• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

Roman Polanski and your perception of France

  • I can't believe France is protecting a child raper

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • The French are absolutely correct to do what they're doing.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • It's wrong, but hey... cest la vie

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • A little rape never harmed anyone.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?
 
It means France is sticking to their values, Canada and other the civilized countries in the world would do the same.
 
It means France is sticking to their values, Canada and other the civilized countries in the world would do the same.

I wouldn't call condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl "having values."

More like lacking values.
 
I wouldn't call condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl "having values."

More like lacking values.

We do not the support the death sentence, we do not support eye for an eye.
 
We do not the support the death sentence, we do not support eye for an eye.

Alight, but there's a time and place to diplomatically voice that concern. This case has nothing to do with the death penalty. Holding justice for the little girl and her family hostage hardly seems right.
 
I wouldn't call condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl "having values."

More like lacking values.

Where did anything say "condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl was OK?" I must have missed that, or did you make it up?
 
The French allowed the extradition of Ira Einhorn once the commonwealth of Pennsylvania agreed to take the death penalty off the table. He is sitting in jail in PA as this is written. I'm guessing that someone in LA, where I think the Polanski crime happened isn't trying very hard to get him, but I could be wrong on that point.

Ira Einhorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I wouldn't call condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl "having values."

More like lacking values.

Refusing extradition doesn't mean condoning the crime. It doesn't follow.
 
Alight, but there's a time and place to diplomatically voice that concern. This case has nothing to do with the death penalty. Holding justice for the little girl and her family hostage hardly seems right.

YOu mean now? He should not be extradited till the U.S. can agree to a life sentence instead of the death sentence. This has everything to do with the death penalty most countries that do not have the death penalty will not extradite people to countries with it.
 
Where did anything say "condoning the rape of a 13 year old girl was OK?" I must have missed that, or did you make it up?

Well if you refuse to extradite the known rapist of a 13 year old girl, and you instead allow him to live and work freely and live a lavish lifestyle all under your protection, that's what I would call it.

What would you call that?
 
YOu mean now? He should not be extradited till the U.S. can agree to a life sentence instead of the death sentence. This has everything to do with the death penalty most countries that do not have the death penalty will not extradite people to countries with it.

The death penalty has never been considered for this case. At most, Polanski would have served a couple years in prison. The French are doing this to make a statement on the death penalty OVERALL, not in this particular case since it doesn't and hasn't ever applied.
 
I don't think my opinion of France could get much lower, so this is about par for the course.
 
We do not the support the death sentence, we do not support eye for an eye.

Yeah, but Canada will extradite unless it's a death penalty case with the DP on the table. This wasn't even a DP case. It was just a case of money and who you know and they ended up sheltering the rapist. And bull**** you don't support eye for an eye. What do you do in Canadian law when someone steals, you fine them right? Doh!

As far as the OP question, like Gipper, my view of France was already at rock bottom.
 
U.S./California handling of the Polanski case was a miscarriage of justice from the get-go.

They allowed the man to plea down to a sentence of 90 days evaluation in a psychiatric hospital followed by probation.

American authorities failed that little girl back when she was a little girl.

Today, that little girl is a grown woman, she's settled with Polanski in a civil suit for a not insignificant sum of money, and she's put the past behind her.

Today she accuses those authorities who insist on pursuing the extradition matter of grandstanding and attempting to build their personal reputations at the expense of not allowing her to leave her past in the past.

They're failing her just as baddy today as they did ~40 years ago.

It may actually be the French who hold the moral high ground in this debacle.

Understand that I am not saying I support Polanski or that I excuse what he did.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

But I do support the victim.

If letting this matter die is what will bring her peace then that's what America owes her.
 
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?

None of your options accurately reflects my position - which is that I am not surprised at all in this particular instance of moral laxity on the part of the French.
 
A bit of background. Roman Polanski, a famous American film director, drugged and raped a 13 year old child. The child was an aspiring actress, and he was a powerful film director.

He was 43 years old when he forced himself on the little girl.

After being found guilty in a California court, Polanski fled to France hours before he was to be formally sentenced. The sentence was expected to be jail time.

To this day, France refuses to extradite Polanski. Polanski lives a comfortable life in a French chateau, drinking wine and continuing to direct movies. Meanwhile a young girl's life was forever scarred.

The French will not extradite him because they disapprove of the fact that the USA allows the death penalty (even though this is not a case where the death penalty would apply). They say they will extradite him only after the USA makes the death penalty illegal.

How, if at all, does this case affect your perception of France?

I'd need a little more background and detail before I'd be wholely on the side of those who say to extradite the man.

1. It's my understanding that Polanski was never sentenced for the crime - I believe, if I'm not mistaken, there was prosecutorial misconduct in the trial and Polanski was ordered to a new trial and he skipped town before that trial began. I believe there was also a plea bargain of some sort that was abused or fell through. In any event, Polanski is wanted in the US for retrial, not to serve his sentence.

2. It's my understanding that Polanski has travelled extensively in Europe over the years, all with the clear knowledge of American authorities, and he was never detained until very recently. You have to ask yourself why, if the man is such a fugitive, he wasn't picked up any of dozens of times he was in countries with extradition treaties with the US.

