I'm not sure if this thread is a good idea with it being such an emotive subject but the issue of Roman Polanski's arrest, and the reaction to it, confuses the hell out of me and I wondered what the 'average American' thought about this.
OK, so the details are, Roman Polanski is arrested in the 70's for the drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl. She claimed she tried to get away but was too drunk and drugged to fight back.
Polanski is arrested and convicted after pleading guilty to rape (I don't know if he admitted to drugging the girl but she was drunk). Before being sentenced he flee's the country to escape jail. He later loses a civil prosecution for raping and sodomising a child and is ordered to pay $500k which he avoids paying for at least 10 years. Polanski is finally trapped and held in Switzerland ready to face trial about 30 years later.
Since then, teh media has been flooded with the elite of the movie world coming out in support of the convicted rapist saying that his arrest is awful thing and portraying Polanski as a victim of persecution. Whoopie Goldberg even went as far as to say she didn't think it was 'rape-rape'.
This is what I can't understand, how do you defend the rapist of a 13y/o girl?
I can understand the Michael Jackson supporters, he paid off a mother to withdraw charges but he was found innocent in the trials he did face. Polanski however has confessed and was found guilty.
Do these defenders of his think that old crimes should be forgotten?
Oh, and of course when you consider the reaction to Mel Gibson's anti-semetic rant that virtually killed his career as Hollywood turned their backs on him it makes their defence of a convicted child rapist seem more bazarre.
Anyone here have any opinion on this? Are there any reasonable arguements in his defence?
OK, so the details are, Roman Polanski is arrested in the 70's for the drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl. She claimed she tried to get away but was too drunk and drugged to fight back.
Polanski is arrested and convicted after pleading guilty to rape (I don't know if he admitted to drugging the girl but she was drunk). Before being sentenced he flee's the country to escape jail. He later loses a civil prosecution for raping and sodomising a child and is ordered to pay $500k which he avoids paying for at least 10 years. Polanski is finally trapped and held in Switzerland ready to face trial about 30 years later.
Since then, teh media has been flooded with the elite of the movie world coming out in support of the convicted rapist saying that his arrest is awful thing and portraying Polanski as a victim of persecution. Whoopie Goldberg even went as far as to say she didn't think it was 'rape-rape'.
This is what I can't understand, how do you defend the rapist of a 13y/o girl?
I can understand the Michael Jackson supporters, he paid off a mother to withdraw charges but he was found innocent in the trials he did face. Polanski however has confessed and was found guilty.
Do these defenders of his think that old crimes should be forgotten?
Oh, and of course when you consider the reaction to Mel Gibson's anti-semetic rant that virtually killed his career as Hollywood turned their backs on him it makes their defence of a convicted child rapist seem more bazarre.
Anyone here have any opinion on this? Are there any reasonable arguements in his defence?