• 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
clownboy said:
I understand the difference, got it the first time, but again this wasn't a matter where the French people and their government disagreed.
Click to expand...

Well, I think we may have hashed this out pretty thoroughly.
Cheers.
 
Carjosse said:
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.
Click to expand...

The death sentence was never even a possibility in that case, so your argument holds no merit. France knows that; it is using international blackmail to coerce a sovereign nation into changing its laws to suit France, even though Polanski was never in danger of being sentenced to death because it was never applicable to the charges against him. For that matter, he was never in danger of a life sentence either.
 
soot said:
Your opinion is noted.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of opinion that France isn't doing it for the reasons you state as being the moral issues of the case.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I have a moderately negative view of France, which I think is deserved. Also, I'm not intending to bash a whole nation of people, I'm intending to bash their government for harboring a child rapist.

Also, taking sidehanded, tongue in cheek shots at the French is a national past time, passed on to us by our British forbearers. If you don't understand that, you've never been to France. They do it to us all the time.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm Canadian so I have my own issues with the French and French people in general - I'm not here to defend the French.

Secondly, I appreciate your position, but really you can't claim that Polanski is a "child rapist" in the legal sense. That is not what he was convicted of - he was convicted of "unlawful intercourse with a minor child". Now, before you get all ballistic, that's not my decision - that was the decision of the American judicial system at the time of his plea bargain and conviction in the 70s. If he had been convicted of "rape", he would have been serving a life sentence in a California prison, not a 90 day psychiatric assessment, as ordered by the judge in his trial.

Now, just as with Linsay Lohan and others in the California "bad celebrity" hand-slapping justice system, Polanski went to prison, served his time, and was released by the authorities in charge after he was evaluated as having no psychiatric issues and as no threat to society. You can argue that the "authorities in charge" didn't do a good enough job, but Polanski didn't issue his own release or break out of prison - he left when he was released.

I wasn't paying attention at the time, but I'll guarantee that the judge and prosecutors in this case got a lot of grief from the public regarding the leniency of this plea deal and sentence - rightly so. But in your system of justice, do you want judges after the fact, after getting public grief, to be able to go back and change their minds when they get pressured? Polanski fled after the judge issued a bench warrant to arrest him again after he was released from prison. That warrant, in most cases, would be illegal and perhaps was illegal here - Polanski wrongly made the decision not to challenge that arrest in court and fled the country instead. After 40 years, and many opportunities to arrest him previously, a prosecutor in 2009 decided to make a name for himself, likely for political reasons, and activated the extradition proceedings.
 
Grand Mal said:
They do it to everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I don't think any foreigner can ever really know if they're saying it in a half-joking, almost endearing way, or if they really do have that much contempt for everyone else. Perhaps a mix of both. One thing is for certain, though, French pride and cynicism have no equal in this world.
 
I've never been a huge fan of France, to answer the question in the OP. The Polanski affair added to my negative view, yes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, I'm Canadian so I have my own issues with the French and French people in general - I'm not here to defend the French.

Secondly, I appreciate your position, but really you can't claim that Polanski is a "child rapist" in the legal sense. That is not what he was convicted of - he was convicted of "unlawful intercourse with a minor child". Now, before you get all ballistic, that's not my decision - that was the decision of the American judicial system at the time of his plea bargain and conviction in the 70s. If he had been convicted of "rape", he would have been serving a life sentence in a California prison, not a 90 day psychiatric assessment, as ordered by the judge in his trial.

Now, just as with Linsay Lohan and others in the California "bad celebrity" hand-slapping justice system, Polanski went to prison, served his time, and was released by the authorities in charge after he was evaluated as having no psychiatric issues and as no threat to society. You can argue that the "authorities in charge" didn't do a good enough job, but Polanski didn't issue his own release or break out of prison - he left when he was released.

I wasn't paying attention at the time, but I'll guarantee that the judge and prosecutors in this case got a lot of grief from the public regarding the leniency of this plea deal and sentence - rightly so. But in your system of justice, do you want judges after the fact, after getting public grief, to be able to go back and change their minds when they get pressured? Polanski fled after the judge issued a bench warrant to arrest him again after he was released from prison. That warrant, in most cases, would be illegal and perhaps was illegal here - Polanski wrongly made the decision not to challenge that arrest in court and fled the country instead. After 40 years, and many opportunities to arrest him previously, a prosecutor in 2009 decided to make a name for himself, likely for political reasons, and activated the extradition proceedings.
Click to expand...


None of that changes the fact that Roman Polanski:

A.) As a 43 year old man, used his position of power as a famed movie director to lure a 13 year old girl to his residence

B.) Drugged the girl

C.) Forced himself on the girl

D.) Fled the country before final sentencing

E.) Is being harbored by the French who refuse to extradite him


Look, if he's already served his time, then just extradite him and this whole thing will go away. Only, the thing is, it's a crime to skip out on sentencing like that. Just like you can't run from the cops. So in addition to rape, he'd most likely have to answer for that as well.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not a matter of opinion that France isn't doing it for the reasons you state as being the moral issues of the case.
Click to expand...

What did I state as the "moral issues of the case"?
 
I really don’t give a ****. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

- Gore Vidal on Roman Polanski and women, to The Atlantic, 2009.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.
 
Last edited:
I don't care at all. France has their thing. Not worth raising a stink about.
 
Clearly, the United States is a paragon of criminal justice. Therefore we have a right to judge other nations' justice systems. /sarcasm
 
soot said:
What did I state as the "moral issues of the case"?
Click to expand...

:shock: Seriously?

soot said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Gina said:
So who are you to deny this woman her peace of mind?

And what does that have to do with this case? It was reported and they attempted to bring him to justice.

She got her measure of justice/punishment in a civil case. She feels it's over.

Yes, it is precisely about you wanting to ignore the wishes of a woman who says she's done with the matter. Apparently, no one has been hurt in the meantime, thank God, however, it's on the French to prevent that from occurring. They have him and refuse to return him. It's their watch, they've taken the responsibility.
Click to expand...


So if you want to rape a young girl, the key to never having to go to jail is to avoid capture for long enough where the victim has moved on with her life and doesn't want to drag it up anymore.

No thanks.
 
Graffias said:
My sentiments exactly.
Click to expand...

Gore Vidal was just mad because Roman Polanski wouldn't **** him. But the poor bugger is dead, so I shouldn't speak ill of the dead, so I shouldn't speak of Gore Vidal - never mind.
 
Graffias said:
I really don’t give a ****. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

- Gore Vidal on Roman Polanski and women, to The Atlantic, 2009.

My sentiments exactly.
Click to expand...

That "young hooker" was a 13 year old girl.
 
Phys251 said:
Clearly, the United States is a paragon of criminal justice. Therefore we have a right to judge other nations' justice systems. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

Nice but it's the other way around in this situation. It's the French judging America's criminal justice system.
 
clownboy said:
No, but they're shielding the guy who did. What does being calm have to do with any of that?
Click to expand...

So? Nations shield all kinds of bad people. So does the US. Nothing to lose sleep over.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So? Nations shield all kinds of bad people. So does the US. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Click to expand...

I don't think clownboy or anybody else is losing sleep. We're having a political debate which, to my knowledge, is what we do around here for fun.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Roman Polanski raped the girl. France aided and abetted the crime.
Click to expand...

How did the country and aid and abet? Did they help plan it? Help in its execution? Help him avoid arrest?

Do you know what 'aid and abet' means? Cause it looks like no.

Peter Grimm said:
I don't think clownboy or anybody else is losing sleep. We're having a political debate which, to my knowledge, is what we do around here for fun.
Click to expand...

Did I accuse anyone of losing sleep? I'm giving my opinion that this is such a trivial non-issue in state-to-state relations that it's laughable. This is like a cable news type of issue.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
How did the country and aid and abet? Did they help plan it? Help in its execution? Help him avoid arrest?
Click to expand...

Bingo.

OldWorldOrder said:
Do you know what 'aid and abet' means? Cause it looks like no.
Click to expand...

Yep.


OldWorldOrder said:
Did I accuse anyone of losing sleep? I'm giving my opinion that this is such a trivial non-issue in state-to-state relations that it's laughable. This is like a cable news type of issue.
Click to expand...

You said "nothing to lose sleep over," implying that he was losing sleep over this issue. He might be, but I doubt it. So what's your point here, that this discussion is trivial? In some ways, you're right. That doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing.

All this stuff still happened. The French are still harboring a child raper. If all I'm doing is stating facts, how can anyone possibly complain about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom