The author's claim that an argument can be made for willingness if the victim is 13-15 does not wash. It does not matter that she took quaaludes willingly, or took her undies off willingly. Or that she was willing and then changed her mind. The only thing that matters is that 13 year old children are too young, by law to consent to sex. Therefore she was raped. Period. Mr. Polanski is going to be sorry he didn't accept his punishment 30 years ago. We're much more enlightened about these things than we were back then.

I don't see where Saletan says the girl was NOT raped. Really I have read this many times and like so many others I believe you imply Saletan is saying something he is not. Even this comment, 'These aren't 13- or 15-year-olds, for whom an argument about willingness can at least be made' is about how a defense attorney can make an argument about willingness not that he believes she was willing.

With regards to Polanski current case, the DA's office did accept a plea. Are you saying the state shouldn't honor that plea but instead go to trial?

I agree 100% that society is much more enlightened and that no DA today would accept such a plea based on the evidence. The girl was raped and the DA should NOT of accepted a plea of statutory rape but instead charged Polanski for raped. But the DA did accept a plea and I feel the state needs to honor this plea instead of going to trial.

I posted this in another thread but you continue to say the same thing over and over again so I will post it for you again.

Why should the court have to honor the agreement that the DA made with him especially considering that he didn't honor the agreement when he fled before sentencing? His fleeing before sentencing claiming that he did it because he believed the judge was going to impose a longer sentence is not a defense as he didn't even make it to sentencing to find out what the judge was going to do. He broke the agreement when he fled and there is no reason why any judge should have to honor the DA's side of the agreement if they choose not to. If you contract someone to do something for you and you state that you are going to pay them so much and they do not do it, do you still have to pay them? Basically the same concept. He took off without serving the sentence (supposedly promised by the DA) so the plea bargain became null and void.

You have a valid point that since he commited another crime (he fled), the state doesn't have to honor the original deal. Sorry I didn't get back to you on that. Really what you say is logical. Of course there is the issue of the misconduct by the judge, but either way the court has the power to decide and I'm OK with that. But maybe I should of used the word 'accept' instead of 'honor'.

I still say the state should accept the plea deal because taking this case to trial especially based on the victims current comments isn't a useful state expense. As I have posted I don't care what the court decides (i.e. give him 10 years or 10 days, I really don't care one way or the other).

This case has raised awareness of the crime of child rape and that is good for society.

What Saletan does write is this: "It's entirely legitimate and relevant to cite evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing," as Polanski's probation officers did."

No, it isn't. She was 13. She's not old enough to give her consent. That's the point the initial poster made, not whether Saletan was arguing about whether she was raped.

Saletan also said:

It's also legitimate and relevant to cite evidence that the victim was unwilling, as her grand jury testimony did. The same goes for the fact that he gave her a Quaalude, that he took one himself, and that she saw the one he gave her and took it anyway, knowing what it was because she had taken one before. All these details are relevant.

Why did you decide to leave this part out? Note that Saletan says 'to cite evidence' that doesn't mean he AGREES the viction was willing but only that it is legit for a defense attorney to 'cite evidence'.

All I see Saletan doing is discussing how society determine the criteria of when a teen is old enough to grant consent but Saletan can defend himself. Anyhow if not 13 what is the criteria?

I left it out because the girl's actions are absolutely immaterial. She's not old enough to be willfully and knowingly doing anything regarding sex and taking drugs. She's a child. You keep asking when she isn't a child anymore. I think various states have various answers about this, but I think all of them are pretty clear about one thing: It's not 13.

It is clear that you are unable to get off of the Polanski case. The mistake Saletan made which someone intelligently top posted about above is that the Polanski case was a very poor case for Saletan to use as the back drop for the much larger points he was making.

Instead he would of use the resent cases of the female teachers and their minor male students to discuss the issue of consent by a minor, willfullness and other topics related to sex and minors.

So yes, it is clear that Polanski raped, and that a 13 year old cannot grant consent etc...... and it is clear that most people feel this is the what Saletan was discussing and I don't thing that was his intent.

The age of consent is what the law says the age of consent is. It wasn't 13. It isn't 13. It will never be 13. 13 year olds are children. Get to know one.

He broke the law. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

"In addition to the rape charges, Polanski also was booked on suspicion of sodomy, child molestation and furnishing dangerous drugs to a minor. He was released on $2,500 bond pending his arraignment March 18." --- LOS ANGELES, March 12, 1977

I don't get it. So you are a supporter of furnishing minors with drugs and alchohol? If you get a woman or man or child drunk enough it's ok to stick your dick up their asshole? Or is it ONLY GIRLS that you are allowed to stick a dick into? So, if a priest gets a 13 year old boy loaded on wine, it's ok to assfuck him? The Catholic church will be glad to hear it. NAMBLA will be glad to hear it.

Is that really what you're saying. Yes. Clearly it is. How Saletan, and you, (both likely hebephiles) have decided that her taking a quaalude signals consent is mind boggling. Especially considering that furnishing drugs to a minor was one of the original charges that he pled down from.

I hope next time your best bud gives you a few too many beers that he takes your consent for what it is and tears your asshole open.

derwood:

The age of consent is what the law says the age of consent is. It wasn't 13. It isn't 13. It will never be 13. 13 year olds are children. Get to know one.

NO jazz, DON'T get to know any 13 year olds. Stay far far away from 13 year olds. Please.