Polanski: the debate

Except Michael Jackson.

And Richard Nixon

And Frank Sinatra

"To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law..." best to pick on an European for that sort of thing.

It's interesting that the mind that brought us the incestuous themes of "Chinatown" and the Satanic rape in "Rosemary's Baby" could be on trial for perverted and abusive behavior.
Still, he's an artist and above all that morality malarky. The fact that the rape took place in Jack Nicholson's Hot Tub shouldn't distract us from the fact that Polanski obviously has a troubled and sensitive soul. And a good lawyer.

GV

The original charges were that Polanski lured a 13-year-old girl to the home of Jack Nicholson under the pretext of photographing her, then drugged and raped her.
‘In addition to the rape charges, Polanski also was booked on suspicion of sodomy, child molestation and furnishing dangerous drugs to a minor.’

For those new to the case there are more details here:
https://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

William Crawley makes a good point; if Polanski were a RC Priest rather than a respected film director then I doubt he would have any defenders at all. If we were talking about Gary Glitter would people be as forgiving?

Polanski has made some films (Chinatown etc) that I am very fond of, but I think he should be returned to face the charges in court.

Luvvie quote of the decade--

"Polanski has atoned for the sins of his young years. He has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."
Polish Filmmakers Association chief Jacek Bromski (Associated Press)

The horror, the horror!

Curious to know the contents of gveale's four posts before continuing - this is like playing chess in the dark.

William you are spot in referencing "clerical child abuse" as this has become the benchmark. Every suspected molester should be pursued now with the same vigour. I think there should be a judicial inquiry into child abuse in the media.

Then we can discover that thousands of children were employed without adequate pay, were neglected and forced to participate in inappropriate behaviour. Was watching the monty python "ever sperm is sacred" song on youtube - that's child abuse, making kids participate in such a thing.

The American legal system must make it clear that there is no place to hide, no duration of time past which criminals can escape. The arrest is long overdue. Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized an underage girl...against her will. The crime is not merely against the individual but against society. Whether you are Leona Helmsley, Martha Stewart, Zsa Zsa Gabor or Roman Polanski, the law is the law. If we become a nation of individuals instead of laws, we will be no better off than the French or the USSR. Exceptions are contempable and should be condemned. We know who got away with negligent homocide once upon a time in upstate New York but if I say it here, this posting will be deleted. If he is forced back to the US, he will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. That is our law. Perhaps if he wanted to have sex with children, he should have gone to a place like Thailand where they tolerated that sort of thing.

Could the moderator hurry up please!

Re: post 4

What are we worried about here? Jack Nicholson's lawyers? Roman Polanski's lawyer? He's scary - but does he read Will and Testament?

Haha, no doubt Marcus is telling us how this is proof positive of the degradation and moral inferiority of Europe...

And no doubt Graham is guessing that this is what Marcus is telling us, and probably making a sharp rejoinder.

This pre-mod business is great, isn't it? We can all guess how accurately we can predict one another's responses. Oh, I can't wait to see if I'm right!!!

So, Marcus, "it is no surprise that europeans are the only one's calling for his release...further proof, as I saw for myself, that Europe remains a moral cesspit".

1 point for the general gist, one point for the inclusion of disclaimer's like "as I've seen for myself", and an extra two points for key phrases like "moral cesspit".

:)

Maybe Polanski could start a mega-church if extradicted? And preach the power of reparative therapy?

D'oh. Completely wrong! This pre-mod business is a nightmare!

Remember when we could have a conversation on Will and Testament?

I did ask the Beeb why we were all on pre-mod. But they just ignored me. Ah, well.

Tautology of the decade

"[Polanski] drugged, *raped*, and sodomized an underage girl...*against her will*."

Our very own Marcus!
Take a bow.

"We know who got away with negligent homocide once upon a time in upstate New York but if I say it here, this posting will be deleted. If he is forced back to the US, he will probably spend the rest of his life in prison."


It would be a bit harsh to send Teddy Kennedy to jail now.

Who can defend Polanski's actions? Not only did he commit a crime, he then became a fugitive. If he wasn't The Great Polanski, there would be no debate. Sorry, but being a brilliant filmmaker doesn't give you moral or legal immunity.

By the way, this doesn't preclude Polanski frmo being a victim himself in other ways. The excellent film that premiered a couple of years ago on the subject tells a complex story, and it should be clear that - while Polanski should by made to face up to what he did in exactly the same way as everyone else - he was a victim himself too.

levage;

"It would be a bit harsh to send Teddy Kennedy to jail now."

We have a saying here; "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." It seems to me serving his sentence now would allow him to pay his debt to society in the easiest way imaginable. I'll bet he won't mind a bit. Do you know that in many states it is (or was) a crime to commit suicide? Yep. 2 years in prison for killing yourself. I wonder if anyone ever served out a term for it.

Bernard's Sightless;

Why bother stating the obvious? You know it, we know it, you know we know it, and we know that you know we know it. Megrahi's custody by the UK was unchallenged by America on the assurance of the UK's government that if convicted in a Scottish court, he would serve out his sentence there. He was convicted but he didn't. Suddenly there were other factors over which the UK government had no control over. Were they too stupid to have known that when they made the promise in the first place or were they just lying. How can anyone trust such an ally? How can anyone call such an entity an ally in the first place? Special relation? Like a leech and its victim. Of what benefit has close relations between the United States and the UK ever been to America or Americans? Do you really imagine that anyone ever actually visited the UK because they have a Royal Family? Do you think it matters one whit to Joe Sixpack when he's led through Buckingham Palace that the guide says the Queen lives upstairs than had the guide said the Queen used to live upstairs when we had a Queen? What can be said of a nation of parasites?

Hahaha, do I get any points for self-fulfilling prophecy?

:)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The real truth is "that" he is a Satanist.

Gveale - well probably best to clarify that it wasn't just statutory rape before some liberal tries to claim she went along with it. And of course here it is from Whoopi Goldberg - the money quote "it wasn't 'rape-rape' ". Can we put in links these days? If not, google "hot air whoopi"
https://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/29/video-whoopi-says-polanski-didnt-commit-rape-rape/

McCamley

An absolutely priceless link!

Your honour - my client pleads guilty to rape, but not guilty to rape-rape. We just wanted to be clear.

Before sentencing, my client wishes to remind the court of his constitutional right to run away if he thinks the sentence will exceed one hundred years.

McCamley in post 7 you make a satirical reference to clerical child abuse. Of course the obvious difference between this case and the majority of the clerical cases is that Polanski was actually charged at the time of his alledged crime and has been on the run ever since, while the clerical abusers were not charged until much later in life.

"To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law."

Isn't it a bit early to say he's not above the law? Graham mentions some exceptions in posts 1-3. I think O.J. Simpson would would fit in there too, maybe he's an even better example. Unlike Nixon or Sinatra he did go to trial. Bought a legal dream team, got himself declared innocent. If Polanski were to pull off something similar, it would not be confirmation of no one being above the law, but rather the exact opposite.

NobleDee

Yes he was charged with rape - but the arresting officers only used the term "rape", and not "rape-rape" so the charges don't count. As Whoopi Goldberg makes clear in the link provided above.
Once again thanks McCamley. Absolutely priceless.

GV

PK

Yes, I forgot about OJ. Good call.

GV

I certainly agree Polanski should be extradited and face trial in Los Angeles. What he did was horrible and he should have to pay the price.

But I do want to say the sentence will probably not be a long one. Any judge will take into account his good works since then and his clean criminal history since then.

So I take exception with the comment that Polanski will go to jail for the rest of his life. His time in jail will probably be measured in months, rather than years, when all is said and done and this is finally put to rest.

LUVVIES TO THE RESCUE
Just to put the Whoopi quote up in full:

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail. I'm not staying.' So that's why he left."

The following quote needs to be aired and compared
Polanski in an interview that originally appeared in Tatler 30 years ago (Source:Telegraph.co.uk)-
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… ****ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!”

GV

Polanski just got greedy and pushed an already established tradition beyond its accepted limits. Surely the first step for many aspiring actresses in the Hollywood system was the one up on to the casting couch. If his prosecution is successful will we then see a spate of directoral abuse claims filed by legions of starlets from the forties onward who ended up on their backs.

Donkeyo
Only if the starlets in question were 13, drugged, and *still* clearly said no. Maybe in your world that implies consent.

I'd be very sorry if the "Daily Telegraph" blogs can put up the quote in #29, and W&T chickens out. I know the DT is sooo left wing and pro-Hollywood. But I'm sure Polanski's lawyers are all over this blog.
The interview I quoted was conducted by Martin Amis.

"his good works since then"

Apparently David Koresh was a good neighbour. And Jim Jones was quite the humanitarian.
Even Hitler liked his dog.

GV

Oh for FSMs sake, I read Grahams post 29 before someone hit the complaint button. Didn't seem worthy of complaining to me. It seems this blogs now combines the worst of two scenarios. If everything is checked before posting, then the complaint button shouldn't be used as much anymore as before pre-moderation was inserted. But now we have lengthy delays before posts appear and still many disappear again shortly afterwards.

"But I do want to say the sentence will probably not be a long one. Any judge will take into account his good works since then and his clean criminal history since then."

I think having fled to evade the system will carry much more weight. He may have forfeited his right to a new trial. He has already pled guilty. I think the consequences for him are clearcut. Whatever doubt lingers, fighting extradition will likely elimimate what meager chances he might still have. If he successfully flees Switzerland, that will surely seal his fate if he's ever captured again.

Here's an irony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco

Having fled the US as a fugitive, Robert Vesco wound up dying in a Cuban prison having committed crimes there too. We've had other felons released due to petitions by famous people. Norman Mailer and James Buckley each managed to convince parole boards to release convicted killers because they had paid their debt to society, were reformed, and had proven they could be good citizens. Both later killed again. I don't think leniency as a reward for flight from the law is what is called for. If anything, the punishment should be even more severe. The judge should throw the book at him.

RE Post 33
I concur completely. What is the point of pre-moderation, exactly? My post passed pre-moderation - so someone presumably knows better than the moderator?

The question "who moderates the moderators" has just been answered.

Anyone who can hit a complaint button.

The laugh is that I deleted the "F's" from the beginning of the already censored swear words to make the post LESS offensive. I added an extra layer of censorship - TO THE DAILY TELEGRAPH!

GV

Sorry but there should be no debate about prosecuting a child rapist. The fact that there is demonstrates how debased liberal society has become...at least in Hollywood.

For me the question is: should a humane, a civilised, society pursue elderly people for crimes committed long in the past? I think not.

The matter of Polanski should be quietly dropped, as should the investigation of murders long past in Northern Ireland, as should the harrying of people now in extreme old age accused of participation in Nazi atrocities. All of these activities, I would argue, demean the societies which engage in them.

Eichmann?

Parrhasios #37

Nothing I have read on this blog has ever made me angry, until now.

I have nothing more to say.

RE: #29

Can anyone explain its removal? Anyone?

Graham

Short of something meaningless like, 'this blog is now under premoderation, so it is, there you are now', you won't get an explanation.

Frankly, participation is becoming a waste of time. What with fundamentalists cutting the tar out of each other, and the standard atheist response being 'twit', I've lost interest.

Anybody interested in some kind of pre-moderation protest? ;-)

Yup

Peter

Though I'm fairly sure that a fundie referred my post out of malice (even though it supported his point) they are generally disappearing.

But I'm with John. It's time that we, the revolting, expressed our irrevocable right to revolt.

Now - who has a plan?

GV

The post that was removed made it into the Saffire thread if anyone is interested.

Pre-mod in, post-mod out, pre-mod in again. Who pre-mods the post mods?

GV

Graham

It's the hokey cokey blogosphere these days. But hold on a minute, am I allowed to post "hokey cokey', that was very un-PC in Scotland a while back.

You know when you said, "they are generally disappearing", did you mean Fundies, posts on W&T or people willing to pass an evening adding comments here?

It seems to me that the fundamental issue here concerns our psychological and moral relationship to "time".

Does the passage of time erode the seriousness of a crime?

If we say that it does, then we have to ask certain awkward questions: At what rate does time erode the seriousness of a crime? Who decides this rate? Should there be different rates for different crimes?

Was it right to imprison Ronnie Biggs after his return to the UK after his years of defiance in Brazil?

I would like to suggest that a criminal on the run has actually increased his guilt through the passage of time. If Polanski, Biggs, Nazi fugitives etc, were really repentant and remorseful then they would have given themselves up to the authorities. The fact that they went on the run was an act of defiance and contempt of justice, and this rebellion has therefore only increased as the years have elapsed. Each passing day is another day of defiance - to add the last day of defiance. Being a fugitive is itself a crime, so therefore such a person is committing an offence today. Thus the "passage of time" concept is irrelevent.

Polanski's fugitive status proves that he deserves punishment for the crime he committed.

For me the question is: should a humane, a civilised, society pursue elderly people for crimes committed long in the past? I think not.

There are two issues it seems to me. One is the passage of time and the possibility of someone getting a fair and proper trial, the value of witness testimony after a long delay etc. That's why in most cases I do support statute of limitations laws. But in this case he was already charged and skipped bail - that does make it different.

Then the question of compassion - that can come from a judge when he decides sentence - it shouldn't be an issue before determination of guilt.

and pre-moderation is a load of big dog's ----

#48 - mccamleyc -

"For me the question is: should a humane, a civilised, society pursue elderly people for crimes committed long in the past? I think not."

How elderly is "elderly"?

How long in the past is "long in the past"?

And do you believe that "elderly" people have reverted to an "age of innocence" by virtue of their age?

mccamley - are you and I edging towards even partial agreement on something? Whatever next?

Graham - Eichman was kidnapped only 15 years after his crimes were committed and he was aged 55/56 at the time of his trial. The sentence was, of-course, barbaric - capital punishment can never be justified.

LSV - I do not see time as eroding the seriousness of a crime at all. I do think time is a very relevant factor, however, in deciding whether the scales should tip towards retribution or mercy.

I believe it is humane to allow elderly people (say 70 and above) who have no recent history of offending to live out their old age without any of the traumas associated with the criminal justice system. I think this should be the case whatever they might have done in a distant past and indeed whatever their attitude to those past events. For me this is simply a matter of humanity and compassion.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with a society which encourages those who have been affected by trauma to think that they can only find closure (whatever that is) through the airing of their history in court and the punishment of the perpetrator. (cf. also Dean of KCC thread)

macrame

"For me the question is: should a humane, a civilised, society pursue elderly people for crimes committed long in the past? I think not."

So you would not have sent Demjunjak back to Europe for trial for the crimes he committed when he was a young Nazi. I guess that means amnesty for all uncaught IRA murderers too. Forgive and forget? What ever happened to an eye for an eye?

I think the Pope should be arrested when he comes to Britain for being a Nazi Youth, and for all the historic crimes carried out by the Roman Catholic church!

You see with pre-mod you don't get to see your posts and realise the mistakes. In my post #48 I was referencing post #37 and profoundly disagreeing with it, not supporting it.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye, though I do believe in forgiveness. I believe in justice and due process. But as I said above, I think mercy and compassion comes at sentencing, not by letting people off.

Marcus - post # 51

I'm afraid you are, perhaps unfairly, directing a question to mccamley which might more properly be directed to me: mccamley cited, without quotation marks, a sentence of mine for the purpose of comment.

I most certainly would not have sent Demjanjuk to Germany - to do so to an 89 year old man, whatever his past might have been, is grossly inhumane and the mark of a barbarous rather than a civilised society. I would not have had quite the same qualms about his earlier extradition in 1986 but even then I would have questioned it.

I think my reasoning is different in the case of those caught up in the Northern Ireland "Troubles" but I do support an amnesty for all uncaught IRA murderers, as I do for all uncaught murderers in other paramilitary organisations and in the British security forces.

Here's that Polanski quote again. It's taken from Martin Amis' book "Visiting Mrs Nabokov". However intead of the offensive term, I'll put something less offensive in CAPITALS

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY FROWNED ON BY BOURGEOIS MORAILTY, you see, and the young girls? Judges want to ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY FROWNED ON BY BOURGEOIS MORAILTY WITH young girls. Juries want to ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY FROWNED ON BY BOURGEOIS MORAILTY WITH young girls. Everyone wants to ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY FROWNED ON BY BOURGEOIS MORAILTY WITH young girls!”

The Michael Deacon piece is being quoted by a lot of the on-line press at the moment. I'm rather irritated at my posts removal, and would ask for an explanation, but that would be rather like asking Godot to turn up.

Post 29 made it, and there's nothing you can do about it you petty whinger!

Not that I'm being childish about this.

PeterM

"You know when you said, "they are generally disappearing", did you mean Fundies, posts on W&T or people willing to pass an evening adding comments here?"

Now that you mention it - both.
Viva la revolution - once John works out how to go about it.

GV

On fundies-

I've been using the term carelessly. The cut-throat posting that probably led to Pre-mod would not be typical of many fundamentalist churches. We've no evidence at all that they represent the typical WW member. In fact, we've evidence to the contrary. The WWers who wanted to discuss/devate the issues in an informed manner seemed to be intimidated away from the blog. (There's something sinister about that IMO).

More importantly - personality cults and authority figures are not essential to Protestant Fundamentalism. It was lazy of me to refer to the lunatic-protestant-posters as funides. I'm an RE teacher and know better.

GV

mccamel, sorry for the wrong attribution.

parriahtosis;

This is why in our society in America we have statutes of limitations. Legislators dispassionately consider and debate criminal statues and decide not only on punishments but on when liability for crime ends depending on the nature of the crime. In these cases, they have decided that it never ends. This prevents the passions of the moment or circumstance when such a case arises from holding sway. The law tells the government what it must do, not public opinion charged up by celebrities making pleas on television. In extraordinary circumstances clemency is possible but often as was seen in the case of the two murderers released after petitions from Mailer and Buckley, overruling the decision of a jury without concrete proof of innocense such is afforded by DNA evidence not possible when the trial was held is a dangerous action taken at great risk to public safety. In both those cases, the perpetrators murdered again.

Your position and those who agree with you is a negation of our very system of laws where elected legislators and juries make decisions. Your view is not democracy. But I am hardly surprised at it since I do not consider Europeans have or understand what true democracy is about. The entire EU Constitution/Lisbon/Maastrict related events is proof.

Post 41 was the result of late nights, a sore head and tired, grump, grumpiness... ignore it!

:-)

Peter, actually you make a decent point in #41. It's the premod that does it though. It's frankly almost impossible to enjoy a decently-flowing discussion on here now. Again, I hope Will is suitably peeved about it and that they see the need to change it back.

OK, John, Graham, here goes...

Free the blog!

FREE THE BLOG!

FREE THE BLOG!

Post 37... To try and say "that" if a elderly person who has committed serious crimes of whatever nature should be let off, is just a joke in the face off justice, Kids as young as 10 years of age can be prosecuted under law.

Even If that so-called principle was applied from post 37... then the killers of James bulger should have never been prosecuted.

Lastly, Satanism is a clear factor in this case and really needs to be exposed.

pm, posting #60 re posting #41, I guess that means you've decided to continue posting here after all.

"Post 41 was the result of late nights, a sore head and tired, grump, grumpiness..."

Okay, I'll take your word for it about posting #41. But then how do you explain your other 9348573637847291 postings? Just keep reminding me of which of your postings I should ignore...or it might be easier if you just told me which ones I shouldn't :-)

William- I think a lot of frustration exists because it appeared to be going just fine before the changes (which do impose a significant communicative handicap). But, it sounds like it's out of your hands and the changes are here to stay, so... c'est la vie.

Mark-us O'Reilly-us

"Just keep reminding me of which of your postings I should ignore"

Probably best to ignore them all! :-)

OK Peter no tomorrow, I'll ignore all of your postings from now on just as you suggest.

Midas, me ol' mate, if the standard of evidence you require allows you to believe in the existence of democracy, how on earth have you a problem with the existence of God?

Johnthebap2 - post # 63

The prosecution of children for crimes, of necessity, committed in the recent past is an entirely different matter from the prosecution of very elderly people for crimes committed in the distant past. There are circumstances in which the only option for a humane society should be mercy not justice.

On the matter of child killers, however, I do question very much whether criminal trial was an appropriate method to deal with the killers of James Bulger.

The actions of Polanski, if accurately reported, were depraved whether they were Satanic or not is something of which I have no knowledge - I would certainly bow on that matter to anyone with a Whitewell connection - they should have pretty intimate experience of the operations of the Evil One.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

That comment was referred out of vindictiveness. I expect the moderators to take action.

GV

If the fictional JTB2 had bothered to read b4 referring he would have noticed that I was supporting his position.
G

post 73. Iam confused, if you think I was in someway getting at you, wrong.

post 70. You have just made the very point which supports my last post, there is no difference in age or understanding or lack of it.

Iam not a member of Whitewell, yes, Iam a "fundie" nor have I stopped anyone from posting here, even though someone has destroyed my old account.

From... johnthebap2 aka...johnthebap.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

On Satanism and Polanski,
(wrote this up last night JohntheBap, B4 you freak)
We're in murky waters here. I doubt that Polanski IS a satanist. It's out of fashion. There's no evidence that he WAS a satanist. And - to be clear - Satanists don't believe in a literal, personal devil. Satanism is based on the belief that man is inherently a selfish, violent creature. The earth will be ruled by those who fight to win. The rituals of his Church are intended to be fun.
Devil Worship tends to be confined to psychologically disturbed individuals. It does not produce organisations. There are Satanists of a more mystical bent, but they do not believe in Satan as described by Christianity.
But Anton LaVey (of the First Church of Satan in San Francisco) both consulted and acted in "Rosemary's baby". LaVey sucessfully positioned his church in the counter-culture of the 1960's/1970's. LaVey is a "materiaist" Satanist - he does not believe in the supernatural. Satan is a symbol of the power of the self and theirrejection of Christianity. There is a strong element of blasphemy in LaVey's Satanism. I also believe that there are spiritual realities that shouldn't be toyed with. So, from a Christian standpoint, it's evil and dangerous. Even reading a little *about* this stuff creeps me out.
Which is a long way of saying - don't dismiss everything John the Bap is saying.
GV

I'm irritated by my posts removal. So I sent this to the moderators.

I am confused. In what sense is this post potentially defamatory? I made it very clear that there was no evidence connecting Mr Polanski to Satanism (beyond evidence that he has given in his autobiography). I did not make any claim about his crimes. Furthermore Posts have been allowed that directly state that he was and is a Satanist, and these posts imply that his alleged Satanism explains his crimes. THIS is defamatory, as conspiracy theories abound about Mr Polanski and the occult. These posts further defame Mr Polanski’s character (Exposing Mr Polanski to hatred, ridicule or contempt) by a possible association with devil worship. Not that I give a fig for Mr Polanski’s reputation, but these are YOUR rules.
Mr Polanski addresses dark themes in an amoral matter – indeed he is a self professed amoralist and absurdist. His connection with Mr Lavey and the counter-culture of the 1960’s and 1970’s seems pertinent to discussing Mr Polanski’s activity in that time period.
But I read, very carefully, the BBC’s advice on defamation of character. I followed this advice when writing up the post. So you can understand why I am irritated to see a post removed for following your guidelines.

Graham Veale

Lest there is any confusion. I'm 100% with the fundies on this one. Mr Polanski's post-modern attitude to the occult and Satanism is at best dangerous and at worst spiritually evil.
Feel free to poke fun. This follows from my beliefs about the New Testament and the Person of Christ. Presumably a Christian is allowed to say that the occult is dangerous, and that it should not ne treated as "fun"? Is that defamatory.

And for pities sake, read what the man says about himself before accusing me of defamation.

GV

John the Bap

Post 76 - shouldn't have used text language - it says BEFORE (B4) you freak. I'm not calling you a freak.
And actually, I think you're on to something. Or at least could be. It's **possibly** **part** of the story.

