Roman Polanski detained in Zurich

[fashionista-ta]

^ "An evil, profligate dwarf" does sum it up rather well ...

 

[Caroliiine]

Someone brought this up in ONTD and I thought it was interesting:

Michael Jackson is accused of child molestation and Hollywood doesn't come rushing to his defense.

Roman Polanski is convicted of r*ping and drugging a child, and Hollywood demands his release.

I can't believe that people think he should be let go since it has been 30 years. He evaded justice - that's a crime as well! You can't just let him go; that sends the message that if you break the law and then break it a second time (become a fugitive), you just need to lay low and in time, all will be forgiven. This isn't a matter of jay-walking and running a red light, it's the r*pe of a minor.

 

[fashionista-ta]

It doesn't matter if the victim has moved on. Law is not here just to give justice to victims, it is to uphold basic standards of society to make it safe for other people. Everyone has to follow the law, no one can slide.

I am sure you would not be supporting him if he wasn't a famous director. Sure of it.

Agreed ... it's called 'paying your debt to society' for a reason ... and he has not paid his.

The good news is, at this point he no longer needs to fear spending 50 years behind bars ...

 

[auxt]

many people have asked "Why now?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-prosecutor29-2009sep29,0,465846.story

Roman Polanski's attorneys helped provoke his arrest by complaining to an appellate court this summer that Los Angeles County prosecutors had made no real effort to capture the filmmaker in his three decades as a fugitive, two law enforcement sources familiar with the case told The Times.

 

[The_Ida]

^ "An evil, profligate dwarf" does sum it up rather well ...

Hahahahahaha! I laughed so hard that I nearly peed

 

[melfan1984]

oops sorry i forgot the source
i repost the pix of nastja & roman

source starface

 

[1FashionVictim]

I don't really see the point of arresting him after all these years. He did do something wrong, and if this were the 80's or 90's I'd be a lot more mellow about the arrest but he's a relitavely harmless old man now who has his own family, and he has to face them knowing they know what he has done which is quite blood-curdling when you think about it. For me, it just seems like an arrest for for the sake of arresting someone you've spent so much time chasing after which could have been spent on more worthy cases, and I say that as someone who never saw any of his films and only knew him for the death of his wife and this whole mess.

I think Samantha does deserve some compensation if he did actually r*pe her, unless she was just some Mayella Ewell character with her mother playing the role of Bob in which case I really do not care.

*awaits replies*

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

Even though Michael Jackson was rightfully acquitted of all charges regarding molestation, I think the mere idea/thought of a boy being molested leaves a nastier taste in ppl's mouths than the idea of a girl being sexually assaulted. Obviously this point of view stems from the gender roles placed upon society and the notion that a sexual act between a man and a woman, no matter the circumstances, is somehow more tolerable than the former. That is why I believe no one in Hollywood, excluding the famous friends of Michael Jackson, came to his defense during that period in his life.

I love Roman Polanski's work and I think he is a talented, prolific director but I do feel that he should face the consequences of this act with dignity and integrity. However, it is a bit odd that he was only apprehended until now as he apparently owns a home in Switzerland? At any rate, it is terribly wrong to take advantage of any human being, no matter the age or sex of the victim. I do feel that Polanski's case (The victim and Roman were both treated unfairly, imo) was not handled well back when this incident originally took place but still, that is no excuse to run away from it all. That is why appeals exist. In all honesty, this entire case is so layered and complex that it is incredibly difficult to come to a sound opinion on the whole thing. I feel for the victim. It is terrible that she has to relive this painful experience despite her wishes to drop the case, but it is something that must be done. r*pe needs more coverage around the world.

In regards to the individuals in the arts community who have come forward to support the release of Polanski, it's a bit ridiculous to blacklist these ppl. It's silly to think that they condone the act of r*pe. No humane person would endorse something so disgusting and degrading. I think most of these ppl are either pissed about the way this whole thing went down, sympathize with the flawed mental state Polanski must have been in when the r*pe occurred, or sincerely believe that Polanski has seen the error of his ways. Guilt is almost always more painful than involuntary confinement.

 

[Echoes]

People keep saying who he is or what he does shouldn't matter. They say he should be taken to task like anyone else would be.

The simple fact of the matter is that this has gone on for 30 years BECAUSE of who he is. They're going after him like this because of his stature. If the defendant had been any other non-descript John Doe, this case would have died years ago and the warrant would have been recalled. Even if John Doe had been arrested abroad after all this time, the issuing agency would simply decline to extradite. We do it all the time. We get inquires on warrants we've issued and we simply reply that the warrant is valid but we won't extradite beyond a certain distance. It's just to expensive too process some cases, especially when they're so old.

Cases of this age are routinely allowed to die quiet deaths unless it was a homicide case. Those are generally the only ones actively pursued no matter when or where the suspect/defendant is located.

Clearly people are expressing their emotions and are not speaking from knowledge of the facts of the case or how the system works. It is virtually unheard of to do an international extradition after 30 years in a case of this type.

International extraditions after this amount of time are generally limited to terrorists, murderers and war criminals.

 

[Plisskin]

from BBC News:

French drop Polanski release call



The French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".
The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.
He is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
On Monday, the French foreign minister called for Polanski to be freed.
Polanski, who has dual French and Polish citizenship, was arrested on Saturday when he flew into the country.
He had been due to pick up a lifetime achievement prize at the Zurich film festival.
'Serious affair'
Speaking to reporters, French government spokesman Luc Chatel said: "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the r*pe of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job."
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner have written to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calling for Polanski to be freed.
But the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has distanced himself from the move by asking his ministers to show "greater restraint" in defending him.


He added that despite a "leading Polish director" being involved, it is still a "case of r*pe and of punishment for having sex with a child".
A member of the British parliament has called on the Council of Europe, of which he is also a member, to support Polanski's extradition to the US.
Denis MacShane said the film-maker "should be held accountable" for his actions.
French film-maker Luc Besson, who directed the 1994 movie Leon, has also refused to lend his support.
Speaking to French radio station RTL, he said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much ... but nobody should be above the law.
"I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
Despite that, Mr Polanski has no shortage of supporters, including at least 110 film industry figures who have signed a petition calling for his release.
Among them are Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and David Lynch, as well as Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci.
Actor Peter Fonda said he thought "celebrating the arrest of Osama bin Laden and not the arrest of Polanski" was far more important.
Mr Polanski fled the US in 1978 before he was sentenced on a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
He has never returned and even missed receiving an Oscar for his 2003 film The Pianist.

 

[pacersfanatic36]

I really don't see what's so vindictive or useless about someone being held accountable for the crimes they committed. Polanski's age is irrelevant to me. The fact that it happened years ago is irrelevant to me. I don't care if he "only" raped one person. If he's vital enough to jaunt around at film festivals, he can stand trial. On a related note, I believe the psychiatric evaluation found him healthy and he never used an insanity defense. If he's mentally healthy enough to be directing movies, he's healthy enough to know that r*pe is wrong.

And it's been repeated multiple times, but he still has to face the state of California for fleeing his sentence. That criminal case has nothing to do with the survivor's forgiveness and everything to do with him being a fugitive. She would not have the authority or power to dismiss that case.

And while I understand the desire to consider the survivors' feelings, it creates a slippery slope. An overwhelming amount of abuse already goes unreported. Female victims of domestic violence often go back to their abusive partners (for a variety of reasons) or refuse to press charges. It's important to consider the survivors' feelings, but it is also important to protect them - and others - from criminals. Anything else only sends the message that if you scare someone enough (after already violating them) or target a particularly vulnerable person (like a 13-year old girl), you've got yourself a nice legal loophole.

I wish I could say with confidence he'd be in jail if he were Joe Shmoe, but I can't. The percentage of r*pists who go to jail is staggeringly low. What I can say with confidence is that Joe Shmoe wouldn't have Oscar winners and foreign dignitaries rallying around him. Your average man also wouldn't have been on the lam for 30 years - and leading a very flashy life - without someone calling the authorities.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

You're speaking from a logical point of view, Echoes. In the matter of r*pe, all logic goes out the window. It comes down to morals and humanity, tbh. Yes, it is quite ridiculous to extradite someone after 30 years; after both parties have clearly moved on, but famous instances like this case tend to shed new light on matters that do not receive substantial amounts of attention from the general public and media. r*pe cases are not covered as they should be around the world and r*pe victims, females especially, are often treated terribly. The woman who Polanski raped was condemned because she wasn't a virgin and had experimented with drugs before the incident occured - all circumstantial evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

I do not like the dramatic manner in which Polanski was apprehended. It was pretty tasteless, imo. And seeing as he will probably only get a slap on the wrist, the whole thing seems like a stunt. Either way, if this increases ppls awareness of r*pe and the many cases that go unheard, so be it...

