Roman Polanski's rape charge

I'll have to look into it a little more. That fact only makes me hate the guy more, and even more disgusted that he won't be punished for his crime.

 

Let me start by saying I don't think 13 year olds should be having sex but by looking just at age of consent (and I think it is proper to have one) you reminded me of something.

A DA (not from my county) had a point when he called the state legislature cowards for not changing the law to address a problem he had. 2 15 year olds in high school together decided have sex and admitted it after the fact to a police officer that confronted them. 15 is below the age of consent in most states as far as I know. So he was forced to charge them with a crime as a DA following the laws put forward by the state.

I don't feel they should be treated like rapists and a legal system (at least in the state the DA is from) doesn't do a good enough job of drawing the line between them and sexual predators.

 

My understanding is that most laws have clauses that rule out sexual conduct between two people of relatively close age. In the case of the two 15 year kids, who was the criminal? They both were for victimizing each other? Please. I'm sure that such a case would never make it to court, and if it did, it'd be quickly dismissed.

 

Yes and no. Some states have likely tried to address the issue by changing how they handle a situation (felony or not) but that may still involve the legal system and if the situation takes place prior to such a revision or in a state that hasn't done one that can lead to questions over if the punishment fits the crime.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/12/1-blow10-years.html
http://volokh.com/posts/1166468931.shtml

A quick bit of looking online brought up this case (a different one that is somewhat similar).

 

You're right almost all states have them. Maryland's is kind of convoluted. The age of consent here is 16 - that's when you can consent to having sex with anyone. However, someone as young as 14 can consent to sex with someone within four years of his/her age. So it's legal for a 14 year old to have sex with an 18 year old, but not a 19 year old.

If you're under 14, you cannot consent to sex with anyone.

However, in the case of both people being under the age of consent, it's nonsense. Like you said, who would be charged?

 

The parents of course!! Why, they should have watched their children more closely! They would have stopped them before they did such an immoral and disgusting act. Sex... beurk... The parents should get 15 years firm. One for every year that led up to that loss of self respect...

Need I put up this smilie :

 

If any governing body was looking for a culprit, the parents would probably be the target, as stupid as that is.

 

He is known to go to Gstaad to ski so it's pretty obvious that the Swiss could have taken him much earlier if they had wanted to.

I don't know why they decided to go with it just now.

Is it to annoy the French regarding the hard (but useless) take on tax havens of the current French administration? I don't know. But one thing is for sure, if the Swiss cared that much about bringing a felon to justice they could have done it years ago. So that's just hypocrisy on their part.

The French really botched it when trying to defend Polanski (who was born in Paris to Polish parents and thus is a French national which explains why France won't extradite him). Being recognized as a genius shouldn't allow anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with a teenager.

Although Polanski made a deal and pleaded guilty of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" the judge really wanted to crucify him. If the prosecution succeeded he was to be sentenced to 50 years in jail...

Did he cut a deal to avoid spending half his life in prison? Or was he really guilty of rape?

It's true that anybody facing such charges can never get rid of the slur and one thing is certain: everybody wants a piece of him now.

If indeed he is guilty then he should have to face consequences for his actions but in the meantime he should be granted a fair trial. I don't like watching anyone get lynched and I sure don't like the way the Swiss acted on that one.

 

Right, but why would you ever chance leaving France to any other country with a extradition treaty to the US? Regardless of whether it was to go skiing or to an awards ceremony, it still makes no sense on his part. I imagine there are ski slopes somewhere in France (even if not as nice as in Switzerland), and if warm weather is his thing, I'm sure southern France along the Mediterranean is quite nice.

 

I thought he went to Switzerland to receive an award -- pride will get people to do stupid things....

 

He did - for a film award. But Cardhas points out he's gone to Switzerland numerous times in the past to ski.

 

France is perfect for skiing (I should know, I live close to the Swiss border).

Actually, Polanski owns a chalet in Gstaad. I found a link in English.

For the record, I'm not naive enough to actually believe that Swiss authorities didn't know he had a place there. That would be very sloppy and the Swiss are certainly not sloppy.

 

Knowing and telling are two -- while somewhat related -- but different things. That shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone.

Speaking of underaged & sex: It's really common here (Sweden) and in a vast majority of cases it doesn't/ hurt anyone nor cause any headaches. But since it's against the law, all it takes is a narrow-minded parent to sue the "offender". Doing time behind the bars, losing a boy/girlfriend and being labeled as r.a.p.i.s.t for doing exactly what couples should be doing seems rather.. excessive? :-o

 

I wouldn't say "narrow-minded" when it comes to rape or suspicion of rape or at the very least abuse.

Teenagers can be influenced more easily and the definition of consent is not as clear when it comes to intercourse between an adult and a teenager... Let's face it, teenagers are prone to do silly things. Experimenting with your sexuality with partners who are of the same age is not the same as an adult (male or female) having sex with a teenager.

We're not even mentioning the use of alcohol or in worst scenarios roofies. If you get someone drunk so they loosen up and will do things they wouldn't do in normal circumstances that is simply not right.

Engaging in sexual intercourse between consenting adults is not the same thing at all. Laws are meant to protect children who are vulnerable because they may lack judgement, especially when it comes to something as taboo as sex. That's why intercourse with a teenager is unlawful. An adult in this situation is clearly taking advantage of somebody who can be easily influenced to gain sexual gratification. No matter how you spin it, that is not right.

 

Ehh.. I wasn't talking about an adult having sex with an underaged but two young ones making it out.

In this specific case the guy was 18 and the girl 14, and I've known both a good while now. They have been a couple for a while as well. It ended abruptly when the girl's daddy heard about their escapades, and now the guy is in jail. WTF?

Also, my very good friends in Finland started their relationship when she was 13 and he was 19, and now they have five kids and a seemingly happy relationship. Only difference was that none of their parents freaked out and made a biiiiiiiiig fuss about it.

 

When I was in highschool, there was a girl in my class who went out with a guy who was 30 (she was 15) and used to pick her up right in front of everyone.

I don't get why a 30 year old guy would go out with someone half his age.

Regarding the examples you posted, it's clear that, whether you like it or not, once you are older than 18 you are liable to face legal consequences if you get involved with somebody who is much younger.

Still I do agree that when it comes to a difference of 4 years that is not as bad but one can relate to the girl's parents expressing some concern about their daughter's well-being.

That being said it all depends on the situation and I do agree with Sir Rechet, going to jail for that is pretty harsh. Nevertheless 14 is still rather young. At that age 4 years really count whereas if you're 30 it doesn't really make a difference if your partner is 26 or 34.

 

Maybe a lawyer can explain this to me.

I mean, WTF? Given what the guy did last time he was out free, why in God's holy name are they even considering giving him bail now? I mean, common sense tells you that if he urinated on the laws of one country, that indicates a high probability that he will do it again. This boggles my mind.

 

Well, there were no electronic monitoring bracelets last time he skipped bail, and he's under house arrest. They'll know if he even leaves his house, much less drives to an airport...