Roman Polanski arrested for extradition (merger) - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #**136** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It's also important to remember that such deals were quite common--and still are depending on the case--when dealing with child rapists because of the victim. In this case, she was only 13 years old.

Introducing and incorporating children into a trial process and especially on the witness stand is complicated enough, and much more so if they have been assaulted, raped, sodomised and/or whatever else was done to them. In recent years, when dealing with younger children, courts have taken measures to protect sexually assaulted children such as videotape deposition testimony with standards of direct examination and cross examination that take and give due respect their age and where they do not have a face-to-face confrontation with their rapists in the courtroom in front of crowds, etc.

Yes, that 6th Amendment thing. There was considerable resistance to anything but face to face in TN if it came to trial, and to be honest, I don't know where they are on it right now. There is a pretty strong victim advocate in Nashville. I was in law school with one of them.

Stapo · #**137** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

He pled guilty, went for "evaluation", and then fled the United States.

Whatever the victim wants at this point is unimportant. He committed a crime by fleeing, and he should be held to account for that...

agreed.

Steve · #**138** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

The charge he pleaded guilty to was 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor'. A misdemeanor. If he did indeed take her by force, why allow the charge to be reduced to a misdemeanor?

He vacated his plea when he fled...

Quote:

He has stated, I believe, that he fled because he was threatened with more jail time than he agreed to under his plea bargain.

No he wasn't.

Provide a link to your assertion...

Quote:

There is also suggestion the judge was speaking about the case with another lawyer not involved.

Again, link, please...

Steve · #**139** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

If she consented, but stated under oath it was consensual, what does that mean for his case?

Not a fucking thing. A 13 year old girl cannot consent to sexual intercourse...

Quote:

He pleaded guilty to a simple misdemeanor. Obviously they thought it wasn't worth persuing further.

Doesn't matter at this point.

He split and, in doing so, he broke the law, and vacated any plea agreement in the case...

Quote:

Roman does not fit the critera. He does not have a sexual preference for young children. He did not prey on this child.

He had sex with her, that doesn't make him a pedophile. Nothing up there indicates that he fits the bill.

What do you call someone who fucks a child?

Steve · #**140** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

What is the forensic evidence here? What we seem to have is the testimony of a 13 year old possibly trying to escape parental discipline and/or disgruntled by her subsequent lack of hiirig by a rich and vulnerable to lawsuits director, and a guilty plea extracted by deception.

He pleaded guilty. That negates the need for a trial which, in turn, negates the need for evidence. If he didn't do it, and took a plea deal, that's just tough shit for him.

And where is the deception to "extract" a guilty plea? And, again, if he didn't do it, why plea guilty?

Stapo · #**141** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

What do you call someone who fucks a child?

A catholic priest?

(Sorry couldn't resist)

Kyle · #**142** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Not a fucking thing. A 13 year old girl cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

So it is perfectly acceptable for one to lie under oath?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

What do you call someone who fucks a child?

I call them what they are. Polanski is not a pedophile.

Mrs. M · #**143** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

So it is perfectly acceptable for one to lie under oath?

I call them what they are. Polanski is not a pedophile.

Who lied?????

How can you say that Polanski is not a pedophile? HE DRUGGED, RAPED AND SODOMIZED A CHILD!

Kyle · #**144** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

He was obviously sexually attracted to her to the point that he drugged her and raped her.

Lets see proof that he raped her. No evidence of forcible rape has been forthcoming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It would mean absolutely nothing. At 13, the child cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with someone over three times her age.

Not even a victim is allowed to lie when she gives her witness testimony. If she lied, the case can be thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M;1537134How do you know that Polanski doesn't fit the "criteria"? How do you know that he hasn't had sex with other children? Can you [I

look[/I] at someone and tell whether he is a pedophile or not?
He DRUGGED the child and then raped her...what part of that don't you understand????

I take it he must have spent the last 33 years raping children in France and Poland while remaining undecteded? I guess all his child victims forgot about their assaults which is why no other 'child' has come foward?

He does not fit the critera. The criteria was posted. He does not fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

He had sex with a child therefore he's a pedophile. Geeez! It's really not that complicated!

False. A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to PREPUBSCENT children. That means 5 and 6 year olds. A 13 year old is not a child, she is approaching young adulthood. He did not prey on her, or stalk her, and I am yet to see evidence that he drugged her.

Commodore · #**145** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

I call them what they are. Polanski is not a pedophile.

So what do you call someone who has sex with a child.

Wallaroo · #**146** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

The BIG question is weather it was consensual or not? After all, the girl was 13 years old.

BamaGuy · #**147** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

Lets see proof that he raped her. No evidence of forcible rape has been forthcoming.

It doesn't matter if she wanted to or not she was 13, it IS RAPE

Not even a victim is allowed to lie when she gives her witness testimony. If she lied, the case can be thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

I take it he must have spent the last 33 years raping children in France and Poland while remaining undecteded? I guess all his child victims forgot about their assaults which is why no other 'child' has come foward?

He does not fit the critera. The criteria was posted. He does not fit.

False. A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to PREPUBSCENT children. That means 5 and 6 year olds. A 13 year old is not a child, she is approaching young adulthood. He did not prey on her, or stalk her, and I am yet to see evidence that he drugged her.

He also admitted giving her ludes (a crime, illegal drugs) and booze, ( a crime, she is a minor)

He fled the country, another crime.

Mrs. M · #**148** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

Lets see proof that he raped her. No evidence of forcible rape has been forthcoming.

He admitted that he raped her! Whether it was "forcible" or not doesn't even come into play because she was a CHILD.

Quote:

Not even a victim is allowed to lie when she gives her witness testimony. If she lied, the case can be thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

He ADMITTED that he raped her, for the hundredth time!!!! What makes you think she lied???

Quote:

I take it he must have spent the last 33 years raping children in France and Poland while remaining undecteded? I guess all his child victims forgot about their assaults which is why no other 'child' has come foward?

He does not fit the critera. The criteria was posted. He does not fit.

HE RAPED A CHILD THEREFORE HE'S A PEDOPHILE.

Quote:

False. A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to PREPUBSCENT children. That means 5 and 6 year olds. A 13 year old is not a child, she is approaching young adulthood. He did not prey on her, or stalk her, and I am yet to see evidence that he drugged her.

The law sees it differently.

Mrs. M · #**149** (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

The BIG question is weather it was consensual or not? After all, the girl was 13 years old.

Not in the US. A 13 year old CANNOT legally consent to sex with an adult.

Steve · #**150** (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle

So it is perfectly acceptable for one to lie under oath?

No, it's not.

But that's neither here nor there. Polanski confessed. He said, in effect, "I did it".

There's no trial required when someone says that. When someone confesses, the rules of evidence go out the window, because evidence will not be presented; it doesn't need to be...

Quote:

I call them what they are.

And what is that? What do you call someone who fucks a child?

Quote:

Polanski is not a pedophile.

He most certainly is.

He fucked a 13 year old child. Nastassja Kinski was his "girlfriend" when she was 15; still a child. In neither case was what he did acceptable.

Why do you think he shouldn't be punished for raping a child? Clearly, you wish to excuse such things...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode