Roman Polanski

[Ananas]

If justice is about the victim then I guess the victimized State of California has the responsibility to press charges for evading custody.

My heart weeps for the State Of California and all the money they expended by not paying to house a criminal for the past three decades. Hey, hold on a minute...

The point is even if you're trying to make the argument into a moral argument where the state should stand down because Geiger wants to move past it, their is still another offended party who, as shown by their role in getting Polanski arrested in the first place, quite clearly wishes the matter to be pursued. I consider this all irrelevant as I think Polanski should go to jail just because it's wrong to send the message that the wealthy and powerful can run away from justice and then come back scot free when the heat dies down, but the fact remains that the State has both the legal right and the moral right as one of the aggrieved parties.

[Mongrel]

In other words, the system is above all else still a punitive one.

Since vengeance is a punitive action, I thank you for proving my point and providing an otherwise useless wall of text.

In some contexts yes - but in this one, no. There's an aim of both protecting the interests of the victim, and then punishing the offender and detering would-be offenders. I don't quite see where vengeance comes into it.

[SeanDMan]

Then you're dumb.

[Mongrel]

Convincing argument. To say that that criminal justice is, by its nature, fuelled by vengeance if the victim doesn't want to see the offender punished is missing a pretty important entire aim of the system. There is nothing vengeful about attempting to reform the offender or deter others from similar crimes.

[SeanDMan]

You're talking about a guy whose biggest danger to society is that he's almost eighty and could hypothetically take the wheel of a car. Your argument that it is important to ensure he is prevented from reoffending is patently absurd. This is just about them feeling like he's been thumbing their nose at them and wanting to make sure he gets what they feel he has coming; the dude is no risk to reoffend.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

In some contexts yes - but in this one, no. There's an aim of both protecting the interests of the victim, and then punishing the offender and detering would-be offenders. I don't quite see where vengeance comes into it.

I've posted about my opinion regarding the function of prison before -- it's not very exciting or controversial, so I won't do so again. But I think we're agreed that the three functions of prison are to i) rehabilitate offenders, ii) provide a deterrent against crime, and iii) remove dangerous individuals from society.

I think it should also be uncontroversial that i) and iii) do not apply to Polanski. The first idea doesn't apply because Polanski is functioning well (exceedingly well, by some measures) in society at present. He doesn't need to be "re-skilled"... anyone who has seen "Chinatown" should agree that he's a pretty skillzy fellow as it is. I don't think he is having any problems making a living for himself.

The third idea -- that he might be dangerous to society -- seems difficult to support. His victim doesn't think that he is dangerous, and thinks in fact that he is regretful about past wrongdoings. Polanski was accused of rape and convicted of unlawful sex thirty years ago. The former crime is one of the most serious in existence -- in most situations a rapist would rightfully be considered as a potential threat to society. But Polanski (through nefarious means, sure) has lived freely for three decades now without being implicated in any other crimes of any kind. In most cases, determining whether or not someone is a "threatening" individual is a difficult and unscientific business unlikely to render an objective conclusion. This is precisely because the one test of a person's "threat" status (i.e. their ability to reintegrate successfully into society without re-offending) is impossible to set for a person deemed potentially "threatening". But, quite accidentally, this test has been applied to Polanski -- and he has "passed" it. The proof, to use a shit cliché, is in the pudding.

Allied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor. But I think that considerations relating to RP's physical condition deserve some weight in this discussion.

So, we're left with the idea that Polanski must be imprisoned (if found guilty, natch) so that other individuals who may be disposed towards committing rape are dissuaded in some sense from committing rape. This is the most difficult of the three justifications for prison to "pin down" in a rigorous fashion, but let's have a go.

The "deterrent" argument rests on the assumption that criminal behaviour is materially inhibited by the existence of channels to sanction that behaviour. This seems to me to be a valid assumption to some extent. If there were no laws against, say, shoplifting or benefit fraud, then those crimes might well be expected to rise exponentially. Those crimes are easy to construct as "victimless", since the victim of the crime is faceless and/or seen as significantly "stronger" than the perpetrator and so able to absorb (what are, after all, only monetary) losses. In the case of crimes like rape or murder, however, which require a significant act of (often brutal) violence and violate what are for most us "consensus" principles, it seems clear that there are inhibitions on the perpetration of those crimes other than fear of punishment. Particular brands of psychological thought might even suggest that there are significant cerebral inhibitions, rendered by the evolution of the human species, upon those crimes. Nevertheless, the absence of strong punishments for such crimes is likely to lead to some amount of increase in their frequency. For evidence of this, one may look to the uncontrollable outburst of political violence in late Republican Rome -- a society which for a long time employed no sanction against murder, and thereafter introduced a fine. Alternatively, and in the perhaps more relevant context of a strong and modern state, one may look into the frequent use of murder by American organised crime syndicates confident that they could "buy" freedom (or in some other way escape punishment thereafter).

It therefore seems difficult to me to accept either extremes of argument (not saying that anyone in this thread is advancing them, incidentally): i.e. that it is necessary, because of the "deterrent" principle, that any transgression must be punished regardless of other considerations, or, on the other hand, that the presence of sanctions is irrelevant in determining the rates at which crimes are committed.

Relating this back to Polanski, one might point to the extreme specificities in this case that are being used to justify his non-imprisonment: the long period between charge and trial; the (seemingly entirely genuine) desire of the accuser that he not be punished; the 'clean' record that Polanski possesses in the intervening period; and Polanski's age and frailty. In a sense, Polanski's case reflects a very unique "perfect storm" of mitigating conditions. For that reason, I find it hard to accept that his non-imprisonment would "send a message" of any sort to the general population -- or, at least, that it will suggest that the state is suddenly deciding not to enforce punishments against rape. And I don't think society needs to be too concerned with "sending a message" of conciliation to its legions of old, frail, non-recidivist accused rapists who have managed to evade capture for thirty years and have been forgiven by their accusers.

Are we not agreed per the issue that I mentioned at the outset of this post? (And if we aren't, then why didn't you mention it when I sat down to start typing? Cuh, of all the cheek, etc., etc.,) Or is there any other non-bullshity application of the "deterrent" argument I'm missing? Or something?

e: It's kind of amusing to me that one of the main justifications for the plea bargain system, which was used to attain Polanski's "guilty" plea on the unlawful sex charge, is that there isn't enough punishment to go around. Now, apparenty, there's a surplus of the stuff to be (potentially) used on Polanski.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Mr Evil Guy]

So he stuck his pianist in a little girl?

That was bad

EDIT: That wasn't even remotely funny! That was stupid!

But yeah this guy is bad (Y)

Edited October 3, 2009 by Mr Evil Guy

[Crybaby Bunting]

He was originally going to just show his Pianist, but after facing Repulsion he got Frantic and took her to Chinatown.

[ACCBiggz]

Not for nothing, and not going into his case here although I read and enjoyed EF's postings on the matter, I still feel for the guy over Sharon Tate and his kid.

Edited October 8, 2009 by ACCBiggz

[Quom]

I don't know. If he wasn't in a position of power I really don't think she would have had sex with him. In all her statements she has said the same. She didn't want to ruin the chances she had of becoming famous so went along with it. Then he drugged her and did her up the bum.

I was sexually active a few years prior to turning 14. However at 14 there is no way I would have been in a position to deal with the extra pressure of having to fuck an ugly cunt who was in a position of power.

The power thing to me removes any possibility for true consent. It's the same reason teachers can't fuck their students psychs can't fuck patients etc. This girl thought if she didn't do what he wanted he wouldn't use her. Fair enough to say that's her choice, but at 14 that's a fair bit different to being able to make a well balanced judgement and refuse someone who would appear as a father figure and could make all your dreams come true.

As far as arresting him and all that junk, I don't really care, he's now an old man and much more good could come from spending the money protecting kids from Californian sex tourists in poor countries. But for celebrities or anyone to act as if he didn't do something wrong seems totally bizarre.

If Mark Cuban invited a 14 year old boy or girl to train under the guise of a future contract then drugged and fucked them people would go nuts. Same for a university head etc. This wasn't just a man with a modicum of fame this was like being asked to a screen test for Stephen Spielberg, if you wanted to be a star you were going to feel extra pressure to do as they asked.

Edited October 11, 2009 by QuomQuat

[Emperor Fuckshit]

ugly cunt

As far as I'm aware, ugliness doesn't play much of a part in determining consent.

drugged

Again, this hasn't been proven in a court of law. But it may very well have happened.

But those are marginal issues. Your central argument, I guess, is that Polanki's fame and influence acted as a kind of coercive means of gaining sex that otherwise would have been with-held. I think that that's very possibly true. But in order to be meaningful and determinable/measurable for legal purposes, "coercion" has to be in some way substantive/material, doesn't it?

