Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Sept 29, 2009 19:43:50 GMT
Should someone even be held accountable for something they did 30 years ago? I think in Korea if you're not convicted for a crime after 10 years then your let off scott free, even in murder cases. He's a convicted fugitive. A charge(s) was/were filed, he pleaded guilty (plea agreement), and fled sentencing. |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Sept 30, 2009 4:31:39 GMT
Because the judge was going to renege on a previous plea agreement Kino. I'm not condoning the guy's behaviour, but i have no idea what it's like to go through some of the shit he had to before the incident.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Sept 30, 2009 6:53:04 GMT
Because the judge was going to renege on a previous plea agreement Kino. I'm not condoning the guy's behaviour, but i have no idea what it's like to go through some of the shit he had to before the incident. I was pointing out to Quentin that Polanski's situation is different from the example he wrote about. I didn't bring up why he fled or the judge's action because it wasn't pertinent to pointing out the difference between someone not convicted and someone that was. |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Sept 30, 2009 23:30:39 GMT
eh yeah of course it's pertinent! some people like black and white, but i think most like to know the reasons for behaviour. I believe it's close minded to seperate those reasons from the legalities.....we are all human beings of course!....why post it unless you disagreed with the sentiment of QC's post? which was should he still be accountable for something that happened over 30 years ago? not point out the legal specifics regardless of the reasons.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Sept 30, 2009 23:52:37 GMT
eh yeah of course it's pertinent! some people like black and white, but i think most like to know the reasons for behaviour. I believe it's close minded to seperate those reasons from the legalities.....we are all human beings of course!.... I understand why Polanski fled. His fear is human indeed. Why Polanski fled and the judge's action isn't pertinent to this specifically: I think in Korea if you're not convicted for a crime after 10 years then your let off scott free, even in murder cases. and not pertinent to simply pointing out the difference between someone who is not convicted and someone that was. At the same time, Polanski's reasons and the judge's action is pertinent to the overall case and its complexity, absolutely. why post it unless you disagreed with the sentiment of QC's post? which was should he still be accountable for something that happened over 30 years ago? He's accountable for fleeing sentencing which is breaking the law, for sure. The statutory rape case is a complex one and I'm suspending judgement as I need to learn more about the case and legalities. |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Oct 1, 2009 2:08:50 GMT
Not to that specifically no, but originally you quoted the whole post so i assumed you were responding to the whole post, not just that bit specifically. Communicaiton issue.
See i could never even form a judgment on a scenario i have no first hand knowledge of based on legalities or report of a court case or what i read or see in the media. Listen to it, investigate it, try to understand it yeah.....but not make a judgement, as i see people judging distant situations or people in those situations that they have no real human or first hand knowlegde of as a massive problem in the world. A lot of people seem to think it's ok to judge people and situations they see on tv or read about in the paper, it's bullshit.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Oct 1, 2009 3:05:15 GMT
Judgment is not an apt word choice, definitely. I should have used "opinion" or something more fitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 1, 2009 3:05:29 GMT
Any of you seen the documentary - "wanted and desired"?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Oct 1, 2009 3:16:17 GMT
Any of you seen the documentary - "wanted and desired"? Not yet, but did you read about the controversy about the prosecutor saying he lied in the documentary (re: illegally advising the judge to renege the plea agreement and go for a prison sentence)? A commentator pointed out that that lie was the impetus for Polanski's defense to file their most recent motions (to have the case dismissed, I think) which in turn brought on a renewed interest to bring Polanski in. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 1, 2009 3:42:33 GMT
Yeah I read about it. In my mind (not legally speaking) that should mitigate or nullify any punishment for running away (i.e. charges of being a fugitive). But, my thoughts are all regarding the original incident. Had he not drugged the girl (which makes it a proper rape), I would have somewhat forgiven the guy (in this particular case, for statutory rape), because of two reasons (again not legal points): 1. Lot of cultures had socially accepted marriages soon after puberty, until a few decades ago. Whatever mental maturity level, sex has been practiced throughout the human history at that age and has been socially accepted. 2. I read the whole excerpt of the girl's courtroom questioning and it is evident that she was sexually experienced even before the incident. ( www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia18.html - click on the "next" symbol to advance the pages) Of course, as I said before, by drugging her, he removed the "consent" from the picture, which makes it a crime for me that deserves a punishment. Should it be a life-term? - I am not so sure in this case. If it is to deter other people from committing it, then may be yes. But if it was to provide justice to the girl (for psychological and mental damage), I need to wait until I watch the documentary to form my opinion. Apparently she has talked about her views in this and also asked for dropping the case against him. However Polanski's encounter with tragedies earlier in his life should have no bearing on this case. That will make it way too complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 1, 2009 3:42:44 GMT
Totally totally agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Oct 1, 2009 5:16:45 GMT
Judgment is not an apt word choice, definitely. I should have used "opinion" or something more fitting. An opinion is the result of a judgement. An opinion usually requires taking a side or "stance" which stems from making a judgement. Picking sides is an extension of that massive problem with people judging situations they can't know, once they judge, they pick a side and form an 'opinion'. Far too much stock is given to opinions, especially in cases like this. Once a specific opinion is formed, a large amount of objectivity is lost. I believe objectivity is paramount when considering situations outside our own realm or life, situations we hear about or 'see' in the media and thus they enter our perception in a very strange and unnatural way and we think we know them enough to form an opinion about them. Dangerous! This is how things like anger towards all middle eastern looking people because of 9/11 happens, viewers see 'situations' in the media and make a judgment on them, thus forming an opinion on them, without understanding the reasons for these situations at all. They've lost objectivity and picked a side. |
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Oct 1, 2009 5:25:06 GMT
And there in lies the problem with a black and white (not racially speaking) society......
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Oct 1, 2009 5:49:34 GMT
I have no problem with a well-informed opinion that isn't morally repugnant nor leads to morally repugnant behavior, action, thought, idea, concept, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 12, 2009 1:23:24 GMT
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired  I am listing this film here because of the preceding discussion. However this is not directed by Polanski himself. There are some segments of Polanski's interviews in various TV shows though. The film deals only with the way the judge handled the case and not about the actual crime itself. The victim is also interviewed very briefly, but but don't get to know much details of her views - primarily because the film dwells only on the personality of the judge and his attitude towards this case. The film clearly justifies why Polanski should have fled the country and I tend to agree with it, looking at whatever the film presents as facts. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 14, 2009 15:39:35 GMT
Omar, since you've seen a lot of Polanski's films, you might know the answer for this --> I am looking for the name of a film from which I just saw a scene - It is a B&W film with Polanski starring in it. In the scene there was where a stout person sitting on a chair in an open field, playing drums and Polanski dances in front of him like a clown. Do you know the film's name?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator 
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 14, 2009 16:09:06 GMT
The Fat and the Lean
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Oct 14, 2009 16:13:03 GMT
No, but it is probably one of his early short films, all found on the Criterion DVD for "Knife in the Water". I've got the DVD, but haven't watched the shorts, though I believe wetdog has seen them all. I don't believe Polanski appeared in any of his black and white feature length films, aside from an extra on the sidewalk in "Repulsion". He was supposed to play the lead in "Knife in the Water", but I don't think the financiers thought he was right for the role, but he ended up dubbing his own voice over the lead actor's anyway. "Cul-de-sac" is also in black and white, but has a very limited cast which he is not among. It is also one of his most underrated films and can be seen on Youtube. |
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Oct 14, 2009 16:14:12 GMT
I knew you would know it! ;D
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 14, 2009 16:27:39 GMT
It's a good one.  |
|
