and it's not my place to try.

[eternal light]

It seems that her mother learned about her daughter's whereabouts after Roman Polanski photographed the daughter topless, after the daughter had already arrived at Jack Nicholson's house, but before the rape occurred.

After Roman Polanski indicated that he wished to photograph the daughter in the jacuzzi, he told the daughter to call her mother.

He then spoke to the mother over the telephone, and then the daughter spoke with her mother, at which point the mother asked her daughter if she was alright, to which the daughter answered 'uh-huh'.

Then the mother asked the daughter, "Do you want me to come pick you up?", and the daughter responded, "No."

Then Roman Polanski told the mother over the telephone they would be home late.

thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia2.html

thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia17.html

I think that $500,000.00 is a very small civil settlement, especially if the young woman's career was negatively impacted as a result of his unlawful actions. I can envision a criminal court ordering fines and compensation to the victim, who at the time of his offense should have had a reasonable expectation of furthering her career when he asked her to pose for a photographic shoot for Vogue Magazine. This request later proved to be a ruse for him to take advantage of her without her prior knowledge. This young lady did not realize that she had encountered a compromising situation until she was already there.

chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6649622.html

But I still feel sorry for the guy, both of them really.

Roman Polanski's parents returned to Poland from France just two years before the World War II began: both were taken later to concentration camps where his mother eventually died. Young Roman managed to escape the ghetto and learned to survive wandering through the Polish countryside and living with the different Catholic families. Though local people usually ignored cinemas where mostly German films were shown, Polanski seemed not very much concerned about patriotism and frequently went to the movies. In 1945, he reunited with his father who sent him to technical school, but young Polanski seemed to have already made his choice.

In the 1950s, he took up acting, appearing in Andrzej Wajda's Pokolenie (1955) before studying at the Lodz Film School. His early shorts such as Dwaj ludzie z szafa (1958), Le gros et le maigre (1961), and Ssaki (1962) showed his taste for black humor and interest in bizarre human relationships. His feature debut, Nóz w wodzie (1962), was the first Polish post-war film not associated with the war theme. Though being already a major Polish filmmaker, Polanski yet chose to leave the country and headed to France. Being down-and-out in Paris, he befriended young scriptwriter, Gérard Brach, who eventually became his long-time collaborator. The next two films, Repulsion (1965) and Cul-de-sac (1966), made in England and co-written by Brach, won respectively Silver and Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festivals.

In 1968, Polanski went to Hollywood, where he made the psychological thriller Rosemary's Baby (1968). However, after the brutal murder of his wife Sharon Tate by the infamous Manson gang in 1969, the director decided to return to Europe. In 1974, he again appeared with a US release of Chinatown (1974). It seemed the beginning of the promising Hollywood career, but after his conviction for the statutory rape of a 13-year old girl, Polanski fled from America to avoid prison.

After Tess (1979), which was awarded several Oscars and Cesars, his work became intermittent and rarely approached the level of his better known films. The director also stretched his talents to include occasional work in theatre. He still likes to act in the films of other directors, sometimes with interesting results as it was in Una pura formalità (1994).

-Yuri German

imdb.com/name/nm0000591/bio

[The Rover]

I know that Woody Allen has signed on to the Petition supporting Polanski ....

But I can guess some names that probably were not on the petition:

Sarah Palin

Elizabeth Smart

Mackenzie Phillips

Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger

[eternal light]

Some jail time? I'm unacquainted with such a sentence. How about the fullest extent the law allows?

Bad taste? Seriously. This guy raped a child, and fled the country to avoid "some" jail time. He ended her life as she knew it. Innocence, stolen from her. 13. Think about it.

I think you are right about the stolen innocence. This was a case about self-gratification at the expense of the young lady's career opportunity with the Vogue photo shoot, which pretty much went down the tubes when this scandal erupted. This was an opportunity that should have been beneficial toward the young person's future, but his deception compromised that future.

He should have sacrificed is own self-indulgence, done an excellent job of the photo shoot, and hoped that it would reflect positively on both of their careers. He could have behaved like a gentleman during the early years and dated her later on when she got older. He could have found something else to do during those five years until she would be eighteen. But he probably did not really consider her well-being all that much. He was more focused on his own self-directed interests.

Still, this is a guy who fled from the Nazis when he was a kid. He did not trust the judge to treat him fairly at a certain point. I doubt that it was simply to avoid jail time. In his mind he is still running away from the bad guys.

[Del Zeppnile]

Still, this is a guy who fled from the Nazis when he was a kid. He did not trust the judge to treat him fairly at a certain point. I doubt that it was simply to avoid jail time. In his mind he is still running away from the bad guys.

Hey eternal dimness,

Why do you insist on making so many stupid comments like this? THE MAN IS A CHILD RAPIST!

Nobody cares about the Nazis or anything else. This man is responsible FOR WHAT HE DID and that's all. If you were a rational person then you would have to assume that given different circumstances that Polanski himself might have been a Nazi himself. What kind of MONSTER rapes a child other than a person who is already capable of doing the WORST kinds of crimes? In 1943 Polanski might have been one of those death camp guards killing children. He has demonstrated that he believes he is above the law, or justified in some way for his dastardly deeds. He is not a victim and he is no hero. HE IS A MONSTER. POLANSKI IS A NAZI!

...

[Patrycja]

Hey eternal dimness,

Why do you insist on making so many stupid comments like this? THE MAN IS A CHILD RAPIST!

Nobody cares about the Nazis or anything else. This man is responsible FOR WHAT HE DID and that's all. If you were a rational person then you would have to assume that given different circumstances that Polanski himself might have been a Nazi himself. What kind of MONSTER rapes a child other than a person who is already capable of doing the WORST kinds of crimes? In 1943 Polanski might have been one of those death camp guards killing children. He has demonstrated that he believes he is above the law, or justified in some way for his dastardly deeds. He is not a victim and he is no hero. HE IS A MONSTER. POLANSKI IS A NAZI!

...

Del, what the hell?

Why can't people see that there IS difference in severity of crimes? When people here argue that Polanski should not be castrated etc., it's not because they're justifying or minimizing (at least I'm not or have had no intention of coming across in such a way). But saying he deserves the same fate as Manson and the like is really the same argument flipped over in saying that he deserves to go free. Neither makes sense. Whether we like it or not, he will not get the same punishment because the law does not view the crimes the same way.

[Electrophile]

Whether we like it or not, he will not get the same punishment because the law does not view the crimes the same way.

Maybe that needs to change, then. Rape and murder are not the same crimes so of course they won't carry the same punishment.....but maybe they ought to. Or if not the exact same sentence, rape convictions should have a much more severe penalty than they do. Recidivism amongst sexual offenders is very high, whether we're talking about rapists or child molesters. Yeah Polanski didn't rape again (that we know of) but he'd be in the very small minority of cases, then. The majority of these people, when released, will offend again. And again. And again. Until maybe next time they kill the victim to keep them from testifying or something. How many times have we seen/heard about this?

I'm not arguing he should be killed, but damn it he shouldn't get off with time served or some such nonsense.

[Patrycja]

Maybe that needs to change, then. Rape and murder are not the same crimes so of course they won't carry the same punishment.....but maybe they ought to. Or if not the exact same sentence, rape convictions should have a much more severe penalty than they do. Recidivism amongst sexual offenders is very high, whether we're talking about rapists or child molesters. Yeah Polanski didn't rape again (that we know of) but he'd be in the very small minority of cases, then. The majority of these people, when released, will offend again. And again. And again. Until maybe next time they kill the victim to keep them from testifying or something. How many times have we seen/heard about this?

I'm not arguing he should be killed, but damn it he shouldn't get off with time served or some such nonsense.

I think it already has, and thank God. There was an article recently that outlined what sentence he would have gotten had he committed the exact same crime today. He got a gravy deal even back then. And I hear what you're saying about recidivism, but we can't argue a negative so unless someone steps forward, he's in that rare percentile, which, fortunately for him, and unfortunately for those who have these crimes done to them (once is once too many), works in his favour.

I think when all is said and done, he's going to be sent back to L.A. and face two charges. Even though (from what I understand) time served is what the initial agreement was in '78, with his running he'll be back behind bars. How ironic that he's given himself more jail time in trying to avoid it. If he somehow manages to get out of the extradition, then I just don't know how anyone can argue that justice will have been served. Again.

[Del Zeppnile]

Del, what the hell?

Why can't people see that there IS difference in severity of crimes? When people here argue that Polanski should not be castrated etc., it's not because they're justifying or minimizing (at least I'm not or have had no intention of coming across in such a way). But saying he deserves the same fate as Manson and the like is really the same argument flipped over in saying that he deserves to go free. Neither makes sense. Whether we like it or not, he will not get the same punishment because the law does not view the crimes the same way.

Yes there is a difference in severity of many crimes. But let's talk about what exactly Polanski's crime was. In my opinion Polanski's crime is one of the most severe crimes one could commit. This is not a case of Polanski stealing this young woman's school books. This is not a property crime like breaking into someone's home and taking their television set while they are away at work. Polanski lured this child into a sitution so that he could rape and sodomize her. And the only thing that might have been worse in this case would have been an outright abduction off of the street by this criminal. However, he was smarter than that wasn't he? He just lured her into the crime like a devious monster would think to do.

So when we talk about severity and what Polanski's punishment should be; in my opinion it should have been the death penalty--- or at the minumum life imprisonment. Yes, that is just how severe I believe the crime of raping children really is. To me there is almost nothing worse than that, and in fact there is a history of SEVERE punishiment in this country for a crime of that type. Many people were executed for rape in the past. For an adult to rape or sexually molest a child, or in fact anyone but especially a child; there is so much emotional damage done to the victim. Sometimes there are worse things that you can do to people than merely kill them.

My point about calling Polanski a Nazi is this: Unless we are going to hold Polanski accountable for his willfull actions to harm this child in the manner that he did to the same standards of other vicious criminals, what makes his thought process for his actions and will to do harm to an innocent person any less that that of a Nazi? You know some Nazis were just soldiers following oders (or so they claim). Polanski supposedly should have known better. But just like a Nazi he diminished this young woman's personal worth and well being to be so far inferior to his desires, that he became willing to do almost anything to her (like a Nazi) for his own gain. And the fact that he didn't just kill her probably had more to do with logistics than anything else at the time. I believe that if there were no witnesses or other factors to prevent a criminal mind like this; then he may very well have just killed her and disposed of the body. And I have to assume this to be possible because; what kind of monster rapes and sodomizes a child?

Patrycia, it's not that I don't have the ability to distinguish between severities; I actually do have that ability. But crimes against persons, especially of this variety, are far worse than crimes against property.

In my opinion Polanski is much worse of a criminal than Bernie Madoff. I just don't understand why other's are not able to grasp the differece between a crime of harming a child and one where you just steal peoople's money.

[eternal light]

Let's say we start with the maximum penalty. Is it still 20 years in prison?

Then subtract 2 years if it is a first offense. That leaves 18 years.

Then take off 2 more years because he did not murder her, too. That leaves 16 years.

Add a fine of 5 million dollars and take off 2 more years. That leaves 14 years.

Give some weight to the victim's statement asking for leniency, and take off 2 more years. That leaves 12 years.

Consider the petition for leniency from various others to have some weight also, and take off 2 more years. That leaves 10 years.

Give him credit for not re-offending during the time that has passed since the first offense, and take off 2 years. That leaves 8 years.

Give him credit for settling the civil suit with the victim and subtract 2 years. That leaves 6 years.

Give him credit for pleading guilty and serving 42 days. Take off 2 years for that, and he has 4 years left.

Demand a formal apology to the victim and a solemn promise to never do that again and take off 2 years. That leaves 2 years.

Allow a 2 year suspended sentence with an appropriate term of satisfactory probation.

I hope everyone is happy.

[Patrycja]

Yes there is a difference in severity of many crimes. But let's talk about what exactly Polanski's crime was. In my opinion Polanski's crime is one of the most severe crimes one could commit. This is not a case of Polanski stealing this young woman's school books. This is not a property crime like breaking into someone's home and taking their television set while they are away at work. Polanski lured this child into a sitution so that he could rape and sodomize her. And the only thing that might have been worse in this case would have been an outright abduction off of the street by this criminal. However, he was smarter than that wasn't he? He just lured her into the crime like a devious monster would think to do.

So when we talk about severity and what Polanski's punishment should be; in my opinion it should have been the death penalty--- or at the minumum life imprisonment. Yes, that is just how severe I believe the crime of raping children really is. To me there is almost nothing worse than that, and in fact there is a history of SEVERE punishiment in this country for a crime of that type. Many people were executed for rape in the past. For an adult to rape or sexually molest a child, or in fact anyone but especially a child; there is so much emotional damage done to the victim. Sometimes there are worse things that you can do to people than merely kill them.

My point about calling Polanski a Nazi is this: Unless we are going to hold Polanski accountable for his willfull actions to harm this child in the manner that he did to the same standards of other vicious criminals, what makes his thought process for his actions and will to do harm to an innocent person any less that that of a Nazi? You know some Nazis were just soldiers following oders (or so they claim). Polanski supposedly should have known better. But just like a Nazi he diminished this young woman's personal worth and well being to be so far inferior to his desires, that he became willing to do almost anything to her (like a Nazi) for his own gain. And the fact that he didn't just kill her probably had more to do with logistics than anything else at the time. I believe that if there were no witnesses or other factors to prevent a criminal mind like this; then he may very well have just killed her and disposed of the body. And I have to assume this to be possible because; what kind of monster rapes and sodomizes a child?