In fact, PD James knits the themes of murder, perversity and satanism together very subtly and persausively in "Death in Holy Orders". Many reviewers and readers miss that aspect of the plot completely.

So we've a liberal High Anglican on our side. Not about Polanski, but on the spiritual and moral dangers.

GV

Fact... when the pianist was produced, it was reported by certain people, who were in close set up to the production...said... there were various rituals going on, which had the intention of giving the film a good audience reaction.

Also, do you really think that any so-called satanist would tell the truth about God or for that matter his existence.

The satanists I have known over the years come from all walks of life and would even turn up at Church with a good suit on, it's a myth to think that satanists are all heavy rockers "even low they would be on the fringes of it;.

Yes I would agree that satanism is clearly blown out of proportion nevertheless they do operate even within N.Ireland.

Johnthebap - post # 74 - I haven't a notion what you mean. I am not talking about culpability, responsibility, competence. I am not speaking about perpetators at all. I am saying that there are circumstances where the state should not seek some sort of absolute justice but should act with mercy and compassion. This, I maintain, is not just a Christian position but the Christian position.

As for Satanism, I agree that you are entirely likely to find Satan's most effective disciples "at church with a good suit on" - in fact I think you might find some of the best in very good suits and preaching from the pulpit.

It is very dangerous to open one's mind to evil and no one should lightly flirt with the occult but sensationalism masks the true face of the demonic. Society has far less to fear from those who play with evil than it does from those who do business with the Adversary.

#76 - gveale -

"And - to be clear - Satanists don't believe in a literal, personal devil."

I can understand your point, but I am not sure whether your comment is entirely true. Doreen Irvine who wrote "From Witchcraft to Christ" was a satanist who certainly believed in the devil, and who testified to the fact that others had the same views.

But Parrhasios,

I do not see how quietly dropping the matter is mercy.

"Parrhasios" I think you look at the World, with liberal glasses on, what about the rights of the victim, O there job is just to shut up and hand out mercy and to put the rights of their elderly perpetrators before their own, and to say that this is a so-called Christian position is again not correct, as many Christians would agree that the death penalty be introduced again.

Go over to the fundamentalist Islamic countries and tell them to give mercy to the elderly Israeli men who have killed many innocent Palestinians, believe me, they would tell you go ???.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Peter, a desision not to pursue elderly people for crimes long past is surely a text-book example of merciful behaviour. Whether such compassion is appropriate in the general circumstances I have out-lined will very much depend on one's understanding of the purpose of the criminal justice system. 

It could probably be fairly generally agreed that there are manifold purposes including:
- punishment of the offender
- deterring similar behaviour in others
- protecting the public from an offender
- signalling the values of society
- rehabilitating the offender.

I believe we have to ask ourselves which of these purposes are served when the State pursues any old man with no recent or prolonged history of offending for crimes committed decades ago.

Is the deterrent effect materially greater if a perpetrator knows that he only has to escape detection until old age to be free of any fear of prosecution? It is very hard to think that it is.

Does the public need to be protected from a senior citizen who has not offended for thirty years?

Does society need to allow an infinite window for prosecution in order to signal its rightful abhorrence of the rape of a child? I think this point is debatable but my personal opinion is that it does not, especially in light of the desirability of its signalling too that compassion is a social as well as a personal virtue.

Does someone who has not offended in years require rehabilitation? What would be the effect of prison on such a person? Would it actually be counter-productive to the goal of reintegrating the criminal and society?

If you answer these questions in the way I would then all that is left is punishment. Punishment of people near the end of life for distant crimes is, I would argue, not justice but vindictiveness and, as such, the antithesis of Christ's love made manifest in us.

Question... does God overlook peoples crimes when they get old, answer, NO!.

William,

I am glad that there is a debate on Polanski story!


~Dennis Junior~

John the Bap, LSV

The "Satanism" of LaVey was atheistic and materialistic, and is based on a warped misunderstanding of Darwinism. It is explicitly anti-Christian, and hence the Blasphemous rites (mocking the Eucharist etc).

