There's a lot of misinformation flying around here. - Edit 1
Before modification by Werthead at 30/09/2009 12:12:01 AM
Answers to some of the incorrect information flying around this thread:
1. He didn't know she was 13.
Yes, he did. Polanski asked the girl's mother if he could shoot pictures of her for Vogue. There were two photo sessions (the attack took place at the second one). Polanski did not randomly bump into her. He knew her and her family, met her mother on several occasions, gained her legal consent for the photo shoot (which would involve full disclosure of her age) and he well knew how old she was.
2. He was never proven guilty.
Yes, he was. He did not flee the United States before the trial, he fled it after admitting his guilt.
3. It wasn't rape.
Yes, it was. Sex with a minor does not use the word 'rape' in its title, but since a minor cannot give legal consent to sexual intercourse, it is rape. The difference is purely a semantic one.
4. He's hasn't repeated the offence again in the past 32 years.
Yes, he has. He began a relationship with actress Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 years old. This is (just) the legal age of consent in France, but is not the age of consent in the USA or UK. His prediliction for young girls remained intact after the incident, showing that the experience did not rehabilitate him.
5. The victim doesn't want the matter pursued.
The victim did want the matter pursued quite vigorously until she settled a civil case with Polanski a few years ago where she was paid money to drop the matter. Now she wants the matter dropped which, whilst a point certainly worth invoking, is ultimately overriden by Polanski's flight from justice and also the debt he owes to society. Part of the punishment for a crime is ensuring that others are inspired not to commit the same crime. The high profile nature of this case has given rise to the belief that it is possible to commit a crime in the United States and then flee to France where you will not be extradited back to the USA. Also, given that the overwhelming majority of rape cases are still not reported, showing that the perpetrator of such a crime can still be brought to justice 30 years on is a powerful display of the law working as intended.
In short, the victim doesn't want the matter pursued as she has been paid off. Good for her, but that isn't the only issue involved here.
6. The judge was planning to shaft him.
Possibly true. In fact, the judge was later taken off the case because of concerns over his competence. However, there are many legal recourses that could have been taken against the judge if he indeed reneged on the plea bargain. Since thousands of cases in California alone are dependant on plea-bargaining being permitted to get any kind of verdict, dishonouring one would have been a horrendous precedent to set. It is also unclear if the judge actually was going to do this, or was blowing off steam in a private conversation after being shown pictures of Polanski 'partying' in Europe before sentencing.
I think that about covers it: he knew how old she was, he admitted that he did it, he went on to do it again and the original victim was paid off not to pursue the matter any further, which has zero bearing on the legal side of things.
1. He didn't know she was 13.
Yes, he did. Polanski asked the girl's mother if he could shoot pictures of her for Vogue. There were two photo sessions (the attack took place at the second one). Polanski did not randomly bump into her. He knew her and her family, met her mother on several occasions, gained her legal consent for the photo shoot (which would involve full disclosure of her age) and he well knew how old she was.
2. He was never proven guilty.
Yes, he was. He did not flee the United States before the trial, he fled it after admitting his guilt.
3. It wasn't rape.
Yes, it was. Sex with a minor does not use the word 'rape' in its title, but since a minor cannot give legal consent to sexual intercourse, it is rape. The difference is purely a semantic one.
4. He's hasn't repeated the offence again in the past 32 years.
Yes, he has. He began a relationship with actress Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 years old. This is (just) the legal age of consent in France, but is not the age of consent in the USA or UK. His prediliction for young girls remained intact after the incident, showing that the experience did not rehabilitate him.
5. The victim doesn't want the matter pursued.
The victim did want the matter pursued quite vigorously until she settled a civil case with Polanski a few years ago where she was paid money to drop the matter. Now she wants the matter dropped which, whilst a point certainly worth invoking, is ultimately overriden by Polanski's flight from justice and also the debt he owes to society. Part of the punishment for a crime is ensuring that others are inspired not to commit the same crime. The high profile nature of this case has given rise to the belief that it is possible to commit a crime in the United States and then flee to France where you will not be extradited back to the USA. Also, given that the overwhelming majority of rape cases are still not reported, showing that the perpetrator of such a crime can still be brought to justice 30 years on is a powerful display of the law working as intended.
In short, the victim doesn't want the matter pursued as she has been paid off. Good for her, but that isn't the only issue involved here.
6. The judge was planning to shaft him.
Possibly true. In fact, the judge was later taken off the case because of concerns over his competence. However, there are many legal recourses that could have been taken against the judge if he indeed reneged on the plea bargain. Since thousands of cases in California alone are dependant on plea-bargaining being permitted to get any kind of verdict, dishonouring one would have been a horrendous precedent to set. It is also unclear if the judge actually was going to do this, or was blowing off steam in a private conversation after being shown pictures of Polanski 'partying' in Europe before sentencing.
I think that about covers it: he knew how old she was, he admitted that he did it, he went on to do it again and the original victim was paid off not to pursue the matter any further, which has zero bearing on the legal side of things.