Patrycia, it's not that I don't have the ability to distinguish between severities; I actually do have that ability. But crimes against persons, especially of this variety, are far worse than crimes against property.

In my opinion Polanski is much worse of a criminal than Bernie Madoff. I just don't understand why other's are not able to grasp the differece between a crime of harming a child and one where you just steal peoople's money.

I agree, Del, rape is undoubtedly one of the most heinous of crimes because it is a violation on the most intimate and vulnerable of levels. It turns on its head, sometimes permanently, the most sacred (in my opinion) of acts. That's not being prudish (I'm not advocating no sex before marriage or wearing iron panties), it's just that at its best, it is the kind of intimacy and union that is rare. Even if someone gets at it everyday, rape is still, of course, a violation because someone said no.

The Nazi analogy is still hard to digest, I'm afraid, because while the underlying motive may be outright power or its more latent cousin "just following orders" (the cliff argument there - it doesn't matter how far off the cliff you are, be it 5 or 25 metres, you're still falling), it's the consistent intent of wanting to eradicate an entire race (and other 'undesirables') and justifying it with some sort of retarded 'master race' rationalization that is different in my eyes from a selfish act; the one sought to destroy another, the other sought to take (the victims likely don't care for such differences, maybe view them as hair splitting, but the law does not; reasons below). Polanski clearly violated Geimer; it was selfish, power driven, and not something that 'just happened'.

It's just that looking at crimes and punishment from the other side, we get a sense of justice from the amount of time someone does. So if someone who commits a serious crime once gets the same punishment as someone who commits the same crime repeatedly, then does it not diminish the severity of the latter crime? However imperfect, the scale of punishment has to show degrees.

I have no doubt you understand these differences of severity, Del; it's just when you mention Nazis and a Pole reads it the initial reaction is to go for the pitchfork and tar. But thanks for explaining, and for being civil and respectful. It isn't lost on me, and it is appreciated.

[eternal light]

(I'm not advocating no sex before marriage or wearing iron panties)

There are women in Sweden today who are advocating the wearing of chastity belts because the rape problem there has gotten that bad.

Just remember that whatever penalty the court assesses to him, no one has the power to unspill the milk. Restitution in the form of compensation for damages can only be had maybe for the estimated adverse impact on the victim's career, actual costs for medical, psychiatric and/or counseling expenses and the like.

But regardless of the penalty he pays, no human in this world can wholly restore her to where she was before he committed the crime.

[eternal light]

I'm probably greater than I realize. Anyway, your cute. Stick around. Get me a beer.

It looks like you finally may be in luck.

[eternal light]

Everyone deserves a defense. If he goes down for his crimes, at least I know that I did not stand idly by saying nothing while you crucified him.

My defense of him might fail, but at least I defended him, rather than just wash my hands and leave him to the wolves.

Please let me know when they canonize you into sainthood.

AND Jesus went unto mount Olivet.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them.

3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst,

4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground.

7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground.

9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

12 Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

cartage.org.lb/en/themes/religion/christianity/bible/john/8.html

[Del Zeppnile]

I agree, Del, rape is undoubtedly one of the most heinous of crimes because it is a violation on the most intimate and vulnerable of levels. It turns on its head, sometimes permanently, the most sacred (in my opinion) of acts. That's not being prudish (I'm not advocating no sex before marriage or wearing iron panties), it's just that at its best, it is the kind of intimacy and union that is rare. Even if someone gets at it everyday, rape is still, of course, a violation because someone said no.

It is a terrible violation to abuse someone and take from them their dignity for one's deviant self gratification. To reduce another human being to being an object without feelings, rights or humanity is only a hairs breath away from taking everything from them, including their life. And this is why this crime should always provide for a maximum penalty. The fact that Polanski was even offered a light sentence is itslef a travesty of justice. Thank God that there are new laws which now require mandatory minimuum sentencing by law for child molesting and rape. Had Polanski committed this crime in Poland recently; Polanski might be subject to chemical castration law there now for this type of sexual crime.

The Nazi analogy is still hard to digest, I'm afraid, because while the underlying motive may be outright power or its more latent cousin "just following orders" (the cliff argument there - it doesn't matter how far off the cliff you are, be it 5 or 25 metres, you're still falling), it's the consistent intent of wanting to eradicate an entire race (and other 'undesirables') and justifying it with some sort of retarded 'master race' rationalization that is different in my eyes from a selfish act; the one sought to destroy another, the other sought to take (the victims likely don't care for such differences, maybe view them as hair splitting, but the law does not; reasons below). Polanski clearly violated Geimer; it was selfish, power driven, and not something that 'just happened'.

I brought up the Nazi analogy because others (not you) had been attempting to explain Polanski's act in context to him being a victim of the Nazis in his youth. My point on this is not that Polanski's ONE ACT is comparable to the Nazi's national policy of genocide on a whole --- that would be a wrong analogy. But what I am trying to make people realize, and also appreciate, is that when Polanski in his own rationalization decided to plan and execute this crime against a child, Polanski had exibited a heart of darkness and a soul so devoid of human compassion (even if it was just one instance) that I would argue his criminal intentions were not unlike a Nazi's heart in their criminal rationalizations. That we should look at the crimes of many people, no matter how limited in numbers as being just as monsterous and horrible in their intent as some of the worst crimes in history. For me it's about recognizing just how wanton the human heart can be--- any human heart. And how horrible acts are not really as rare as mass genocide.

I'm sure Polanski could never admit to this concept, nor many of his defenders. Polanski probably believes he is just a normal guy who made one stupid mistake. But think about that: so could the same be said about the stupid young women who were convinced to by Charles Manson to murder Polanski's wife and friends. You know those women have since said that they made a terrible mistake and are wrong too. But what was it about what was in 'their hearts' at the time to allow themselves to enter into such a terrible crime? And back to the Nazi analogy: how many of those camp guards would say that they were young and foolish, and wish they had taken the time to have contemplated the error of what their actions were? I hope I am being clear on my point, but I submit that all crimes of this personal nature are "HATE CRIMES", and none are really any different than the rest. That Polanski has to have a "hateful and wanton heart" to have done this act to a child. That despite Polanski's later accomplishments as an artist and a so called "good citizen" that in a moment he allowed himslef to become a monster capable of one of the most heinous crimes any of us could even imagine. And that being the rape of a child.

It's just that looking at crimes and punishment from the other side, we get a sense of justice from the amount of time someone does. So if someone who commits a serious crime once gets the same punishment as someone who commits the same crime repeatedly, then does it not diminish the severity of the latter crime? However imperfect, the scale of punishment has to show degrees.

I think I get what you are saying. For justice to truly be just, there has to be something on "the other side of the scale" in order to accuratly determine the punishment. And in Polanski's case that has never happened.

For me personally, Polanski would have never gotten away with this act and no amount of civil damages would ever be enough to compensate for his crime. Had Polanski, or anyone else committed this act upon my child, Polanski would have been punished one way or the other. When our criminal justice system seems to fail us as it seems to have obviously done in this case. Then why not "make a correction" that needs to be made? If Polanski had raped my daughter and fled justice I would have hunted him down like an animal and killed him like an animal. The same way Nazi hunters hunted down fugative murderers and killed them. Of this I would make no apology or have any regret. I personally could not live my life knowing that a criminal of this type got away scott free.

Which is why it is SO IMPORTANT that Polanski be returned to face his punishment, whatever that ends up being. Because we can't just forget about it and move on--- that is not just. And to take the attitude that it's not worth the money or time to pursue it, just creates the situation where people have no confidence in the laws, and then take the type of personal action I just described.

I have no doubt you understand these differences of severity, Del; it's just when you mention Nazis and a Pole reads it the initial reaction is to go for the pitchfork and tar. But thanks for explaining, and for being civil and respectful. It isn't lost on me, and it is appreciated.

I appreciate the candor in your discussion on this as well. And I am always civil and respectful to people who make insightful and logical arguements...

although some people don't get that side of me -- and for a reason.

But you are okay in my book,

Del

[Del Zeppnile]

Everyone deserves a defense. If he goes down for his crimes, at least I know that I did not stand idly by saying nothing while you crucified him.

My defense of him might fail, but at least I defended him, rather than just wash my hands and leave him to the wolves.

Please let me know when they canonize you into sainthood.

Nobody can be this obtuse! You don't even post anything inteligent accidentally! You are either another version of "Spats", and in that case the most brilliant troll in this forum's history. Or you are smoking the same herb as that person who only posted "small things."

In any event, Eternal Dimness is what I dub thee for now and forever.