Should Roman Polanski be extradited?

[Trolldor]

Actually I did, and nothing I've said is incorrect or a 'gross generalisation'.
The age restriction has to be applied universally.
You've made quite an assumption to act under the false belief that I, for whatever unknown reason you've conjured, consider the same age to be the benchmark in all statues around the world.
I shouldn't have to add "within the relevant jurisdictions, and accounting for differences in legislation" because that should be self-explanatory.
And finally, none of what you've said has actually contradicted my point. You can not make exceptions because of time, or because of a victims 'willingness'. A line is drawn and the line has to be obeyed. If the law and the legislation provided for exceptions, then whoop-de-doo, but it didn't.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually I did, and nothing I've said is incorrect or a 'gross generalisation'.
The age restriction has to be applied universally.
You've made quite an assumption to act under the false belief that I, for whatever unknown reason you've conjured, consider the same age to be the benchmark in all statues around the world.
I shouldn't have to add "within the relevant jurisdictions, and accounting for differences in legislation" because that should be self-explanatory.
And finally, none of what you've said has actually contradicted my point. You can not make exceptions because of time, or because of a victims 'willingness'. A line is drawn and the line has to be obeyed. If the law and the legislation provided for exceptions, then whoop-de-doo, but it didn't.

I apologise - perhaps 'universally' wasn't your best choice of word in this case and I misunderestimated it!

However, I have never stated that he shouldn't stand trial for what he did. He broke Californian law in California and he was arrested, stood trial and pleaded guilty to that crime. He was sent for psychiatric evaluation ( and served 42 days of a possible 90 in a state prison psychiatric unit) before sentence was passed and was also allowed to finish a movie that he was working on at the time. It was during this hiatus that he discovered that the judge had told the DA that he was going to renege on his previous promise to impose parole only if Polanski pled guilty and agreed to the evaluation. That was when he fled the country.

He was guilty, pled guilty and served time. He was not, according to the usual definition, a paedophile - a term that in its medical definition refers to an adult that is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Rather, he showed signs of ephebophilia - a preference for adolescent but physically mature partners.

My contentions in this thread from the beginning have been that he broke the law but then cooperated fully with the authorities until they went back on the deal they made with him and that he is not a paedophile.

[Trolldor]

I apologise for not being clear, but he fled which is the problem.
The case was never 'resolved', never closed. He slept with a thirteen year old girl and the case is still on-going. Whether they moved to double-back on a deal which he had already fulfilled the conditions is irrelevant only in-so-far as that he brought this whole thing to light again himself. If he wants it closed, then he can get his ass back to the US and finish it, until then he's a fugitive who refuses to answer for his actions. Until the law says it's over, it's not over, and if they ever plan to have plea-bargains to be of any use, they will have to uphold it. If he didn't want to deal with the shit, he shouldn't have slept with an underage girl. He did, so he should accept all the shit that comes his way.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I apologise for not being clear, but he fled which is the problem.
The case was never 'resolved', never closed. He slept with a thirteen year old girl and the case is still on-going. Whether they moved to double-back on a deal which he had already fulfilled the conditions is irrelevant only in-so-far as that he brought this whole thing to light again himself. If he wants it closed, then he can get his ass back to the US and finish it, until then he's a fugitive who refuses to answer for his actions. Until the law says it's over, it's not over, and if they ever plan to have plea-bargains to be of any use, they will have to uphold it. If he didn't want to deal with the shit, he shouldn't have slept with an underage girl. He did, so he should accept all the shit that comes his way.

But had he been a nobody, the original plea-bargain would have been honoured - as in thousands of other cases - and he would have been given parole. The reason that he fled was that a showboating judge with delusions of celebrity decided to up his profile by sending this uppity Hollywood type to jail despite having agreed parole in exchange for a guilty plea and the evaluation (which amounted to a custodial sentence in itself.) As I understand it, the judge would have been struck off for professional misconduct and possibly have faced a trial himself had these details come to light while he was still alive.

I am afraid that, while it is easy to say that Polansky is subject to the law just the same as anyone else and should abide by it, the facts of this case show that he was treated more harshly from day one because of that celebrity - not the reverse. If the law was as equal and blind as it is claimed to be, his plea-bargain should have stood and he should have had no reason whatsoever to flee the country.

[Trolldor]

Actually, I doubt that it is a unique case. Unless someone actually has knowledge to the contrary (and proof) then I would say Polanski's treatment is only made out to be 'exceptional' because of his celebrity status.

[Elessarina]

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?

So they should be having sex with immature children?

[lordpasternack]

Willingness to consent, ability to consent, none of it matters. There is an age restriction for a reason

And what is that reason, exactly? Presumably some judgement made by those in the justice system with respect to the comparitive ability of individuals to be able and willing to consent to sexual activities. (Though I do sometimes wonder where these judgements have come from? Do they do quantifiable studies into the physical and mental maturity of teens - or has it always been simply collated 'intuition' on the part of those forming the laws - hence the wide variation from locale to locale?)

If the law is built on the foundation of supposed ability to consent, then there are good grounds for arguing that cases of relations between adults and underage individuals who could and did consent should be dealt with as exceptional to the usual way that such relations are dealt with. Of course, it isn't the case with the law yet - at least not in California, to mind...

...and it has to be applied universally. He deserves no exception, irrespective of the circumstances.

Yes - but the punishment can at least vary. In the case of virtual non-crimes - where it has been shown satisfactorily that there was no coercion and the younger party was able and willing to consent, and did so - there could be a simple token punishment doled out for the misdemeanor.

[Trolldor]

You abide by the age restriction because the law can not account for nevery tiny indiscretion. You abide by the age restriction because a solid line must be drawn to eliminate the nonsense ambiguity that people use to justify their actions.

It wasn't long ago that a man who raped a sixteen year old girl he was coaching to swim was declared innocent because she orgasmed. Because of that the law had to be amended and redefined to be far more solid, more encompassing. It shouldn't have had to be redefined, but because it was amibgious, because there was no solid foundation, he got away with the crime.

The age of consent must be solid and immovable irrespective of the individual's ability because it must be applied to more than just that one person. It must be able to function.

[Chinaski]

In Spain the age of consent is 13. Just throwing that out there.

[Trolldor]

And in Yemen, it's 9.

[Chinaski]

Yemenites want to marry 9 year olds. Spaniards just think that you should be able to fuck once you're past puberty.

[Trolldor]

Wrong. And your bias is obvious. A line drawn is arbitrary, but at least the 16-18 lines have some defensible basis on simple biology. Most thirteen year olds are incapable of informed consent, even with education. It's called the naivety of youth.

[Chinaski]

Wrong. And your bias is obvious. A line drawn is arbitrary, but at least the 16-18 lines have some defensible basis on simple biology. Most thirteen year olds are incapable of informed consent, even with education. It's called the naivety of youth.

I'm sure many 13 year olds would disagree with you. Not to mention many older people who remember being 13.

[Trolldor]

Wrong. And your bias is obvious. A line drawn is arbitrary, but at least the 16-18 lines have some defensible basis on simple biology. Most thirteen year olds are incapable of informed consent, even with education. It's called the naivety of youth.

I'm sure many 13 year olds would disagree with you. Not to mention many older people who remember being 13.

I'm sure they would, and they'd be wrong. So very wrong.

[lordpasternack]

You abide by the age restriction because the law can not account for nevery tiny indiscretion. You abide by the age restriction because a solid line must be drawn to eliminate the nonsense ambiguity that people use to justify their actions.

I'm not completely sold on this...

It wasn't long ago that a man who raped a sixteen year old girl he was coaching to swim was declared innocent because she orgasmed. Because of that the law had to be amended and redefined to be far more solid, more encompassing. It shouldn't have had to be redefined, but because it was amibgious, because there was no solid foundation, he got away with the crime.

Right... but orgasming doesn't equate to having given consent, or having been able to give consent, in anyone's book. I'm not even sure why you bring this up, since that scenario would have been applicable whatever the age of the victim, and has no particular bearing on the ethics of any particular age of consent law and the transgressing thereof.

The age of consent must be solid and immovable irrespective of the individual's ability because it must be applied to more than just that one person. It must be able to function.

I personally think that part of its functionality should involve relating to the real world, and real reciprocal human lusts that happen and harm no-one. In Germany, for example, they have a law where you can lawfully have sex with a 14-year-old if it can be shown that the younger party was able to consent and did. The burden of proof is on the older party by default. Even where some line has to be drawn in the sand, and even where some form of 'punishment' will be deemed inevitable - it would be a good thing for the law to recognise that some of the crimes are truly victimless, and adapt paltry punishments to fit.