Should Roman Polanski be extradited?

[Trolldor]

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.

Most of the victims were happy with a settlement because to actually prove it happened in a court of law would have been hard.
However, every single one of them should have rejected the settlement. Not all of them would have succeeded, but many would have.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Most of the victims (of abuse by the church) were happy with a settlement because to actually prove it happened in a court of law would have been hard. However, every single one of them should have rejected the settlement. Not all of them would have succeeded, but many would have.

I don't want to derail this thread, but, that's not how I understood it. I stand corrected, of course, but, IIRC the head of the Ryan Report (the recent child abuse investigations) in ireland resigned because the abusers and those who helped and assisted the paedophiles received some sort of get out of jail free card in return for co-operation in the investigation. That was completely separate to any civil cases and settlements. In fact a private members bill in the Dáil that would have lifted the gagging orders on victims who had received compensation and subjected religious orders to freedom of information requests, was rejected. The only paedophiles named were those already convicted or who were already well known.

As I say, I stand corrected on that.

Speaking of settlements...hasn't the victim in the Polanski case received a substantial compensation payment from Polanski a few years ago and would prefer the case to be buried?

[Trolldor]

In respects to the victim saying "get over it" I'm perfectly fine with having the case dropped. In the case of people defending Polanski's actions - any of them - I'm not.

I don't want to derail this thread, but, that's not how I understood it. I stand corrected, of course, but, IIRC the head of the Ryan Report (the recent child abuse investigations) in ireland resigned because the abusers and those who helped and assisted the paedophiles received some sort of get out of jail free card in return for co-operation in the investigation. That was completely separate to any civil cases and settlements. In fact a private members bill in the Dáil that would have lifted the gagging orders on victims who had received compensation and subjected religious orders to freedom of information requests, was rejected. The only paedophiles named were those already convicted or who were already well known.

Before I comment any further - I heard about this, but nothing about what the victims reactions were towards it. So far as I am aware, there was none.

[Chauncey Gardner]

Before I comment any further - I heard about this, but nothing about what the victims reactions were towards it. So far as I am aware, there was none.

Victims want abusers' names given to gardaí.

A group of survivors of child abuse has called on 18 religious congregations to hand over to gardaí the names of members who violated children and the files they hold on them.

I remember at the time that the general consensus by non-victims was the same..i.e. the general population was concerned that there was a pack of paedophiles basically on the loose, with no previous record of child abuse (so they come up clean when an employer is screening them for jobs connected with children), or worse, shifted to new locations.

[Drewish]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wir ... id=8761905

[maiforpeace]

Most of the victims (of abuse by the church) were happy with a settlement because to actually prove it happened in a court of law would have been hard. However, every single one of them should have rejected the settlement. Not all of them would have succeeded, but many would have.

I don't want to derail this thread, but, that's not how I understood it. I stand corrected, of course, but, IIRC the head of the Ryan Report (the recent child abuse investigations) in ireland resigned because the abusers and those who helped and assisted the paedophiles received some sort of get out of jail free card in return for co-operation in the investigation. That was completely separate to any civil cases and settlements. In fact a private members bill in the Dáil that would have lifted the gagging orders on victims who had received compensation and subjected religious orders to freedom of information requests, was rejected. The only paedophiles named were those already convicted or who were already well known.

As I say, I stand corrected on that.

Speaking of settlements...hasn't the victim in the Polanski case received a substantial compensation payment from Polanski a few years ago and would prefer the case to be buried?

I think you are correct on both counts Chauncey.

[lordpasternack]

[Trolldor]

Yep, he is.

[lordpasternack]

We have to draw the line somewhere for nothing more than practical purposes, and this wasn't even close. She wasn't 17, she wasn't 16. She wasn't even 15 or 14. That's the reality of it, and attempting to excuse that by saying, "age is just a number," is a poor excuse for an argument.

But she may have looked around 16 or so. She'd still have been underage in some states in the US, of course - but Polanski might have made what he considered some level of 'judgement' about what age she was likely to be and what her capacity to consent was. A judgement that he'd have no legal discretion to make, of course - but it could have been a reasonable assumption by him all the same.

I know that I personally would happily have had consensual sex with an adult male when I was 13 - and while I can't really regress in my mind enough to gauge how open to coercion I'd have been at that time, I suppose I'd like to think that I'd have enough wits about me to avoid that. There is also a man present here who claims to have had a non-coercive raunchy affair with an adult woman when he was just 14 - perhaps less than a year older than this girl was when these events were taking place. It is possible both for some adolescents to be mature enough to consent to sex, and for some adults to engage them in sex without being abusive. Whether that was the case here remains to be seen - but I think there should be probing of the case to find the extent of abusive conduct on behalf of the older party, if any, before going ahead and punishing the older party harshly for an act that caused no-one any harm, just because that's the law and that's all there is to it.

There's also the consideration of him having effectively already served his punishment for his indiscretions - that I think needs to be looked into.

And why do I suspect somewhere inside me that this piece of news fodder wouldn't have attracted half the attention and furore had the younger party been male?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

She also testified at the trial that she had had sex twice before Polanski. Why was nobody else ever charged over that? Surely not because it wasn't anyone famous that time?

[devogue]

And why do I suspect somewhere inside me that this piece of news fodder wouldn't have attracted half the attention and furore had the younger party been male?

I don't know - there seems to be a lot more stories about older females shagging boys and getting done for it.

Sometimes I do wonder about the criminality - I would have given anything - ANYTHING - to shag the brains out of my biology teacher when I was 14, and most of my classmates would have as well. It would have been beyond fantasy, something so amazingly good in every selfish way that if it had happened I would have thought the idea of it being a crime on her part beyond ridiculous.

[lordpasternack]

She also testified at the trial that she had had sex twice before Polanski. Why was nobody else ever charged over that? Surely not because it wasn't anyone famous that time?

Yeah - I do think your point has a factor in Polanski's situation.

To be honest, I think there's possibly a bit of a balance to be struck when dealing with cases of consensual sex between underage adolescents and adults. If it's pretty much a non-crime, then there's no real justification for pursuing any real punishment - but on the other hand, most people the age of the younger party may not have the capacity to consent, and may be wide open to coercion - and those in the justice system wouldn't want to give the impression that it aims to take a soft approach with such affairs that would have a high likelihood of being genuinely abusive to the younger party. So the older party may be given a token punishment with the aim to leave wider society in no doubt that such acts are liable to punishment.

I have my suspicions that this is what happened initially with the purported plea bargain, and what has continued to happen now that they perhaps feel he was too easily done by. And yes - I also suspect that his fame is quite unfairly being factored in this - perhaps along with the media attention it's attracted because of that. Those in the justice system need to look at this case fairly and objectively and reach a fair conclusion based on the evidence - and not succumb to fear of professional embarrassment for not burning a witch.

[lordpasternack]

And why do I suspect somewhere inside me that this piece of news fodder wouldn't have attracted half the attention and furore had the younger party been male?

I don't know - there seems to be a lot more stories about older females shagging boys and getting done for it.

Oh yeah - there are the stories - but I don't hear quite the same fevered response from the general public. I don't know - perhaps I'm just not tuned in to the right circles. It's like I get the feeling that the same men who would gasp and go on about their "young daughters", would toot "go on my son" had it been a boy involved...

Sometimes I do wonder about the criminality - I would have given anything - ANYTHING - to shag the brains out of my biology teacher when I was 14, and most of my classmates would have as well. It would have been beyond fantasy, something so amazingly good in every selfish way that if it had happened I would have thought the idea of it being a crime on her part beyond ridiculous.

I felt the same way about a few teacher crushes at my school. In particular, there was the PE teacher that I fancied when I was still just 12, that I was suspended and removed from PE for the rest of the year for having written down, amongst other things, that I wanted to cover him in chocolate ice-cream and lick it off. With that particular guy, I once had to tense virtually every muscle in my body when he asked me to come into his office (before the suspension of course), to stop myself shaking. And I had a raunchy dream about him after I'd turned 13 that had me wake up stifling hot and drenched in all manner of bodily secretions. Had he fucked me then, I have little doubt that I would have reeled with pure hedonistic pleasure. And if he hadn't coerced me - I'd just find it really difficult to find the real crime there...

There were others - not quite reaching the same intensity: A couple where I suspected the apples of my eye were secretly pervy under their professional veneer, and would happily have shagged me if not for some instilled professional restraint - or perhaps even if they had got an opportunity to get me away from prying eyes. (I have some reason to believe this, including certain bits of body language, and a gesture that I believe I once saw one of the guys making, after he'd made eye contact with me as he was waiting in traffic lights and I was passing on foot on my way home. And the fact they'd shagged two girls after their senior prom.)

On top of that, there was the crush I had on a teacher when I was sweet 16. The usual age of consent. I would have done anything for him to take me over his desk, and yet it was completely verboten.

[Trolldor]

Willingness to consent, ability to consent, none of it matters. There is an age restriction for a reason, and it has to be applied universally. He deserves no exception, irrespective of the circumstances.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Willingness to consent, ability to consent, none of it matters. There is an age restriction for a reason, and it has to be applied universally. He deserves no exception, irrespective of the circumstances.

Universally? It is not even the same in all states of America. In fact there is no such thing in US law as 'age of consent', merely a whole raft of charges relating to unlawful sexual contact of varying sorts.

The charges and penalties vary from Statutory rape to Unlawful sexual congress with a minor, may be felonies or misdemeanours, and may carry prison sentences or fines. All of this varies widely from state to state and depends on such factors as age, gender, the difference in age between the parties, etc.

In New Hampshire, for example, a girl may be married at 13 in 'exceptional circumstances', with the parent's permission and with a court order. In some states, a difference of 3 years or less between the participants is a valid defence in court.

Leave the USA and the laws become even more diverse. In Japan, the national age of consent is 13 but individual prefectures can overrule that and impose any age up to 18 - hence widely differing ages are in force. In the Philippines, the AOC is 12. In Qatar, sex outside of marriage is completely forbidden but marriage is allowed at any age with the parents' permission.

In your own country, the laws vary from state to state. In the ACT, the age is 16 but it is a legal defence if the younger party was aged 10 years or older and the offender was not more than 2 years older than the younger party.

Please think (or at least google) before generalising.