 

[tigerrouge]

The simple fact of the matter is that this has gone on for 30 years BECAUSE of who he is.

The fact remains that no-one would have to go after him if he had dealt with the situation, something which he could have entered into, while remaining in France, as a free man. He has had the chance to do that, every day of his life, for the last few decades.

I can see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to clear their name and begin to live an unimpeded live, removing a smear on their reputation and lifting the restrictions on their movements. But having left it so long, he's now been detained, and is forced into it.

If he had sorted it out, no-one would be hounding him.

 

[fashion tyger]

Someone brought up a great point a couple pages ago, that his personal "friends" who have signed the petition "don't know him in that way" they can't comprehend that he's capable of something like this.

My best childhood friend is very violent but calls my mother mom and loves her like his own mother, she refuses to believe he is capable of the things he is accused of.....

It's probably the same with Polanski's buddies.....

Understand I am not making any excuses for him I am just trying to understand why so many people are supporting him.....

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

There really wasn't a 'smear' on his reputation, though. He was still widely regarded as a brilliant director by famous ppl. and audiences alike. Nothing really changed - if anything, in the years following, the incident was often treated as a long-running joke, sadly enough.

I just find it strange that the Swiss government allowed him to come and go as he pleased and own property in the country for years prior to his arrest. It seems the Swiss government's intent behind the arrest is not justice, but rather to mend fences.

 

[tigerrouge]

It's hard to imagine how having an unresolved incident involving a sex crime is anything other than a bit of black mark on your reputation. I've not seen it treated as a joke in the articles I've read, even in the reports willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - but maybe it's been making some people laugh for years, I don't know.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

^ I'm not talking about the recent articles that have been written, I'm talking about snide remarks and comments that have been made for YEARS involving the case. Polanski received a standing ovation @ the Oscars only a few years ago, if he was so incredibly hated by the general public and Hollywood types alike, why not boycott this honor? Yes, everyone knew the story and knew what he had done, but no one viewed him differently or turned their back on him/his work. This is especially evident when compared to the treatment Michael Jackson received in the years following his case....

 

[tigerrouge]

Because they can separate the work of the man from the actions of the man. It is entirely possible to praise someone's output but not praise the person's character. Handing him a film award, based on the content of his films, is understandable. If Polanski were to be handed a humanitarian award for charitable efforts for children, people might not be clapping in that instance.

 

[wheneveriwakeup]

^ You're missing the pt. You can respect someone's work and still 'blacklist' the individual. To use Michael Jackson as an example again - no one ever questioned his talent as a musician but he was never regarded in the same light by his peers and the general public after the molestation charges were brought against him. Even after his acquittal, he was still treated poorly by many ppl. Before Polanski's arrest, it was pretty rare to see anyone speak ill of him or seriously discuss the crime he committed.

I just feel that if the public outcry around the world had been heard for the last 30 years, this whole mess would have been resolved by now. However, now it's convenient to 'pick a side', so to speak, when justice should have been served long ago. Even now, the point of the arrest is not with good intentions. Switzerland is attempting to cover up years of questionable activity and dealings. It's disgusting to use a horrible offense like r*pe to do so when the matter should be treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity. It should not be used as a device to 'make nice' with the US. If Switzerland truly wanted to bring him to justice, they could have done so years ago, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tigerrouge]

It's not that rare to still read a modern article which takes a swipe at him for a number of things - that's why he sued Vanity Fair a few years back, and for an allegation completely unrelated to this case.

Polanski's had to remain in areas which have been 'sympathetic' to his legal status. For years, he hasn't set foot in any country where he'd have got a hard time. That has provided the impression of him being more accepted than may well be the case.