It's remarkable to me how many of you see this as a black and white issue, when in fact it is anything but.

1. First, the law is often an ass—but nowhere more so than in the case of statutory rape legislation. The US is one of the few remaining countries with such laws, because virtually all of the rest of the world agrees that women reach sexual maturity at different ages—not all at an age (16) predetermined by legislators. Ponder for a moment the idiocy of a law that states a girl below the age of 16 is deemed unable to consent to sex, and that therefore every act of sex she engages in must be without her consent, and therefore rape. In an age when teenagers are maturing earlier and earlier, it is truly absurd for the law to deem each sexual act in which they engage a case of "rape".

I don't think I'm the only one on this board who has met girls younger than 16 who were fully mature and capable of not just consenting to sex, but actually actively seducing their opposite number.

2. Second, having said all of that, there is no one who was seriously close to this affair who would deny that the so-called "victim" was fully sexually mature at the time, had engaged in sex previously, and was fully capable of consenting to the sex she had. As such, the statutory rape charge made no sense in her case. The law was simply an ass. Whether or not she consented to sex with Polanski, should have been a question of fact—which unfortunately it never was (and couldn't be) because of your statutory rape laws.

3. Polanksi had a deal with the DA, that he would spend 90 days in prison (which he did) and that any sentencing would take those 90 days into account and that he would do no further time. This was a deal. Unfortunately Polanski drew a judge who was a well-known a vain and corrupt "star-ficker". (He's now dead.) Prior to his court date, Polanski's lawyers got wind of the fact that this judge intended to "reneg" on the deal, and "throw the book" at Polanski because he wanted to make an example of him for reasons that are as perverse as they are well documented.

Under the circumstances Polanski decided to flee the country. This of course raises the question of whether it was reasonable to flee under these circumstances, or whether he should have "faced the music".

From Polanski's perspective, (a) the statutory rape law was was absurd; (b) the girl was sexually mature and was foisted on Polanski by her mother—so at the very least whether or not this was rape should have been a question of fact—which it never was; (c) he drew a corrupt judge who would ignore the plea bargain, and try to make an example of Polanski JUST BECAUSE he craved the media attention.

You picture yourself in a foreign country before a Kangaroo Court under these circumstances, and maybe you would agree that fleeing was Polanski's best option.

4. Polanski has always been a ladies man. But as all of his old flames are quick to point out, he is very much a "lover or women"—not a hater. Always has been. He is not someone who is in any way inclined to be abusive even in the slightest—and completely leaving aside what might have transpired between him and the so-called victim that day—the simple fact is she has long ago let the matter drop, and has begged the DA to let it drop. There is no victim here, and there is much available evidence about the extent to which her testimony early on was coerced, cajoled and manipulated.

5. I won't even begin to comment on the collusion between the US law enforcement officials and the IRS—who are pushing the Swiss on the subject of banking secrecy, and the sorry manner in which this recent re-arrest came about. Much has been written on this.

6. From where I sit (and I do know Polanski—not well, but well enough to have carefully listened to his side of this story, and the story of his wife of almost 25 years)—and looked at in the round— this continuing campaign against Polanski from the LA DA's office is a complete travesty of justice. (The law at issue was bad. The facts very dodgy. There is no victim. The judge was corrupt and willing to ignore the plea deal. etc)

Of course the DA has a hard-on and wants to make a career—and nothing makes a better story (and a career faster) than one beginning with the words "child rape"—particularly one in which the players are as notorious as this. Ponder for a moment though on the millions LA has spent on this over the years, then ask yourself if there might not have been better uses for these funds. Put yourself in Polanski's shoes, and ask yourself whether fleeing the country when he did wasn't the best thing he could have done.

But most importantly try to balance the human elements of this story with the legal ones—and this whole thing quickly reduces to a bad farce.

I know there are a lot of haters out there, and that you all have your minds made up about Polanksi. There are no shades of grey—just black and white. My guess is most of you have done things in your lives at some point that have caused more hurt, and were on some larger scale of values more clearly morally wrong than what transpired that day in LA so many years ago. I know I have. And I'm not proud of that.

It's a rainy day overlooking the surf in Carmel, and I have gone on at greater length than I ordinarily would. I don't expect I'll change many of your minds with this. But I feel I almost owe it to Polanski to try to counter some of the uninformed views on this little forum.

It's black and white to anyone with morals Dottore.

That's how far gone you are....you see reason where there is none. You find justification where there can be none.

By the way, thanks for not disappointing us. We knew you'd be here to defend the child molester.

If it's one thing that I have learned in life, it's that moral issues are seldom black and white.

But of course you are seldom burdened by nuanced thought.

Dottore, we can all agree that our justice system has little to do with justice. In fact, it's right about as often and for the same reasons as a broken clock. But that's just all the more reason an adult, especially a well-traveled one like Polanski, should have known to not engage in such behavior with a young lady whose age was even remotely in doubt. I certainly won't defend the judge or DA in this case, and I might have also fled, were I Polanski. But I know I'd have not done what he did to get myself into trouble in the first place.

Debate and decry the law and culture in the US all you want. But messing with borderline or blatantly underage ladies is something any rational man should know not to do. Even if I leaned that way in my own country, I'd be extra careful when choosing partners in foreign countries. If Polanski is getting a raw deal, it's still a result of his own piss poor judgment.

Men of action always see in black and white.

And if "nuanced thought" entails defending obviously guilty pedophiles, it is a trait i am glad to be devoid of.

Cannot believe that anyone could come up with rational like that!

First off he gave the girl (and she was a girl, not a woman) a qaalude to sedate her, then booze to loosen her up, then had sex with her. Some say not in the vagina but elsewhere and thats even worse considering her age.

Second the law is the law. He had sex with a drugged and drunk GIRL who was under age. He knew this was illegal, period! He got caught, period! He got scared and ran, period!

He needs to return to the US and serve his time, plus the time that ANYONE would serve for running from the law for all these years.

How would you like this to happen to your daughter? Bet your outlook might be a bit different in this case!

Rick called it in the 3rd post.

There is no justification for banging 13 year old girls. NONE.

I am a total man whore and even i know that.

I was afraid we'd have to get into qualifications - lol.

I guess my view is that piss poor judgement alone (in the absence of any victim or any harm—and I really believe there is no victim or any harm in this case) should not net Polanksi a lengthy jail term.

And I certainly don't think that Polanski should do any more time, just because of some careerist DA who smells a promotion.

Maybe that's where we differ.

If the girl was 17, or maybe even 16...and he didn't know....it's one thing.

This dude KNOWINGLY drugged a 13yo girl and fked her in the azz. There is no remotely feasible justification for that. It's sick. Flat out sick.

Roman Polanski is a pedophile.

I don't think I mentioned an ambitious DA as justification for jailing Polanski.

Excuse me? NO VICTIM? She changed her mind a long time later, not when he was caught!

How about you bend over as a 13 year old kid and get raped in the rear by a grown man. Then tell us how there is no victim...

We differ in that you are on another planet with regards to human rights and punishment.

Just for the sake of argument:

She is fully sexually mature, with a considerable sexual history. Her mother pushes her onto Polanski (the famous director) in order to advance her career. Polanski doesn't know how old she is. Just that she's hot and young and willing. They drink champagne during their photo shoot and have a couple of 'ludes. One thing leads to another.

Mother finds out. Senses an even better opportunity for 15 minutes of fame and talks to the cops, who talk to the girl and brow beat her into testimony that she regrets today.

Yes she was 13. So what? She certainly didn't look it or act it.

And don't get on your high horse about the orifice. You're the self-confessed back door man on this forum, are you not?

Do you realize he admits to his unlawful conduct with a minor? As in - defending what he did or saying "its a stupid law" is unnecessary because he knows what he did was wrong. The issue was that he fled because he thought he would have to serve more time behind bars. Have you read all of the articles published? And for the record, there is no need to discuss "morals" when there is a blatant law broken and the defendant admits guilt.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You offer THIS as a legal defense? These are not legal defenses for pedophilia amigo. He might as well say the devil made him do it.

So how many 13 yo's have you banged Dottore?

Did you even read what I wrote?

Of course he knows he broke the law. He spent 90 days in jail for it. And only fled when it was clear the judge wanted to ignore the plea-deal and do some grand-standing.

I can easily imagine doing the same thing in some third-world country. There is nothing inherently noble or honorable about submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of a corrupt court—and most of you seem to be suggesting that there is something noble and honorable about this. That he should have stayed to do the time.

That's what I take issue with.

Just a couple. I was 15 at the time.

It is a judge's right to reject ANY plea bargian he doesn't think serves justice.

Why?

In case some SCUMBAG rapes a 13yo girl and the DA offers him a deal that results in 3 months of jail time.

Judges can vacate plea bargains for EXACTLY these sorts of cases to begin with.

He raped a 13yo, he should be in prison for the rest of his days.

I have a 13-year-old niece. She "looks and acts" like a 13-year-old.... much like the body language you see in this contact sheet (group of images) photo.
That's a kid; I don't care what you call it now, Samantha Geimer was a KID!http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1264469283.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1264469294.jpg

Does anyone see anything in these images that says, Woman?

I'll say it one last time. I'm suggesting the law is rubbish.

When someone is obviously sexually mature and sexually experienced (and arguably even a bit of a tart with a sexual history)—well in that case it seems to me the issue of whether or not she was raped should be determined by reference to the facts (ie; whether or not she consented to the act), and not by reference to an arbitrary age.

Do you get that rather simple point?