There are other streams of Satanism. Some are occultic and mystical. And there are inidviduals and small groups who definitely engage in "true" devil worship.

JTBs comment that this is small scale is important. It helps us avoid the "Satanic Abuse" conspiracy theories that plagued the 1980s. JTBs makes another important comment that, essentially, listening to "Megadeth" or "Slipknot" does not make a person a devil worshipper.

It's also important to remember that if you encounter an individual who genuinely prays to Satan, that is the personal evil described by Christianity, then that person is very likely to have significant mental health defects. Appearances can be deceptive. Extraordinary care is needed.

GV

It's also important that Wiccan and Pagan religious movements are not confused with Satanism.

GV

The main belief of satanism is...DO WHAT THOU WILT! SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW, this covers all forms of excess, including all forms of sexual practices.

Yes, I would agree with GV to a point "but" I would say that wicca, pagan, satanism and some others are from the same denomination.

I meant to say "significant problems with their mental health." Not "defects".

Let's stick to the facts. Polanski did not lure the girl to Jack Nicholson's home on the pretext of photographing her. He did photograph her there on several days and showed her mother the photos, which were intended for publication in French Vogue magazine. He did not forcibly rape her. He had sex with her, albeit illegally because she was under the age of consent. Apparently, the girl was not unduly traumatized because she bragged to friends. She was a Beverly Hills 13-year-old which is probably comparable to an Iowa 24-year-old. When confronted by the police, Polanski readily admitted that he had sex with the girl, hardly the behavior of a man who had been aware that he had committed a crime. None of this justifies his behavior, but it does place it in context. The fact that he makes films about dark subjects in no way makes him a monster. As for comments that he is a Satanist, that's absurd. Polanski doesn't believe in the supernatural in any literal sense. He entered a guilty plea and, as in most cases, a plea bargain was worked out with the prosecuting attorney and the judge. The judge stated his intention to violate the plea bargain. It was only at that point that Polanski fled the U.S., an entirely reasonable response. People have argued that Polanski's fame is the only reason he's escaped "justice". In reality, his fame is the only reason the U.S. courts are trying to extradite and try him. People who have committed murder get out of prison after seven years. It's been 30 years since Polanski committed his crime. Enough already.

John Dynes, surely you jest. There isn't a single thing in your post that's based on fact.

Logica, if we had a nickel for every fundamentalist who claimed to be former Satanist without presenting an iota of evidence to prove it, we could replicate the Great Wall of China in coinage.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

IW

As difficult as it is to debate a walrus, Polanksi did dabble in the 1960s counter culture, and the "Satanists" in question do not and did not believe in the supernatural in any way. You are getting Satanism confused with devil worship.

As I said - [quoting comments that have already made it through modertion, and keeping in mind that moderation may have killed the W&T blog!]

"The "Satanism" of LaVey was atheistic and materialistic, and is based on a warped misunderstanding of Darwinism. It is explicitly anti-Christian, and hence the Blasphemous rites (mocking the Eucharist etc)."

LaVey performed in and consulted on "Rosemary's Baby".

I also said

"indeed he [Polanski] is a self-professed amoralist and absurdist. His connection with Mr Lavey and the counter-culture of the 1960’s and 1970’s seems pertinent to discussing Mr Polanski’s activity in that time period."

The quote from the Tatler interview with Martin Amis brings out the amoralism and absurdism of Polanki's thinking -

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… ****ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to **** young girls. Juries want to **** young girls. Everyone wants to **** young girls!”



On other absurd points in your post
"a Beverly Hills 13-year-old ... is probably comparable to an Iowa 24-year-old" may not hold up in court.

"He did not forcibly rape her." I am not an expert on the sexual practices on Iowa's young women. But I doubt that many 24 year olds in Iowa have the sexual experience to be comfortable with the acts performed on the 13 year old. Furthermore the 13 year could not give consent as she was (ACCORDING TO THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT MR MODERATOR) intoxicated prior to the rape.

While we're sticking to facts "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor is synonymous with statutory rape. Your use of the word 'forcibly' is suggests that you understanding of rape needs a little nuancing!

Graham

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Wasn't me.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.