Roman Polanski shoot with a screwmount Leica

Jamie123 said:
Whether or not the victim got over the crime is rather irrelevant when it comes to passing moral judment on what he did. And if regretting the crime is enough to get absolved for one's acts then I guess Adolf Eichmann didn't get a fair trial.

Obviously he never used the word "slut" (as I said, I paraphrased) but you can look up interviews on youtube where he defends himself by saying that she was sexually active, that she was a "young woman" and that it was consensual. Sorry, but that basically boils down to calling her a slut who wanted it. And again, even if that had been the case it would've still been his responsibility to say no, given the fact that he was 30 years her senior.

Look, it is obvious that a rape victim will suffer from being publically stigmatized as a rape victim and carrying that label for the rest of her life. That's basically the reason why many rapes go unreported.
To use a hacky phrase, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the media bears some responsibility for her grief doesn't mean Polanski is any less to blame. On the contrary. It all started with his actions, which he did fully knowing that it was wrong, so it can be argued that even the pain she suffered from the media attention is his fault.

I don't know why you would assume that I have no problem with the media, paparazzi or misconduct in the justice system. But those are separate issues and they have no mitigating effects whatsoever on the crime that preceded them. All I'm saying is that I reserve the right to pass moral judgement on him for what he did and what he admitted to.

EDIT: Btw, I should add that I really do not feel very strongly about the whole thing and it doesn't keep me up at night. I'm just making a point that sometimes it's ok to pass judgement.
Click to expand...

... the courts it would seem, Swiss in this instance, share my less simplistic moral view of the world when they looked at the evidence ... so yes, sometimes it's ok to pass judgement.
 
ferider said:
. . . As you well know, there is also Federal Law, making it "criminal to knowingly engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you".

As a side note, this thread doesn't really do RFF a favor. . .
Click to expand...
Dear Roland,

First para: That's intriguing. I knew that some states had close-in-age laws but I'd no idea there was a federal law. Would you be kind enough to provide a reference? Such knowledge sometimes comes in handy when writing fiction. I've just finished writing a book of short stories called Sex, Death and Motorcycles. You don't necessarily get all three in all fourteen stories, but at least one appears in every story.

Second para: How does it it really not do RFF a favour? It's attracted a wide range of viewpoints from a wide range of people, who might not bother with the site if we were allowed only to speculate on exactly which year a particular Leica lens was manufactured.

Cheers,

R.
 
I agree with Roger. That a debate on such a subject and with strongly held views on more than one side can reach 8 pages without descending into name calling and worse is a tribute to the forum and its members. That humour and good some natured banter has leavened the serious level of debate is also welcome and does RFF a favour.
 
I think the legal age thing is sort of beside the point, I think we know well enough about psychology that people in their early teens generally do not act rationally concerning themselves or others. Polanski's actions were abusive on several levels, and I don't really think that is disputable. I can't really think of any reasonable justification for his actions - if she wanted to jump on him, then he wouldn't have needed to get her drunk and doped up first.

But, let's face it, if he weren't famous nobody would care at this point. As Geimer suggested, a lot of people basically latched onto the case to promote themselves because it was high profile and easy to exploit. So many decades on and it's really sort of silly now, especially considering that the victim seemingly feels that justice has been adequately served.
 
ferider said:
Hi Roger,

I'm no lawyer, so wikipedia has to do :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Federal_laws

And thanks Fred, for the move of this thread to Off Topic.

Roland.
Click to expand...
Dear Roland,

Ah, thank you. I have to admit that I had looked at this when I was researching one of the short stories, but clearly I did not read it closely enough (federal law wasn't what I was looking for). The last time I did any serious research on this was in 1973, when I was considering doing a master's degree in legal history on the relative ease throughout the ages and in most societies of getting married versus the relative difficulty of getting divorced. Quite often, the former has been ridiculously easy -- which was where age of consent came in to it -- and the latter has been ridiculously difficult. When I checked again recently (but less carefully) I was surprised at the changes in US law in the last 40 years.

Cheers,

R.
 
tunalegs said:
I think the legal age thing is sort of beside the point, I think we know well enough about psychology that people in their early teens generally do not act rationally concerning themselves or others. Polanski's actions were abusive on several levels, and I don't really think that is disputable. I can't really think of any reasonable justification for his actions - if she wanted to jump on him, then he wouldn't have needed to get her drunk and doped up first.

But, let's face it, if he weren't famous nobody would care at this point. As Geimer suggested, a lot of people basically latched onto the case to promote themselves because it was high profile and easy to exploit. So many decades on and it's really sort of silly now, especially considering that the victim seemingly feels that justice has been adequately served.
Click to expand...
Age of consent, no matter where you set it, is really nothing to do with psychology. It's a "one size fits all" law. I have known a number of schoolchildren whose judgement and intelligence I would trust more than I would trust more than the judgement and intelligence of most of their teachers. That's not to say I'd be at all comfortable with anyone trying to get them in to bed: just that "acting rationally" is not necessarily related to chronological age.

Otherwise, I agree completely that Polanski behaved very badly indeed; that he deserved to be punished for it; and that Geimer's analysis is far more rational than the hysteria that has so often surrounded the case.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Roland,

First para: That's intriguing. I knew that some states had close-in-age laws but I'd no idea there was a federal law. Would you be kind enough to provide a reference? Such knowledge sometimes comes in handy when writing fiction. I've just finished writing a book of short stories called Sex, Death and Motorcycles. You don't necessarily get all three in all fourteen stories, but at least one appears in every story.

Second para: How does it it really not do RFF a favour? It's attracted a wide range of viewpoints from a wide range of people, who might not bother with the site if we were allowed only to speculate on exactly which year a particular Leica lens was manufactured.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

... my thoughts almost exactly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom