Monday September 28, 2009, 2:19 pm
The former 'victim' came out last year in an interview saying that she didn't want him to be prosecuted. Who are we to judge, if that is HER view? Maybe it wasn't as clear-cut a case as some claim.

Monday September 28, 2009, 2:23 pm
This girl was 13 years old..regardless of how she feels..what this man did was horribly wrong..that is as clear case as it gets..It was rape and abuse to a child..and sadly he did think he was above the law..

Thanks Panda..
Noted..

Monday September 28, 2009, 2:37 pm
If an act of rape and paedophilia has been committed,then Polanski should be sentenced.Just because victims are not supportive of this..or are no longer alive,does it mean that a heinous crime of child abuse should be unpunished !?Also the habits of paedophiles and also rapists are such,that it is incredibly rare for them not to be serial abusers..keeping them off the streets is vital..Polanski (an incredibly talented director, I must say..though that is besides the point)..if he has committed this crime,would not have been the recipient of any treatment..and there is a chance he would have repeated this behaviour.
Rape of a woman was once seen as acceptable,particularly within marriage,many many feminists and even non feminists fought against this brutality and invasion..if anything can be worse than the rape of a woman,it is the rape of a minor.
As for "who are we to judge" Alba,I am surprised that you say that,as like myself you have a clear cut idea of what is acceptable or not..we are neither of us moral relativists..the sort who allow for all acts ,regardless of their brutality and harm involved..because they beleive that all morality is relative.

Monday September 28, 2009, 3:35 pm
I saw about 2 seconds of the victim he raped last night and the reporter said that she has forgiven Polaski. She was speaking but the ABC station didn't have the audio on so you couldn't hear her.

Monday September 28, 2009, 3:37 pm
Oh....and no one is ever "above the law" except God.

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:05 pm
This is not a trumped up charge, Polanski admitted guilt. It wouldn't matter either way nor should it matter that the person in question cannot face being in court. A crime has been committed and there is no limitation. The warrant was issued 4 years ago so is not an old one.

That Polanski is now French and an artist makes no difference to me, a rapist and a paedophile is a rapist and a paedophile regardelss of who and what they are and MUST be charged and face a trial. They must be judged as a person and not as a famous person!

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:08 pm
Roman Polanski is another kettle of fish altogether....he is not moral in my eyes....his beautiful,deceased wife Sharon Tate (RIP) was a wonder to behold and I miss her...Anyone that wants to have sex with a child, is a PEDOPHILE, and should have the REGISTRY, watching him where ever he goes...Of Course he is not above the LAW-but you know HollyWood, sometimes they tend to turn the other cheek...which doesn't impress me in the least, when it comes to the ethics of TinselTown!! Activist/Security Guard Alexandra Marcella Manolesco-Ami!!

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:08 pm
Justice should be served, he should be extradited. He would have been tried 31 yrs ago hadn't he ran away.

The problem is that the victim in the case would also be punished "again" by having to recount the whole story over and over. If it could be done without mention of her, based only on past testimony and records, it should be done immediately. It's a pity that the law also punishes the victim in cases like this.

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:23 pm
Yes he should have gone to jail and be a registered sex offender. However as the poor woman has said on several occasions she does not want to have to go to court now so perhaps she should be excused from testifying as an adult. But wasn't he sentenced and sent to jail at the time, but got out for some reason. No matter back to jail and register

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:26 pm
He should be punished to the highest extent of the law. Simply because the victim "forgave him" should no relevance.

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:26 pm
I think most Americans were doubly shocked by his actions because they took place relatively soon after the murder of his wife. (that's relatively soon in woman's-memory years, not in horny-man years.) If I recall, the child's Mother had a role to play in this incident, too. Yes, he should be prosecuted, and too bad we can't ensure it will be front-page news in Asia and Africa, which have an even worse record than the US vis a vis pedophilia.

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:31 pm
Panda, you are spot on! In the US (and in much of the west) we treat crimes as committed against the state, or government. Most murders are state crimes and tried in state courts, for example. We have that view of justice because it removes the ideas of personal vengeance, or revenge, from the process. That allows the system to function with some degree of fairness and lack of bias. Allowing the crimes to be personalized, and judged by the victims (and victims' families) gets into the eye for an eye and / or mob mentality that usually results in more miscarriages of justice than in justice itself.
Time passed is irrelevant because he did not spend that time in prison. He has not been punished and remains an example of someone above or beyond the law - which is a negative outcome for our society as a whole. His age and status are irrelevant in this nation where no one is (supposed to be) above the law - ever!
So, regardless of the revolting and completely unacceptable excuses being made for this child predator, he should be extradited, tried, and if found guilty, imprisoned. That's how our system works and it is critical that it continue to work well. It's also critical that no one escape punishment for the lame reasons offered by people who are outside our society. We want justice, not just for the victim but for our society. We demand justice because it is important to the functioning of our society and criminal justice system to have justice, however delayed. It's long overdue and should not, NOT, be denied.

Monday September 28, 2009, 4:49 pm

If he is not Prosecuted, then does this not in Theory give him permission to do it again?

Monday September 28, 2009, 5:16 pm
Agreed, no one is above the law no matter the merits one has produced or positions held. The detail was that Polanski was photo shooting the minor at Jack Nicholson's home, got the minor drunk with alcohol and half a qualude, bathed her then proceeded to sexually abuse her. No matter the time lapse, if indeed he did this...he should be tried by jury to give him a verdict. After all, he now has a little daughter, wouldn't he want the laws and protections for her from dudes like him? Even though it may have been a very dire bad moment in judgement, nonetheless he carried out the crime.

Monday September 28, 2009, 5:33 pm
Doesn't matter what the victim says or wants. The law steps in and decides to prosecute. No one is above the law. That's what's wrong with the USA now. We have people in prison for petty crimes because they couldn't afford an attorney. Yet, we have murderers and white collar criminals on the streets after committing gross crimes simply because they had money...and influence.

This is a major problem with our society. We even do it in our homes. We favor one child over the other and dish out unequal punishment, chores and favors. The unfavored child grows up with low self-esteem and has problems throughout life...it can even lead to criminal behavior. The favored child feels privileged, breaks laws and can even turn into a bully...or tyrannical leader like Bush. A society that is run with an unbalanced judicial system is unhealthy.

Monday September 28, 2009, 5:58 pm
I totally agree Marion..and remain shocked and awed,that the law is not fair and equal..equal representation ensures that there is a fair chance of the guilty being punished and that the innocent can live their lives free..this is another way in which the market denies freedom to those with less/no means..I'm glad that Roman Polanski is facing justice.
I understand that he went through hell,when he lost his young wife Sharon Tate in a barbaric fashion ,to the murderous dregs who were The Manson Family..who thankfully have received justice,I also admire Polanski as a film maker..but like Bill Wyman of The Rolling Stones (who has never been tried over the alleged sexual relationship with thirteen year old Mandy Smith..so is neither innocent nor guilty,as he hasn't faced justice)..Polanski never faced justice..but i'm very pleased that he may well be facing justice now.
I applaud the actions of the USA in this case..and I haven't said that too often since Clinton left office..and didn't say it very often when he was in office.

Monday September 28, 2009, 6:29 pm
No one should be able to simply leave the country to avoid sentencing. It is time to face the music.

Monday September 28, 2009, 6:40 pm
If the crime had been committed by some poor sot instead of a well-known, wealthy person, the poor sot would have been imprisoned long ago. Polanski deserves to get put on trial.
As one lawyer in Toronto put it, "If you have enough money, you can commit any crime, even murder, and I can get you off." The justice system is not fair. Any honest lawyer will tell you that.

Monday September 28, 2009, 6:48 pm
He pleads guilty and turns around and and runs. He has no respect for women or the law. I say bring him back and pay for what he has done.

Monday September 28, 2009, 7:20 pm
Thanking Panda for bringing this in and Bruce Anderson for the details that are sickening. That the victim forgave him is beside the point. He should be tried on the charges of rape ,assault, giving alcohol to a minor, attempted poisoning with the Quaalude they should throw the book at him and the victim should be encouraged lectured severely not to condone poisoning a child under any circumstances. For the attempted poisoning and flight to avoid prosecution he should get Life. He had a life already that he did not deserve.

Monday September 28, 2009, 7:25 pm
I agree with Marion,Panda and Sherri. Nobody should be above the law. In Argentina abused children's families (or abused children) are usually given money or favours by the abusers (who are generally rich or people with political influence) and "decide" not to denounce the abusers. The same happens with domestic abuse/violence: the victim decide to "forgive" the abuser and never denounce him. Abuse is not a private issue, moreover, just remember that the girl was 13...

Monday September 28, 2009, 7:55 pm
I'm shocked by France's opposition to his extradition!

Monday September 28, 2009, 7:56 pm
If someone is to be allowed to not be punished because the victim has it inside themselves to forgive what was done to them, then I guess it's okay for murderers to not be tried, if their surviving family forgives them, rather than harbor hatred. NO, NO, NO! He should be prosecuted the same as any common person not in the public eye. Seldom does one do this to only ONE person. We may never know who else had it done to them, but no one is above the law.

Monday September 28, 2009, 8:43 pm
I agree with Alba Nuova's comment

Monday September 28, 2009, 9:11 pm
ANYONE who looks into the innocent eyes of a child, or an animal, then takes advantage of their absolute trust, by using harsh words, or physical violense - or sexual acts, does not deserve to live among us.

For anyone to think that it's okay now simply because so much time has gone by, and oh, why bring it all up now, and make anyone have to suffer through it again, you have absolutely no idea what it means to victims who have to live with it everyday anyhow! Perhaps this particular victim has found a way to go on, without pain, or damages, BUT she is one of few, because this is not usually the situation with someone whose innocense was ROBBED.

This man might be talented, rich, old, genius, etcetera, etcetera. Who cares, IF he did this to a child - when he was an adult, then admitted it, BUT RAN AWAY from facing his truth, then he MUST pay by being punished for his act and now in addition to that, he must be punished for avoiding the law all these years. In fact, mocking our laws!

These types of people just want everyone to forget their wrongs, BUT want to be acknowledged for what they do that's right. We are each a sum of all we do - right and wrong!

Monday September 28, 2009, 9:46 pm
We punish everyday people and restrict the areas they can be in. Hollywood people, regardless of whether they are producers, directors, actors, actresses...they are not above the law and therefore, should suffer the consequences for their actions.

Monday September 28, 2009, 9:57 pm
When this incident first happened I like most was horrified by the charges levied against a grown man and his abuse of a child. Then later read that in fact at the time of the incident he was told the girl was 18 (the girl and her mother were participants in this fraud) and of course Roman was drunk. If you honestly believe that a 12 or 13 year old girl can not be made up to look 18 or 20 then you haven't spent any time around the world of modeling. I think the mother was looking for a quick buy-off, when that was not forth coming she then went to the authorities. Polanski followed legal advice and took the plea (which requires an admission of guilt) however the plea turned into a double cross. I am NOT justifying child rape or any form of child abuse, but I think this case carries an odor of something very wrong. If Polanski was guilty he should have been prosecuted promptly and properly at the time, instead he was offered a plea deal that required only some time in psychiatric treatment, then after he completed his "time" he was confronted with a change of heart by the judge and the prosecutor. The current situation seems a continuation of a county desirous of revenge not justice. Sometimes our justice system works very well, sometimes it does not, Roman Polanski has had this over his head for many years and still we don't know the truth. Maybe it is time to let this go, not because he is rich and famous, but because he too became a victim of the justice system.

Whether OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife or not he will always be considered a murderer by society, whether Michael Jackson was actually a pedophile - one thing is for sure he was accused of this and is therefore labeled as such. Sometimes being rich and famous can assist one in getting a free pass, other times it only means that guilty or not the assumption is that once the charge is levied society assumes that means guilt.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 1:50 am
I don't know the cause to comment if he was guilty or not, but I don't understand why - if he was giulty - he hasn't faced the law for 31 years? Why he was allowed to make movies, get prestigiuos prizes, honours being pedophile??? Not because the extradition problem but because all the people who was working with him, buying his movies, celebrating his talent etc.
So, who/what failed then? Law? Justice? No........
It makes me sick when I hear about all the "big names" who advocate now in the name of his fame - what's the difference the crime is the crime - that's my opinion but when I read Kit comment I can't understand it at all why he wasn't prosecuted then and I don't have time to make research about Polaski's case as I'm not 100% sure if it's all about justice....
there are many more important causes...
but my opinion is clear - the society, people put some people above the law

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:15 am
Bottom line, he did rape a child. Rape is a crime, is it not? What about rape victims that have mental problems for the rest of their lives and the rapist have a wonderful and successful future.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 4:58 am
Another reason we should not condone rape or abuse, regardless who the perpetrator is: A large amount of these victims become rapists and abusers of others, as well as remaining victims for life. Boys who have been raped can go grow to be rapists themselves. Without psychological help, the victims may believe they were at fault, which is why they tend to forgive the perpetrator. While forgiveness of the person is good, it is not good to forgive the crime.

MacKenzie Phillips (actress) who was raped by her father (famous singer of The Mamas and Papas) at age 14 (I think) and continued to sleep with him for the next 10 years (off and on) was a drug addict, in and out of jail and has had emotional problems. Her other two sisters are well adjusted. The effect the abuse had on MacKenzie is obvious while just observing her talking and appearance. She looks like an abused woman, drug addict and wracked with guilt. What a waste of talent and a human spirit.

The ripple effect and damage to society is extensive. By stopping the criminal and prosecuting, a message is sent to others who would do the same crime to proceed at their own risk.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 5:57 am
kit B. furnishes an example of news correspondents who are too lazy to get the whole story or is it the editors or do they pay editors now? Having said that Polanski is still guilty of attempted poisoning. And even though he was drunk he did give the girl a bath. What about the makeup then? And she must have been a precocious 13 year old to be so fully developed that she could fool a man. Even the voice of a 13 year old is still childish.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 6:20 am
He is no better than anyone else and should pay for what he did. The scumbag needs to be castrated.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 7:51 am
Thanks Panda. A crime committed against a child is a crime committed against society. The man plead guilty then ran to escape justice. Forgiveness on the part of the victim is good, but forgiveness is given to benefit the forgiver, not the forgiven. It should have no bearing on justice and does not make Polanski any "less guilty". 30 years separation between the crime and the punishment does not make him less guilty either. While I think there are some crimes whose circumstances may call for leniency, this one does not.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 8:38 am
He drugged and raped an underaged girl, pled guilty, cut a deal with the DA, then skipped when he thought he might actually be sent to prison. Too bad. It's nice that the victim has forgiven him, but it's not her call. Just because he's rich and famous and people like his movies doesn't put him above the law. He's been on the lam in plain sight for 31 years and getting richer and more famous every day and making friends in high places. And now he says that should be punishment enough. This guy is a child molester and rapist, not Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 8:45 am
Joycey, you must understand that while much of these types of acts against children do include sexual acts including intercourse, the true damnages have absolutely nothing to do with their penis or the genitals of their victims. Fact is, the major abuse happens by the 'grooming' of the child, mentally setting them up for the rape of their soul. IF only it were as easy as being able to castrate them to cure what has become an open sore on our society, where more than a band-aid is definately needed to heal it!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 9:09 am
The man was NOT charged with rape or statutory rape or aggravated assault he was charged with sex with a minor. Speculation on what he should have been charged with or what should be done to people who commit other offenses is just that - speculation.

Legally that crime has a statue of limitations of 3 or 6 or 10 years, depending how you read the statute. There is a flight except that can add a maximum of 3 years to that. Therefore, under California law the statute of limitatioins has run out.

That has NOTHING to do with how vile his acts were.

There are many, many irregularity in this case that suggest prosecutorial misconduct in several ways such as:

First, there are only 2 points in a trial that a judge can put someone in a psych ward.

Before the trial begins you can have the defendant checked for competency. This is to determine if he is competent to assist in his own defense. Of course you’d never accept a plea from a defendant and THEN send him for a competency hearing. Since they say he pled guilty then we can rule this out.

So the only other time a judge can put a defendant in a psych ward is as part of his sentence. But NO judge imposes sentences in phases. You don’t send someone to a psych ward for a period of time and then, after he’s done that time, continue the sentencing in a separate session and give them jail time. For one reason nobody would get better with that much stress (the unknown sentence) hanging over their heads. You’d WANT them to know so they could get a grip, come to terms with it and basically cope. In a nutshell you wouldn’t break the sentencing into pieces so there are logically inconsistencies with this story.

Second: FOURTY-TWO Days.

Judges don’t specify the number of days they commit someone for prior to a trial (or during). They commit someone to be evaluated or because they are so far gone they cannot assist in their trial. The time frame is decided by the doctor caring for them. That’s because you cannot order a doctor to cure a mentally ill patient by a certain date. The whole concept is ridiculous. The ONLY way a time frame would be specified is as part of a plea bargain.

Third: You don’t offer a plea bargain, and then start to follow its terms, BEFORE the judge agrees to it. Imagine doing 500 hours community service before the judge agrees and before the trial is over (delaying the trial somehow) just because you’ll be offering it up as part of a plea bargain. Again the whole concept is ridiculous. No one begins doing time in a hospital as part of a plea bargain they’re thinking of offering. In fact the news report was clear that he fled because he was afraid the judge would change his mind and give him hard time. Actually judges don’t get a second bite at the apple. ONE sentencing hearing with one sentence that may have many facets. You can’t sentence a defendant to be put in a psych ward for 42 days and then returned so you can decide on the rest of his sentence. It just doesn’t happen that way.

So if he fled after doing 42 days he couldn’t have been running from sentencing. Either he didn’t submit a plea pending a psych evaluation or he was already sentenced to be in a psych hospital.

OR

These ARE the facts and the judge was toying with him in violation of his rights and the law, which is the only explanation that covers the reported facts. Further, whatever caused the judge to toy with him is the likely impetus and explanation why they won’t let this go. They are prosecuting, despite the statute of limitations running out, and they have been trying HARD for 27 years.

I pointed out to a friend that there are a lot of other problems with this case.

The crime was apparently committed at a party where they say he took advantage of an underage 13 year old girl. He is supposed to have convinced her parents to let him do a photo shoot of her. He then plied her with champagne and drugs, convinced her to pose naked and seduced her.

Okay, if true then where are all the other charges? It is illegal to take pictures of a 13 year old naked. It is illegal to serve alcohol to a minor. It is illegal to do drugs and to provide them to a minor. Nobody else from the party, including the host who owned the property, were charged with any crimes.

Further, this is Hollywood and he was a Hollywood mogul. How many people do you suppose have lost their virginity, which, btw, she didn’t as everyone agreed she was sexually active with several others before Roman. ‘Wanna be in pictures, little girl?’

Now I’m not saying that to condone it just to put it in perspective. How many times, during the 70’s and 80’s, did the police file charges against any of the Hollywood moguls – yet we are all well aware of the casting couch. Almost every single child star has reported problems with it – none pressed charges or had them pressed on their behalf.

So the biggest question is why just the one charge for the one person when people of this guys stature are NEVER charged by the LA police – heck we know they’ve even got away with murder and covering up overdoses that the responding officers failed to file any charges on.

