Swiss Harbor Child Rapist

[Akhlut]

A crime isn't just about the victim, it's about upholding society as a whole. He raped a child, he needs to repay society for his crime. I'm glad his victim has moved on with her life, but that doesn't mean this piece of shit gets to flout the law.

The child in question doesn't want it prosecuted anymore and typically that is good enough to drop a case. The only reason this hasn't been dropped is that the case is infamous. Let's face it, Polanski is never going to be extradited to the US for trial. He's elderly at this point and can easily spend the rest of his life in France, living comfortably.

Polanski doesn't need to come to the US for his trial; he was already tried and he plead guilty then ran out when he was about to be sentenced. It wouldn't be good precedent for the US to go ahead and let people who have already been found guilty, either through their own plea or through a solid conviction, to be let loose if they can just keep on the road long enough.

[Master of Ossus]

Good luck prosecuting someone for domestic violence, then.

Context, mate. Most domestically abusive people actually have a chance of being caught. Roman Polanski has very little, so all this does is abuse the victim further.

Not if the French enough, obviously. And I think you're ignoring the fact that he's already been tried. The only issue is whether he has to serve his sentence or not. Also, there's a non-zero opportunity cost. The victim claims she wants it dropped, but would it really be less harmful to her to drop the case and let him win Oscars and lifetime achievement awards in Los Angeles? That would catch just as much publicity as this.

[Gil Hamilton]

Polanski doesn't need to come to the US for his trial; he was already tried and he plead guilty then ran out when he was about to be sentenced. It wouldn't be good precedent for the US to go ahead and let people who have already been found guilty, either through their own plea or through a solid conviction, to be let loose if they can just keep on the road long enough.

That happens frequently enough anyway, it's just in this case, the criminal is famous. Do you predict more people doing what Roman Polanski did if they stop bothering? If they have the means and the inclination, they'll do it anyway, but few people have the means Polanski did.

Not if the French enough, obviously. And I think you're ignoring the fact that he's already been tried. The only issue is whether he has to serve his sentence or not. Also, there's a non-zero opportunity cost. The victim claims she wants it dropped, but would it really be less harmful to her to drop the case and let him win Oscars and lifetime achievement awards in Los Angeles? That would catch just as much publicity as this.

Yes, it would cause her less harm, because she'd no longer be at the center of it. The thing that it would harm is the egos of people who are sore that Polanski got away with it, people who don't at all care about the victim or how the case affects her.

The guy is guilty as hell and should serve his sentence, but the reality is he's not going to. They already mail him his awards (he has won Academy awards since the crime) and he can accept them by teleconference from France if he has to. So why not respect the wishes of the victim? It doesn't strike me as worth dragging someone through the mud over and over again because you've got a grudge.

[Samuel]

Because it sends a message to future child rapists that they can get away with their crimes and not have to go to prison? The point of punishment is to discourage people from doing a certain activity and if you don't punish them, it stops working.

[General Zod]

Because it sends a message to future child rapists that they can get away with their crimes and not have to go to prison? The point of punishment is to discourage people from doing a certain activity and if you don't punish them, it stops working.

I don't think prison is as effective a deterrent as you seem to think it is.

[CaptainChewbacca]

There's also the problem of him needing to be prosecuted for fleeing before his sentence was carried out. That's another crime people seem to forget he's committed.

What would that actual crime be? Is 'Escaping Custody' a crime? I'm afraid I don't know the legal term.

[Gil Hamilton]

Because it sends a message to future child rapists that they can get away with their crimes and not have to go to prison? The point of punishment is to discourage people from doing a certain activity and if you don't punish them, it stops working.

You really think that paedophiles are looking to Roman Polanski and thinking that they can get away with what they are doing, or that they are thinking about prison as a deterrent at all? We could roast Roman Polanski on a spit on Larry King Live and it probably wouldn't significantly affect the rate of sexual abuse against children because these guys AREN'T rational. Statistically speaking, most sexual abuse by adults against children is done by the child's relatives. In order for this (or anything) to be a deterrent, the actors must be rational and thinking about the consequences of their actions. Does that sound like someone who'd abuse their own daughter or niece? Sex offenders are something like six times more likely to have serious mental illness than the general population and I don't even know the statistic specifically related to sex offenses against children. Point is, deterrence only works on the rational and the cats you are trying to warn not to try anything aren't rational.

[General Zod]

There's also the problem of him needing to be prosecuted for fleeing before his sentence was carried out. That's another crime people seem to forget he's committed.

What would that actual crime be? Is 'Escaping Custody' a crime? I'm afraid I don't know the legal term.

The word you're looking for is 'absconding'. Contempt of court also comes to mind.

[Gil Hamilton]

Anyway, to MoO, I found this article that Samantha Geimer wrote when Polanski won the Academy Award for "The Pianist" that would seem to answer your question about the harm inflicted by letting Polanski accept awards in LA.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23 ... e-geimer23

Judge the Movie, Not the Man
Roman Polanski's 25-year-old crimes should not damage his chances for an Oscar, his victim says

February 23, 2003|Samantha Geimer

I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.

It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy. Those may sound like kindergarten words, but that's the way it feels to me. It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart.

We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.

Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since.

Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. But it was also 25 years ago -- 26 years next month. And, honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison.

Now that he's been nominated for an Academy Award, it's all being reopened. I'm being asked: Should he be given the award? Should he be rewarded for his behavior? Should he be allowed back into the United States after fleeing 25 years ago?

Here's the way I feel about it: I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me.

But I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.

And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.

I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?

If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy. I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence.

My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell, and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since.

Today, I am very happy with my life. I have three sons and a husband. I live in a beautiful place and I enjoy my work. What more could I ask for? No one needs to worry about me.

The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.

[Samuel]

Because it sends a message to future child rapists that they can get away with their crimes and not have to go to prison? The point of punishment is to discourage people from doing a certain activity and if you don't punish them, it stops working.

I don't think prison is as effective a deterrent as you seem to think it is.

Compared to not being punished at all, I find prison a much more effective deterant.

You really think that paedophiles are looking to Roman Polanski and thinking that they can get away with what they are doing, or that they are thinking about prison as a deterrent at all?

I'm sorry, are you claiming that no pedophile is detered by the threat of prison?

In order for this (or anything) to be a deterrent, the actors must be rational and thinking about the consequences of their actions. Does that sound like someone who'd abuse their own daughter or niece?

You could say the same thing about people who abuse their spouses or other members of their family. Are you claiming that all violence against relatives means an individual isn't rational because "that isn't something a rational person would do"? Here is a hint- rational doesn't mean what you think it does. If they get more enjoyment out of their action that the odds of getting caught times the penalty than it would be rational for them to engage in such a behavior. That is what rational means.

[Elfdart]

Before any Americans climb up on their high horses about the Swiss, keep in mind that they at least jailed Polanski long enough to decide what they were going to do with him. Compare that to the blanket immunity given to kidnappers and torturers who forcibly inflicted their perverted desires on adolescents in Guantanamo, Bagram and the various "black sites" and have never spent a minute behind bars or in the dock, and the Swiss look like an Old West posse complete with hanging judge.

Elfdart, please provide an apology to American posters who has expressed displeasure at this verdict unless you can defend the assertion that each individual stands in favour of immunity for such persons.

NecronLord, I'm comparing the governments of Switzerland and the US, the public in general and the media in particular.

If you ware going to claim that someone has a double standard, you must provide evidence that they hold a double-standard. Most people here do not support the War on Terror Torturers. Condemning the Swiss government's behaviour (or the French) in this specific instance in no way leads to implicit support for the misdeeds of the United States Government elsewhere.

If you're going to try to put words in my mouth, you need to learn to read and actually understand what I wrote.

[General Zod]

Compared to not being punished at all, I find prison a much more effective deterant.

You realize the concept of social deterrents generally aren't effective on someone who's mentally ill, yes? Pedophilia isn't just a behavioral thing.

[loomer]

I'd still like to hear why we should ban his films, myself. That's a real WTF sort of reaction.

[Gil Hamilton]

Compared to not being punished at all, I find prison a much more effective deterant.

That's because you are more worried about going to prison than engaging in the act. The fact is, most criminals aren't that introspective, particularly not mentally ill ones. Sex offenders are MUCH more likely to be mentally ill.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that no pedophile is detered by the threat of prison?

It is considerably borne out in studies that threat of imprisonment isn't that good a deterrent in general, let alone against these specific types of crimes. Again, in order for something to be a deterrant, the actor must be rationalize and weigh the risk of being imprisoned against the benefits of committing the crime. People just don't think these things out that much.

You could say the same thing about people who abuse their spouses or other members of their family. Are you claiming that all violence against relatives means an individual isn't rational because "that isn't something a rational person would do"? Here is a hint- rational doesn't mean what you think it does. If they get more enjoyment out of their action that the odds of getting caught times the penalty than it would be rational for them to engage in such a behavior. That is what rational means.

No, I'm defining "rational" as someone who is aware of their situation, aware of the consequences, and is able to freely make a decision based on those things. Robbing a bank, for example, can be a rational crime, assuming the criminal honestly believes that the advantages of doing so outweigh the odds of getting caught. Sexual crimes against children virtually never are.

