<p>This is no different than saying, “It’s illegal because it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because it’s illegal.” For a grown man to have sex with a 13-year-old is wrong, but the statement I’ve quoted is no kind of logical proof of that.</p>
<p>I think the word rape is overused in America these days, although in Polanski’s case, what he did deserves punishment. There is a wide range of activities—consensual, non-consensual, and where consent is hard to define or prove—that automatically get labeled as rape, and then people start saying “rape is rape,” as though consensual sex between, say, a 23-year-old and a consenting 16-year-old is the same as a man forcing himself upon a victim who is pushing him away and saying no. Perhaps neither is “right,” but if you can’t see a difference, then you’re just willfully refusing to think discerningly.</p>
<p>Now, Polanski drugged a girl and had sex with her. In my view that’s a very, very small step away from forcible, violent rape. The victim’s age hardly enters into it. Would it have been better somehow if he had drugged and had sex with a 30-year-old woman? The guy committed what I believe any reasonable person would consider a crime, and he deserves to be punished as much as anyone else who does such a thing.</p>
<p>As for the victim, her desire to have the case dropped should not come to bear because, as someone else noted above, such a precedent would encourage perpetrators to pressure or pay off their victims to keep them quiet. But if she chooses not to testify, and he gets off as a result, there’s not much anyone can do about that.</p>
<p>I believe that what you are saying is that no man could fail to notice that a 13-year-old is underage. In other words, if he didn’t know exactly how old she was, but it should have been obvious that she wasn’t old enough to consent, that should be enough to convict him. Is that correct? (I’m not arguing, just trying to clarify what you meant.)</p>
<p>She not only said we should be careful what we accuse him of, she also stated that in other cultures it is okay to have sex with a 13 yr old. I cannot believe more people aren’t upset about what she said.</p>
Yes. That is correct. He should make sure that whomever he is having sex with is of legal age. Something more people should stress to their sons. It’s not like she was 17 1/2.</p>
<p>Yeah, and some people said that Michael Vick shouldn’t have gone to prison for dogfighting, because that, too, is part of some mysterious “culture”. Where are these cultures that I keep hearing condone abhorrent practices?</p>
<p>I wonder if someone accused of statutory rape has ever produced expert witnesses in the study of age and physical features, in an effort to prove that a reasonable person would have thought the other party was of legal age. Nobody “cards” their dates, and it’s unreasonable to think that they would.</p>
<p>But anyway, considering that the various people involved in the Polanski case knew one another, it’s highly unlikely he didn’t know the girl’s age. It’s hard to imagine any scenario other than the obvious. He decided that his horny impulses were more important than her dignity. And the drugging really seals the case.</p>
<p>I really think that the victim’s opinion is rather irrelevant – we shouldn’t sentence based on how the victim feels. (What if the victim wants his fingernails pulled out one by one?)</p>
<p>The Smoking Gun has the original testimony of this young lady. It was rape, he fled the country, he deserves jail time. Couldn’t give a darn that he’s a great artiste or that he had a horrible life (Nazis, Sharon Tate murder).</p>
<p>BTW, did you all know this took place at Jack Nicholson’s house, and that Angelica Huston saw the young woman in the house after the rape took place?</p>
<p>As I understand it, Polanski’s attorneys agreed to a deal with the prosecution: he would plead guilty and would spend 90 days in a psychiatric prison, undergoing evaluation. Polanski did serve time in this facility, and was discharged. When Polanski got out, he and his attorneys realized the deal they struck would be nixed. Even the prosecution thought the the judge in the case behaved, at the very least, questionably.</p>
<p>As to the girl’s mother, a sometime model: she introduced Polanski to her daughter because the girl – who was tall and did look a lot older than 13 – wanted also to go into modeling. Polanski took some poloroid shots of her with the mother present, and then suggested another session. I don’t know whose idea it was for the girl to go to that second session alone. Afterwards, the mother saw some topless pictures Polanski took at that second session, in the hot tub, and questioned her daughter. That’s when the girl broke down, cried, and told her mother what happened. </p>
<p>I’m not minimizing Polanski’s crime or excusing his flight. I just think we should be aware of the story if we’re making a judgement about it.</p>
<p>HE PLIED HER WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUGS TO MAKE HER LESS ABLE TO DEFEND HERSELF. If he wanted to have consensual sex with her, even if he thought she was over 18 (which I can’t believe he actually thought, based on the circumstance of her mother bringing her to the photo shoot and the contact he must have had with her mother) then he would not have attempted to render her less able to defend herself.</p>
<p>I think we’re being generous allowing Polanski the possibility of NOT realizing the girl’s age. I think he knew quite well she was 13 and, yes, I think he gave her quaaludes and champagne to limit her resistance.</p>
<p>As the mother of a child who was a professional actress let me further add my two cents: At NO TIME when your child is under 18 is the child allowed to be alone without guardian on set or at a shoot. Auditions, in audition houses or in casting offices, will occasionally have girls who drive come without a parent or guardian. But, note please, these are places of professional auditions. Did the mother probably know what was happening? Possibly and probably. Should she have been investigated for child neglect? Yes. </p>
<p>But quaaludes? Champagne? Let me tell you that my daughter filmed a few commercials at 17/18. Sound had to run a wire down her shirt. I had to do it. She got good enough so that she could do it. If the sound guy can’t touch a 17 year old’s shirt…how inappropiate are drugs. </p>
<p>And, for all those wondering: I fought my daughter for YEARS before I finally consented to let her act. She was “discovered” and signed with a legit agency. I hated every minute. And now she’s happily given up acting. :)!!!</p>
<p>I am furious, as well. I happened to catch a few minutes of the view today and couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Melissa Gilbert may as well have been dressed in her prairie clothes, her attitude was so antiquated. And Whoopi?!! It’s as if feminism has gone full circle and we are back at the oppression of woman as it was decades ago. I saw a bit of an interview with Polanski that was done after the rape incident and he said that he did it because, well, he didn’t think it would hurt anyone. Wow. Woman everywhere should be e-mailing The View to express our deep disappointment that they missed an opportunity to advocate for woman and children and, instead, use it to reinforce the rampant exploitation of girls worldwide.</p>
<p>I cant believe what Whopi said. This man was CONVICTED. Not just accused. It makes me sick. And the idea that a DA agreed to a plea bargain of 90 days – no wonder it made the judge sick.</p>