Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

age of consent doesn't matter anyway seeing as the victim testified that she was unwillingly sodomized and given oral sex, among other things.

i.e., she was raped
 
Grind said:
"what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: "I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
Click to expand...

Anyone who is raped especially a child should not be able to drop charges. The state has a responsibility to prosecute those kinds of charges.
 
Grind said:
age of consent doesn't matter anyway seeing as the victim testified that she was unwillingly sodomized and given oral sex, among other things.

i.e., she was raped
Click to expand...

Hello, proleshit.

That's the result that the grand jury reached, with little input from the defense and with her being coached by the prosecution and the mother. The probation board reached the conclusion that it was consensual. You're just being a stupid rabble rousing prole.
 
Postmortem Profit said:
Anyone who is raped especially a child should not be able to drop charges. The state has a responsibility to prosecute those kinds of charges.
Click to expand...

Nobody has the ability to drop charges for any crime. That's not how the system works. She filed a petition to drop the charges, and it's ultimately up to the prosecutor.
 
Socrtease said:
More likely than not the 45 year old has put this behind her and does not want to rip open old wounds.
Click to expand...

"I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever"

I wonder what retard said that? Can't you be against a fucking child rapist for once in your life you piece of shit?

Oh wait, sorry Samantha Geimer.
 
Grind said:
age of consent doesn't matter anyway seeing as the victim testified that she was unwillingly sodomized and given oral sex, among other things.

i.e., she was raped
Click to expand...

So? Is the "victims" word always true? He plead guilty to stat rape not just rape. I don't know or presume to know the whole truth, don't pretend you do either. The premise of the Salon article is the assumption of guilt on rape. That falls apart based on what is known.

Also, why is sodomy and oral sex important to you? Is that somehow worse than rape through vaginal sex? Grind, I never thought you were a prude. If he forced her, then that is all that really matters.

I believe he should be brought back to serve out his plea deal or given a new trial. I don't think a new trial is going to go well for the state, unless they engage in a perversion of justice and force the supposed victim to testify, again.
 
tom prendergast said:
It is worthwhile pointing out that he was accused of rape by the so called child's mother and that the girl herself said that it was consensual sex. One question that doesn't ever seem to get asked is why the mother wasn't there as a chaperone if she was so concerned about her welfare.

[SIZE=+1]A 90-Day Psychiatric Study for Roman Polanski[/SIZE]​
Originally published in The Washington Post, September 20, 1977
Movie director Roman Polanski, who had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, yesterday was ordered imprisoned for a 90-day psychiatric study to help the judge decide his sentence.
Polanski had contracted to photograph the girl for a French fashion magazine. Prosecutors said he took her to the home of actor Jack Nicholson while Nicholson was away, fed her champagne and Quaaludes, then committed numerous sex acts with her.
The probation report indicated that she consented. The judge said it made no difference.
The technical effect of the judge's decision will be for Polanski to spend some time in prison without having the record of a prison sentence against him unless he is eventually placed behind bars under a formal sentence.
Among the problems Polanski faces is possible deportation. However, the law provides automatic deportation only for those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude who are sentenced to one year or more in prison.
Click to expand...

There you go.
He's not guilty, the Mom is. :eek:
 
Watermark said:
Hello, proleshit.

That's the result that the grand jury reached, with little input from the defense and with her being coached by the prosecution and the mother. The probation board reached the conclusion that it was consensual. You're just being a stupid rabble rousing prole.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that children, the age of 13, have the ability to consent??

How young of an age, are you willing to lower yourself to defend??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now you're willing to argue degrees of statuatory rape?? :eek:

You're sick.
Click to expand...

This is stupid.

A law that literally equates forced rape to technical rape is a stupid law. There aren't degrees to statutory rape, but the judge usually takes whether or not force was involved and sentences much harsher based on that. Or they're pushed over into the aggravated rape category.
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now you're willing to argue degrees of statuatory rape?? :eek:

You're sick.
Click to expand...


I will argue it. Stat rape, which implies consent, is different than forcible rape. If you don't understand that then you are clearly a retard.

If you drugged your victim, without her knowledge and even with her knowledge when we are talking about a child, then consent is in question. What's wrong with that?

Stat rape is a crime and should be, but it is not the same as forcible rape. With stat rape we are talking about a criminal that fails to control their impulses in a consensual act, consent is not given legally but in reality. In the other case we are talking about a violent criminal who does not care about consent. That's a distinct difference.

Your great grandmother may well have been married and bearing children before she was able to fully consent, by today's law. Due to culture we NOW take a dim view of that and, probably, rightfully so. But, It is still different than forcible rape.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now you're willing to argue degrees of statuatory rape?? :eek:

You're sick.
Click to expand...

there are in fact "degrees" of statutory rape, in that the age of the minor is considered in sentencing....

statutory rape and forcible rape are not even close with regards to moral standards....statutory rape is malum prohibitum while forcible rape is malum in se....quite a difference
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That's why children can't TECHNICALLY give consent.
Seems your trying to preplan your legal defense, when you are finally caught.
Click to expand...

Ad hom and an extremely despicable one.

Why did you put "technically" in caps? I can only guess that you understand there is a difference between consent by law and consent in reality.

I am not implying that it is not a crime (neither did water). It is a crime. But it is different than forcible rape, TECHNICALLY (i.e. legally) and in reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top