However, let's not quibble on semantics. You've made the claim that prison is an effective deterrent against sex abuse and that letting Roman Polanski go sends a message to pedophiles that they can freely abuse children. Evidence for this? If you are correct, then there should be a measurable drop in sexual abuse cases against children when tougher legislation is passed and there should be some evidence that sexual predators are paying attention to this case at all. After all, if we are considering all actors rational here, more punishment should lead to less crime, right, since the new punishment makes it less worth it. Therefore, you should be able to find evidence your claims are true. Please, go ahead and post this evidence, or concede.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

I'd still like to hear why we should ban his films, myself. That's a real WTF sort of reaction.

I'd venture it's just an idiotic "Rar! Smash!" over-reaction, because like most people they no longer view a rapist as human. Rather a monster to be chased off, destroyed and erased from all memory.

And then, this one dared touch someone younger than 16-18... Making them more akin to satan on earth...


Honestly, I was amused the last time this came up. The situation AS IT IS NOW, exists because a judge got on his high horse and wanted to send a message. Maybe he would have raped again after the agreed wrist slap... Certainly hasn't been any more recent items in the news. (You'd think they'd come up along side this...)

The ONLY person I respect in this mess is the victim, for not playing the maimed little bird everyone else seems to think rape victims should be for the rest of their lives.

[Master of Ossus]

That's because you are more worried about going to prison than engaging in the act. The fact is, most criminals aren't that introspective, particularly not mentally ill ones. Sex offenders are MUCH more likely to be mentally ill.

Merely being mentally ill does not mean that you are immune to the effects of punishment or the concept of a deterrent. Moreover, removing people from the general population also serves the goal of incapacitation: a major plus if the people in question otherwise could not be reformed.

It is considerably borne out in studies that threat of imprisonment isn't that good a deterrent in general, let alone against these specific types of crimes. Again, in order for something to be a deterrant, the actor must be rationalize and weigh the risk of being imprisoned against the benefits of committing the crime. People just don't think these things out that much.

Evidence?

We must not be reading the same studies, since all the studies I read suggest the elasticity of crime with respect to prison terms is at least on the order of -.1 or -.2. More recent studies with more sensitive models have almost uniformly discovered even more sensitivity. Di Tella and Schargrodsky estimate an elasticity of crime with respect to jail times of roughly -0.3. Some analyses have even suggested that it's as high as -.5. In any case, this suggests a significant deterrent effect even apart from the incapacitation effect of incarceration.

And as for incapacitation, Leavitt, for example, uses California as a natural experiment because its recent overcrowding issues have forced it to release prisoners who would ordinarily be incarcerated. He concludes that the cost of additional prison time is more than justified by the social costs of the reduction in crime.

No, I'm defining "rational" as someone who is aware of their situation, aware of the consequences, and is able to freely make a decision based on those things. Robbing a bank, for example, can be a rational crime, assuming the criminal honestly believes that the advantages of doing so outweigh the odds of getting caught. Sexual crimes against children virtually never are.

How do you figure? Sex offenders most likely measure their sexual gratification from committing sex offenses the same way you or I might evaluate the cost of going to the movies.

However, let's not quibble on semantics. You've made the claim that prison is an effective deterrent against sex abuse and that letting Roman Polanski go sends a message to pedophiles that they can freely abuse children. Evidence for this? If you are correct, then there should be a measurable drop in sexual abuse cases against children when tougher legislation is passed and there should be some evidence that sexual predators are paying attention to this case at all. After all, if we are considering all actors rational here, more punishment should lead to less crime, right, since the new punishment makes it less worth it. Therefore, you should be able to find evidence your claims are true. Please, go ahead and post this evidence, or concede.

Here you go.

[[R_H]]

Not surprised at all. This is the same government which fucked up and took forever to get Max Göldi and Hamdani freed.

[Erik von Nein]

So, wait, what exactly are people arguing here? Are they arguing that Polanski shouldn't be extradited, or are they arguing that the cost of extraditing him is too great for the crime committed? And then there's whole prison tangent going on here, which seems rather secondary to the whole affair.

[Axiomatic]

So, wait, what exactly are people arguing here? Are they arguing that Polanski shouldn't be extradited, or are they arguing that the cost of extraditing him is too great for the crime committed? And then there's whole prison tangent going on here, which seems rather secondary to the whole affair.

If you want someone extradited, you should probably expect to have to follow their extradition laws at some point.

[Akhlut]

Polanski doesn't need to come to the US for his trial; he was already tried and he plead guilty then ran out when he was about to be sentenced. It wouldn't be good precedent for the US to go ahead and let people who have already been found guilty, either through their own plea or through a solid conviction, to be let loose if they can just keep on the road long enough.

That happens frequently enough anyway, it's just in this case, the criminal is famous. Do you predict more people doing what Roman Polanski did if they stop bothering? If they have the means and the inclination, they'll do it anyway, but few people have the means Polanski did.

The thing is that the US doesn't just say 'okay, you're free and we'll never try to get you again,' but it keeps up a passive search (say, if the guy is found in the country or another country we have an extradition treaty with) and will continue to try to utilize available legal recourses to follow through on sentencing, punishment, and all of the associated stuff after a conviction. While some guys might slip through the dragnet, that is an entirely different affair from taking the official stance of "well, you got away, so we're officially dropping all charges."

