"Banks should be run by people of good moral character." Is that something new? I never heard of that before. Is that for this planet?

Ha! I agree! I was thinking--with the recent banking scandals, they could check the head of almost any bank and find God-knows-who. I suspect Satan runs three or four.

I watched this too!!! WTF??? A banker vs a rapist?

The whole Roman Polanski apologist movement is in danger of making my head pop off. I just flat out don't get it.

What T&D said. I think it's evidence that violence against women, and even 13 year old girls, just isn't taken seriously by a frighteningly large segment of the population...including too many people in power.

Moral equivalency:

Nearly Pedophillic Rapist = 1,000,000,000 tons of moral depravity
Drug Money Launderer= 3,500,000 tons of greedy moral depravity

Equivalency? None exists.

I can't imagine anyone granting citizenship to Shafi, but how that in anyway relates to drugging and raping a 13 years old child is beyond me. I just don't see the connection. It's like saying I like hot dogs so Tuesday should a holiday. It makes no sense.
Polanski has had thirty years of freedom that he didn't in any way deserve. He's been the darling of Europe which makes me wonder if they condone celebrity child rape.
I know the details of his case and how the judge was going to supposedly stick him, but he deserved a longer sentence than he was getting in my book. The guy is 76 years old and will die before he pays his dues. As far as I'm concerned he already DID get away with it.

Fuck ABC; Polanksi is a rapist. I wonder if he wasn't also a famous director if there'd even be any question as to whether he should be extradited and tried.

I agree. He has gotten away with over 30 years of almost total freedom. He didn't deserve the lenient sentence he was trying to bargain for. It is scary how the media can so distort something.

EXACTLY what nanatehay said!

My hope is that there is a Swiss version of "Bubba" in the cell with Polanski...

I absolutely do not believe that Wikipedia has the same level of accuracy as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I find mistakes in it constantly on subjects that I do not have expertise in, and that makes me think there must be many, many more. I don't permit my students to use it as a reference unless they have two corroborating sources from more reputable publications. No comment on the Polanski issue.

Emma, The Smoking Gun has the victim's original depositions (they're in public domain). They're completely damning towards Polanski...and completely believable (you can tell she's a 13 year old girl and she admits to stuff that might make her look bad -- e.g. that she'd tried drugs and had sex before)

Retire already Charlie.

Dear New Budda Fun,

*ahem*

1. 13 yr. olds ARE FREAK'IN CHILDREN!

2. Roman Polanski is a pedophile, rapist.

3. NO punishment is too severe for a person that rapes a child.

4. It makes no difference when, where or how... rape is rape.

5. FUCK YOU! (and not in a nice way, sweetie)

Sincerely,

Me

The comparison between the money launderer and Polanski is absurd. This is example of very poor journalism.

rated

Hey New Budda Fun,

Just so you don't think there are any undue hard feelings, here's a little song for ya... enjoy! ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03PnU27cWDs

From the LA Times:

How a girl's stark words got lost in the Polanski spectacle

"In the flat light of the grand jury room, a nervous, deeply embarrassed 13-year-old girl sat alone -- no attorney, no mother, no friend -- facing three tiers of middle-aged strangers silently studying her from their leather armchairs.

The questions that day in March 1977 were clinical in tone.

The answers would set off a furor from Hollywood to London and Paris that has yet to subside.

Samantha Gailey -- sandy brown hair, dimpled chin, missing class at her junior high in Woodland Hills -- described her alleged rape by director Roman Polanski two weeks before at Jack Nicholson's home above Franklin Canyon. She clutched a small heart charm her friend had given her.

"After he kissed you, did he say anything?" asked the prosecutor, Roger Gunson.

"No," the girl said.

"Did you say anything?"

"No, besides I was just going, 'No, come on, let's go home. . . .' He said, 'I'll take you home soon.' "

"Then what happened?"

"And then he went down and started performing cuddliness."

"What does that mean?"

"It means he went down on me, or he placed his mouth on my vagina. . . . I was ready to cry. I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."

Samantha's testimony that day was unequivocal: She had kept trying to get away from him, putting her clothes back on, saying no repeatedly. She had made up a lie about having asthma to get out of a Jacuzzi. He persisted. She was scared. She did not physically fight him off. He began to have sex with her, then, concerned she might get pregnant, switched to anal sex. When he drove her home, he told her not to tell her mom, adding, "You know, when I first met you, I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you."

A generation of spectacle would follow: Polanski's indictment, his plea deal, his flight from the country, allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, his decades of exile and critical success, his Oscar, a sympathetic HBO documentary last year, his rearrest in Switzerland last month.

Along the way, various people would scrub the core allegations into something more benign -- a probation officer would deem the crime a "spontaneous" act of "poor judgment," a prison psychiatrist would call it "playful mutual eroticism."

But Samantha's stark testimony has never been seriously impugned, in or out of court. When she sued Polanski years later for sexual assault, he pleaded the 5th when asked if he illegally gave her champagne and part of a quaalude pill, then performed oral copulation on her and sodomized her."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5337333,full.story

Anyone here who thinks they are some kind of expert about the judgment of a drugged 13 year old girl or any child's ability to give consent to sex is seriously demonstrating a lack of judgment and understanding of human development, appropriate behavior between children and adults and the legal status of children under such circumstances. This was a child and Polanski was old enough to be her father. He knew what he was doing was wrong. Anyone pretending otherwise is an asshole.

Well his lawyer has to look for a defense to rest his case upon, when he comes back to the states to face his charges. He has been a fugitive, and should be re-tried whether he likes it or not is not really the question. But it should be a reflection of granting those types of images that exist, that people are stupid, and that men are somehow more prone to wanting sex, and even if this were true, it dosen't give a man a right whether he thinks so in his mind, is the worse offense. It is a sad statement, but most healthy men wouldn't want much to do with most women in general, due to being slightly more intelligent. Even though men think they want sex, they also get blind sided. Polanski had no right to take advantage of a girl that age, no more than Saad Shafi had to launder drug money for Noriega, hopefully are soldiers are not dying in vain, and the countrys that we are fight and fighting for these countries to become civil will bring these monsters to justice. That is why criminal minds need punishment, because it is not only the victims who suffer, but the society that is left to balance the scales of the injustice, just to think of the monies that is wasted every single day would prouably save the NY budget.

Unlike New Buddha Fun, I have actually studied juvenile justice and know something of the foundations for protecting children from predators under the law. The physical fact of menstruation is not an indication of completion of maturity, it is a stage. NBF states the possibility of menstruation like it is some reason that this is okay but his reasoning is not a credible in that such a basis would fail to protect the innocence of a child to mature at their own rate.

The fact that this girl's mother failed to protect her is also not a basis to afford Polanski a pass on what he did. The fact that she innocently engaged in sexual play with kids her own age is not a reason why she shouldn't be able to say "No" to Polanski, and have her wishes respected.

In any case, no comparison between the banker and Polanski could ever be considered appropriate. One is a crime against a minor and the other is a property crime.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: raped; rap·ing
Etymology: Latin rapere to seize and take away by force
: to commit rape on —rap·er noun —rap·ist noun

Main Entry: rape
Function: noun
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception —see also STATUTORY RAPE
NOTE: The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved. Marital status is usually irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful sexual intercourse, and first degree sexual abuse.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

What emma peel said, verbatim.

Good reporting, Delia.
Rated.

New Buddha
When my daughter was in 5th grade, there was a girl in the class who, with the right clothes could easily pass for 18. She was above average height for a woman, her figure was no less curvy than an adults.

SHE WAS NINE. She acted and thought like a nine year old.

There was another girl in that class who, with the right clothes could pass for a 5 years old.

Mentally, the two girls were on the exact same level.

And please, while some societies have wanted fertile girls, no matter how immature, married off before they get raped and pregnant, many societies had minimum ages of marriage considerably higher than 13. Further clothing and custom kept younger girls from being considered mature. (Different clothes, not being "out" and allowed to go to court or go to dances).

Further, in the past, menarche was delayed and many girls did not look like women until 16 or so, meaning the current problem of 13 year olds who are physically but not mentally mature was much less common.

I think that a fair amount of the stupider support for Polanski comes from ignorance. 30 years ago, he was accused of statutorily raping a teen. Those are the charges that I hazily recall from the depths of history when it wasn't a current issue.

If that was all the charges consisted of, if all he had done was have consensual sex with a sophisticated (and much older) teen, most of us would agree with his supporters: time to move on.

The message is, that you have to do your research, because I bet many people who signed petitions in support of Polanski would be horrified if they read the victim's testimony.

Thanks Dr. Susanne Freeborn for the link to the LA Times. I looked at the article and posted the link above under the Wikipedia reference. I knew I had heard the same details other places.

As far as the crazy assertion that a 13-year-old is not a child, I agree with the rebuttals. Menstruation is a phase. Who says it determines adulthood? What if someone was really sick and said that being able to walk determines adulthood? The average maturity level of 13-year-olds compared to 18-year-olds is much different. Polanski raped a child.

I have had my own experience with the legal system (my father murdered). I find that the court system doesn't do ENOUGH to secure justice for victims. As someone pointed out to me, they call it a criminal justice system, and honestly, they are often more focused on the rights of the criminal. If Roman Polanski did not have the money and connections he had, he would likely have been in jail long ago. I do realize that there is also different justice between a rich white man and a poor black man. There are so many prejudices interwoven in our system that it is complicated. The fact that he should be in jail, though, seems obvious to me.
As far as corporate involvement, I have seen media accounts that try to make him sympathetic, and we know that the media is basically a few huge corporations in America. I would say that this is a major way corporations influence justice---by harnessing the media.

Polanski has lived thirty years in the life of luxury, while this girl, even though she now wants it thrown out, has had to live with this. Two different crimes, two different people, both scumbags!!
R~

Very good post. Only recently was I aware of the statements of the victim, and assumed long ago it was a case of consentual sex with a girl whom Polanski assumed was of legal age. Where Gibson was going with this is beyond me. As to the argument that 13 year-old girls are ready for sex, I think our laws prohibiting adults from having sex with minors are more than reasonable. There are many good reasons for having and enforcing these laws, as Ms. Freeborn has pointed out, and I fully support their vigorous enforcement. Polanski deserves a fair trial, but media coverage surrounding a case doesn't change the facts of the case. I'm not sure what his sentence ought to be if he is found guilty, but there is no reason he should not face these charges.