Roman Polanski caught this weekend!

[Calabrio]

The guy raped a 13 year old girl.
He used his authority to get her drunk, then high, and then to aggressively rape her. Yet he's been protected by the French and the scum bag elites in Hollywood for decades.

It's an outrage that people in entertainment would continue to support and praise this criminal for decades.


After several tries, U.S. officials finally nab Roman Polanski in 1970s rape case
September 27, 2009 | 1:00 pm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ly-nab-roman-polanski-in-1970s-rape-case.html

Three decades after he fled the United States following his arrest for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, Roman Polanski was taken into custody in Zurich this morning and faces extradition to Los Angeles.

Polanski, the famed film director whose career continued to flourish even after fleeing for Europe, was arrested as he arrived in the Swiss city to accept an award at the Zurich Film Festival.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office learned last week that Polanski had plans to travel to Zurich this weekend, said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office.

Prosecutors sent a provisional arrest warrant to the U.S. Justice Department, which presented it to Swiss authorities. On at least two previous occasions, the district attorney’s office has received reports that Polanski had travel arrangements to countries with extradition treaties with the U.S. and prepared paperwork for his arrest, Gibbons said.
“But in the end, he apparently found out about it and didn’t go,” she said.

A source familiar with the investigation told The Times that the U.S. Marshals Service had come close to arresting Polanski half a dozen times or so over the past few decades -- though several of those opportunities presented themselves in the last two years.

"For one reason or another, it just didn't work out," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was ongoing. "There are so many variables."

The source said Polanski always was very careful about when and where he traveled. But as new questions arose in recent years about the fairness of his case, the source said Polanski appeared to become more at ease about travel.

Thomas Hession, head of the Marshals Service's Los Angeles office, would not comment on specifics of the case but said authorities moved quickly on each lead. "Any time information was developed, the L.A. County district attorney's office and the Marshals Service immediately acted on it."

Asked if prosecutors would ask that Polanski be sentenced to time behind bars if he were returned to the U.S., Gibbons said, “We’ve always maintained this is a matter between Polanski and the court. … We initially recommended prison time for him, but I can’t see into the future.”

An attorney for Polanski, Chad Hummel, declined to comment. “Right now, we’re not in a position to say anything,” he said.

[Updated 1:00 p.m. : In a statement, three Los Angeles attorneys representing Polanski indicated the arrest came as a surprise. The lawyers have been representing him in an ongoing attempt to have the case against Polanski dismissed on the grounds of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

"We were unaware of any extradition being sought and separate counsel will be retained for those proceedings,” wrote attorneys Douglas Dalton, Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton. Their request to have the 1977 charges against Polanski dismissed is currently pending before the state Court of Appeal.

The organizers of the Zurich Film Festival expressed “great consternation and shock” over Polanski’s arrest and said the program honoring his films would go on in his absence.

A spokeswoman for the event, Nikki Parker, wrote in an e-mail that neither Polanski nor the organizers considered his legal status in the U.S. an issue in attending the festival because he often traveled to Switzerland and even owned a home there.

“There was no concern whatsoever,” Parker wrote.]

Polanski, now 76 and a married father of two, asked the court to throw out the entire case based on new allegations of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct detailed in an HBO documentary last year. The L.A. district attorney’s office argued that he could not make such a request while a fugitive, and an L.A. judge earlier this year agreed. A 1997 attempt at settling the case also failed.

Polanski was arrested 31 years ago at a Beverly Hills hotel after a 13-year-old girl accused him of sexually assaulting her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house.

A 1978 arrest warrant, issued after he failed to appear at his sentencing on the statutory-rape conviction, is still in effect, and he would be taken into custody upon arrival on U.S. soil. The director of "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby" has not returned to the U.S. since then but continues to work as a director, winning an Oscar for "The Pianist."

Polanski’s stay in Switzerland could be brief if he opts to return to Los Angeles.

“If he agrees with an extradition, he could be sent to the U.S. in the next days,” said Guido Ballmer, a spokesman for the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police.

But if Polanski declines to come back without a fight -- perhaps a more likely scenario given his three decades as a fugitive -- the court process could be quite lengthy, Ballmer told The Times.

The appeals process has several layers and could last months, if not longer.

-- Harriet Ryan and Andrew Blankstein

 

[yeefknhaw]

France, Poland want Polanski released on bail

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER and ONNA CORAY
Associated Press Writers

Posted: Today at 5:47 a.m.
Updated: 5 minutes ago

ZURICH — The international tug-of-war over Roman Polanski escalated Monday as France and Poland urged Switzerland to free the 76-year-old director on bail and pressed U.S. officials all the way up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the case.

Polanski was in his third day of detention after Swiss police arrested him Saturday on an international warrant as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival.

A complicated legal process awaited all sides as the United States sought to secure his extradition for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl and fleeing to France a year later.

The Swiss Justice Ministry on Monday did not rule out the possibility that Polanski, director of such classic films as "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," could be released on bail under very strict conditions that he doesn't flee Switzerland.

Justice spokesman Guido Balmer said such an arrangement is "not entirely excluded" under Swiss law and that Polanski could file a motion on bail.

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he hoped Polanski could be quickly freed by the Swiss, calling the apprehension a "bit sinister." He also told France-Inter radio that he and his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski wrote to Clinton, and said there could be a decision as early as Monday if a Swiss court accepts bail.

Polanski was "thrown to the lions," said French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

Polanski, who has dual French-Polish citizenship, has hired Swiss attorney Lorenz Erni to represent him in Switzerland, according to the law firm Eschmann & Erni.

Polanski seems most likely to spend several months in detention, unless he agrees to forgo any challenge to his extradition to the United States. Under a 1990 accord between Switzerland and the U.S., Washington has 60 days to submit a formal request for his transfer. Rulings in a similar dispute four years ago over Russia's former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov confirmed that subjects should be held in custody throughout the procedure.

That means the procedure for extradition could also be lengthy for the United States. Its request for Polanski's transfer must first be examined by the Swiss Justice Ministry, and once approved it can be appealed at a number of courts.

The 2005 saga over Adamov's extradition, eventually to Russia and not the U.S., took seven months. The case also sets a possible precedent for France, which may wish to try one of its own nationals in a domestic court rather than in Los Angeles.

For now, Polanski is living in a Zurich cell where he receives three meals a day and is allowed outside for one hour of daily exercise.

Rebecca de Silva, spokeswoman for the Zurich prison authorities, refused to say exactly where Polanski was being held for security reasons, but said cells are usually single or double occupancy and that each room contains a table, storage compartment, sink, toilet and television.

Family and friends can only see Polanski for an hour each week, but that does not include official visits from lawyers and consular diplomats, de Silva said.

The Justice Ministry insisted Sunday that politics played no role in its arrest order on Polanski, who lives in France but has spent much time at a chalet in the luxury Swiss resort of Gstaad. That has led to widespread speculation among his friends and even politicians in Switzerland that the neutral country was coerced by Washington into action.

Polanski's French lawyer Herve Temime told the daily Le Parisien that Polanski stayed in Gstaad for months this year.

"He came here, but I have no idea how frequently," said Toni von Gruenigen, deputy mayor of Saarnen, where the famously discreet community is located.

Von Gruenigen said he was unaware of any attempt to arrest Polanski in the town where Elizabeth Taylor, Roger Moore and Richard Burton have also sought refuge from pressures at home.

"He kept a low profile," von Gruenigen told The AP.

The U.S. has had an outstanding warrant on Polanski since 1978, but the Swiss said American authorities have sought the arrest of the director around the world only since 2005.

Polanski has asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges' refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.

His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles dismissed Polanski's bid to throw out the case because the director failed to appear in court but said there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case.

In his ruling, Espinoza said he reviewed not only legal documents, but also watched the HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which suggests there was behind-the-scenes manipulations by a now-retired prosecutor not assigned to the case.

Polanski has lived for the past three decades in France, where his career has continued to flourish; he received a directing Oscar in absentia for the 2002 movie "The Pianist." He is married to French actress Emanuelle Seigner, with whom he has two children.

He has avoided traveling to countries likely to extradite him. For instance, he testified by video link from Paris in a 2005 libel trial in London against Vanity Fair magazine. He did not want to enter Britain for fear of being arrested.

Balmer said the difference during Polanski's visit this time to Zurich was that authorities knew when and where he would arrive. The Alpine country does not perform regular passport checks anymore on arrivals from 24 other European countries.

Balmer also rejected any hint that the arrest was somehow aimed at winning favor with the U.S. after a series of bilateral spats over tax evasion and wealthy Americans stashing money at Swiss banking giant UBS AG.

"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming. That's why he was taken into custody," Balmer told The AP. "There is no link with any other issues."

Investigators in the U.S. learned of Polanski's planned trip days ago, giving them enough time to lay the groundwork for an arrest, said William Sorukas, chief of the U.S. Marshals Service's domestic investigations branch.

The arrest prompted angry criticism Monday from fellow filmmakers and actors across Europe.

"It seems inadmissible ... that an international cultural evening, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by police to apprehend him," says a petition circulating in France and signed by artists including Costa Gavras, Stefen Frears and Monica Bellucci.

Oscar-winning director Andrzej Wajda and other Polish filmmakers also appealed for the immediate release of Polanski, a native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child during World War II and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp.

Polanski has already "atoned for the sins of his young years," Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association, told The AP. "He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."

---

Klapper reported from Geneva. AP writers Frank Jordans in Geneva and Monika Scislowska in Warsaw, Poland, contributed to this report.

 

[foxpaws]

From the AP article...

His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

I imagine he'll be extradited and sentenced. I would also think that with Geimer's testimony, along with the amount of time that has passed, he will get off with a slap on the wrist.

He hasn't been able to even go to his first wife's and baby's graves (Sharon Tate) for over 30 years, maybe somehow he thought it was time to face up to his past...

And shouldn't this be in the general forum?

 

[Calabrio]

He hasn't been able to even go to his first wife's and baby's graves (Sharon Tate) for over 30 years, maybe somehow he thought it was time to face up to his past...

That's one of those consequences that can be associated with drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl.

And he didn't turn himself in with the purpose of facing up to his past. He didn't think the Swiss would detain him. He's been very active, very high profile, for the past 30 years.

When picking up another award, he made "legal history in the UK in 2005 by becoming the first libel claimant to sue in the English courts using a video-link. Fearing extradition, Mr Polanski did not travel to the UK and successfully won a libel case against Vanity Fair magazine in London’s High Court after giving evidence via video-link."

And shouldn't this be in the general forum?

Politics and current events.

It sounds like your sympathetic to Polanski, foxpaws?
And the Manson murders having nothing to do with this story or justify, explain, or even rationalize his rape.

Or are you disgusted that the entertainment and arts community have, not only failed to condemn the man, but have actually honored him repeatedly since he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

 

[foxpaws]

His art should be tied in with his personal life?

If you judge all artists by their private lives Cal, you certainly must have quite a laundry list of people you condemn like you do Polanski.

So you don't judge art on the quality of the work, but by the mettle of the creator?

I think what Polanski did was awful, and he should be punished for it. I think that the girl/woman he raped should have a say in how that punishment is dealt out.

And I am not disgusted with the entertainment industry for giving awards for excellent work. The work stands no matter who did it. I would be more upset with them if they didn't honor the work, but instead judged the man. That isn't their job.

So, I assume in your effort to defile the man, you haven't seen his work since 1978. Why watch something that is no doubt tainted.

 

[Calabrio]

His art should be tied in with his personal life?

You can judge his art without rewarding and enriching the creator.
Being an artist don't absolve you of responsibility and consequence.
And it's morally bankrupt to enrich an evil purpose just because you think they make great movies.

If you judge all artists by their private lives Cal, you certainly must have quite a laundry list of people you condemn like you do Polanski.

Do a lot of artists drug and rape teenage girls?
Are a lot of artists guilty of:
a man charged with:

1. rape of a minor
2. rape by use of a drug
3. committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14 years of age
4. oral copulation
5. Sodomy
6. furnishing drugs to a minor

Because I have made it a personal policy to condemn those people and not support them.

I guess you don't have those same high standards.

I think what Polanski did was awful, and he should be punished for it. I think that the girl/woman he raped should have a say in how that punishment is dealt out.

The woman has expressed that she doesn't want to have to go through the ordeal again. But we have a nation of laws, so doesn't determine his treatment.

But it's interesting that you made that point, knowing what she'd expressed. Do you think she should be afforded much consideration if she were vocally advocating that that pedophile were chemically castrated? Or even just sentenced to a life in prison?

And I am not disgusted with the entertainment industry for giving awards for excellent work. The work stands no matter who did it. I would be more upset with them if they didn't honor the work, but instead judged the man. That isn't their job.

That argument might be valid regarding his PAST work- but the not the stuff he's created since the crime. He shouldn't have been able to make any of it. When he approached a producer to make a film, they should have turned him away. And if they released the film, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT. You certainly don't give him the honor and respect of an academy award.

But, according to you, at what point does the man matter? What if he'd murdered the girl then fled to a country without extradition?
Apparently drugging and raping a 13 year old girl isn't much of a big deal to you, but what about murder? Should a murderer be able to get his movie's produced and viewed? And an academy award?

Is the world better because this pedophile rapist continued to make movies?

So, I assume in your effort to defile the man, you haven't seen his work since 1978. Why watch something that is no doubt tainted.

It's not the work that is tainted, it's the principle of supporting such a man.
And you're right, I have avoided his work... it's not as though there's a shortage of talented film makers out there who aren't pedophiles, rapists, or both - as in Polanski's case.

Same applies to Woody Allen.

Because of the new story, it's difficult to find anything about Polanski that isn't directly related to the '78 rape. But I thought that Polanksi was continuing to indulge his taste for teenage girls after moving to France, even once saying something along the lines of, "I can't help it that the little girls love me."

He's vermin.
And the outrage by the left and the entertainment community is disgusting.

Since he violated the terms, I hope they toss the plea bargin and prosecute him on all six charges.
He can die in jail. Who knows, someone may sodomize him in prison, just like he did to that 13 year old girl.

 

[Calabrio]

If someone isn't sufficiently disgusted by Polanski, read the grand jury testimony:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

 

[foxpaws]

You can judge his art without rewarding and enriching the creator.
Being an artist don't absolve you of responsibility and consequence.
And it's morally bankrupt to enrich an evil purpose just because you think they make great movies.

So, it is up to the entertainment industry to judge the man?

How would you judge art without rewarding? “Oh, we would have given Polanski the Oscar for ‘The Pianist’ but he is a bad person, and we don’t give awards to bad people, but we would like to go on the record that we judge his film to be the best of the year?”

Because I have made it a personal policy to condemn those people and not support them.

I guess you don't have those same high standards.

Let’s do a little laundry list Cal. Look at Michelangelo’s David? Read Arthur C Clarke’s 2001, watch the movie? Avoided Alice in Wonderland?

I don’t judge the art by the person who created it. My standards are just as high as yours, but I also admit that great art can be created by individuals who aren’t so great. The art stands alone. I can condemn the man and his actions, but still admire the art.

But it's interesting that you made that point, knowing what she'd expressed. Do you think she should be afforded much consideration if she were vocally advocating that that pedophile were chemically castrated? Or even just sentenced to a life in prison?

Yes I do. I believe that the victim should be heard and considered during sentencing. If she wanted his balls cut off, I think that should be taken into consideration.

That argument might be valid regarding his PAST work- but the not the stuff he's created since the crime. He shouldn't have been able to make any of it. When he approached a producer to make a film, they should have turned him away. And if they released the film, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT. You certainly don't give him the honor and respect of an academy award.

So, you are willing to say that it is the entertainment industry’s business to not only deal with entertainment, but to branch out and judge others? The decision by others to financially back his films was a personal decision, as it should be. They wanted to make money, and to them the project appeared to have that opportunity. He was in France legally, and the people who backed his films did nothing illegal.

But, according to you, at what point does the man matter? What if he'd murdered the girl then fled to a country without extradition?

Yes, according to me the man doesn’t matter, the work stands on its own. It is either good art or it isn’t. I believe it should be judged in a vacuum. Man, woman, black, white, old, young, savant, convicted rapist, saint, should have no bearing on how you judge the quality of the piece.

Apparently drugging and raping a 13 year old girl isn't much of a big deal to you, but what about murder? Should a murderer be able to get his movie's produced and viewed? And an academy award?

Yes.

Is the world better because this pedophile rapist continued to make movies?

Yes.

He's vermin.

Yes. But his films are art. If daVinci was a murderer should the Mona Lisa have never been allowed to be created?

 

[Calabrio]

So, it is up to the entertainment industry to judge the man?

It's up to each and every one of us, as individuals, to judge the man.
Yes.

The man plead guilty, so the event isn't in question.

How would you judge art without rewarding? “Oh, we would have given Polanski the Oscar for ‘The Piano’ but he is a bad person, and we don’t give awards to bad people, but we would like to go on the record that we judge his film to be the best of the year?”

Did the art community have any reluctance when it came to "judging" Elia Kazan for his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 50s? Kazan provided the names of some his associates who were also members of the communist party.

Maybe if he'd drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl you'd have thought better of him?

I can condemn the man and his actions, but still admire the art.

Enjoy Chinatown. Enjoy Rose Marie's Baby. Enjoy Repulsion.
But he shouldn't have had the opportunity to make The Pianist.

Should Charles Manson be allowed to direct movies right?
Maybe he could produce records. He had some musical abilities, maybe he has a brilliance inside him. Should we reward him?

How's the different? Because Polanski had the means to flee the country?

So, you are willing to say that it is the entertainment industry’s business to not only deal with entertainment, but to branch out and judge others?

You keep saying "judge others" as though Polanski still needs to be judged.
HE DRUGGED and SODOMIZED A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL.
What's there to judge? Is there reasonable debate over whether this is a bad thing or not?

Should the entertainment industry support fugitive pedophile rapists who also happen to be over rated directors.
I would say no.

The decision by others to financially back his films was a personal decision, as it should be. They wanted to make money, and to them the project appeared to have that opportunity.

He was in France legally, and the people who backed his films did nothing illegal.

He found refuge in France, but the mere act of him traveling to France was illegal.

But the question isn't whether working with Polanski was illegal. The issue is whether it's unethical?

And you don't honor pedophile rapists.
Especially during their lives.

And even more importantly, YOU DON'T DEFEND THEM.
There is outrage in the art and leftist communities right now over the possibility that Polanski may be extradited and forced to pay for his crime.

Yes. But his films are art. If daVinci was a murderer should the Mona Lisa have never been allowed to be created?

You can recognize art without honoring the creator.
Especially while they are still alive.

 

[foxpaws]

It's up to each and every one of us, as individuals, to judge the man.

It might be - I think what he did was reprehensible. It was up to a court system to judge the man. But, as an artist, his work remains as a separate entity. The entertainment industry judges the work, and it should judge the work separate from any other events.

Did the art community have any reluctance when it came to "judging" Elia Kazan for his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 50s? Kazan provided the names of some his associates who were also members of the communist party.

Maybe if he'd drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl you'd have thought better of him?

I don’t judge Kazan’s creative work on his personal life. On the Waterfront is an amazing film, which happened after his testimony. So is A Streetcar Named Desire, filmed before his testimony. The actions in between those two film does nothing to strengthen one or weaken the artistic value of the other. The art community was wrong to judge him on that. They should have judged his work, and not have colored it with the happenings in Congress.

Enjoy Chinatown. Enjoy Rose Marie's Baby. Enjoy Repulsion.
But he shouldn't have had the opportunity to make The Pianist.

But he made it – whether he should have had the opportunity or not. It is still a great film, and should be recognized as such.

Should Charles Manson be allowed to direct movies right?
Maybe he could produce records. He had some musical abilities, maybe he has a brilliance inside him. Should we reward him?

