Justice

[poliphilo]

All I ask is consistency. Either the seduction of a child is the most disgusting crime on the book or it's a forgiveable peccadillo; I can live with either. What I find unacceptable is a state of affairs where it's the most disgusting crime on the book when the offender is Creepy Joe Schmo and a forgiveable peccadillo when he's an Oscar-winning film director. Justice should be impartial; that's why its personification is shown wearing a blindfold.  I don't mind excuses being made for Polanski's behaviour- for example that he was traumatised by his childhood experiences- just so long that kind of indulgence is extended to every paedophile. A person's wealth, status, talent, and popularity should have no bearing on their standing in law. 

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Rape is not seduction.

[oakmouse]

Yes, this. He admits he drugged her and that she said no repeatedly and begged him to stop. That's rape.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm being careful. I wrote "rape" to begin with then changed it. What Polanski was found guilty of was "unlawful sex with a minor".

Like Whoopee Goldberg I'm inclined to think this wasn't "rape-rape". It was coercive and manipulative, but non-violent. What made it criminal was the age of the victim. In the past they would have called it "statutory rape" but I believe they don't use that term any more.

Whatever the name of his crime, Polanski is a paedophile and a creep- and I make a point of not going to see his movies.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Tony, this wasn't statutory rape (though yes, that's what he pleaded guilty to). The girl and Polanski both testified to:

1. the fact that he drugged her
2. the fact that she said NO - REPEATEDLY.

These are the facts that are being blatantly - and deliberately - ignored by far too many people. I'd suggest reading Kate Harding's article at Salon:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

Here's a brief excerpt:
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Statutory rape is used to describe consensual sexual relations that occur when one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.

What happened was rape. There was no consensual sex. None. He raped her. He raped a 13-year old girl who had no way of stopping him.

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

strongly seconded. and, at the risk of being too graphic, there's very little chance that a grown man forcing his erect penis into a 13 year old's anus while she was resisting was not violent.

also, it is a myth that all rapes are violent.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Amen.

There are no "degrees" of rape, which is what Goldberg is saying. That anyone would suggest such is disgusting, not to mention insulting and humiliating for those who have been "non-violently" raped (and I happen to be one of them and the thought that just because I didn't come out needing to go to hospital people think I wasn't raped has me near tears). Rape is rape. Period. It doesn't make it less of a rape if the woman isn't beaten up before, during or after. What makes it a rape is when the woman says NO.

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more.

I was violently raped. The detectives told me I liked it - I'm "kinky," apparently.

I also volunteered at and worked for a rape crisis center, and in the course of my work, sat with people in the hospital or on the phone who were beaten so badly they needed surgery and people who didn't have a scratch on them, and I would be a fool to make any parallel comparison in their suffering or the maliciousness of the crime.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Not knowing the details, I thought it best to play it safe. Now that I know them, I have no hesitation in calling Polanski a rapist.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I hadn't read the details of what happened. Now that I have I withdraw my equivocation. Polanski is a paedophile and a creep and a rapist.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I really appreciate that - and I wasn't trying to be harsh, just that this entire situation is making me physically ill.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I entirely understand.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Thank you. And I agree with you entirely.

[shullie.livejournal.com]

me to.xxx

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

I dont know how they defined it later, but when I was in my teens, statutory rape was defined as having consentual sex with any minor (under 18 years of age)-- the assumption being that "children" are not intelligent enough to make such a decision. Of course the perpetrator had to be of age, over 21 years of age, and the penalty on the books was for 20 years in prison. Where there was no consent it was just plain rape, and where violence was employed it was "aggravated rape".
Polanski? No excuse, sir! - as they say in the military.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I believe Polanski has said there was a consensual element- but he would, wouldn't he?