There are a lot of "grey" ways of obtaining sex that aren't materially coercive (in the way that, say, drugging or using violence are). For example, I'm sure that many feminists would (reasonably) argue that marriage frequently constitutes a way of obtaining sex coercively -- in that situation, sex is the "right" of the husband and the "obligation" of the wife. Furthermore, in some marriages it may be difficult for a woman to seek outside assistance, and so the vague suggestion of "material" coercion might linger. The idea that "all sex is rape" might sound like a wacky straw-man advanced by Second Wave Feminists, but there's an element of truth in it, in that there's no easy binary between "coercion" and "consent".

But the type of "coercion" that you describe does ultimately require the complicity of the "victim", and is also incredibly hard to prove. (Or, more specifically, its precise effects are hard to prove -- it would be difficult to argue that Polanski's influences/status have no bearing on the matter at all.) And, even at 14, I think that a great many people would be able to weigh those factors. Not all; but many.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[SeanDMan]

Absurd arguments do amuse me so.

"I was raped and molested horribly."

"Objection! There is no evidence of that!"

"But your honor, the defendent is an ugly, old cunt!"

"...damn. Can we change our plea to guilty?"

[Emperor Fuckshit]

The above made me lol, but I accidentally clicked "-" rather than "+". Or maybe I just subconsciously HATE FUN???? Either way, sorry for the dent in your rep, Sdum.

[hackerjack]

Frankly i'm amazed at the debate in here and every othr board i've seen this on.

Was it rape? Was it anal sex? Did she consent? Did he drug her?

For me while all those may be constributing factors in any punishment handed down, they have nothing to do with the main crime of having sex with a minor.

I fully accept there is no epithany moment when a girl goes from 15 and innocent to 16 and abe to make these choices but that is largely irrelevent in this case as well. Whether she was capable or not, the law states that it is 16. They both knew this and thus for me it's an open and shut case as both have admitted in court that it happenned.

Yes he should serve his time, he should also be tried for evading justice and have that time added, OK it is unlikely to make any difference to him, but it needs to happen. If the courts took the view that at 80 he is past being a threat (likely true) and let him off then it's a big green light for anyone else who wants to behave in a similar manner.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I fully accept there is no epithany moment when a girl goes from 15 and innocent to 16 and abe to make these choices but that is largely irrelevent in this case as well. Whether she was capable or not, the law states that it is 16. They both knew this and thus for me it's an open and shut case as both have admitted in court that it happenned.

Look, man, this is crushingly dumb on a number of levels:

i) So you admit that inelastic consent laws misrepresent the reality (i.e. that there is no "epiphany" moment when one suddenly becomes fully aware of what it means to consent to sexual activity).

ii) Yet you think that this bad law should be upheld because, hey, it's the law!

iii) You apparently think that Polanski is going to be tried for sex with a minor ("it's an open and shut case"), despite the fact that he was already tried for and found guilty of that.

There's an is/ought issue here. I know how consent laws are enforced and why they are enforced that way. What I, and some other people, are arguing is that these laws aren't much good from an ideal perspective. Saying "but... THEY AM THE LAWSSSS!!!!" doesn't act as a counter-argument to this -- without wanting to get hyperbolic, Jim Crow laws were the laws; anti-sodomy laws were the laws; etc..

If the courts took the view that at 80 he is past being a threat (likely true) and let him off then it's a big green light for anyone else who wants to behave in a similar manner.

Fucking hell. I dealt with this. I'll just copy and paste.

Relating this back to Polanski, one might point to the extreme specificities in this case that are being used to justify his non-imprisonment: the long period between charge and trial; the (seemingly entirely genuine) desire of the accuser that he not be punished; the 'clean' record that Polanski possesses in the intervening period; and Polanski's age and frailty. In a sense, Polanski's case reflects a very unique "perfect storm" of mitigating conditions. For that reason, I find it hard to accept that his non-imprisonment would "send a message" of any sort to the general population -- or, at least, that it will suggest that the state is suddenly deciding not to enforce punishments against rape. And I don't think society needs to be too concerned with "sending a message" of conciliation to its legions of old, frail, non-recidivist accused rapists who have managed to evade capture for thirty years and have been forgiven by their accusers.

WHO is going to see this as a "green light"? "People" can't just "behave in a similar manner" to Polanski -- the mitigating circumstances in part rely upon factors outside of the defendant's control.

e: Steve Martin opened one of his stand-up shows some years ago with the line, "I'm really happy to be here. Because nothing makes me happier than doing the exact same thing every night for a period of several weeks." That's kind of how I feel about this thread.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[GhostMachine]

You know what? I have a problem with the justice system anywhere letting people off because of old age; I can see letting them off if they were old when the crime was committed, but not when they're old because they fled justice for decades. I remember being outraged when I read stories of Nazi war criminals finally being caught after decades and essentially being let go because sending them to prison in their 80s or 90s would be cruel and unusual - when what they should have done was sentenced them to be taken into the next room and have their brains blown out immediately rather than letting them go.

In Polanski's case, I can sort of see letting him off due to the things that have come to light about what the prosecution did back when the incident originally happened and due to the victim's wishes. But I think he should still be punished somehow. Wouldn't mean much to him, probably, but I think the simple thing to do would be to throw him in jail (not prison) for a time for fleeing, then permanently ban him from the United States.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Oh, man, I just LOVE repeating myself. Straight up can't get enough of that shit. Total like <3 for assailing the same arguments with the same arguments over and over.

You know what? I have a problem with the justice system anywhere letting people off because of old age;

There are factors other than Polanski's age to consider here. As I said myself, "[a]llied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor."

In Polanski's case, I can sort of see letting him off due to the things that have come to light about what the prosecution did back when the incident originally happened and due to the victim's wishes.

But not, like, because he poses absolutely no danger to society or because he has gone thirty years without being involved in any criminal activity of any kind or because his victim wants him to go unpunished? None of those reasons do anything for you?

But I think he should still be punished somehow. Wouldn't mean much to him, probably, but I think the simple thing to do would be to throw him in jail (not prison) for a time for fleeing, then permanently ban him from the United States.

Isn't jail in the US (the only country I know where that institution is materially distinct from prison) used either for people serving short prison terms or in the same way that custody is in the UK? So you want either to give him a really short (~12 months or under) "prison" sentence (and, if so, then refer to all the arguments already tendered against that in this thread), or to put him in custody? If the latter -- to what ends?

Would it really kill people to read the thread and try to make some kind of original contribution before posting in here? Without wanting to get too precious, I've put some reasonable amount of effort into my posts here (particularly the one that heads this page). It's absolutely mind-numbing to be met with constant re-hashings of the same arguments in response.

e: Removed stuff about Nazi war criminals, because I can't be arsed with that discussion right now.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[GhostMachine]

I didn't say that I think they should let him off. Just that I could see why if there was prosecutorial misconduct going on back then that led to him fleeing.

And I don't believe that someone no longer being a threat or having gone decades without committing a crime should be an excuse; you did the crime, you should do the time. If someone is too physically frail to spend time in prison, sentencing them to home confinement, where they can only leave for medical reasons, would be an appropriate punishment.

Yes, jail here is used for short term custody, for the most part. I was thinking give him 30 to 60 days, then toss him out of the country, since a lot of people think prison would be too harsh.

Keep in mind I am only talking about if they decide to be lenient. Due to the nature of the crime, I'm hoping they toss the book at him, and only factor in the supposed prosecutorial misconduct in when it comes to punishing him for fleeing, NOT for the rape. Guess I should have made that clearer.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I didn't say that I think they should let him off. Just that I could see why if there was prosecutorial misconduct going on back then that led to him fleeing.

I didn't say that you did say he should be let off. If you had said that, then we'd be ultimately agreed.

And I don't believe that someone no longer being a threat or having gone decades without committing a crime should be an excuse; you did the crime, you should do the time.

Why?

Yes, jail here is used for short term custody, for the most part. I was thinking give him 30 to 60 days, then toss him out of the country, since a lot of people think prison would be too harsh.

Like... what the hell would be the point of that? D'you wanna frighten this young tearaway with a night in the cells?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[Quom]

Absurd arguments do amuse me so.

"I was raped and molested horribly."

"Objection! There is no evidence of that!"

"But your honor, the defendent is an ugly, old cunt!"

"...damn. Can we change our plea to guilty?"

In my experience people fuck people for a number or reasons. The main one being a mutual physical attraction. I don't think too many girls are going to fuck ugly old bastards due to physical attraction. Besides that wasn't my argument, my argument was that attraction didn't even exist according to the victim, she only complied because she felt forced into it. It was merely a response to the ludicrous arguments which basically made it sound as if she was gagging for it or as if would be something most 14 year olds would like to have happen to them.

That's the end of my arguments though, Fuckshit especially is verging dangerously close to justifying all forms of paedophilia and stating that all people are responsible/capable of looking out for their own well being. It's an obnoxious Western argument and its holes are gaping and obvious.

Edited October 18, 2009 by QuomQuat