Manson could make movies or records. If they were artistically great in their own right, then they should be judged on the work, and not the creator. Should we reward that? Monetarily? With tiny statues you put on the back of the toilet? I don’t think those make any difference. They are things. Material.

You keep saying "judge others" as though Polanski still needs to be judged.
HE DRUGGED and SODOMIZED A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL.
What's there to judge? Is there reasonable debate over whether this is a bad thing or not?

I may have not been clear on this – we should not judge his work on his personal actions. There is no debate on the fact that what he did was horrific. This debate is whether or not his work should get support and be praised (judged), as you stated in your first post Cal. Once again – I believe the work should be allowed to be judged without the specter of the actions in his private life.

But the question isn't whether working with Polanski was illegal. The issue is whether it's unethical?

Ethical? They gave him money, he created art. They supported the art as well as the man, in this case you can’t separate the two. Ethically perhaps they shouldn’t support the man, but, in order to further the art they made a decision to support him. Also to make money. They live with their ethical decision, that is their burden to bear, since there wasn't a legal restriction against giving him money.

And you don't honor pedophile rapists.
Especially during their lives

You keep tying in the man with the art. I don’t care who created the Sistine Chapel, it is amazing. The value of the art should stand apart from the creator. One of Michelangelo’s assistants could have painted the entire thing, it wouldn’t have mattered, it would remain a masterpiece.

It would be OK to reward Polanski’s work after his death? What changes? Aren’t you still rewarding the work of a pedophile rapist? Do you give it a time frame – 20 years after his victim has died? The art is good, now, and in the future, it will not be ‘more good’ after his death, it will be exactly the same.

 

[TheDude]

That's one of those consequences that can be associated with drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl.

That's news to me, I was under the impression he coerced her into performing orally on him, that and the alcohol.

 

[TheDude]

From the AP article...

His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

I imagine he'll be extradited and sentenced. I would also think that with Geimer's testimony, along with the amount of time that has passed, he will get off with a slap on the wrist.

If he was found guilty, I don't think Geimer's statement will (or should) hold much water on his sentence. Also don't believe the passing of time should lesson the punishment; if anything, it should increase it as he's been fugitive for 30 years.

 

[foxpaws]

If he was found guilty, I don't think Geimer's statement will (or should) hold much water on his sentence. Also don't believe the passing of time should lesson the punishment; if anything, it should increase it as he's been fugitive for 30 years.

Her statement won't mean a thing in sentencing... even if she had said that she wanted him castrated. But the passing of time will have no bearing as well. The severity of the crime doesn't increase or lessen over the course of time.

 

[shagdrum]

Her statement won't mean a thing in sentencing... even if she had said that she wanted him castrated. But the passing of time will have no bearing as well. The severity of the crime doesn't increase or lessen over the course of time.

In this case, the degree of injustice he has to atone for can arguably be said to increase over time since he was dodging justice and breaking the law for so long.

 

[shagdrum]

It might be - I think what he did was reprehensible. It was up to a court system to judge the man. But, as an artist, his work remains as a separate entity. The entertainment industry judges the work, and it should judge the work separate from any other events.

Is it moral for the entertainment industry to facilitate the creation of his "art"? They have blackballed others for far lesser things...

 

[foxpaws]

In this case, the degree of injustice he has to atone for can arguably be said to increase over time since he was dodging justice and breaking the law for so long.

Shag – I don’t know if fleeing is an extenuating circumstance – do you? The crime remains the same after all these years, the only way that sentences are increased/decreased, beyond what is allowed for by law, are fairly well defined special circumstances.

Is it moral for the entertainment industry to facilitate the creation of his "art"? They have blackballed others for far lesser things...

I know, and I think the entertainment industry was wrong in the ‘lesser things’ that were blackballed, as I stated in the Kazan comparison above. Art needs to be judged on just the art, and its value. The creator’s circumstances shouldn’t play into that judgment.

As far as the morality of facilitating art? I really doubt if we can create law that would solve this dilemma. As Cal said, you can not see the movie, as a way for you to personally punish the artist and his backers, you can feel better about your morals that way. But, how the people who support the artist are affected – I guess that is between them and whomever/whatever they feel should be in judgment of those morals.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag – I don’t know if fleeing is an extenuating circumstance – do you? The crime remains the same after all these years, the only way that sentences are increased/decreased, beyond what is allowed for by law, are fairly well defined special circumstances.

