<p>It is not just the French cultural differences, it is also the kind of American TV shows broadcast in other countries, that gives an eye inside the USA. One only has to watch Nancy Grace to understand, from the point of view of an outsider, why. By gosh, I have never seen someone so vengeful and destructive. She pick and choose who is going to be destroyed, until they are. She is disrespecful to her guests, whom for the most part hold degrees. These shows are tought to be reflective of how it is done in the US. Pretty scary.</p>
<p>Just a few clarifications from last night’s news: In fact Mr. Polanski was cared for by a series of “Roman Catholics” (not ansered whether it was the Church or private citizens) during the Nazi era. A Bar or Bat Mitzvah does NOT make you an adult. It makes you responsible for your actions. Your parents are no longer responsible (in theory) for miscreant or admirable behavior.</p>
<p>Our laws do not get made by what the perp might think is OK. It does not matter what he thinks or thought at the time. And ignorance is no excuse.</p>
<p>Every time I hear the radio or read the paper I get more angry about this. The NY Times had a piece about it two days ago written by the ?? director of Polanski’s GHOST, and he was going on and on about what a great guy Polanski was, and how he has young kids, and they NEED him at home, etc. WHAT?? How he’s such a talented whatever he is (what difference that makes is lost on me. If he were the fellow who mows my lawn I don’t think people would give him a pass on RAPE). Then the radio quotes whoever Nicholson’s lady of the house was at that time, and she said that the girl could have been 25 years old!! If Polanski had been doing photo shoots with this girl he must have known her age, right? 25? It makes NO sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate this platitude.</p>
<p>People love to say “ignorance is no excuse” when they don’t like the guy who is currently defending himself. There are tens of thousands of laws across this country, some centuries old and senseless, that you’re not aware of. Perhaps one day you’ll be fined $100 for breaking one of them. You’ll say, “How was I supposed to know it’s illegal in Ogden, Utah, to cross the street from east to west while wearing a fedora?” And the judge will say, “Ignorance is no excuse.”</p>
<p>Lest you think my example is petty, because it’s so much less serious than rape, then let’s suppose instead that you’re a Christian in a Muslim country with Sharia law, and you offer your grieving neighbor a Bible for inspiration. The next day you’re arrested for proselytizing against Islam. Don’t think you should be sentenced to death because you had no idea that telling someone to read the Bible was considered such an egregious offense? Too bad for you. Ignorance is no excuse.</p>
<p>I don’t seriously think that Roman Polanski was unaware of the girl’s age or the fact that his conduct was illegal. But ignorance is a very valid excuse when you are the one about to be punished beyond what you think is fair for your ignorance, and until you’re in such a position, I would suggest not being so quick to use “ignorance is no excuse” as part of your condemnation.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the sudden arrest, and I don’t think anyone knows the motivation behind it. As for knowing the age of his victim, how would he knows?</p>
<p>So, when a lawyer acquaintance of ours pulled a statute, still on the books in California, from the 1850s about women and property rights of a husband (this was a divorce case) the judge ruled quite quickly.</p>
<p>He ruled for the woman and fined our acquaintance $50,000 for pulling a stunt. </p>
<p>Bringing the Muslim/Western world divide to this subject just isn’t appropriate. We, the United States and Europe share the same ethics on this subject. (And yes, the Muslim culture has come to Europe but really hadn’t had any influence at that point.)…Thirteen is a child.</p>
<p>BTY I found out that back then in California, the age of consent was 14 years old.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that prove? That judges are allowed to ignore a law if they think it’s too old? Or if they disagree with it? Why is it still a law if it no longer applies? Do you suppose that judge knew about the law before it was dredged up by your acquaintance’s lawyer? And if a judge who has spent years studying the law isn’t aware of it, then how could the average citizen be aware of it? Which is my point. There are many, many laws, and you probably break one of them every day. So do I. Our ignorance of those laws is a very valid excuse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s appropriate because it’s a clear and obvious example of how being ignorant of the law is a valid excuse, from a moral perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this were true, then he would have been arrested in France sometime in the last thirty years. Sex is, perhaps above all others, an area where the dominant European and American cultures most definitely do not see eye-to-eye.</p>
<p>What it “proves” is that they are laws on the books that have been superceded by new laws. The our legislators don’t have the time, or financial resources to go back and erase all sorts of old laws on the books. Was this proves was that it was insulting to the judge’s intelligence and the waste of the court’s time to debate an issue, that a woman wasn’t fit to own any property of her own. And therefore in a “divorce” all property was ceded to the man.</p>
<p>What else this proved, since it was a published decision (ergo importent) that you DON’T waste the court’s time bringing up antiquated laws.</p>
<p>I agree with the judge in that case, by the way. I would have loved to see the look on the smartypants lawyer’s face when he was hit with the $50,000 fine.</p>
<p>But this argument could go on forever. Legislators don’t have time to clean up the law books? What’s their job then? Just to pass new laws willy-nilly, without regard to previous ones? How stupid. That’s a big part of our country’s problem, isn’t it?</p>
<p>And, again, it just goes to prove my point. If those who make the laws can’t keep them straight, and those who enforce the laws can’t keep them straight, then what hope is there for the average citizen? God help you if some overzealous prosecutor develops a personal vendetta against you. There’s a law for everything—sometimes several laws, sometimes conflicting—and most of us are breaking one or more of them every day, whether we know it or not.</p>
<p>And each states has different laws on top of that. And whoever say that we brake the law on a daily basis is right. There are so many of them and they are set up in a way that if something bad happen, then, they will enforce a specific law. If nothing bad happen, then you are off the hock, for the time being.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, what got Polanski arrested was this:</p>
<p>In June, his lawyers were trying to get a judge to dismiss the case against him (so that he could visit or work in the United States some time). One of the arguments they made was that the prosecutors hadn’t made any effort to arrest him in decades. That got picked up in the press, and the applicable DA assigned someone to make an effort to arrest him. They used the internet to try to find out when he might leave France, and saw that he was going to be honored at a Swiss film festival. They proceeded to go through channels to make an arrest request to the Swiss government. The Swiss, which have any number of serious disputes with the U.S. over bank secrecy and Switzerland’s own harboring of financial-crime fugitives, clearly decided that the moment was right for some headline-grabbing international co-operation. </p>
<p>On a related topic, I watched Chinatown again a couple of months ago. What an unbelievably brilliant movie! It’s the career peak of everyone associated with it – Polanski, Nicholson, Dunaway, Robert Townes, Robert Evans, even John Huston (as an actor). And of course, one of its plot elements is a possible affair between a middle-aged man and a mysterious teenage girl.</p>
<p>Ah! Thanks for the info. I kind of knew this was not about a sexual offence that happen years ago. So it is politics afterall.</p>
<p>13 does not equal 14 and you cannot give consent when drugged so your point is moot. It was a crime then and still is.</p>
<p>" 13 does not equal 14 and you cannot give consent when drugged so your point is moot. It was a crime then and still is. "</p>
<p>and why anyone here who is a parent is willing to support THIS rapist , pedophile , child predator is baffling…this is not about sematics or state to state law.</p>
<p>Polanski is a rapist , even if his victim and other Hollywood supporters say otherwise/
He is no better than Philip Garrido</p>
<p>I’ve read that the age of consent in California in 1977 was 18 as of the early 1900s - I’m not sure if that is accurate, though. But there’s no doubt he knew the age of the girl at the time - he testified to the fact that he did. Also, I misquoted Polanski earlier. What he actually said was “Normal love isn’t interesting. I assure you that it’s incredibly boring.”</p>
<p>It is a crime. Polansky was detained, released, sued and paid. Then the judge changed his mind. However, because he was not American, the next logical step would have been deportation, and a ban to reenter the US. Years later, for political reasons, he is being arrested, and the French are made to look bad. Don’t you think the French know of the real reasons behind his arrest?<br>
Lately, the US is doing the same for its citizens commiting crimes abroad. The 2 journalists who commited a very serious crime by crossing the border. Maybe it seems insignifiant for us, but over there, it is a serious crime. The 3 hickers arrested in the MEeast, crossing the border. More recently, the guy arrested in Japan for trying to steal his children, government officials are presently over there, negociating.</p>
<p>Age of consent appears to have been 18 at the time (per Cornell Law’s website from the link in the article below) , not 16 or 14 as numerous sources are suggesting. This article is interesting and gives more info about the legal aspects of the case. Apparently in a case like this one which involved unethical ex parte communication on the part of the judge, it would be highly unusual for a case to be dismissed and more typical for a new judge to be assigned for the sentencing. That would be a moot point now, since the judge on the case is now deceased. </p>
<p>[The</a> Explainer’s Roman Polanski roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/]The”>The Explainer's Roman Polanski roundup.)</p>
<p>Who is saying that Polanski didn’t commit a crime? I didn’t hear anyone say that. Just because I and a couple of others aren’t marching around with torches and pitchforks doesn’t mean we think he’s a swell bloke. I’m trying to use this as an occasion to have a debate about crime, punishment, culture, etc. If all you want is to scream “off with his head,” well, I’m sorry to bore you with my attempts to be thought-provoking.</p>