Should Roman Polanski be extradited?

[owtth]

Right, because age is an infallible way of measuring a person's maturity, be it mental or emotional.

Hardly infallible but better than than relying on the justification of a possibly coerced child. Can you at least agree that most thirteen year olds shouldn't be having sex with mature adults?

[Drewish]

owtth, stop being so nice and reasonable, you're cramping my overly aggressive pompous assertive arguing debating style.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

owtth, stop being so nice and reasonable, you're cramping my overly aggressive pompous assertive arguing debating style.

Watch it, Andrew, he's a lawyer. (We don't hold it against him, of course. Much.)

[owtth]

Consider yourselves served, the fuckin lot of you!! :pissed:

[Pappa]

The lawyer part of me (evil, evil, bastard) says the original judge was a complete dick and therefore he should get off on time served. The part of me that has friends with teenage daughters says this fella need electroshock therapy on his nads, Stat!

I can sort of understand the outpouring of support for a mishandled legal case, but he is still a paedophile and his own feelings barely come into it in that case. It's the protection of any young girls that he may have access to that should be paramount.

I dispute that he is a paedophile in any but legal terms.

The girl with whom he had sex was a physically mature woman that just happened to be 13. Just look at pictures taken of her at that time and tell me that is a prepubescent child?

What he did was have consensual sex with a physical woman who happened to be legally under the age of giving consent. Paedophiles seek out immature children for sexual gratification.

People mature sexually at widely varying ages - as young as 9 and as late as the early 20's are neither uncommon. The age of consent is perforce arbitrary chosen to suit the majority of cases - in California it is particularly high at 18 IMO. In some states at that time he could have legally married her!

You're view is at odds with the law though XC, and it is the law which matters, not some subjective view of whether she was 'physically mature'. Aside from that, on ethical grounds, even if she was physically mature, it does not follow that she was emotionally mature.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The lawyer part of me (evil, evil, bastard) says the original judge was a complete dick and therefore he should get off on time served. The part of me that has friends with teenage daughters says this fella need electroshock therapy on his nads, Stat!

I can sort of understand the outpouring of support for a mishandled legal case, but he is still a paedophile and his own feelings barely come into it in that case. It's the protection of any young girls that he may have access to that should be paramount.

I dispute that he is a paedophile in any but legal terms.

The girl with whom he had sex was a physically mature woman that just happened to be 13. Just look at pictures taken of her at that time and tell me that is a prepubescent child?

What he did was have consensual sex with a physical woman who happened to be legally under the age of giving consent. Paedophiles seek out immature children for sexual gratification.

People mature sexually at widely varying ages - as young as 9 and as late as the early 20's are neither uncommon. The age of consent is perforce arbitrary chosen to suit the majority of cases - in California it is particularly high at 18 IMO. In some states at that time he could have legally married her!

You're view is at odds with the law though XC, and it is the law which matters, not some subjective view of whether she was 'physically mature'. Aside from that, on ethical grounds, even if she was physically mature, it does not follow that she was emotionally mature.

I wasn't claiming he was right to fuck a 13 year old. I am disputing that that makes him a paedophile. Highly sexed and quite prepared to overlook the age of a young, yet physically mature, woman that is willing to have sex - yes. Habitually seeking out prepubescent children and abusing them - no.

Another thing to look at is why her parents encouraged her to pursue a career as a glamour model at that age and left her unattended in the sole company of RP for the shoot? It should be pointed out that (according to some sources) at the time of the offence (and I have no qualms in admitting that it was an offence - the letter of the law was clearly broken and he pleaded guilty to the charges against him) the girl was not a virgin and that it was not the first time that she had posed nude, nor drunk alcohol. Polanski's role as a corrupter of innocence is this a little overegged.

[Chinaski]

Right, because age is an infallible way of measuring a person's maturity, be it mental or emotional.

Hardly infallible but better than than relying on the justification of a possibly coerced child. Can you at least agree that most thirteen year olds shouldn't be having sex with mature adults?