As for allowing a charge to drop becasue the victim wants it dropped: sorry, but that's not how the justice system works. A law has been broken and the sovereign government has a mandate to pursue criminal offenses as warranted, regardless of if the victim of the crime says they want the charges pursued or not.

And then, this one dared touch someone younger than 16-18... Making them more akin to satan on earth...

Yeah, I mean, what did Polanski do wrong? He only gave a 13 year old champagne and a quaalude, then forcibly had sex in spite of her saying "no" repeatedly! It's not like it was actually rape or something!

Seriously, what he did would have been rape regardless of the age of the person he did it to. Drugging someone and having sex while they actively deny consent to sex cannot be considered anything other than rape, I'm pretty certain.

[Solauren]

I'd still like to hear why we should ban his films, myself. That's a real WTF sort of reaction.

Because he's continuing to make money (and a great deal of it), within the industry (and position) that allowed him to commite the crime in question.

Also, it would put economic preasure on him, and his backers, for him to return to the United States to face punishment.
That is, after all, a huge market.

Finally, if someone commits serious crimes with their car, we take away their car and liscence, do we not? If someone commits serious crimes using a computer, they are banned from owning or using a personal computer. He used his position and reputation to get a young victim delivered to him, so why not ban anything produced by his position and reputation until such a time as he's returned to the country.

Once he's returned, and served his 90 days, he can make all the movies he wants. He just shouldn't be supported (even indirectly) while 'on the lam'.

[General Zod]

I'd still like to hear why we should ban his films, myself. That's a real WTF sort of reaction.

Because he's continuing to make money (and a great deal of it), within the industry (and position) that allowed him to commite the crime in question.

Also, it would put economic preasure on him, and his backers, for him to return to the United States to face punishment.
That is, after all, a huge market.

Finally, if someone commits serious crimes with their car, we take away their car and liscence, do we not? If someone commits serious crimes using a computer, they are banned from owning or using a personal computer. He used his position and reputation to get a young victim delivered to him, so why not ban anything produced by his position and reputation until such a time as he's returned to the country.

Once he's returned, and served his 90 days, he can make all the movies he wants. He just shouldn't be supported (even indirectly) while 'on the lam'.

What economic pressure? Polanski's already worth millions; you really think boycotting his films in the US will have any significant impact? That's completely broken logic.

[Solauren]

I'm thinking more about the people that distribute his films, then himself.

Cut off the huge market that is the US, it's suddenly not nearly as worth while to carry his films.

It's not likely to work at this point, I'll admit that, but at least it's something, versus him laughing his ass off while sitting in some expensive house somewhere in Europe (France I believe)

[General Zod]

I'm thinking more about the people that distribute his films, then himself.

Cut off the huge market that is the US, it's suddenly not nearly as worth while to carry his films.

It's not likely to work at this point, I'll admit that, but at least it's something, versus him laughing his ass off while sitting in some expensive house somewhere in Europe (France I believe)

Polanski could retire and live comfortably for the rest of his life while never making another film again. It would be a completely meaningless gesture.

[Kanastrous]

Why exactly would you ban the man's movies? We don't ban Mein Kampf, we don't ban the music of murderers, or the films of known drug addicts. You might prevent him from receiving income from them, but banning them?

What possible fucking reason could there be for that?

It has a certain appeal as a form of punishment - really not punishment so much as a display of detestation. Artists - particularly filmmakers - live through their work. It's their interface with the world. It's how they hope to influence, educate, maybe even prosyletize the world. Once they're gone, it's their posterity, what they're remembered for. Perform their music, watch their film, read their book and in a sense they live again, they are granted the chance to influence or affect someone new with their work.

In practical terms, though, it's pointless. We're not going to ban his work, we're not going to collect all the prints of The Tenant and Rosemary's Baby and have the public hangman burn them, we're not going to bar The Pianist from running on HBO and Showtime.

It is and should be a purely individual choice. There's a particular director whom I personally detest for his racism, his politics and frankly just being the particular asshole that he happens to be. I've turned down offers of work on his projects. I won't buy a ticket to see any of his films. But that's just because I don't particularly want to do anything to benefit him, not even buy a ticket that will put less than $1 in his pocket - I don't care to give him so much as a penny of *my* money, or a penny's worth of my professional time. But I don't think any less of people who keep buying tickets to his shows, either. That's their call. Who knows, maybe some of them even support him, and they're entitled to spend their money accordingly.

Polanski could retire and live comfortably for the rest of his life while never making another film again.

Financially, sure. But somehow I doubt that a creative artist of Polanski's stripe would be particularly happy knowing that he couldn't work behind the camera any more.