You are talking legal I am focusing more on the philosophical. Something you are not interested in.

I know, and I think the entertainment industry was wrong in the ‘lesser things’ that were blackballed, as I stated in the Kazan comparison above. Art needs to be judged on just the art, and its value. The creator’s circumstances shouldn’t play into that judgment.

They should play into the judgment involved in facilitating that art. If I had Bill Gates money, would it be moral for me to fund his movies (in which he makes a profit and betters himself) if he has unquestionably committed a major crime for which he has not paid his debt to society?

As far as the morality of facilitating art? I really doubt if we can create law that would solve this dilemma.

Morality is not dictated by law and no one is suggesting that it should be in this case.

As Cal said, you can not see the movie, as a way for you to personally punish the artist and his backers, you can feel better about your morals that way.

That doesn't absolve those who facilitate his "art" of any moral wrongdoing.

 

[foxpaws]

You are talking legal I am focusing more on the philosophical. Something you are not interested in.

Whoops - you didn't have it labeled shag - So, this is 'philosophical'...

In this case, the degree of injustice he has to atone for can arguably be said to increase over time since he was dodging justice and breaking the law for so long.​

Got it...

They should play into the judgment involved in facilitating that art. If I had Bill Gates money, would it be moral for me to fund his movies (in which he makes a profit and betters himself) if he has unquestionably committed a major crime for which he has not paid his debt to society?

Should it matter to me - or should it be between you, Bill Gates money and your collective conscious? I don't really care - it doesn't matter to me.

That doesn't absolve those who facilitate his "art" of any moral wrongdoing.

Who needs to absolve or not absolve them - you, me, society? I don't need to judge those people who 'facilitate' him. I don't need to foist my morals onto anyone.

 

[topher5150]

did anyone hear how Whoopie Goldberg came riding in on the defense of Roman
"It's not rape...rape......he admitted to having sex with a minor"
how the hell could you defend something like this
YouTube - The View's Whoopi Goldberg on Polanski 'It Wasn't Rape Rape' NewsBusters org

 

[shagdrum]

did anyone hear how Whoopie Goldberg came riding in on the defense of Roman
"It's not rape...rape......he admitted to having sex with a minor"
how the hell could you defend something like this
YouTube - The View's Whoopi Goldberg on Polanski 'It Wasn't Rape Rape' NewsBusters org

By living in the simple-minded utopia that is hollywood?

 

[SoonerLS]

Shag – I don’t know if fleeing is an extenuating circumstance – do you? The crime remains the same after all these years, the only way that sentences are increased/decreased, beyond what is allowed for by law, are fairly well defined special circumstances.

It wouldn't be an extenuating circumstance, but it very well may be taken into consideration. According to this NPR Morning Edition story, he fled because the plea deal was about to go south. If that's accurate, it's possible that they were going to reinstate at least some of the charges back then, so it's not inconceivable that they would throw the book at him now.

 

[Calabrio]

It wouldn't be an extenuating circumstance, but it very well may be taken into consideration. According to this NPR Morning Edition story, he fled because the plea deal was about to go south. If that's accurate, it's possible that they were going to reinstate at least some of the charges back then, so it's not inconceivable that they would throw the book at him now.

He violated the terms of his parole, which should mean that all agreements are thrown out the window, plus some are added on.

 

[SoonerLS]

According to MSNBC, the Swiss Justice Ministry has denied bail for Polanski, saying that he's an extreme flight risk. Gee, d'ya think?

 

[Calabrio]

According to MSNBC, the Swiss Justice Ministry has denied bail for Polanski, saying that he's an extreme flight risk. Gee, d'ya think?

It'd be funny to let him loose, just for a few minutes.... then he could try to run away as fast as he could with those little short legs.

 

[SoonerLS]

PJ O'Rourke said he couldn't take credit for it, but he once heard someone call Polanski the original five-foot Pole you wouldn't touch anything with.