Comments on: The Polanski case: It’s the consent, stupid

By: John F. MacMichael

John F. MacMichael — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:03:52 +0000

Re #18: Yes, exactly.

By: Elisson

Elisson — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:30:03 +0000

Re #11 – John, you’re correct. What I should’ve said was that Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape after having committed the far more serious crime of Just Plain Rape. It just makes him that much more of a dirtbag… along with his morally equivocating defenders.

Polanski’s acts were despicable. His avoiding justice by fleeing across the ocean is despicable. And the people that say, “let bygones be bygones” are despicable.

By: Yankev

Yankev — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:35:14 +0000

“If youâ€™re too young at 13 to have sex with an older person, youâ€™re too young at 13 to have sex at all.” Agreed, but in some states it is not a crime if the kids are close to the same age. It is not that a 13 year old boy won’t take advantage of a 13 year old girl — anyone who has been a teenage boy can tell you that. But a 13 year old boy is not expected to have the maturity of an adult, and does not have the adult’s age, experience and sophistication. If my high school days are any guide, most girls were more sophisticated than boys of the same age.

For the same reason, a fist fight between two 13 year old boys may not be a desireable thing, but it’s on a completely different level than a 40 year old man beating the tar out of a 13 year old boy. Same bad act, but the advantage of age and development makes the second one much worse.

By: Yankev

Yankev — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:27:41 +0000

When someone forces liquor down the throat of a 13 year child, then stuffs quaaludes into her mouth, then forcibly has anal sex with her, and at all times she is telling him to please stop, the fact that she is too young for consent to be legally effective is the least of it. Yes, it’s relevant, but so is the fact that this would have been a despicable act even if she had been 20 or 40.

Woody Allen signed the petition? The guy who saw nothing wrong with having sex with his own wife’s 17 year old adopted daughter? One paskutnyik coming to the defense of a worse paskutnyik.

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:01:57 +0000

Actually, we could "drop" the original charges (which would save him 48 days in prison - if the original plea bargain is left intact). BUT send him to prison for the crime of escaping custody and evading sentencing. If I recall Patterico.com correctly, the sentence for that crime is 5 - 10 years. So yes, let him go on the 48 days (as the Hollywood crowd is begging) but sentence him to the full ten years for the other crime. Since the victim of his original crime had nothing to do with that, she cannot "forgive" him and ask that the case be dropped.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:12:13 +0000

Not flamed, Laura, but stop and read what you’re saying. You’re saying that an older person would take advantage of a 13-year-old’s youth and inexperience, but a child of the same age—with the same youth and inexperience—would not. There’s no logic to that line of thought. If you’re too young at 13 to have sex with an older person, you’re too young at 13 to have sex at all. And, uh, really—telling us that he dumped you when you refused to have sex with him? Not really making your case.

By: Laura SF

Laura SF — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:58:30 +0000

At the risk of being flamed, I think a 13 year-old CAN consent to having sex with a 14 year-old (I was deeply in love at 13 with a 14 year-old boy – thought we might even end up married – but DIDN’T want to have sex. And as a result, he broke up with me and broke my heart). BUT – I think anyone more than a couple of years older is very likely to be taking advantage of the other person’s youth & inexperience (thus, statutory rape), and in this particular case, since drugs were involved, it’s absolutely rape. Let him rot.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:34:13 +0000

Radical Vasectomy, Drawn and Quartered, staked out next to a fire ant hill with honey trailing back to the nest

Maybe a month in prison as the cell-block new main squeeze….

Where’s Dexter?

Grrrrr

By: John F. MacMichael

John F. MacMichael — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:28:07 +0000

Sabba Hillel at #5 makes an excellent suggestion on proper sentencing.

Elisson at #6, I must pick a nit: you say Polanski committed statutory rape. That implies the victim was willing tho too young to give legal consent. In fact, she testified she was not willing but he used intimidation and superior strength to force himself on her. After, of course, getting her alone in his house, getting her clothes off under the pretence of a photo shoot and feeding her alcohol and drugs to weaken her resistance. Sure looks like “rape-rape” to me, contra that moral idiot Whoope Goldberg.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:13:22 +0000

Isn't she on record in her testimony as having told him "no" repeatedly as he raped her? It's not just statutory rape (which, while it's a good and useful protection for 13 and 14 year olds does start to feel a little ridiculous on 17 year-and-350-day olds, both sets to which it applies equally) but plain old "actively against consent" rape. It would've been wrong and illegal even if she'd been saying "yes", but since she wasn't it's far, far worse.