Comments on: Roman Polanski’s victim thinks rape charges should be dropped

By: ann wilson

ann wilson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:44:03 +0000

A lot of other people went through the Holocaust and have had family members murdered but they did not use this as an excuse to commit a vile act against a innocent 13 yr old. No matter how old she looked, or how she was dressed, he drugged her, raped and sodomized her, over her protests. Because he ran makes him guilty and he is guilty, he pled guilty. He has been free long enough and has been living the good life. Now it is time to pay the piper and spend some jail time along with that disgusting Woody Allen. If I was WA I would keep my mouth shut. I give credit to Kirstie Alley, who had the guts to speak out against him. As far as I know she is the only one with guts. Thanks Kirstie.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Anne Capaldi

Anne Capaldi — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:57:05 +0000

The saying ” in order for evil to flourish-good people should do nothing”. I think applies here. This man who commited crimes against a 13 yr old minor-CAN NOT WALK FREE. He must pay some sort of penalty. There are many who say it happened so long ago-LET IT GO AND LET HIM GET ON WITH HIS LIFE. Just because he is rich and famous gives him no license to violate a young 13 yr. old. I think of Edward Kennedy. If he was not rich and famous and belonged to the Kennedy family-He would have not gotten away with what he did either.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: omg

omg — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:36:04 +0000

@ Abby: Who cares if other countries have death penality, too? how does this affect the circumstance, that in the US already innocent people got executed? Only one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzGZQWXPdc0

Just ask any attorney, just do it. Everyone knows stories of innocent beeing prosecuted and guilty people got free. Maybe its impossible to get 100% right decicions in court – but if that is the case, then you cant kill people by law.

Sure, theres no death penality on pedophilia – but i used the example to illustrate, that even on the biggest crimes like murder the court dont necessary decides right. Ever heard of “Uhhh, he has that expensive star-attorney, his chances of not being prosecuted are now good” – why do you think one is able to make such a statement if only the innocence / guilt of people in court is important?

I dont say hes innocent. I just say if u go to a court, then beeing innocent doesnt grant you exemption from punishment. Thats a pretty good reason for me.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Asiont

Asiont — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:25:06 +0000

I saw a documentary film about this case, and the whole thing is not that easy, it’s even possible that Polanski was a victim and not that girl.
she changed her verion many times, I would not be that naive to belive her

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: barneslr

barneslr — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:30:03 +0000

“Polanski is not a pedofile”

First of all, the word is “pedophile.” And, yes, that is what he is. When an adult has sex with a child, that is an act of pedophilia.

Why should the charges be dropped? Just because he has successfully evaded justice for 30 years? No. I’m sorry that the victim feels the way she does, but it’s not her call. He is a dangerous person and should be forced to pay the price for the crime he knowingly committed.

He is a danger and should be punished for his crimes.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Vannuccia

Vannuccia — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:15:59 +0000

It makes me sick to hear some people justifying the whole situation by saying he is a great director (debatable, at best), he is married with two children, etc, those facts are utterly irrelevant.

Ask yourselves this- What sort of man sleeps with a 13 year old girl? The simple answer is a Pedophile and therefore why should he be treated any differently simply because he’s involved in Hollywood?

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Obvious

Obvious — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:17:32 +0000

I think it was wrong and such, but he has to be tried within 5 years doens’t he? He was charged, but not tried so doens’ the invalidate what they are trying to do.

And though the victim may say it was wrong, if she doens’t want to press the charges than the Da can’t quite go ahead with it.

I hate celebs getting of easy, but I hate it even more when we try to make an example of them.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: nonny

nonny — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:06:39 +0000

Should he be punished? Yes. Should the victim be victimized again by an over zealous media and a DA wanting to make a name for himself? No. Everything about this case should have been kept under lock and key and nothing about the crime should have been leaked to the media. For those of you saying “think of your daughter”…yes think of your daughter. What if it was your daughter, not only would she have to go through with something as psychologically scarring as this but to have it drug on and on opening up the wounds all over again…I would not wish that on any child.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: ak

ak — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:33:03 +0000

“what kind of mother would send her 13 yr. old kid…”

And what kind of man would drug and sodomize a 13-year-old kid?

But by all means, make the focus of your argument all those strawmen overzealous puritan Americans who can’t stop themselves from fetishizing a good sex scandal.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: RCDC

RCDC — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:26:12 +0000

domestic violence charges frequently ARE dropped if the victim recants, and with good reason. if she says she tripped, how on earth is a prosecutor supposed to convince a jury she was hit? and even if he can, that it was her husband who hit her? unless there’s another witness, the state is up a creek.
as for the term “pedophile” i feel it’s a bit misapplied here. is what polanski did illegal? yes. Immoral? probably. creepy? without a doubt. but pedophilia is specifically the love of children, and a 13 year old is (usually, at least n developed countries) not a child. he or she is an adolescent, a sexually and mentally confused being. pedophiles are attracted to young children in large part for their otherness. guys who sleep with teenage girls are just slimy creeps. (sorry, misapplication of paraphilic terms is a pet peeve of mine).
it’s a 30 year old charge. he’s unlikely to offend again. having been denied his full right to due process, he’s at least entitled to a new trial. what are the odds they’d file again, assuming the statute of limitations is more than 30 years?

Report this comment as spam or abuse