This is not to say that I think Polanski is an upstanding, great guy - just to say there seems to be a lot going on in this matter that hasn't been widely known or disclosed over the years. In addition, I believe the young lady involved has forgiven Polanski and claims she doesn't wish to see him tried.
 
U.S./California handling of the Polanski case was a miscarriage of justice from the get-go.

They allowed the man to plea down to a sentence of 90 days evaluation in a psychiatric hospital followed by probation.

American authorities failed that little girl back when she was a little girl.

Today, that little girl is a grown woman, she's settled with Polanski in a civil suit for a not insignificant sum of money, and she's put the past behind her.

Today she accuses those authorities who insist on pursuing the extradition matter of grandstanding and attempting to build their personal reputations at the expense of not allowing her to leave her past in the past.

They're failing her just as baddy today as they did ~40 years ago.

It may actually be the French who hold the moral high ground in this debacle.

Understand that I am not saying I support Polanski or that I excuse what he did.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

But I do support the victim.

If letting this matter die is what will bring her peace then that's what America owes her.


You liberals normally just annoy me a little, but this is outright disgusting. You're going to rubber stamp the rape of a 13 year old girl simply because your buddies, the French, have done so?

Disgusting.

So what if the girl (now woman, thanks to the passage of time) has tried to put it behind her? What do you expect her to do? She's not going to get any closure on this from the justice system thanks to the French. What would you expect her to do, for her own sanity?? OF COURSE she is going to say and do what she is doing.

That doesn't mean pedophilia and rape should go completely unpunished. My goodness.
 
I'd need a little more background and detail before I'd be wholely on the side of those who say to extradite the man.

1. It's my understanding that Polanski was never sentenced for the crime - I believe, if I'm not mistaken, there was prosecutorial misconduct in the trial and Polanski was ordered to a new trial and he skipped town before that trial began. I believe there was also a plea bargain of some sort that was abused or fell through. In any event, Polanski is wanted in the US for retrial, not to serve his sentence.

2. It's my understanding that Polanski has travelled extensively in Europe over the years, all with the clear knowledge of American authorities, and he was never detained until very recently. You have to ask yourself why, if the man is such a fugitive, he wasn't picked up any of dozens of times he was in countries with extradition treaties with the US.

This is not to say that I think Polanski is an upstanding, great guy - just to say there seems to be a lot going on in this matter that hasn't been widely known or disclosed over the years. In addition, I believe the young lady involved has forgiven Polanski and claims she doesn't wish to see him tried.

Yes he skipped town before his sentencing.

I don't know how easy it is for the DA's office in Los Angeles to track someone's movements in Europe or what the paperwork involved would be to get someone extradited. I would imagine it's not so simple for a local DA's office to do this, especially for such an old case.

Unfortunately, Polanski will never answer for his crimes, and that, in itself, is a crime.
 
A lot of victims of pedophilia and rape forgive their attackers.

A lot of rape victims would rather not testify in court, and do not come forward.

This is NORMAL. It does NOT mean that rape and pedophilia should go unpunished.

Let's clear that up right now.
 
U.S./California handling of the Polanski case was a miscarriage of justice from the get-go.

They allowed the man to plea down to a sentence of 90 days evaluation in a psychiatric hospital followed by probation.

American authorities failed that little girl back when she was a little girl.

Today, that little girl is a grown woman, she's settled with Polanski in a civil suit for a not insignificant sum of money, and she's put the past behind her.

Today she accuses those authorities who insist on pursuing the extradition matter of grandstanding and attempting to build their personal reputations at the expense of not allowing her to leave her past in the past.

They're failing her just as baddy today as they did ~40 years ago.

It may actually be the French who hold the moral high ground in this debacle.

How? They're not citing anything you do for their reasons. They're citing objection to the death penalty, which does not apply.
 
Obviously. And in so doing, they're willfully aiding and abetting a child rapist.

I don't ant to quibble over interpretations. I'll bet, though, that had he been convicted in France he wouldn't have been able to book 'er out of the country before his sentencing.
If the US wanted him back, really, he'd have been back long ago. You've got a bigger beef with the US justice system than with France.
 
Yes he skipped town before his sentencing.

I don't know how easy it is for the DA's office in Los Angeles to track someone's movements in Europe or what the paperwork involved would be to get someone extradited. I would imagine it's not so simple for a local DA's office to do this, especially for such an old case.

Unfortunately, Polanski will never answer for his crimes, and that, in itself, is a crime.

If what I've read is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, Polanski has, in effect, served his time - charges were dropped against him all except one charge that he agreed to plead guilty on and he was sentenced to a 90 prison term for "evaluation" - he served 42 days of that term and was deemed not to be a threat to society or to have any mental health reason for him to remain in prison and he was released. The judge in the matter objected to his release and issued a bench warrant to have him rearrested at which time he fled the country.

Sounds to me like those who are refusing to honor the request to extradite are on the moral high ground here. You can bitch and moan about the leniency of the original plea deal and settlement, but it's a little like double jeopardy, wouldn't you agree, to serve the time you agreed to and then have the judge turn around and say he wants another shot at you, likely because he got grief from the public for his lenient sentence.
 
Back
Top Bottom