Probably, yeah. However I know a fair amount of 13 year olds who would severely disagree with you, and would be ready to ride you to Cape Cod and back to prove the point.

[Chinaski]

Here's the girl's testimony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

[Trolldor]

He committed a crime to which he confessed he was guilty.
He slept with a thirteen year old girl.

A criminal act is a criminal act, irrespective of whether she'd had sex before, irrespective of what his personal attractions are. He should be extradited and charged for the crime he committed. Fuck everything else, the law must be enforced no matter the circumstances.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

He committed a crime to which he confessed he was guilty.
He slept with a thirteen year old girl.

A criminal act is a criminal act, irrespective of whether she'd had sex before, irrespective of what his personal attractions are. He should be extradited and charged for the crime he committed. Fuck everything else, the law must be enforced no matter the circumstances.

He was charged. He pleaded guilty. He served time in what they called 'psychiatric evaluation' as part of a plea-bargain leading to guaranteed parole that the judge then reneged on.

[Trolldor]

He was charged. He pleaded guilty. He served time in what they called 'psychiatric evaluation' as part of a plea-bargain leading to guaranteed parole that the judge then reneged on.

Then he should have appealed, instead he fled. He slept with a thirteen year old girl. Pedophile or not, he broke the law and took advantage of an underage girl - and if she was willing that is still taking advantage of her. She was thirteen.


He only agreed to the plea because it didn't include jail time.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

He was charged. He pleaded guilty. He served time in what they called 'psychiatric evaluation' as part of a plea-bargain leading to guaranteed parole that the judge then reneged on.

Then he should have appealed, instead he fled. He slept with a thirteen year old girl. Pedophile or not, he broke the law and took advantage of an underage girl - and if she was willing that is still taking advantage of her. She was thirteen.


He only agreed to the plea because it didn't include jail time.

Why do you think anyone agrees to a plea-bargain? That's why it's called a bargain - both sides get something out of it! The law made an ass of itself in this case by trying to shift the goalposts after the plea-bargain was made. What he did was wrong legally but he can't be blamed for not trusting a judge that was more interested in boosting his public status than keeping his word.

[Trolldor]

The law is the law. If he made a deal, the law HAD to stick to it while the conditions were the same, otherwise plea-bargains would become a thing of the past, nobody could be sure that the deal would be upheld - that would cause a lot of damage.
By running all he did was break another law to escape from the consequences of his actions.
Maybe it was handled poorly, but serves the dick right for exploiting a child.

[Chauncey Gardner]

What do you think should happen with Roman Polanski? Should he be pardoned, or should he be extradited to California to face more criminal charges?

what gets me about this case is that certain priests, bishops, cardinals in california who have been involved in serious child abuse cases (including helping to cover up and protect known paedophiles) appear to be above the law, yet, the authorities pull out all the stops over Polanksi. I'm not saying that he should be above the law too, but, I'm just saying.

Ditto for the commentators where I'm from (ireland) who appear to have let the church off the hook here following the astonishing amount of child abuse and cover ups...but are tripping up over each other rushing to hang, draw and quarter Polanksi in the press.

[Drewish]

What do you think should happen with Roman Polanski? Should he be pardoned, or should he be extradited to California to face more criminal charges?

what gets me about this case is that certain priests, bishops, cardinals in california who have been involved in serious child abuse cases (including helping to cover up and protect known paedophiles) appear to be above the law, yet, the authorities pull out all the stops over Polanksi. I'm not saying that he should be above the law too, but, I'm just saying.

Ditto for the commentators where I'm from (ireland) who appear to have let the church off the hook here following the astonishing amount of child abuse and cover ups...but are tripping up over each other rushing to hang, draw and quarter Polanksi in the press.

That's because the Church had the raw arrogance to tell the law to fuck off, where as here Polanski ran away. The people want bad-boy rebel rapists with crucifixes, not pussy pedophile directors. As movie director he should have known that.