So the whole thing smells fishy to me.

As for him being above the law, those who said nobody is above the law are living in a fantasy land. Dick Chaney, George Bush and his government pals are all above the law. Everyone knows he knowingly presented false documents to congress - that's a crime. He illegally issued wire taps, is responsible for sanctioning the torture techniques, which is an international crime, and pressured (blackmailed) congressmen and senators to push through the Patriot Act, a very, very serious crime.

IMHO: There's a better chance that human beings are the old intelligent life in the universe than that Bush, personally, broke less than 100 laws while in office. Obama has sold out GLBT, state sanctioned medical marijuanna grow ops and has expanded Bush's illegal wire taps to include all electronic devices (Bush only tapped phone calls) so we shouldn't expect him to follow Rule of Law ensuring that the criminals are prosecuted for their actions!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 9:37 am

So, can someone please point out to me how laws do not apply to celebrities and politicians? Hypocrisy!

Us "common folks" already KNOW that, no matter what the infraction, we will be prosecuted "to the full extent of the law" (be it income tax evasion, back child support, writing bad checks, dogs not on leashes, smoking pot, and the list goes on and on and on).

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 10:51 am
Looks as iif the most that can happen is that he is extradited, faces the music and gets off on appeal because of gross violation of court procedure on the part of the prosecution and then of that judge. Every person has the right to proper procedure beginning with Habeas Corpus. At least all the legal wrangling will take time and he will be "under the gun" so to speak. Poetic justice even if the poetry is doggerel.

In the photo accompanying the original blog he has "that look" by the way. I would keep a chlid away from that expression.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 10:52 am
I don't think that anyone is above the law or should be.

But Polanski did NOT admit to raping this girl. He admited having had sexual relations with her, but did not and does not consider this to be rape. The law says that anyone under 18 cannot be considered to be a consenting person, but he feels she did consent. As Ron has said, "The man was NOT charged with rape or statutory rape or aggravated assault he was charged with sex with a minor. Speculation on what he should have been charged with or what should be done to people who commit other offenses is just that - speculation."
I think that the people going wild to have him crucified ought to read Kit's comment and Ron's, too.

The 'fishy' business that Ron has alluded to has at least in part been brought up by Swiss journalists and commentators who are APPALLED that their country laid a trap for Polanski and are wondering why:

they are pointing out that the Swiss might have something to gain by doing the USA a favor, for example NOT having to reveal any more of the names of those evading taxes in the US with their Swiss bank accounts. Who knows what kinds of deals are going on behind our backs ? Don't forget that the Swiss bank UBS had to reveal over 4,000 such names, but the US is prosecting only a tiny pourcentage of them, & that Obama on holiday enjoyed a nice game of golf with UBS's CEO. Wonder what they talked about, don't you ??

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 1:33 pm
Excellent points, Alba! Thanks for making us think.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:16 pm
It is simple he admitted guilt throw the book at him I don't care who he is he broke the law and ruined a girls life he is a monster like all of them.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:22 pm
Thanks for listening, Marion. What you said about MacKenzie Phillips is really terrible - I didn't know about that at all.
(oh my god, I wrote in French up there - 'pourcentage' is French for 'percentage' - sorry!)

I think that Ron is really on the right path when he talks about this judge 'toying' with Polanski.
A film came out about the case and there's a YouTube/Sundance interview with the documentarist who made it. It is being billed (in France at least) as the trial of the trial. SUNDANCE '08 - INTERVIEW with Marina Zenovich, director ofROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED

And David Gritten, journalist at the Telegraph.co.uk, takes the same point since he writes: "even the judicial proceedings against him in that infamous case have now been revealed as flawed and unfair."

He has this to say about the film: "His reasons for fleeing remained unclear until last year when an astonishing documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, had its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. Its director Marina Zenovich had persuaded Samantha, now in her mid-40s, to discuss the case on camera. She has publicly forgiven him and supports his attempts to have the charges dismissed.

Also in the film are Polanski's defence attorney Douglas Dalton, and Roger Gunson, the assistant DA who was prosecuting him. Remarkably, both men agreed that justice had been undermined by the presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband. At one point in the film, Gunson describes the legal proceedings as "a sham".

"It isn't about whether Polanski is likeable or not," Zenovich told me. "It's about whether he was treated fairly under California state law. And clearly he was not."

Rittenband (who died in 1994) had a taste for celebrity cases, and wanted to make his name as the man who jailed Roman Polanski. He was egged on by an ugly-minded media, which dubbed Polanski "the poison dwarf", stressed his foreign origins, and described him in terms of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. And the judge, it turned out, belonged to an LA country club that barred Jews from membership.

Crucially, no one in California had served jail time for a comparable offence in the previous two years, and Dalton secured an agreement with Rittenband that Polanski's 42 days was sufficient time served. Polanski, it now appears, fled the US because it was clear that the judge had reneged on this agreement and planned to incarcerate him anyway."

He also writes in the same article: "The thought occurs that while Polanski's crime against Samantha Gailey was utterly wrong, the 1970s were a different time, and his behaviour was not aberrant by prevailing entertainment-industry standards.

If every member of British rock bands touring America who seduced an underage girl had been arrested, our music industry would have been decimated."

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 2:56 pm
I NEVER understood why he got away with this years ago? You can run, but you can't hide. I don't know what his artistic value has to do with having sex with a 13 year old girl. It is just wrong, period.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:06 pm
Some might aver that if they had been arrested it might improve the music industry.
But thanking the folks who go to the trouble of looking things up and checking for the sake of the community.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:45 pm
TY, Radical P. for your insightful article. Nobody is above the law - whether they be world leaders,, film producers/directors, clergy, etc. What Roman Polanski did back in 1978 was abomininable: drug & rape a 13-year-old CHILD. The only reason the girl didn't (or couldn't) resist was that she had been heavily drugged before the rape. What if this victim had been the daughter of former French PM Jacques Chirac? Would Chirac be as insensitive to his own daughter as he is toward Polanski's victim? Of course not. He would've called loudly for arrest & prosecution of Polanski. Chirac, what a hypocrite!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:47 pm
No one is so talented that he should be above the law in a case of rape! This should not even be up for discussion!

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 3:52 pm
No one is above the Law.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 4:29 pm
Alba, again you raise some good points on this case. I guess we can leave it to the courts to decide. Clearly, there's more to this case than we know.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 4:39 pm
Was he the seducer or was she the seductress?

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 5:06 pm
Christop Wuth, the question of adulthood should be what matters here. Thirteen year olds are not adults regardless of appearance or even sexual behavior when dealing with an adult.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 6:42 pm
A monir cannot give legal consent. Anyone who ask such a question needs to have their head examined., No child is a participant in a sexual assault, and I cannot imagine why anyone would blame the victim.
The sicko still needs to serve jail time. He escaped the law years ago here in the U.S., andyou can bet you last dime that he has stillbenn an abuser through al these years. People who asue just don;t stop, it's a lifetime of abuser and victimization.

Tuesday September 29, 2009, 9:56 pm
anyone who thinks that there are mitigating factors needs to read the transcript at thesmokinggun.com (search polanski)

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 12:10 am
The discussion about this shows that rich people intend to to build up a stronger system that prevents them much more from legal punishment. Free crimes for rich people. This is the goal!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:01 am

Ralph X, that statement of yours is mistaken:

What this case proves is rather that a rich man, despite his high-paid lawyers & everything else that we think he has going for him, can be as much the victim of unfair & illegitimate legal maneuvers as the poor are ! Fame can be a disservice, as it was here. That is exactly what Kit said & eloquently !

Anyone who does NOT think there are mitigating circumstances should read that UK Telegraph article I have provided the link to:

It is no minor event that Roger Gunson, the assistant DA who was PROSECUTING him, agrees with the defense attorney that JUSTICE was UNDERMINED by the presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband. Gunson describes the legal proceedings as "a SHAM".

Why should we believe that smokinggun.com has the definitive version or the last word on this case?

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:47 am
i don't think anyone's saying he shouldn't get a fair trial. everything should proceed by the book. the smoking gun testimony, when taken in conjunction with the known facts (her age and what he admitted to), gives a clear picture of the crime (even if there are errors in her account). i suppose she could be the greatest liar ever, but it's highly improbable.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 4:31 am
I'm thrilled to see so many comments from people who knew what Polanski did, and that are still mad as heck that, by running, he thinks he is above the law! I have no respect for the man & from the moment this scandal took place, I have had nothing but complete disdain for him or anything "creative" he may have come up with & has done since.

I feel the same way about Woody Allen, and all the special treatment all other celebs - movie stars, tv starts, music stars, politicians, white collar crime & other people who think they wear too big of pants to have to live within the law.

Just the name Polanski still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 6:25 am
Carrie Burton, if Polanskyy was the seducer, so much worse for him. If the girl was the seductress, Polansky, as an adult, maintains responsibility for his deeds, but there is an attenuating circumstance which would have to be considered when tried.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:08 am
No, Christoph, no. There are no extenuating circumstances. Blaming the victim for the crime is just as offensive as the original crime. "She was asking for it" is an insult to society itself. Somebody had to be the adult there, and that was Polansky's job. He failed miserably and needs to take his lumps.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:45 am
Ethically yes, but Barry, attenuate or extenuate (to lessen or seem to lessen the seriousness of an offense, guilt, etc. by giving excuses or serving as an excuse) means in legal terms that instead of sentencing the accused to X number of years he is to be sentenced to X minus Y number of years du to to extenuating circumstances.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:54 am
 
From another article posted here, which offers actual transcripts of the grand jury testimony: 


Polanski's Defenders Lose Sight of the True Victim
Polanski's Defenders Lose Sight of the True Victim
 

"She testified that he put his mouth on her vagina.

"I was ready to cry," she said. "I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."

She said he then pulled off her panties.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

At this point, she testified, Polanski became concerned about the consequences and asked if she was on the pill.

No, she told him.

Polanski had a solution, according to her.

"He goes, 'Would you want me to go in through your back?' And I went, 'No.' "

According to her, that didn't stop Polanski, who began having anal sex with her.

This was when the victim was asked by the prosecutor if she resisted and she said, "Not really," because "I was afraid of him." She testified that when the ordeal had ended, Polanski told her, "Oh, don't tell your mother about this."

He added: "This is our secret."

That doesn't sounds like a man who did not feel he'd done anything wrong!
 
Do none of you realize that a memory, such as that, is a "forever" nightmare?  And, if the victim doesn't wish it to be pursued, that it may be because they just wish it to "go away?"
 
Would you feel the same if it were your daughter?  I'm appalled at the amount of women who feel this selfish infringement by an adult on the innocence of a child should be "excused" and the subject should be dropped.
 
He's made it clear that he felt he'd done nothing wrong -- duh!  Isn't that what most abusers say?
 
 

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 10:19 am
I don't care if he did think she was 18. He was 44. He should have known better. AND...he druged her. If her mother knew she should also go to jail.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 11:30 am
Roman Pedophile Polanski gets Lightning Bolt

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 12:08 pm


QUITE A SHAME... ADULTS "fix" CUTED UP TERMS to "SEEM LESS SINISTER"!:

RAPING A PERSON BY DOPING THE LIFE... NOT "VIOLENT RAPE WITH DRUG INDUCED TERRORISM" nope... its called "DATE RAPE"!

a guy WHO SHOULD BE A "FATHER" to a child... TERRORIZES THE VICTIM... NOT "VIOLENT ASSAULT BY THE TORTURE OF RAPE BY WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PARENT"! naaah its called "INCEST"!

etc
etc
SHAME to SHAME to SHAME on the USA... and others too.
etc
etc

AND THE VICTIMS ENDURE ANGUISH
AND THE VICTIMS LOVED ONES ENDURE HARDSHIPS ALSO
AND THE RAPIST(s) are allotted such EXTREME LENIENCY
for HEINOUS CRIMES
of TERRORISM.

every ACT OF RAPE IS IN FACT TERRORISTIC.

so another CUTED UP TERM...
A guy DECIDES TO "have his way" with someone... THE SOMEONE HE WAS IN "SUCH A RUSH TO GET TO" he does NOT secure is ACTUALLY A MINOR? ___is that it to some folks? AND Polanski (along with THAT TYPE),surely HAD NO RESOURCES EITHER to "CHECK ON" if was a MINOR? No? Yes?

so the FELLER that "got to the YOUTH" has LESS ACCOUNTABILITY... it is fixed so that the CRIME OF RAPING SOMEONE IN A STATE OF INNOCENCE BY DEMONSTRATIVE AGE AND OR OTHER FACTOR... is tagged instead of "RAPE of a YOUTH in an act of PREDATORY SOLICITATION OF THE YOUTHS" ... gets a smiley face and a "STATUTORY RAPE" ... "SEX WITH A MINOR" mockery of a CHARGE and THE CRIMES OF RAPE AGAINST YOUTHS and THE CRIMES OF RAPE AGAINST FEMALE LIVES and THE CRIMES OF RAPE continue to RISE!

IT IS DISGUSTING.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 12:31 pm
If it looks like a DUCK and Walks like a DUCK....It's a DUCK!!!!!.....He RAPED HER and SHE WAS A CHILD......I have some experience with my own situation and it has made an impression ALL MY LIFE!!!!!
He IS A PEDOPHILE and a RAPIST......NUFF SED!!!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 12:57 pm
 
One of the causes I feel most about is abuse.  In fact, I feel so strongly about it, that for over 30 years, I have championed it (even volunteering as a child abuse counselor):
 
Statistics Surrounding Child Sexual Abuse
 
The statistics are shocking

1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18. (96)
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18. (96)
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet. (30, 87)
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under. (76)
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

 

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:22 pm
Have any of you seen the petition to get him released or read the transcript from the trial?
It reads like a who's who of hollyweird celebrities. Surprise, surprise Woody Allen is one of them.
I am sick to my stomach. He should be castrated.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:25 pm
AND JC...that is just what is reported.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:25 pm

NE, I rarely agree with you, but (with the exception of the castration suggestion), I am happy to see your concurrence.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:38 pm

I am just in SHOCK that human rights activists did research, KNOW that a middle-aged man gave a 13-year-old drugs and alcohol, then subjected her to anal sex -- and think that we should just "leave him alone."

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 1:54 pm

Let me make something else clear, EVADING the law for years, does NOT mean you are unaccountable for crimes.

We need to send a CLEAR MESSAGE that abusers, regardless of job title, or "social status," are held equally accountable for violation of human rights crimes.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 2:13 pm
All circumstances surrounding the crime should be considered when he is brought to trial! That's the point here. He should be brought to trial! A 13 yearl old girl may act as a seductress, but is certainly not responsible as an adult nor should she be taken advantage of by an adult. This is not a forgive and forget matter. Polanski needs to be brought to trial and let the court decide what should be done. I might add that if he were innocent of these charges why would he spend so many years running? An innocent man would have been anxious to clear his name.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 2:31 pm
He was tried. He ran before they could lock him up.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 2:34 pm


Carrie, I agree with YOU that "a CHILD may seem to appear to some as if, in some posing of the child, often an INJURED AND VIOLATED CHILD in some sense... , and that CHILD in the prescence of "AN ADULT"... >>>ADULT!
______________THE ADULT___________SHOULD WALK AWAY!
==YES.

_______THE ADULT OWES TO THE MINOR... TO WALK AWAY!
and if that ADULT holds ANY MORAL TERPITUDE OF A SOUGHT OUT CHARACTER
would LABOR TO ASSIST THE CHILD, THE FAMILY ALSO... to HEALING.
because THAT IS WHAT BEING OF INTEGRITY MEANS.
!

THE MORE THAT I "HEAR" OF THIS CRIMES!!
THESE HORRIFIC CRIMES BY POLANSKI... WHY IS THIS EVEN IN "talks"?
!

THOSE TYPES OF CRIMES : ARE HEINOUS! : ARE TERRORISTS CRIMES!

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 2:41 pm

We need to remember the long, long fights, covering many years, that it took for female human rights activists to FORCE their legislators -- first, to recognize the rights of women as humans; and to view their grievances as valid civil rights violations.

I will not stand by silently and watch female rights regress after all these hard-fought years to gain a semblance of equality.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 3:15 pm

Seriously, I'm DISGUSTED by the "avant garde" attitudes of so-called feminists/child welfare advocates who have chosen, instead, to appear to be lenient about sexual crimes against children.

(I'm actually sickened, at this point, by many of the responses here; and I would hope that most of these "waffling" respondents would NEVER be a juror in a case against a sexual predator.)

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 3:21 pm

I'm reading some strong responses here -- which, with the turning of the tide of favoritism -- suddenly "mellow and switch" -- and I'm thinking: "What ARE you? Another politician?"

(And that's NOT the first time I've thought that about certain "wafflers.")

Pay attention.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 4:22 pm
Polanski will be counting on those who "mellow and switch". That, and the fact that his name will be linked to his artistic endeavors and the tragic death of his wife, the late Sharon Tate. None of that should even be considered where such a vile crime is involved.

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 7:46 pm
Polanski-is nothing more than a "demented pedophile" he should be held accountable-for this heinous and repulsive act! i say "punish him-to the geatest extent of the law!"

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 8:10 pm
 
Roman Polanski Raped a Child: A Primer

An excerpt:
 
"But there's also a contingent of journalists, intellectuals, and film buffs who are outraged over Polanksi's arrest, and base that outrage on multiple objections. There have been a lot of smart and convincing rebuttals to these objections, most notably Kate Harding's forceful, powerful essay on Salon,"Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child."
 
In deference to that piece (from which we took our title), we put together a small guide to the most common objections to Polanski's arrest, along with some of the best responses."
 

Wednesday September 30, 2009, 9:00 pm
i think the hollywood reaction stems from the fear that judging anyone's personal life gives an actor a bad reputation that will lead to unemployment. they could, however, draw the line at violent crime and maintain their integrity and their job. i also think that they have all experienced the casting couch at a young age and have become desensitized.

Thursday October 1, 2009, 2:10 am
Dear Carole, I surrender !

Thursday October 1, 2009, 3:17 am

LOL!

Thursday October 1, 2009, 8:03 am
What someones talent has got to do with whether they should face justice is beyond me! If you wanna do the crime you must be prepared to do the time as they say! I do apolgise ladies but those rusty blunt scissors of mine are now shiny through over requirement! Running away is what little children and cowards do

Thursday October 1, 2009, 8:06 am
What anyones talent has got to do with facing justice I don't know! If you want to do the crime you must be prepared to do the time whoever you are! I do apologise ladies but my rusty blunt scissiors are now shiny through over requirement!

Thursday October 1, 2009, 8:40 am
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last week.

whether she was 13 or 50.
It does not give ANY person an excuse to drug and RAPE an individual.
There is no such thing as CONSENT when a person is drugged.
In the testimony she repeatedly told him NO.
What more do we need to understand.

sign the JAIL POLANSKI Petition.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/484083385/1264125

Thursday October 1, 2009, 11:52 am
O HELL NO!! He's NOT Above The Law , He's Damm Evil!!!!!!!

Thursday October 1, 2009, 7:40 pm
I am stunned by the excuses given for the rape of a child.

Chistopher Wuth:

Your excuse for child rape are horrible. It may be acceptable where you live...and shame your country if that is the concept in which your base your opinion. Children are children, and no child is a suductress, and your use of the term is an insult to most peoples intelligence.

Rape Is Rape!

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rape/

Rape Law & Legal Definition

In the United States, rape is the most serious form of sexual assault punishable by law, but the definition of what constitutes rape varies from state to state. In all states, if a man forcibly subjects a woman who is not his wife to sexual intercourse without her consent, he has committed the crime of rape.

Recently, an increasing number of states have passed rape reform laws to define rape to include certain nonconsensual incidents of intercourse without requiring the use of force as well as the rape of one’s spouse. Any sexual intercourse with a child is rape and in most states sexual relations even with consent involving a girl 14 to 18 is "statutory rape," because of the lack of the child's capacity to consent. Rape may also be found when a person has sex with a victim who is deemed legally incapable of consenting if she or he is known to be mentally incompetent, intoxicated, or drugged.

Rape shield laws have been passed in almost all states to protect victims from the emotional trauma of being questioned about their sexual history on the witness stand. The fear of being humiliated has discouraged victims from reporting and pursuing charges. On the federal level, the United States Congress enacted Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This Rule declares that evidence offered to prove the victim engaged in other sexual behavior, or evidence offered to prove any victim's sexual predisposition, is generally inadmissable in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct.

Some states require the complaint of rape must be made within a certain time period. State laws vary on application of the "fresh complaint" doctrine. A fresh complaint is one made voluntarily and reasonably promptly after the sexual abuse. Discovery of rape trauma syndrome has undermined the fresh complaint rule, which was based on the assumption that delayed complaints of rape were less reliable.

Thursday October 1, 2009, 7:44 pm


For those that recognize the difference between child and seductress, thank you. To expect anything else from people that are looking to protect the criminal....well.....your not looking to protect the victim.

A rapist is still a rapist...and making yourself the victim becuase you were to cowardly to stand up in a court of law to face the charges doesn't make him a victim....only a COWARD. YOU DO THE CRIME..YOU PAY FOR IT., IF YOU DIDN;T...PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW.

Friday October 2, 2009, 1:10 am
Foretunately I have no experience of US law however US law and government in common with many other countries owes much of it's legal and constitutional framework to the UK system which from what has been said makes it almost a clone! Sadly the largest similarity would appear to be the inate perversity of consistant anomoly (well I had to introduce an oxymoron in somewhere!) By that I mean in the UK you get old ladies jailed for not paying their council tax, and murderers evading justice, Conversly the UK has jailed the rich and famous for financial crime and in one case subjected the individual to detention in a notoriuos high security prison! The motive that piece of nastiness was probably he offended the government or whoever. People who kill while using mobile phones on motorways or whilst drunk or drugged at the wheel are often not jailed!The other commonality with the US is justice is available theoretically to all but in practice to those who have the financial resources to circumvent the law with the use of expensive lawyers, those close cousins of politicians! The exposure of such high profile cases to the worlds opinion can only in my opinion serve to indicate to the world that the US is not all about greed and moneytory value but it has some elements of decency and justice about itself. Not persuing a guilty rapist of high profile would send a message to Americas
critics and enemies that she is uncaring and corrupted by money fame and artistic abilities! Anyone that would seek to excuse the rape of a child either has a strange viewpoint or exists in a society where child rape is the norm and of course it has to be said that the age of consent was or may be still is in some states of the US well below what most civilised countries would consider decent and acceptable conduct! The culture of promoting one's career by "seducing" the boss is part myth and part reality the former propagated by a certain kind of male chauvanist who considers screwing the office girl as part of the perks of the job. Such people are no different in my opinion to those who would deliberately abuse or harm any other person or animal. In it is probable that they are more morally currupt than the Chinese live dog skinners and live cat boilers who are doing what they consider to be worthwhile employment against a culture of indifference and ignorance! So this man who has admitted his guilt because he apparently he thought he would only get a slap on the wrist and then ran away from the consequences of his crime should face justice! The fact that the French have chosen to embrace him so warmly makes me wonder about their state of mind and good judgement. However they thought the Maginot line would keep the Germans out of France but as we know the Germans just went around it by blowing a whole through the Belgain defences. There is a strange irony there I think and a lesson perhaps to not permit such major circumvention in the the Polanski case! The real unreality of Hollywood "culture" and myth is perhaps the biggest prop to these self indulgent, bizarre, transient, lifestyle! Where for example getting married is purely a stage spectacle, eagerly awaited by an army of divorce lawyers ready to initiate the seperations to facilitate the next hedonistic bash and temporary coupling, with photo rights going to the highest bidder!

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:09 am
No one should be above the law; if he is not charged, who will be next?
Gvoernments and politicians, anyone who has a reputation worldwide?

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:15 pm

"I don't know a more irreligious attitude, one more utterly bankrupt of any human content, than one which permits children to be destroyed."-- Daniel Berrigan

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:19 pm
just what is their excuse, He is famous? So was Jack the riper Expedite / hang 'em tight or off w/his head / until he is dead we do not care when or where.

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:24 pm
children are the most abused , misused , contused in the world. That is just the ones you know about. What about the ones who come forward and are ignored or those who are afraid. Some Mothers are just as bad. They Ignore. The judges they do their part/ they let them out. They are all sick.

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:46 pm
chris b, please note that it is *some* French who support Polanski. Saying "the French" support him or warmly embrace him is far from accurate, because there are a lot of French who feel he should be held accountable. I am French, I strongly believe he should be held accountable, and everyone I personally know in France agree with this. That he is an "artist" and a celebrity means nothing to a lot of people.

There are laws to protect the children and these laws should be respected by ALL.

The fact that celebrities can be very loud doesn't mean that they are the voice of a nation.

As for the French state of mind and judgment, I find the Maginot example a poor one- not just because it is irrelevant to the topic, but because it doesn't give anyone the right to judge an entire nation and population. Amazing how it is often conveniently forgotten on English-speaking forums that millions and millions of French soldiers and civilians died during those wars, while defending their country and their children.

Anyway, that was off topic so I'm ending here. Carole, I agree with you.

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:48 pm

Hey, my friend, Brigitte . . . I completely understand. I wouldn't want to be grouped with a great deal of Americans!

LOL!

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:52 pm
I am having difficulty following some of the logic in this thread! Did this man have sex with this young girl? Presumably as he pled guilty the answer must be yes. Therefore whats to argue about but enacting the sentance that he ran away from in the seventies! Much the same as the Great Train robber was brought backto the UK after evading justice for 30 years. The due processes of law are surely that the fact that he ran away from them does not negate them and he should return for proper sentencing! By not returning to the US voluntarily, he is simply demonstrating cowardice and contempt for the rule of law! Aligning age with the practice of particular cultures has no relevance in this case or one could justify any other crime by saying such and such a country does canibalism or stones people to death for making uncomplimentary comments about the goverment or uses child labour or whatever is generally considered civilised in different cultures When in Rome do as the Romans but when in the US do as an American but be careful which American you model you behaviour on!

Friday October 2, 2009, 3:55 pm

No, you had it right the first time, Chris.

He admitted to drugging and giving alcohol to a 13-year-old, then sodomizing her.

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:18 pm
BOTTOM LINE:

The former 'victim' came out last year in an interview saying that she didn't want him to be prosecuted.

It is now time for everyone else to BUTT OUT!
It is not your business and you are just as bad as you think he is to keep this up!

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:19 pm
LOL....

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:27 pm
Pardon Brigitte. I tend to use the collective term when a former member of your Government makes his ethusiasm appear unversal throughout France and therefore the French people. We are all apt tofall, from time to time into the trap of generalisation. I could have perhaps made some reference to frogs legs, snails, Citroens but I could not think of something peculiarly French that illustrated circumvention so well as the Maginot line,whatever Andre Maginot intended it did not work due to circumvention. Polanskis French attachment is but another form of circumvention only of the law of another land not the land QED! Nobody in the UK who has taken the trouble to read the history of Europe would diminish the noble sacrifices made by French forces and civilians in the world wars, My mother came into contact with the Free French forces and French Goverment in exile, when she served in the military during WW2 so I have a personal insight into that period of history.I must apologise for my Anglo Saxon crudity although I probably have more Celtic and Norman lineage as some of my ancestors came over with the Conqueror, for the day! Anyway regardless of whom I may have offended I still think he should face the music and anyone that does not must be saying rape is OK and that to me is very very wrong and shows a complete lack of empathy with victims of sexual assault!

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:42 pm

You're o.k., Chris. You have a great command of the English language and I think most of us understood your meaning. (I, too, have been guilty of over-generalizations . . . and I HATE it when I'm stereotyped.)

What's even more admirable? The even greater command of our native language that people to whom it is a SECOND language have! I am constantly humbled that I took 4 years of French, but never having had the chance to use it in real life, am reduced to remembering my first sentences, such as "Le crayon est sur le table." (Like anyone was wondering where the pencil was! LOL)

Friday October 2, 2009, 4:51 pm

And, Chris? I know you are from Great Britain.

My compliment was really for Brigitte and Alba, and Bengt, and others like them, who can hold their own in even a testy debate such as this one.

Friday October 2, 2009, 6:40 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Radical Panda because you have done so within the last week.
Tx Panda

Friday October 2, 2009, 7:30 pm
be kay
the legal system can't be based on victim emotion. and if the public perceives that the system may be influenced by fame, fortune, or the victim's feelings, they have every right to voice their objections.

Friday October 2, 2009, 9:42 pm
Be Kay,

I really don't understand whay you are trying to communicate with your follwoing comment:

"Friday October 2, 2009, 4:18 pm
BOTTOM LINE:

The former 'victim' came out last year in an interview saying that she didn't want him to be prosecuted.

It is now time for everyone else to BUTT OUT!
It is not your business and you are just as bad as you think he is to keep this up! "

Please explain before I feel that you are in the rare breed that find a sexual predator acceptable.
By your comment...it comes across that you want the world to remain silent as this man, or anyone like this person to be left alone. Sorry....that IS NOT going to happen. A child was raped and harmed, and she is part of the human species. No one has the right to harm a child and get a way with it by escaping to another country.
Do you are to explain your comment so it is nice and clear to everyone, and NOT misunderstood?

Friday October 2, 2009, 9:47 pm
If he had been a minority or poor person, this wouldn't be an issue.

Friday October 2, 2009, 10:01 pm
Be Kay Polanski committed a crime and was convicted. It is the duty of the DA where the crime was committed to prosecute. End of story.

Friday October 2, 2009, 10:03 pm
Crimes are charged by the District Attorney's Office on behalf of the People of the state where crime was committed, not on behalf of any particular victim. The decision to file charges in any criminal prosecution can only be made by an attorney in the District Attorney's Office. A victim's wishes will be considered, but the final determination whether or not charges will be filed or dismissed rests with the D.A.'s Office.

Saturday October 3, 2009, 2:44 am
"Anyway regardless of whom I may have offended I still think he should face the music and anyone that does not must be saying rape is OK and that to me is very very wrong and shows a complete lack of empathy with victims of sexual assault!"

Hi Chris, I totally agree with your statement!

No one should be above the law, especially in crimes against children. Not only are they among the most vulnerable members of a population, but they also are the future of our societies. When they are hurt physically, emotionally or mentally, it can affect their lives and the lives of others for a very long time, it can affect an entire lifetime; and unfortunately it can become a pattern that will hurt other children.

As for frog legs and other funny stereotypes, I won't comment...:) Just don't hold your breath while looking for frog legs in French supermarkets :P

Anyway, I was not offended, only trying to set the record straight a little, because generalizations can be unfair, especially in such sensitive issues.

That certain French celebrities/political figures support Polanski does not mean that they necessarily represent the French population. We must remember that most of what we hear is selected and distributed by the media... and that the media are rarely truly objective and independent.
Unless they are at each other's throats for some reason, the people in and behind the media, and in the show business, often stick together and with whoever is able to bring more fame and glory to them, not to mention more money. In the world of "art" and celebrities, we must also remember that sadly the use of drugs is not rare... and acts of violence do happen too... for instance actress Marie Trintignant was beaten to death by her boyfriend a few years ago. Well I'm sure that if he hadn't been a celebrity too, he would have stayed many more years behind bars... but he is walking free again.

I'll never understand this leniency towards drug offenders, sex offenders, violent offenders etc just because they are celebrities and "artists". Especially when the crimes involve children.

Raping a 13 year old girl is never an accident, and it's often not an isolated case. Pedophiles are the reason why child pornorgraphy has turned into a blooming industry.

About art... I feel that Art is disrespected when its name is used in vain, as an excuse to forgive, hide or ignore criminal behavior and perversion.

Thank goodness there are also many artists, celebrities and political figures with ethics, humanity, and integrity, who are dedicated to good causes and sensitive issues like children's rights and many others. Sometimes they even do it quietly.

It shouldn't matter what the name of this man is, or who he is, or how long it's been since. He has to be held accountable. (Just like the Nazi murderers found hiding in far away countries decades later).

It's wrong to offer immunity or asylum to someone who's committed a crime, just because they are rich and famous!!! It is an insult to all the children who are disrespected, violated, used as sex toys, worldwide.

Saturday October 3, 2009, 3:41 am
Well Brigitte I glad the Entente Cordiale is restored! You will perhaps have read elsewhere some of my comments which are certainly not all aimed at the totality of nations or countries more often then not it is the so called representatives of the people which even in a democratic society can be less than say 15% of the population that put that particular government in power! An example might be if I was making a comment about the world wars I might say the Americans were late for both which in no way reflects on the gallantry and bravery of the US military, simply the mixed agendas of their politicians at that time, until their hand was forced by Japan's cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor! As you rightly point out many Nazi murderers have been exracted from the woodwork to face justice having secreted themselves around the world including the UK! Of course art has such wide definitions and with it anything appears to pass as art as I have commented on the "Rape Tunnel"! Using dogs starved to death in the name of art alongside unmade beds filth and depravity, cows in tanks etc there are obviously some in the art world who have lost the plot! I once lost the chance of a job in a prestigous art college by answering the question from the illustrious interviewing panel as to how I would light Hockney? To which my reply was "with the lighting fuses removed" They were no doubt expecting some avant garde drivel in responce. Thus proving the art cogniscenti have neither taste nor sense of humour! However I have never been one to mince words or present a false front. My oft repeated claim is "I'm Me" what you see is what you get, if you have a problem with that employ a toadying yes man with a liking for sticking his tongue in the brown stuff! And I still say that man should return to face US justice however flawed that system may be! The stories of the victims foregiveness which may well have been sweetened with dollar bills are irrelevant. The fithy deed was done and admitted to and his action was to run away from the consequences! All need to be protected from abuse, children, men women and animals. One victim "forgiving" one perpetrator does not cancel out such abuse! Those same people who chose to rubbish the victims reputation because of prior sexual conduct suddenly find the same victim stainless in defence of the abuser! It's a strange strange world out there!

Sunday October 4, 2009, 4:53 am
Absolutely not above the law... he should face his responsibilites and not hide behind his talents... this girl then must of suffered terrible emtional trauma...

Sunday October 4, 2009, 12:32 pm
I understand that the women harmed said she didn't want him to go to jail, also that the amount of time gone by since the crime and his great talent. But, we are responsible for the rights and well being of everyone. They government should charge accordingly to his crime, especially, since he left the country because he didn't want to go to jail, that in a way should be considered an act of treason, because we the people, vote and hold are representatives responsible for insuring are freedoms and liberties. As for his talent, we are supposed to hold true that all men are created equal, so what if someone he harmed had talent or did not? Does people really constitute this as legal right? We have to think of all the people and hold each person well fare as precious and dear.

Sunday October 4, 2009, 6:35 pm
Regardless of his talent or anything else [and he is a great talent] he committed a dreadful crime of rape and to an adolescent. It makes no difference that the victim forgives him - it is good for her that she has - but he must pay for what he did how ever many years ago that was - there cannot be DOUBLE STANDARDS for RAPE!!! Or for any crime for that matter. However - if he is not tried for the crime he committed - he must lives with this knowledge that he committed a diabolical crime on a little girl for the rest of his days. Brightest Blessings

Monday October 5, 2009, 6:06 am
All things considered... 30 year old case, victim does not want legal action... Now the undeniable facts. He at the age of 43 had sex with a 13-year old girl, consenual or not that is CARNAL KNOWLEDGE and STATUTORY RAPE! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnal_knowledge / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape)

He asked her to change outfits in front of him during the first photo shoot. She reluctantly agreed to a second photo shoot in which he had her photographed drinking Champagne. At the time there was no minimum age for consumption of alcohol and the shoot was for a French magazine. He did 42 days of his mandated 90-day "evaluation" as his punishment. He then fleed the country in fear of prison and deportation.

Any cold case detective will tell you... If a 30-year old murder case is up for reinvestigation and the murder victim was able to talk and ask not to pursue charges doesn't make the crime go away. The victim was smart enough to become submissive so she wouldn't risk more then emotional scars. She was lucky that she was able to leave with her life, but the fact remains a 43-year old man gave a 13-year old alcohol and coerced her to have sex with him.

Tuesday October 6, 2009, 4:51 am
Why wait for him to go to Switzerland following an invitation of the Swiss Government.
Everybody new where he had lived since 30 years, after leaving the States.
He even owns a house in Gstaad !
Switzerland should rather have a look into their Bank accounts, open for terrorist funds and black money from
the entire planet since more than 100 years! Plenty to clean up there and see to it that justice is done.
But maybe he closed his Swiss bank account, and that's the reason why they had him arrested, hahaha.
Besides the couckoo clock, they have not invented a lot, and most certainly, they have not invented the frying pan. Cheers to Roman Polansky, I think he's a great artist. I think it's none of my business what he has or has not done 30 years ago. I'm not informed enough and do not believe the media. They just want to sell their salades.

Tuesday October 6, 2009, 4:23 pm
Maybe Marion you should read the deposition taken at the time of his arrest of the little girl he raped. That isn't media hype, it is legal documentation filed with the courthouse in Los Angeles California. That isn't the media selling anything.

Just because someone is a great artist doesn't give them free reign to rape little girls. I wonder if Charles Manson had escaped and was arrested 30 years later if Polanski would have said "no big deal, it was a long time ago, we shouldn't convict him." Maybe we shouldn't hunt down the Nazi's and punish them for the crimes they committed during the holocaust, afterall, it was decades ago.

Polanski is nothing but a pedophile, his track record speaks for itself. He drugged and raped a child, then had a relationship with Natasha Kinski when she was 15, she's been quoted as saying Polanski had a "thing for young girls."

If these aren't the words of a pedophile, than I don't know what is:

"When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it ... I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize[d], if I have killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal for the press, you see? But ... f---ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f---young girls. Juries want to f---young girls-- everyone wants to f---young girls!"

--Roman Polanski in an interview with Martin Amis, Tatler magazine, 1979

Wednesday October 7, 2009, 12:53 am
I agree with Michelle.

Who cares if Polanski is a "great artist"? he should not be above the law. He should be held accountable just like any other person who's committed a crime against a child. A young girl was drugged and sodomized. That kind of past can never be erased.

Blaming the victim of a rape is totally wrong, even more so when that victim was a child.

Even if the 13 year old girl was asking for drugs and sex (which she was not! read the legal documentation), Polanski was an adult and as such he should have said no. But the fact is, he took advantage of the situation, and used a child as a sex tool. This is exactly what pedophiles do.

Their sexual preference is not a temporary thing that goes away, it is permanent and puts children in danger again and again, each time one is targeted by a predator. These predators need to be stopped one way or another and it is why they are laws.

What happened 30 years ago is everybody's business when it has to do with a crime against a child.

If you condone child rape then you are part of the problem.

As for the comments about Switzerland, they are racist and irrelevant. It's an easy tactic to displace the blame and put it on the Swiss, but they did not drug or rape the 13 year old, it was Polanski.

And he should not be treated differently than any other sane adult who forced himself sexually on a child, knowing it's illegal and immoral.

Since he has always welcomed recognition from society, he should also accept its laws and live by them.

Wednesday October 7, 2009, 1:21 am
There has been a change of heart in France about Polanski, or rather, after all the publicity given to the elite denoucing the arrest & running to his defence, it has come out that THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE to this case !
Other French 'celebrities' & the French public, in general, do not share the view of the signatories.

I watched a late night talk show from Paris last week. No one attempted to defend Polanski in any way. These were not the people who had sighed the petition. They were asked their opinions.

A very famous woman lawyer,Gisèle Halimi, who years ago (1972) won the celebrated 'Bobigny' abortion case (she defended a young girl, 16, who had become pregnant after being raped & had an abortion, then illegal, & 4 adult women, including the 'kitchen' abortionist & the girl's mother, accused of having aided&abetted).

She made the point that since Polanski's victim had years ago accepted a financial settlement, she was probably convinced that accepting his money put her out of bounds for any criticism or legal action against him now and in any event is feeling guilty about that. She was surprised that so little thought was given to the suffering of the young girl.

She questioned the (ir)responsibility of those who signed the petition -- after all, many of them have daughters! They ought to know better! Jacques Chirac ought to know better, too -- he has 2 daughters!

This is just a case of people in the same 'business' sticking together and/or the French sticking up for a fellow Frenchman.

Artists are not above the law because they are artists. On the contrary, a young woman writer on the show quoted famous existentialist writer/philosopher Albert Camus to the effect that artists should be an example or a model for others.

Btw, there is a statute of limitations of 10 yrs in France for the prosecution of rapes.

Wednesday October 7, 2009, 2:42 am
It is likely that more French people will form an opinion & take a stand about the Polanski case.

A whole evening was devoted to the issue of rape on TV last night: First a film, then in a panel discussion. Participating: 3 former rape victims, the film director (a woman), a judge & a lawyer, both involved in rape cases, the police instructor in charge of training for proper treatment of rape victims & cases, and Dr. Emmanuelle Piet, gynecologist, member of the French agency for maternal & infant protection, & President of 'le collectif Féministe Contre le Viol' (CFCV), the Feminist Collective Against Rape, whose group created & has manned (!! - why can't we say 'womaned'?) a telephone hotline since 1985 called 'SOS Viols Femmes Informations' (SOS Rape Women Information) & just recently lauched the first national campaign against rape last May (2009) on Internet.

A lot of vital information came out, e.g. the degree to which rape constitutes life-long trauma and suffering, equivalent to PTSD. One rape victim, 20 yrs old at the time of the rape, & who subsequently became a lawyer, has nonetheless attempted to take her life TEN TIMES in the last ten yrs!!

There was a scientific clip during the discussion, showing the physiological effects on the brain when the 'fight or flight' mechanism short-circuits -- because the woman being raped can do neither! And how the experience is 'encapsulated' by the brain, to prevent further ''overheating" of the system which would lead to death. Being thus 'walled off' in the brain, the experience cannot be expelled, causing the victim to relive the same heightened stress reaction over and over again, every time an event reminds her of the experience.

In fact all the participants agreed that women all experience the sensation that they are going to die during a rape and this is one element that lends credibility to a woman reporting she was raped.

In France, 1 out of 6 women declare they have been victims of either rape or attempted rape in their lives, two thirds of them under 18 !! 83% of the aggressers were close to the victim. Only 4% of the rapes committed are reported to the police!!

Wednesday October 7, 2009, 9:17 pm
I guess I am from the mindset that what is wrong with most people?
When is it ever acceptable to have sex with a child?
I do not care what country or belief system that you come from. When is it right? NEVER.
The long term effects of child rapre and sexual abuse have been so ignored that the victims from the past have never been acknowledged.
Why?
Because NO ONE wants to admit to it, nor accept that it does cause long term damage for the victim.
So those that want to excuse it, forget it, ignore it, pretend that it it happened so long ago that the damage cannot be acknowledged or dealt with are so wrong....
Child predators never stop, never will stop their behavior. It is a continued act against the innocent. If not here in the U.S., then anywhere he/she lives. They just get better at it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Journal of Amer Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry:

http://journals.lww.com/jaacap/Abstract/1993/09000/Child_Sexual_Abuse__Immediate_and_Long_Term.2.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Definition of sexual predator of children:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual-Predator+Law

Megan's Law
(redirected from Sexual-Predator Law) Also found in: Medical, Wikipedia 0.13 sec.
Sponsored linksSex Offender Free Report
Where do Sex Offenders Live in Your Neighborhood? Find out for Free!
NeighborhoodScan.com
Free Corporate Bylaws
Make Legal Corporate Bylaws Online. Absolutely Free-Print, Save & Send
www.RocketLawyer.com/Bylaws-Form
Ask a Lawyer Online
24 Lawyers Are Online! Ask a Question, Get an Answer ASAP.
Legal.JustAnswer.com
Megan's Laws are named for Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old girl from New Jersey who was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1994 by a neighbor who, unknown to the victim's family, had been previously convicted for Sex Offenses against children. Megan's Laws are state and federal statutes that require convicted sex offenders to register with local police. Sex offenders are required to register with local police and to notify law enforcement authorities whenever they move to a new location. The statutes establish a notification process to provide information about sex offenders to law enforcement agencies and, when appropriate, to the public. The type of notification is based on an evaluation of the risk to the community from a particular offender.

The brutality of the crimes in the Megan Kanka case provided the impetus for laws that mandate registration of sex offenders and corresponding community notification. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, Title 17, 108 Stat.2038, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 14071. This precursor to a federal Megan's Law conditioned certain federal law enforcement funds on state adoption of sexoffender registration laws and set minimum standards for state programs. By 1996, every State, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government had enacted some variation of Megan's Law.

Under the federal Megan's Law statute, states have discretion to establish criteria for disclosure, but they must make private and personal information on registered sex offenders available to the public. The premise of Megan's Law is that communities will be better able to protect their children if they are informed of the descriptions and whereabouts of high-risk sex offenders. Notification of sex-offender information to the community assists law enforcement in investigations, provides legal grounds to detain known sex offenders, may deter sex offenders from committing new offenses, and offers citizens information that they can use to protect their children.

Megan's Laws were not created without controversy. Opponents argue that the statutes encourage acts of Vigilantism and do not give offenders who have paid their dues the chance to merge back into society. But actions taken against the convicted sex offender, including Vandalism of property, verbal or written threats, or actual physical violence against the offender, their family, or employer, could lead to arrest and prosecution for criminal acts. Despite these concerns, however, federal and state legislatures have continued to reinforce and broaden the scope of these statutes.

On May 17, 1996, federal efforts to strengthen the Jacob Wetterling Act got a boost when President bill clinton signed an amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071); the amendment is known as Megan's Law. This legislation directs all state legislatures to adopt laws requiring convicted sex offenders to register with their local law enforcement agency after release. Additionally, the federal Megan's Law mandates states to grant access to sex-offender registries to the public. Although sex-offender registration for law enforcement purposes had been required previously, the idea of community notification was relatively new.

The legislation has undergone many adaptations in the states. While the details of state Megan's Laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, conviction of any one or more of the following offenses will require convicts to register pursuant to Megan's Laws:

aggravated sexual assault,
sexual assault,
aggravated criminal sexual contact,
endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct that would impair or debauch the morals of the child,
luring or enticing,
kidnapping (if the victim is a minor and the offender not a parent),
criminal restraint, and
false imprisonment.
Megan's Laws have guidelines that list factors law that enforcement agencies are to consider when weighing the risk of re-offense. These include some or all of the following:

post-incarceration supervision,
the status of therapy or counseling,
criminal background,
degree of remorse for criminal acts,
substance abuse,
employment or schooling status,
psychological or psychiatric profile, and
any history of threats or of Stalking locations where children congregate.
State sex offender registries include sex offenders' names, descriptions and photographs, addresses, places of employment or school (if applicable), descriptions of the offenders' vehicles and license plate numbers, and brief descriptions of the offenses for which the sex offender was convicted. Prosecutors and courts are responsible for determining who should receive direct notice of the presence of a particular individual in a community.

In 2003, 39 states provided access to sexoffender information in searchable databases on the Internet. Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Vermont either did not provide Internet access or restricted access. Various law enforcement agencies and some private citizens or civic groups also publish listings that are specific to counties or communities. Most, if not all, of these sites are freely available regardless of the residence of the individual who is searching for information.

As with the state laws themselves, state sexoffender databases have little or no uniformity. Some, like those for Alaska, Connecticut, and Florida, include photographs, physical descriptions, dates of birth, and details concerning the offenses for which offenders were convicted. The Virginia sex-offender list stores home and work addresses, while Indiana's contains only the city where the sex offender resides.

Most of the databases permit searching by zip code or name. Kansas allows searching by partial zip codes, while Alaska and Delaware allow searching by street name or by partial address, and Indiana permits searching by Social Security number.

While Megan's Laws do provide some measure of increased security for some parents and individuals who are concerned about the likelihood of convicted sex offenders in their midst, they cannot guarantee the public's protection from offenders who are determined to re-offend. The statutes cannot even guarantee absolute accuracy of the information contained on their registries. While offenders must register with the local police upon release from prison, many give incomplete or even false details. Others have given their details, but have traveled to areas where no one has been warned about them for the purposes of committing additional sex offenses. Critics of the measures point out that only 80 percent of pedophiles comply with registration requirements in the US, as compared

with 97 percent in the United Kingdom. They also note that most cases of Child Abuse occur within the family, and suggest that victims might stay silent if they know that a family member will be prosecuted. But in spite of these arguments, Megan's Laws receive widespread support in communities and legislatures.

In addition to compliance and enforcement problems with Megan's Laws, privacy advocates have challenged existing public-records laws that allow the availability of personal data via websites. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down major decisions upholding the constitutionality of Megan's Laws. The Court upheld Connecticut's Megan's Law by a vote of 9 to 0 and upheld Alaska's legislation in a 6-to-3 decision.

In Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 123 S. Ct. 1160, 155 L. Ed. 2d 98, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4158, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1957, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2471, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140 (2003). Connecticut's Megan's Law was challenged by a convicted sex offender, john doe. Doe protested that the Internet listing violated his due process rights because he was never given a hearing to disprove the suggestion that he might represent a continuing danger to the community. A federal judge and a three-judge federal appeals court panel agreed with Doe, striking down the law. But the Supreme Court overturned those decisions, stating that the key factor causing sex offenders to be listed in Connecticut's Internet registry is a prior conviction for a sex offense, not whether an individual might present a continued danger to the community.

The court said that statutes such as Connecticut's Megan's Law provide an important service that helps to protect society from those who would prey on its weakest members. Even though Megan's Laws create certain burdens for sex offenders, the court wrote that such laws do not amount to a form of ex post facto punishment, nor do they violate the Constitution's due process requirements.

In the Alaska case, Smith v. Doe, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4182, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1974, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2474, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S. 142 (2003) (No. 01-729). Alaska's Megan's Law was challenged by two convicted sex offenders who already had served their prison sentences prior to passage of that state's version of the law. The two men, John Doe I and John Doe II, argued that the law was another form of punishment imposed after they already had completed their punishment. They claimed that the law failed to recognize the possibility that they might be rehabilitated and that they might no longer pose a danger to others. In previous litigation, a federal judge found no ex post facto violation, but an appeals court panel reversed, striking down the law.

The high court wrote that Alaska's Megan's Law is a civil, non-punitive regulatory effort to account for the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that there was nothing in the statute to suggest that the legislature intended to create anything other than a civil scheme designed to protect the public from harm. And even though the law applied to sex offenders who already had been released from prison, it was not an extra form of punishment.

In these two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively disposed of the principal legal arguments against Megan's Laws. In short, the Court found that state laws that are designed to use the Internet to notify parents of the presence of convicted rapists and child molesters in their own neighborhoods do not violate the constitutional rights of the listed sex offenders.

Further readings
Ahearn, Laura A. 2001. Megan's Law Nationwide and… The Apple of My Eye: Childhood Sexual Abuse Prevention Program. N.Y.: Prevention Press USA.

Cohen, Fred, and Elizabeth Rahmberg-Walsh. 2001. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: A 'Megan's Law' SourceBook. Kingston, N.J.: Civic Research Institute.

Hodgson, James F., and Debra S. Kelley, eds. 2002. Sexual Violence: Policies, Practices, and Challenges in the United States and Canada. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/

Understanding Child Sexual Abuse
Education, Prevention, and Recovery

What is Child Sexual Abuse?
There is no universal definition of child sexual abuse. However, a central characteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity. Child sexual abuse may include fondling a child's genitals, masturbation, oral-genital contact, digital penetration, and vaginal and anal intercourse. Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography. Abuse by peers also occurs.

Accurate statistics on the prevalence of child and adolescent sexual abuse are difficult to collect because of problems of underreporting and the lack of one definition of what constitutes such abuse. However, there is general agreement among mental health and child protection professionals that child sexual abuse is not uncommon and is a serious problem in the United States.

The impact of sexual abuse can range from no apparent effects to very severe ones. Typically, children who experience the most serious types of abuse—abuse involving family members and high degrees of physical force—exhibit behavior problems ranging from separation anxiety to posttraumatic stress disorder. However, children who are the victims of sexual abuse are also often exposed to a variety of other stressors and difficult circumstances in their lives, including parental substance abuse. The sexual abuse and its aftermath may be only part of the child's negative experiences and subsequent behaviors. Therefore, correctly diagnosing abuse is often complex. Conclusive physical evidence of sexual abuse is relatively rare in suspected cases. For all of these reasons, when abuse is suspected, an appropriately trained health professional should be consulted.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 5:54 am
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it peculiar that most, if not all, the celebrities & film makers signing the petition to free Polanski have either made films involving sex with children or imply the need.

Personally I've chosen to boycott any work done by anyone who signed that petition. I believe if you side with a pedophile you either are one or you condone the behavior and that doesn't sit well with me. I'm troubled by the idea that I contribute to this cesspool when I pay to see a movie by anyone on that petition.

Some of the names on the list I recognize and some I don't. The ones I'm familiar with have made some very controversial films involving young girls, or have controvery surrounding their lives.

Woody Allen > we all know his story
Frédéric Mitterrand, Frances culture minister (admits in his autobiography that he paid for sex with young boys)
Bertolucci (the Dreamers) (Last Tango In Paris) (Stealing Beauty)
Sam Mendes (American Beauty) who is married to Kate Winslet (The Reader)
Scorsese (Taxi)- a movie Jodi Foster won't talk about to this day.Don't Penelope Cruz (La ribelle)
Gael Garcia Bernal (Sins of father Amarro)
Asia Argento (her own father would film her in explicit movies)

I think we should stop tolerating the excuse that the abuse of children in movies is an expression of art. Directors and actors have gone too far in their support of Polanski, almost makes a person wonder why there is so much support. Fact isn't far from fiction? This is a case where one person was caught for doing something hideous with a child. Makes a person question how often this happens in hollywood and how often it goes unreported.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 6:01 am

Good points, Michelle!

Thursday October 8, 2009, 8:52 am
even if it is human nature for most men to want to have sex with anything that moves (including little girls), artists can explore this subject in movies without condoning or contributing to such abusive behavior in real life. if polanski gets out and goes on to molest his grandkids, those directors are culpable.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 9:59 am
Catherine,
Unless I've misunderstood your post, IMO exploring sex with children, incest, etc... in movies is not art. Definitely not the type of art I enjoy or want to contribute to. If a movie is to educate someone about the crimes in the world then that another matter but none of the movies I've listed above are educational. Aside from that, the point is the correlation between those defening a pedophile and the types of movies they make, which I think are valid things to think about.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 11:20 am
I stopped watching movies and sitcoms years ago just for that reason Michelle. I now only buy movies from the American Family Association

Thursday October 8, 2009, 11:50 am
many artists will tell you that the point is to capture reality (good, bad, and ugly) without rendering an opinion. my point is that they can do that without contributing to the problem. something akin to "leaving las vegas", where the writer/director portrays prostitution and alcoholism without condemning or glorifying. most people aren't going to see that film and run out and get drunk or sell themselves.

Friday October 9, 2009, 5:16 am
So if an artist (example bertolucci) tells us that he needs to film teen girls over and over having virgin sex to show us the good, bad and ugly we should believe him? Well, that just isn't good enough for me. No one said someone watches a movie and then goes out and does what they saw in the movie, what I said is the behavior of those who signed the petition is questionable when you look at their movies. It is no secret that the age of consent in Spain is 13 and a good share of directors and actors who signed the petition are from Spain. They totally disregard our laws and what the age of consent is in our country. I've also lived in some of the countries of the people on that petition and I know for certain their attitude about sexual abuse is quite different from ours.

I do agree that some actors and directors make movies to convey a message, but those actors/directors aren't signing this petition. Those who signed this petition have contributed to the problem. These people, whether we want it or not, are role models. Their movies represent low morals and now so does their opinion.

IMO their work should be boycotted by those who care about children and want sexual abuse laws to be stricter in this country. For those who agree with me I urge you to sign this petition that has been linked to on care2.

http://thenewagenda.net/2009/09/30/boycott-please-forward/

Friday October 9, 2009, 9:19 am
i haven't seen all the films you're referring to, but i would not condone anything but non-minors portraying minors. i do boycott pedro almadovar films because he tortured real animals. had he simulated torture, i probably wouldn't have seen the movie but i wouldn't consider it criminal. and i was just saying that watching a graphic or immoral movie doesn't infuence real life behavior in most people; doesn't contribute to the problem it's portraying.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 1:22 am
I am wondering what happened to the conversation about incest?
The child is NEVER to blame! Write to me personally if you want more info!

Friday October 30, 2009, 9:14 pm
He needs to go straight to jail, do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars.
Don't give him a pass for eluding the law for so many years.

Thursday November 5, 2009, 5:32 am
Specifically to Christoph Wuth.....Your comment of IS HE SEDUCER-or SHE SEDUCTRESS?????DID YOU GET HIT IN THE HEAD AS A CHILD?????OR AS AN ADULT?????