<link>

Was his an unforgivable crime for which he should still pay criminal charges ?

Or has it been a long enough time and the stigma been damning enough ?

What about the fact that the victim seems to have forgiven and moved on with her life and would rather not have her own spouse and family subjected to the pain and embarrassment of having it all dragged out again ?

From the European perspective, why can you extradite whom ever you choose from here, which you do ! but never ever can we extradite from the USA

The Swiss are born with a purse where the heart should be, btw :)

The "imagery" is a problem, though.

Do we say "If you get a 13 year old girl drunk and drugged...have sex with her....plead it down to a 'misdemeanor'...then flee the country to avoid even a slap-on-the-wrist jail term....you get to live out your life in comfort in France, continue to work, continue to be lauded by your community, and 30 years later, get "off the hook" if SHE isn't that bothered by it now and you've done nothing since?

I don't know....I think it would be different if Polanski has "suffered" in some way (after all, that IS the basis of our penal system in one form or another). And how far do we take it? If he had "accidentially" drowned her in the hot tub...pled it down to "negligent homicide" and then escaped for 30 years....same deal?

Ah so Rep, you want vengence do you ?

I think that Roman Polanski has suffered quite a lot in his life btw

I don't like to discuss it in public because I know that so many folks have an emotional and irrational response to this issue, but I don't think that 'statutory rape' of a 13 year old should be considered a crime.

I am old, but I recall being 13. I was old enough to make my own judgments regarding sexual activity and drug use. I knew many people that age who were having consensual sex and many who chose not to. If it is consensual, with no threat of violence involved, then it is just sex. You may find the thought of it disgusting and abhorrent, but it is not criminal.

I don't know the details of this particular case and I doubt that the whole, unvarnished truth was ever brought out in a courtroom. If the 'victim' in question has no desire to pursue the case, then I don't see the point in the justice system wasting time and money on it. Sounds like a prosecutor trying to enhance their chances of re-election.

The man drugged and raped a 13 year old. If it had happened in a trailer park would you ask that question? Why don't you apply your question to the case of Elizabeth Smart or the more recent events in California. It is the same crime.

Even though she was only 13 and had been drugged, Polanski and his lawyers painted her as Lolita. Talk to any rape victim (or any crime victim) who has gone through the re-victimization by the criminal justice system. If this woman pursues her case she will be painted as a whore and as persecuting one of the great artists of film (Hook?). She will go through hell and he will get probation at worst.

I don't know if there is a point to prosecuting him at this point, but forgive and forget, NO

Thing is, in these case the victim has made it quite clear that she DOESN'T want it all raked up again. She has kids. Having tabloid journalists parked outside her door and media pundits debating whether she was an innocent victim or a teen slut and having alte night comedians pitch in with their commentary would probably be hell for her family life and her kids.

If she had been saying that she has waited all her life for justice -- that would be a very different thing. In this case, re-opening case might do more harm to her than it does to the perpetrator.

The only point now is if it is worth prosecuting him.

Note based on what the actual victim has said there is a lot of difference between the Smart case and the Polanski case. Major differences. There is no evidence she was drugged or he had sex with her against her will. Now since she was 13 years old what he did should still be a crime but it is not close to the Smart case.

From what I see it is you that is degrading the victim in the Polanski case. She has spoken and I respect what she says. It appears you wish to ignore what she says.

I don't see what is gained by prosecuting him at this point.

Do you know anything about the man ? Obviously not. He was a holocaust serviver, Sharon Tate was his wife for two. Have you ever heard him talk obviously not

<link>

Hi white light:

From the European perspective, why can you extradite whom ever you choose from here, which you do ! but never ever can we extradite from the USA

I couldn’t find anything more up to date than that. If we don’t currently have a reciprocal extradition agreement with European countries, we should.

Do you know anything about the man ? Obviously not. He was a holocaust serviver,

******************************­******************************­******************************­**********

Well, being a holocaust survivor and an inspirational speaker doesn't give one a free pass for being a jackass. If it had been non-consensual sex (yes, I do believe there's a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, even when one is 13), and the victim (like the RCC child victims) said she was looking for justice (or vengeance...the line does get murky) and closure, I'd have felt differently about prosecuting him.

I have to admit, I'm more concerned here about the victim's rights and fallout for her and her kids.....

NightSwimmer:

"I don't like to discuss it in public because I know that so many folks have an emotional and irrational response to this issue, but I don't think that 'statutory rape' of a 13 year old should be considered a crime."

I sympathize and understand your reluctance. It is hard (and usually unrewarding) to go up against popular and ingrained emotional and irrational responses. So, kudos on making the effort. That said...

NightSwimmer:

"I am old, but I recall being 13. I was old enough to make my own judgments regarding sexual activity and drug use. I knew many people that age who were having consensual sex and many who chose not to. If it is consensual, with no threat of violence involved, then it is just sex. You may find the thought of it disgusting and abhorrent, but it is not criminal."

I think I'm a little younger than you, but I recall being 13 too. I was very mature for my age in some ways, but I didn't have a well-formed sexual identity by any means. I reckon a lot of folks don't at age 13. I was awfully curious, though. So I think it would have been pretty easy for a 40 year-old to take advantage of my naiveté. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that an encounter between a 13 year-old and a 40 year-old is necessarily harmful. But it certainly can be and I think it's more likely to be harmful than an encounter between two mature adults. Accordingly, I don't think that 40 year-old ought to go around seducing 13 year-olds and that we ought to do something to discourage that.

I guess I'm saying that the judgment of the average 13 year-old isn't that reliable or well informed. We protect minors from themselves in all sorts of ways; so why not in this way too. And if we don't do that via criminal law, then how should we accomplish it?

As for this case in particular, I think that if Mr. Polanski is successfully extradited then he ought to serve a little time, mostly for fleeing the jurisdiction. Justice ought to be served something, eh? Maybe six months in a minimum security facility... And he can pay a hefty fine and do some some community service while on parole for six months, maybe a year. Past that, since the victim has moved on then I think the rest of us might just as well do the same. Surely a deal can be worked out at this point. I'd think that Roman would be as eager as anyone to put all this to rest. And, by the way, I'd recommend the same deal if it was Robbie Jablonsky the janitor living in a trailer park rather than Roman Polanski the famous film maker.

Cheers.

I did not post that as mitigating evidence :) but the poster was being dismissive of the man's work.

Amongst many others, Picasso also had some very young mistresses, who were also his muses, is that good reason to be dismissive of his work ?.

I do not like all of either men's works btw but because they happened to have very young mistresses at times ...........

I am with Night, this is all about a lot of money and some one's, not the girls, spite or revenge. I forget it all now but there was some strange stuff going on around this case at the time ........too long ago now to remember. The girl involved has never wanted him to be prosecuted though, has she ?

:) mmm It is not so much ( as far as I am concerned) that we want anyone from your shores, we never get them any way. but that, the 'people' are not happy that you get who ever you ask for with or without any proof.

Your regime is far more brutal than ours too, and ours is bad enough, so as in for eg the case at the moment of an autistic boy who hacked into the Pentagon, with out malice, he is autistic and a computer whizz :) we would not treat it in the same way as you would, it is very doubtful that he would be taken from his mother here,( almost ) inconceivable in fact, but you want to put him in max security and throw away the key.

We are, by our laws, not able to send any one to a country which still has the death sentence, in cases when that person could receive the death sentence ..... you over rule our laws !!!! Hail Caesar :)

It all looks very different from the other side you know :) xxxx