WHOOPI GOLDBERG CLARIFIES POLANSKI COMMENTS (?)
Polanski moral equivocation makes me sick...
by avishai 100 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
beksbks
So she says she was talking about the actual criminal charge, and that she is NOT a supporter of Polanski.
The actual charge was apparently "unlawful sex with a minor". So what does that mean?
-
blondie
California Penal Code Section 261.5
(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual
intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the
perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this
section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an
"adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or
three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in
violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the
following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for
a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable
for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000).
(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil
penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected
for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action
shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the
judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the
Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the
State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy
Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing
underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(3) In addition to any punishment imposed under this section, the
judge may assess a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) against
any person who violates this section with the proceeds of this fine
to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23. The court shall,
however, take into consideration the defendant's ability to pay, and
no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her
inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision.Section: 261 261.5 261.6 261.7 262 263 264 264.1 264.2 265 266 266a 266b 266c 266d Next
California Penal Code Section 261
(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant
to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1
(commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an
element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or
physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving
consent.
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused.
(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act
occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud
in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's
fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a
professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person
committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced
by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused,
with intent to induce the belief.
(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any
other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the
perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph,
"threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely
imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or
death.
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied
threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to
coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an
act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in
an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total
circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her
relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising
the existence of duress.
(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat,
declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury
upon another. -
veen
And can anybody tell me why the pedo novel "Lolita" is considered respectable literature? -HB
Because it is very good. Did it give you the horn when you actually read it? As I think it's a very sad and tragic story, which in my opinion is actually quite anti-pedo.
Life is dark, get used to it.
And while I'm here, don't forget about Elvis shagging a 14 year old Pricilla.
-
mrsjones5
Don't forget about Jerry Lee Lewis and his thirteen year old child bride. And what about Loretta Lynn, who got hitched at 13 and produced her first kid at 14 if I'm correct. And how old was Melanie Griffith when she was hanging around Don Johnson, she 14, he 22. There's quite a bit of this stuff in and around the entertainment biz.
-
Big Tex
The interesting thing to me in this story is the change in 30+ years of the attitude toward adult/early teen sex. In the 70s the attitude seemed to be nearly anything goes. I remember reading this was the beginning of NAMBLA, and there was one pederast priest who espoused in Time magazine the benefits of gay sex between men and boys as being "healthy".
Now, in 2009, the idea of a 40+ man having consensual sex with a 13 year old girl is repugnant. At least in America. Compounded on that are the dirty little details of drugging the girl with quaaludes (now it would be roofies) for the purpose of rape.
In the 70's such a thing would have been looked at with a wink-and-a-nod, and really in this case it was, wasn't it? Polanski only received the lightest possible sentence and his ego and self-importance were such that even that small thing was too much and so he fled.
Unfortunately for him, the attitudes have changed in the past 3 decades.
I see no difference in him and any other adult male who drugs girls (or boys) for sex. I don't care if it was a one-time mistake either.
And I have no doubt that makes people like me a small-minded "scary" American to the rest of Europe. Artistic ability and fame do not excuse criminal behaviour.
-
-
-
leavingwt
Swiss Court Orders Polanski Kept in Jail
Roman Polanski suffered another setback in his fight against extradition to the United States on Tuesday when a Swiss court ordered the 76-year-old director kept in jail because he poses a high flight risk.
The Federal Criminal Court rejected offers by Polanski's legal team of bail, house arrest and other measures to ensure that he stays in Switzerland.
The acclaimed filmmaker is considered a convicted felon and a fugitive by authorities in Los Angeles, and the United States is seeking his extradition for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl. He was arrested by the Swiss on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive an award from a film festival.
-
Robdar
Yah well, joan z shore is jewish,new york jewish, and appears to be biased. http://babyboomersandseniors.com/mar02/patrickandsam.html At least you don't, in this case avi.
It will be interesting to see if the jewish media gets behind polanski. Even more interesting to see what happens, if they do.
FYI, Polanski was born to agnostic non-practicing Jews and converted to Catholicism. It doesn't matter what religion he is, he did the crime and should do the time.
As a side note: Satanus, after reading some of your recent posts on this forum, I feel, as your friend, I must warn you that you seem to be climbing aboard the crazy train of anti-semitism. That's okay though. This Jew still loves you. Here, have some Ozzy