• 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
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?

I'd make the death penalty illegal.
 
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.

Let's just go further and say they are immoral because they are 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?

This pretty much reinforces my distaste for France.
 
Also, why was that "a little rape never hurt anyone" option even needed? And I bet whoever voted for it are just absolutely in stitches over it.
 
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?

l support teh death penalty but l wish such countries stop applying double standard to different cases
 
How? They're not citing anything you do for their reasons. They're citing objection to the death penalty, which does not apply.

Ever heard of principle?

No one trusts the US justice system any more, and the French have never trusted it. More people have been screwed in the US justice system than any where else in the western world. I know my own country refuses to extradite people to the US now days without being presented with all the evidence and even then it is far from sure. Why? because of several cases where a person was extradited on certain conditions and then the prosecutor went back on those conditions when the person landed on US soil.

And in the Roman Polanski case.. he served his time.
 
Ever heard of principle?

No one trusts the US justice system any more, and the French have never trusted it. More people have been screwed in the US justice system than any where else in the western world. I know my own country refuses to extradite people to the US now days without being presented with all the evidence and even then it is far from sure. Why? because of several cases where a person was extradited on certain conditions and then the prosecutor went back on those conditions when the person landed on US soil.

And in the Roman Polanski case.. he served his time.

No one expected this response, at all.
 
How? They're not citing anything you do for their reasons. They're citing objection to the death penalty, which does not apply.

I didn't tie my reasoning to the reasons they're citing, nor am I required to.
 
Ever heard of principle?

No one trusts the US justice system any more, and the French have never trusted it. More people have been screwed in the US justice system than any where else in the western world. I know my own country refuses to extradite people to the US now days without being presented with all the evidence and even then it is far from sure. Why? because of several cases where a person was extradited on certain conditions and then the prosecutor went back on those conditions when the person landed on US soil.

And in the Roman Polanski case.. he served his time.

When I saw that you quoted me, I snickered out loud "oh, this should be good." As far as inane, pointless responses go, this didn't disappoint.

It was already made clear that the death penalty would not and could not be in play here, at all. You suggest that it could somehow change, and that suggestion is 100% koo-koo for Coca Puffs, based no doubt on a willful ignorance in favor of a compelling desire to bash the United States. There is no possibility that there could be a death penalty at play here, none whatsoever.

Not to mention it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons I objected to soot's post and what HE said.

Why do you continue to post such sniveling, ignorant things no matter how many times you're crushed down afterwards? Is bashing the US really so important to you that you're willing to come off as an idiot just about every time?
 
I didn't tie my reasoning to the reasons they're citing, nor am I required to.

You are if you're ascribing moral weight to what they do, as you did.
 
Ever heard of principle?

No one trusts the US justice system any more, and the French have never trusted it. More people have been screwed in the US justice system than any where else in the western world. I know my own country refuses to extradite people to the US now days without being presented with all the evidence and even then it is far from sure. Why? because of several cases where a person was extradited on certain conditions and then the prosecutor went back on those conditions when the person landed on US soil.

And in the Roman Polanski case.. he served his time.

The only principle applied here is that the French don't consider drugging and having non-consensual sex with a 13 year old child rape. Add into that Roman was famous in France and that combined with money meant no extradition. This case had nothing whatsoever to do with the death penalty.

If you're going to be a non-extradition country then you should also be on the trade exclusion list. Oh, and you can then have all our child rapists and murderers, see how that works out for you.

The time he served was nothing, he's managed to pull a modified OJ with the help of the French. Doesn't speak well of the French.
 
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.

Everything happened according to California law. The fact is that Polanski did not fully serve his time, or else he wouldn't be a wanted man, would he?

But I suppose in your world, those who are facilitating a child rapist's lavish lifestyle and refusing to hand him over to the authorities are the ones with the moral high ground.

Canadians. SMH.
 
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.

Who is the log jam here? Who is refusing to extradite Polanski? That's right, it's the French.

If they did extradite him and he received a lenient sentence, ONLY THEN would my beef be with the US justice system. As of now, the US justice system hasn't even had a chance to work.
 
She's not going to get any closure on this from the justice system thanks to the French.

She was never going to get any real closure on this, no thanks to the American justice system.

Back in 1977, much as it remains today, justice in America could be bought and paid for.

That doesn't mean pedophilia and rape should go completely unpunished.

You're either completely ignoring, or are completely ignorant of, the fact that Polanski had already been through the criminal justice system.

He'd already been "punished".

He'd already signed a plea bargain that led to him serving 42 days of psychiatric evaluation.

He fled the United States because he was afraid that after coming out of commitment the judge was going to renege on his promise, and on the sentence that prosecutors had promised him, and deport him instead of letting him live in America on probation.

So the worst that could have happened to him was that America was going to kick him out of the country.

Let that sink in for a second.












He left the country so that the judge couldn't kick him out of the country, and now activists want him extradited back to America so that he can stand before a judge and be kicked out of the country?

:roll:
 
I just read that Polanski is a French citizen, which makes it academic. Far as I know, France won't extradite one of it's citizens.
 
I just read that Polanski is a French citizen, which makes it academic. Far as I know, France won't extradite one of it's citizens.

He is now. He has lived there so long that he has been naturalized. He was an American citizen when he fled.
 
She was never going to get any real closure on this, no thanks to the American justice system.

Back in 1977, much as it remains today, justice in America could be bought and paid for.



You're either completely ignoring, or are completely ignorant of, the fact that Polanski had already been through the criminal justice system.

He'd already been "punished".

He'd already signed a plea bargain that led to him serving 42 days of psychiatric evaluation.

He fled the United States because he was afraid that after coming out of commitment the judge was going to renege on his promise, and on the sentence that prosecutors had promised him, and deport him instead of letting him live in America on probation.

So the worst that could have happened to him was that America was going to kick him out of the country.

Let that sink in for a second.












He left the country so that the judge couldn't kick him out of the country, and now activists want him extradited back to America so that he can stand before a judge and be kicked out of the country?

:roll:


If he served his time, why is he still a wanted man?

Also, what is with the left's fascination with everything French? Aren't your knees getting sore yet?
 
He is now. He has lived there so long that he has been naturalized. He was an American citizen when he fled.

According to Wikipedia, he was Polish by birth. Don't know if that matters to the french, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom