INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Blasted on April 18, 2008, 04:58:37 PM
-
Roman Polanski is a paedophile. Not only that, but a convicted paedophile.
I am never watching any of his films. The guy is a sick fuck, and they award him a fucking Oscar!
Convicted pedophile-rapist and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski just got away with one … again. But he had help.
The London High Court awarded the convicted fugitive $88,000 in a libel lawsuit. Traditionally, in the English–speaking world, no court would hear a libel or defamation case brought by a convict, much less a fugitive convict, but we live in a brave, new world.
In 1978, Polanski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house.
Polanski lured his victim, 13-year-old Samantha Geimer (who has since revealed her identity), a young model, to a “photo-shoot” for French Vogue at his friend Jack Nicholson’s house. Conveniently, Nicholson was away at the time. Polanski plied his victim with champagne and quaaludes, and then raped her, afterwards telling her not to tell her mother.
The crime was clearly plotted out, and was as sleazy as any attack committed by a phony “talent agent” on a desperate, young, would-be model. The only aspect of the crime that did not fit the profile, was that the victim was only 13 years old, and without any parent or adult guardian present to protect her. What could her parents have been thinking?
Polanski was charged with rape of a minor, rape by use of a drug, committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14 years of age, oral copulation, sodomy and furnishing drugs to a minor. He copped a plea to unlawful sex with a minor, but fled the country on the eve of his sentencing hearing.
Polanski’s crime was not statutory rape. According to the laws in California (and the rest of the Union), the victim has to be of a certain age before she can be considered able to voluntarily form a decision to have sex with an adult, at which point the incident can be classified statutory rape. If you sleep with a 13-year-old, you’re guilty of first-degree rape, just as if Polanski had used violence.
(Screen “historian” Leonard Maltin misrepresented the case. In a passage reprinted at Polanski’s biography page at imdb.com from Maltin’s 1994 Movie Encyclopedia, he claimed, “He was embroiled in a scandal over having sex with an underage model in 1977; rather than face the charges, he chose to flee the country.” No, Mr. Maltin; he had already pled guilty. Rather than face punishment, he chose to flee the country.)
The genius judge in the case permitted Polanski to remain out on bail. The pedophile-rapist then fled the country for our alleged ally, France, where he has remained ever since. The French have great reservoirs of understanding for pedophile-rapists – as long as they committed their crimes in America.
In 2003, in an attempt apparently at removing any ambiguities the public might have had about Hollywood’s respect for morality, law, or childhood, the movie fraternity awarded Polanski an Oscar for best director for The Pianist. The crowd at the Academy Awards show gave the convict a standing ovation, in absentia. For some reason, Polanski did not appear to collect his statuette. (That moral paragon, Harrison Ford, accepted it for him.) Oh, yes, now I remember. Had he appeared, he would have been arrested on the spot, and taken off to prison. And since he had violated the terms of the pleas bargain, all six charges would be back in play, plus a charge of flight from justice. Polanski could conceivably have spent the rest of his natural life in prison.
But Polanski wasn’t satisfied with getting away with child-rape, flight from justice, or even with his soiled Oscar. He demanded respect for his good name. I kid you not. And so, when Vanity Fair magazine in 2002 published a story claiming that in 1969, the future pedophile-rapist and fugitive had “touched [Swedish model] Beatte Telle's leg and told her he would ‘make another Sharon Tate’ out of her in a New York restaurant shortly after Tate - his actress wife - had been murdered by followers of Charles Manson's cult,” that was just too much for Polanski’s finely-tuned sense of morality. He insisted that he had never touched Telle’s leg. And so he sued Vanity Fair in a British court.
That should have been the end of it. After all, since we have an extradition treaty with the Brits, had Polanski set foot on British soil to press his case, he would have been scooped up by Scotland Yard, and sent, manacled (but not in a way that would have titillated him), on the next flight for the States. And so, the jurists should simply have dismissed Polanski’s suit as frivolous.
The Crown’s courts wouldn’t possibly aid and abet a fugitive convict in his attempt to enrich himself, while evading justice … would they?
Unfortunately for us and our cross-Atlantic cousins, the British courts suffer from some of the same maladies as our own. And so, after permitting the pedophile-rapist to testify from France via video hook-up, London’s High Court found for the convict-plaintiff. The judges brought shame on themselves, the London High Court, and the United Kingdom, which has earned the reputation as the libel lawsuit capital of the world, where the judges consider no lawsuit frivolous – as long as the plaintiff is wealthy.
Although Beatte Telle refused to testify on Polanski’s behalf, she did publicly say that he had not touched her leg or even spoken to her in the restaurant, and had only stared, dumbstruck, at her. Apparently, her public statement did the trick for the alleged jurists.
Since we now live in a multicultural, interconnected world, in which U.S. Supreme Court justices cite foreign laws in their opinions, the Polanski verdict has all kinds of interesting legal potential. Might we now see libel suits brought by, say, the Nation of Islam mass murderers -- J.C. Simon, Jesse Lee Cooks, Larry Green and Manuel Moore -- currently in prison for the early 1970s Zebra killings? How about Saddam Hussein? Ramsey Clark could bring suit against everyone who ever said nasty but unproven things about his client. The possibilities are endless.
-
To be fair it was nearly 30 years ago. People change.
-
Oliver Twist?
Filmed in 2005?
Somehow I doubt it was because of his love of Dickens.
-
Also, it is bs that people change. He is attracted to kids/young teenagers. That's like telling me that in 30 years time I will develop a fancy for Mr Dick and will be changed.
-
The year 2003 may just be the year Hollywood pedophiles come out of the closet to launch their national offensive.
In March, MGM / United Artists and Francis Ford Coppola Jr. begin shooting a film starring the admired Liam Neeson as Alfred Kinsey – the single most sadistic scientific pedophile propagandist in history. Is it prophetic that the Kinsey film follows on the heels of mass media kudos for Roman Polanski's "sensitive" film "The Pianist"?
The film is clever by half with Polanski staking his Yankee rehabilitation on a Holocaust story. If you missed the publicity spin, Roman lived through the Holocaust. The film allegedly has no sex and our hero is aided by a Godly Christian.
That said, for the price of a ticket to "The Pianist," we are supposed to forget Polanski's notorious brutality and pedophilic crimes.
But lest we forget, let's take a quick turn down memory lane.
Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.
Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.
Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."
The child "had practically begged him" – "to f--k her," he said. "So I f--ked a chick," he exclaimed. "So what?"
After the charges of raping the unconscious girl were established, and it was clear that Polanski would go to prison, he fled to England. When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting "I love young girls … very young girls."
Articles in the French press echoed Polanski's whine.
He was victimized by America's "excessively prudish petite bourgeoisie."
Now, while few can deny Polanski is a fugitive child rapist, some argue that his crime was a reaction to the brutal murder of his lovely young wife, Sharon Tate.
Except, notes Kiernan, that six weeks after their marriage, Roman found "a whole new field of girls that interested him." Although Sharon was reputed to be highly traditional in her mores, Kiernan reports that:
Polanski and Sharon celebrated their love affair by consenting to have some nude pictures of the actress – taken by the director during the shooting of their movie – appear in the March 1967 issue of Playboy.
Ah, young love. Sharon was now part of Roman's stylish Hollywood druggie crowd.
[She] went along with [Polanski] in some of his more bizarre sexual practices – allowing him for instance to videotape the two of them making love and then sitting by quietly while he screened the tapes at parties.
Young love shared.
After finding videos of Roman engaging in sexual variations with other women in their bed, Sharon planned to divorce him – until she "found out she was pregnant."
Kiernan describes Polanski's abuse of his distraught and vulnerable wife, no longer girlishly slender:
[Roman] was bored with her being pregnant … He treated her like she was a piece of excess baggage. He was even pointedly cruel to her in front of others at times, calling her a dumb hag and criticizing her whenever she expressed an opinion.
The hostile father-to-be sent his wife to California while he partied in London with Arab sheiks who preferred boys. Roman instead used "a series of girls." He is quoted as saying:
I can't stand seeing Sharon blown up the way she is. This pregnancy has made her such an insecure, nagging b--ch.
Kiernan reports that Polanski secretly planned to remain in Europe until the baby was born. "Then maybe I could go back and find Sharon the way she used to be."
He was with some, friends, "sipping champagne, passing a marijuana cigarette around … when the phone rang" in his London flat. His wife and unborn child were just stabbed to death in a gory satanic ritual in California.
The grieving husband now rushed home and, "posed at the entrance of the death house for Life magazine a week after the slaughter. He charged Life $5,000 for this picture."
Polanski didn't miss a beat after Sharon's horrifying killing in 1969.
It bears repeating that Polanksi's reputation for seducing very young girls was legendary in Hollywood and Europe.
That reputation preceeded and followed both the barbaric massacre of his wife and her unborn child and his callous rape of an unconscious child.
Pray that our memories are not so cynical and our understanding so enfeebled that the dazzle of Polanski's Holocaust Pianist "art" cleanses the cruelty of its creator. And, beware Neeson's upcoming portrayal as, says the National Review, the "big daddy of pedophile chic," Alfred Kinsey.
2003 may just signal the entertainment industry's support of a pedophile-rights movement.
I am sickened.
-
You didn't know that? It was the first thing I ever heard about him
-
Never really got interested in him so didn't do any research.
-
I didn't know that. It's disgusting. He belongs in prison.
-
Why should he be deprived of an oscar,
just because he likes 'em young?
He was always known as such.
I remember the stink back then.
-
Never heard of the guy
-
You didn't know that? It was the first thing I ever heard about him
ditto.
-
Anyone heard about Michael Jackson? I think he's guilty. Sickening how people don't want to know the real truth.
-
Never heard of the guy
Me either. We're uncultured.
-
I think he is great. The Tenant is a masterpiece.
The fact that he was fucking a thirteen year old is old news. It's also nobody else's business so long as it is consensual.
-
It's okay to fuck a 13 year old? :o
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
-
It's okay to fuck a 13 year old? :o
Yeah.
edit: not all of them though, obviously.
-
i don't think 13 year olds in general should have sex. i dunno if such nymphettes as Lolita actually exist, if so and they really want it then sure why not. but in general kids that age are kids. too young. it's hard for me to know when one is generally supposed to be ready for sex when i'm not ready at age 25 but that's cuz i'm an autistic spaz. :P
i knew about Polanski but i didn't know the specifics, that sounds pretty fucked up if he fed her quaaludes.
-
You didn't know that? It was the first thing I ever heard about him
ditto.
Sounds like a quick way to get famous and launch your career.
-
Age of consent laws bother me, not because I'm torn up about all the 13-year-olds I'm missing out on fucking, but because we as a society are legislating that another group of people are incapable of something. Saying that a 13-year-old can't consent to something is like saying a black man can't vote. Sure, they can say "I consent" or they can turn up at a polling station and select a candidate, but as a society, we're determining by decree that neither of those acts will carry any legal weight. At university, I was classed as a 'vulnerable' student due to my asperger's, which meant that people who worked with me had to have passed a police check, and it wouldn't be a big conceptual jump to go from being classed as 'vulnerable' to being classed as 'unable to give consent', in which case anyone who had sex with me would be a rapist, regardless of my feelings on the matter.
-
It wasn't consensual though.
He drugged and raped her.
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
Until they treat paedophiles as ill and try to help them rather than ostracise them, they are not going to do much good with rehabilitation.
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
Until they treat paedophiles as ill and try to help them rather than ostracise them, they are not going to do much good with rehabilitation.
Some psychologists do treat it as a mental illness. Almost all paedos were molested themselves, so it is a vicious circle of sorts. They typically make less of the crime and try to rationalize their behavior.
-
It wasn't consensual though.
He drugged and raped her.
Of course he raped her. Legally speaking, any sex with her was rape. The question is, did she want to have sex or was it forced on her? The law makes no distinction, but I do. If I was classed as 'unable to consent' and I took someone's offer of a glass of champaign and an ecstacy pill before having sex with them, that person would legally speaking have drugged and raped me even though I could have been perfectly willing from my own perspective.
Some critiques of the article:
Polanski’s crime was not statutory rape. According to the laws in California (and the rest of the Union), the victim has to be of a certain age before she can be considered able to voluntarily form a decision to have sex with an adult, at which point the incident can be classified statutory rape. If you sleep with a 13-year-old, you’re guilty of first-degree rape, just as if Polanski had used violence.
'Just as if he'd used violence,' which means he didn't use violence but it's rape anyway just because she's 13.
The genius judge in the case permitted Polanski to remain out on bail. The pedophile-rapist then fled the country for our alleged ally, France, where he has remained ever since. The French have great reservoirs of understanding for pedophile-rapists – as long as they committed their crimes in America.
Perhaps these great reservoirs of understanding are because, in America, a paedophile-rapist is just anyone who's fucked a 13 year old under any circumstances, and perhaps the genius judge let him out on bail because he knew the plaintiff wasn't a danger to society, however much the scare-mongers may disagree.
Unfortunately for us and our cross-Atlantic cousins, the British courts suffer from some of the same maladies as our own. And so, after permitting the pedophile-rapist to testify from France via video hook-up, London’s High Court found for the convict-plaintiff. The judges brought shame on themselves, the London High Court, and the United Kingdom, which has earned the reputation as the libel lawsuit capital of the world, where the judges consider no lawsuit frivolous – as long as the plaintiff is wealthy.
Although Beatte Telle refused to testify on Polanski’s behalf, she did publicly say that he had not touched her leg or even spoken to her in the restaurant, and had only stared, dumbstruck, at her. Apparently, her public statement did the trick for the alleged jurists.
Isn't it terrible when judges base their decisions on the available evidence rather than on hype and hysteria? What would be a preferable system of justice? Trial by axe?
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
Until they treat paedophiles as ill and try to help them rather than ostracise them, they are not going to do much good with rehabilitation.
Some psychologists do treat it as a mental illness. Almost all paedos were molested themselves, so it is a vicious circle of sorts. They typically make less of the crime and try to rationalize their behavior.
Its the national attitude that needs to change, turning them into hate figures practically keeps the vicious cycle going. There is much more that could be provided helpwise, chemical castration on the NHS for example.
-
I actually think he was more of an ephebophile than a paedophile. Anyway, at one point I was more sympathetic to them - when I did an article about paedophiles and registered on a couple of their forums. Some of them were suffering a lot which I could relate to because where I was then, my sexuality was viewed as evil too.
Here is something someone posted on a different forum that I think is quite clever:
As a parent myself, Good lord it's still difficult to read some of this "drop them in a hole and let them die" crap.
I seriously can't stand the lack of empathy and perspective of humanity at times...
Have you ever heard a man who fantasizes about young children (but has refused to commit act) break down? Seen his shame? Beg for help? Muffled under sobs, the words they say are difficult to listen to; their repressed desires can make you squirm. Many attempt suicide. Our sexual tendancies are near impossible to overcome. Imagine being told to stop being heterosexual - just stop it! I'm not saying that having an attraction to children compares to having a normal attraction to the opposite sex in a sense of being right or wrong, I'm just trying to get you to imagine what it would be like if society was asking you not to be attracted to the opposite sex anymore. And imagine the guilt you'd have if you knew being heterosexual was hurtful, damaging, cruel, and seen as evil. You know it's wrong - you just can't help yourself.
And those are the lucky ones - the exceptional one's that permit themselves to see the truth of their attraction, and do whatever they can to fight it. Many don't.
Many people can never see themselves as being the wrong one. When someone backs his or her car into someone else's, often that person may instinctly tried to spin or rationalize why it isn't his or her fault. Pedophiles, weaker ones (and most people, in general - no matter what group they fall into, are weak), will give into that constant, nagging attraction, and rather than deal with the guilt, they experience cognitive dissonance where they convince themselves they aren't that bad - that society's rules of morality are BS - or whatever is they tell themselves. Some pedophiles are a combination of both groups where they hate themselves and still give in the action, often blaming the victim, and in that rage, commit murder.
If a pedophile were ever to touch my child, I would want them dead. No question. But just because I'd want that, doesn't make it right. Rationality would have waved bye-bye to me. That's why murder victim's families are never on a jury. I would also ask those who would say for any guilt-ridden pedophile to kill himself to imagine if he was THEIR child, first.
My personal opinion as to why so many posters here call for the death and torture of pedophiles? Humans by nature are cruel and destructive, but that nature is kept in check and repressed by society. But when society presents us with a group of people that the consensus says we can do away with? The dams of morality break down and out pours our repressed blood thirsty desires. That's how most genocides happen.
Lolitas exist. I certainly used to be one.
There are some boundaries though. Here are some interviews with the woman herself:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775812&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13----he-is-a-creep--name_page.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/24/polanski.geimer/
-
I am a corrections officer, Yes there are some who feel guilty and are regretful of things they feel and do. For those I do feel empathy. But I can assure you there are 10 times more who don't. The things some of these people do and how proud they are of it will make you sick.
When I first started, I was told not to look at their charges, just treat them all the same. So I did. Thought I got to know a few. The nice charming ones were the child molesters. I always thought I was a good judge of charecter until that day. But then, if they weren't charming how could they get these children?
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
I'd like to know where you get your 1% rehab figure.
Here's the official stats for sex offenders in the US:
High Rates of Recidivism?
Sex offender laws also reflect the assumption that previously convicted sex offenders are responsible for most sex crimes. Yet according to a 1997 US Department of Justice study, 87 percent of the people arrested for sex crimes were individuals who had not previously been convicted of a sex offense.36
The focus of sex offender laws on people who have previously been convicted of sex offenses may originate in the misperception that most if not all of those who have committed sex crimes in the past will do so again. Legislators, public officials, and members of the public routinely claim that people who have committed sex offenses pose a great risk to the public because they have “astronomically high” recidivism rates.37 For example, federal legislators justified the need for federal sex offender laws by asserting sex offender recidivism rates of 40 percent, 74 percent, and even 90 percent.38 Legislators rarely cite, nor are they asked for, the source and credibility of such figures. In addition, most of those who make public assertions about the recidivism rates of sex offenders take a “one-size-fits-all” approach; they do not acknowledge the marked variation in recidivism rates among offenders who have committed different kinds of sex offenses, nor the influence of other factors on recidivism.
Accurately measuring reoffense rates of people previously convicted of sex offenses is difficult, confounded by many factors.39 Some offenders claim to have committed many offenses prior or subsequent to the one for which they were arrested and convicted.40 It may be that such self-reports of long offense histories by a few offenders have led to the perception that all sex offenders have high rates of reoffending. But numerous, rigorous studies analyzing objectively verifiable data—primarily arrest and conviction records—indicate sex offender recidivism rates are far below what legislators cite and what the public believes.
The US Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders in 15 states who were released from prison in 1994 and found that within three years only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders were arrested, and 3.5 percent convicted, for a new sex crime; 2.2 percent were rearrested for a sex offense against a child.41 Among the released child molesters (defined in the study as someone convicted of a forcible or non-forcible sex crime against a child), 3.3 percent were rearrested for a sex crime against a child.42 Sex offenders with prior histories of sex offenses had somewhat higher rates of rearrest: 7.3 percent of child molesters and 8.3 percent of all sex offenders with more than one prior conviction for a sex offense were rearrested for another sex crime.43
The most comprehensive study of sex offender recidivism to date consists of a meta-analysis of numerous studies yielding recidivism rates for a period of up to 15 years post-release for people convicted of such serious offenses as rape and child molesting.44 The analysis, which included over 29,000 sex offenders, found that within four to six years of release, 14 percent of all sex offenders will be arrested or convicted for a new sex crime.45 Over a 15-year period, recidivism rates for all sex offenders averaged 24 percent.46 This is not a trivial rate by any means, given the seriousness of the offenses committed. Yet it also indicates that three out of four sexually violent offenders do not reoffend.
The study also found that recidivism rates varied markedly depending on the kind of sex crime committed. For example, recidivism within four to six years of release from prison was 13 percent for child molesters, and 24 percent for rapists. There are also differences within types of crime. For example, men who molest boys have the highest measured rates of recidivism of any sex offender.47 Within five years, their rate of sexual recidivism was 23 percent, and an additional 12 percent committed another sexual offense over the next decade.48 Thus, over a 15-year period, about one out of every three men who have molested boys will be arrested or convicted of another sex offense.
State-specific studies have yielded similar results. For example, in Ohio, only 8 percent of former sex offenders were reincarcerated for another sex offense within a 10-year period.49 Sex offenders who returned for a new sex offense did so within a few years of release.50 Within three years of their release, 2 percent of New York inmates who had served time for a sex offense returned to prison with a conviction for another sex offense.51 Within nine years, the number was 10 percent.52
Sex offenders do not recidivate at far higher rates than other offenders, as is often believed. A federal study of prisoners released in 1994 found that 67.5 percent of all former prisoners were rearrested for a new offense within three years of their release.53 Rearrest rates varied by category of crime: 70.2 percent for those who had been in prison for robbery, 74 percent for burglary, and 41.4 percent for homicide. Released rapists had a rearrest rate of 46 percent.54 These rearrests are for any crime, not necessarily the same type of crime for which they had been in prison. Only 2.5 percent of prisoners who had been convicted of rape were arrested for another rape in the three-year post-release period.55 The other released rapists were either rearrested for something other than rape (for example, non-sexual assault or property offenses) or not rearrested at all.
Some of the public misapprehensions about the rates at which sex offenders recidivate may have originated with calculations by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as to the relative likelihood at which released prisoners are rearrested for the same type of crime as that for which they had been in prison. In a study published in 1997 based on prisoners released in 1983, the BJS calculated that relative to other offenders, a rapist was 10.5 times more likely than other released prisoners to be rearrested for another rape.56 More recently, based on a study of prisoners released in 1994, the BJS calculated a rapist’s likelihood of being rearrested for rape as 4.2 times a non-rapist’s odds.57
However, the odds of 10.5 or 4.2 do not mean that rapists’ rates of recidivism are 10.5 or 4.2 times greater than the recidivism rates of other offenders.58 The figures are properly understood as indicating the “degree of specializing” that is apparent among many offenders.59 For example, according to the BJS, a robber is 2.7 times more likely of being rearrested for another robbery as compared to an offender who had not been serving time for a robbery.60 Specialization is not absolute; non-rapists are also rearrested on rape charges. For example, 1.2 percent of the prisoners who had been serving time for robbery were rearrested for rape.61 Indeed, people who had been serving time for rape were responsible for only 4.8 percent of the rapes committed in the three-year post-release period by all prisoners released in 1994.62
Most prisoners who are going to reoffend do so fairly soon after their release from prison.63 This is also true for sex offenders. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, during the three years following release from prison in 1994, 40 percent of the rearrests of sex offenders for new sex crimes occurred in the first year.64 In Ohio, of all sex offenders who came back to prison for a new sex offense within a 10-year post-release period, one-half did so within two years, and two-thirds within three years.65 The corollary—for people who have committed sex offenses as well as other kinds of crimes—is that the longer someone remains offense-free in the community, the less likely he or she will commit another offense. For example, the 2004 meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies cited above indicated that an average of 20 percent of all sex offenders would be arrested or convicted for another sex offense over a 10-year period after being released into the community. But, for offenders who remained offense-free for five years, their recidivism rate for the next 10 years declined to 12 percent; for those who remained offense-free for 10 years, their recidivism over the next five years declined even further to 9 percent. After 15 years offense-free, the recidivism rate for the next five years was 4 percent.66
A number of other factors are also correlated with recidivism. One such factor is the relationship of the victim to the offender. Offenders whose victims were within the family recidivate at a significantly lower rate than offenders whose victims were outside of the family.67 For all child molesters, the lowest reoffense rates were for those who abused family members—13 percent after 15 years living in the community.68 The age at which a sex offender commits the sex offense also has a substantial association with recidivism. Offenders older than 50 when released from prison reoffended at half the rate of those younger than 50—12 percent versus 26 percent, respectively, after 15 years.69
Some experts who specialize in the treatment of individuals who commit sex offenses are not surprised that individuals caught for their sex crimes have a relatively low recidivism rate. As one treatment provider told Human Rights Watch, “When an individual is caught and held accountable for his behavior, he often becomes motivated to get better. His behavior is no longer a secret, and it becomes a reckoning point for him—he must decide whether he is going to change his behavior, or face the consequences.”70
-
I am a corrections officer, Yes there are some who feel guilty and are regretful of things they feel and do. For those I do feel empathy. But I can assure you there are 10 times more who don't. The things some of these people do and how proud they are of it will make you sick.
When I first started, I was told not to look at their charges, just treat them all the same. So I did. Thought I got to know a few. The nice charming ones were the child molesters. I always thought I was a good judge of charecter until that day. But then, if they weren't charming how could they get these children?
How do you feel about the people who got caught on some bullshit charge for silly things like public urination (http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html)? What I find so scary about sex offender laws is that anyone can run afoul of them for stupid little things that would never even matter in a sane world.
Deltona's ordinance, stricter than those of the state and neighboring cities, prohibits sex offenders and sexual predators from living within 2,500 feet of a school, bus stop, day-care center, park or playground. Matamoros lives on Brady Drive near three city parks, including Dewey Boster Park and a child-care facility.
The 49-year-old took the stand before Volusia County Judge Peter Marshall in DeLand on Monday to say he never molested anyone back in 1986, but just got drunk and urinated at the side of a car along a Massachusetts street when three people passed by and saw him. He requested he not have to move his two young sons to an area with a concentrated number of sex offenders.
-
I'm waiting for him to do a project with Woody Allen
-
There are some boundaries though. Here are some interviews with the woman herself:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15775812&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=polanski-raped-me-when-i-was-13----he-is-a-creep--name_page.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/24/polanski.geimer/
That's interesting. One effect of the ultra-broad scope of today's sex offender laws is to make it impossible to distinguish the dangerous from the merely unfortunate at first glance, so it's good to find out a bit more detail about the case.
-
Well I think it depends. He this peeing where children and others can see him? Or did he pull over on the side of the road and go behind a tree? If he is downtown outside a store and not trying to hide what he is doing, he should be arrested. If he is behind a tree b/c he couldn't make it to a bathroom, hell I have done that. So to arrest that person would be stupid.
I agree, some of the sex offenders laws are way out dated or to broad in nature. For instance, it is still completly illegal to have anal sex. Even if both parties agree to it. Even if you are gay. Even if you are married. That is one law that should be redone or even completly done away with.
-
Polanski's version of the story is a bit different, if I recall his autobiography correctly. Also, I think that he pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, not to rape, under the terms of his plea bargain. It was only after hearing that the judge was going to disregard that plea bargain that he fled the US.
I don't approve of what he did, but I suspect that the 13-yo and her mother were far from the innocents they've been portrayed to be. Plenty of 13-year-olds (and their parents) have done more to get their share of the limelight.
-
I'm waiting for him to do a project with Woody Allen
I see a big difference. Allen married his, didn't he?
I'm not convinced that scoring tween twat is
particularly moral, especially if it's only for a
one time, or a quick thrill.
-
yeah Allen didn't rape anybody. it seems the chick wanted him.
-
It was his daughter though. :zoinks:
-
not his bio daughter! :zoinks: though one could say he groomed her. :zombiefuck:
-
not his bio daughter! :zoinks: though one could say he groomed her. :zombiefuck:
Didn't he actually adopt her? That kinda weirds me out.
As to 'grooming' I'm all for that, so long as it's done right.
That's what parenting is all about - passing your own set
of beliefs on, and brainwashing children into being little
clones.
-
grooming into being your sex toy? nuh uh.
of course if the adoptive father was hotter than Woody Allen... :zoinks: say a Calandale... :zoinks:
-
grooming into being your sex toy? nuh uh.
of course if the adoptive father was hotter than Woody Allen... :zoinks: say a Calandale... :zoinks:
I see no problem with grooming, if the choice was
a fair one, by the groomee. There, we come to AOC
style issues. When I was 6, I wanted to marry my mother.
I don't think that I was old enough to make that decision
then. I don't know, at 13. I feel like I was largely the same
person, from about 9 onward, and don't think I made any
better choices when I was 20, than I would have at 13.
But, I'm not certain.
-
you want to marry your mother?
-
you want to marry your mother?
No. Though, when I last saw her,
I DID have some desires which revulsed
me. I have difficulties associating touching
with anything non-sexual. It made me physically
ill to hug her.
-
:hug:
i thought you were like Peter.
-
Peter wants to marry his mum?
-
he wouldn't be disturbed by the thought.
-
She looks a lot older than what he normally
seems interested in.
-
I've known about this for some time, but I still consider him a great film maker neverless.
-
:hug:
i thought you were like Peter.
Huh?
-
he wouldn't be disturbed by the thought.
Only because I'm undisturbable by even the worst creations of Japanese hentai. :P My mum's aged well, but I don't find her even remotely attractive, and I've never wanted to marry her. Have you been fantasising about me boning my mum?
-
lol maybe. :P
-
Perv. :zoinks:
-
one to talk. :laugh:
-
I'm not half as pervy as
people think.
-
you're not? :-*
-
Nope. Even my fantasies are pretty damned minor.
It's just that I insist on them.
-
i'm not a perv either. :P
-
Polanski's version of the story is a bit different, if I recall his autobiography correctly. Also, I think that he pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, not to rape, under the terms of his plea bargain. It was only after hearing that the judge was going to disregard that plea bargain that he fled the US.
I don't approve of what he did, but I suspect that the 13-yo and her mother were far from the innocents they've been portrayed to be. Plenty of 13-year-olds (and their parents) have done more to get their share of the limelight.
There could also be false-memory syndrome involved, though I'm not saying that is or is not the case here. The legal system really puts kids through the wringer, and when they have detectives, psychologists and social workers repeating the same questions over and over through dozens or hundreds of hours of interviews, the kids start to generate stories that fit the questions and become unable to distinguish their real memories from these manufactured ones. The classic example is the mousetrap experiment, where children were asked a series of questions multiple times by an interviewer, and in each interview, they were asked if they'd ever caught their hand in a mousetrap. None of them had, and they all answered in the negative at the beginning of the study, but as the study progressed and the question was repeated over and over during different sessions, many of them came to believe that they had caught their hand in a mousetrap, and made up elaborate stories about going to hospital and so on, none of which was real, but which was firmly believed by the kids.
Several years ago I described the case of a 14 year old boy named Chris, who was led to believe, by his older brother Jim, that he had been lost in a shopping mall at about the age of five and ultimately rescued by an elderly person (Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994). Chris's experience provided the idea for a formal study in which people might be led to have childhood memories for events that never happened.
A variation of this procedure has also been used with children whose ages ranged from 3 to 6 (Ceci, Huffman et al, 1994). They were interviewed individually about real (parent- supplied) and fictitious (experimenter-contrived) events, and had to say whether each event happened to them or not. One "false" events concerned getting one's hand caught in a mousetrap and having to go to the hospital to get it removed; another concerned going on a hot air balloon ride with their classmates. The children were interviewed many times. As for the false memories, the young children (3-4 years old) assented to them 44% of the time during the first session, and 36% of the time during the seventh session. The false event was remembered at a somewhat lower rate (25% in the first session, 32% in the seventh session) for the older children (5-6 years old). In another study, involving children of the same age but involving more interviews about different fictitious items (ie falling off a tricycle and getting stitches in the leg), the rate at which children bought into the false memory increased steadily with more interviews (Ceci, Loftus et al, 1994).
Taken together, these results show that people will falsely recall childhood experiences in response to misleading information and the social demands inherent in repeated interviews. The process of false recall appears to depend, in part, on accessing some relevant background information. Hyman and his colleagues hypothesized that some form of schematic reconstruction may account for the creation of false memories. What people appear to do, at the time they encounter the false details, is to call up schematic knowledge that is closely related to the false event.
Furthermore, said Johnson, "these false memories can contain quite specific details." In studies where children have been induced to provide "compellingly vivid accounts of complex events," such as having their finger caught in a mousetrap, experts "can't tell the difference between children's accounts of true and false memories" when viewing videos of the children recounting the events.
Such induced autobiographical memories reflect a number of factors," she noted. "Repeated questioning or thinking about an event increases the details that are remembered or confidence in the memory. Encouraging participants to embed a 'memory' in personally relevant details creates supporting evidence. Also, individuals with high imagery ability seem to be more susceptible to induced false memories, presumably because they embellish more or create representations that are more like perceptions."
In real life, the creation of memories about real events is "influenced by our expectations, imaginations and other ruminations, seeing photographs, hearing other people's accounts, and even seemingly unrelated events, and by our goals and motives at the time of remembering," explained Johnson.
"False memories arise from the same encoding, rehearsal, retrieval, and source monitoring processes that produce true memories; thus one can never be absolutely sure of the truth of any particular memory," she noted. "Remembering is always a judgment call."
-
Based on his research, Ceci concluded, "It is exceedingly, devilishly difficult for professionals to tell fact from fiction when a child has been repeatedly suggestively interviewed over a long period of time. They look and act the way children do when they are trying to be accurate and honest."
Adults with emotional problems like depression, dissociative disorder or hysteria also tend to be highly susceptible to the suggestion that an imagined event had actually occurred. Professional psychiatric organizations have warned against the use of "memory recovery techniques" to unearth tales of sexual abuse.
According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, techniques like hypnotherapy, regression therapy and drug-mediated interviews are unproved and not acceptable in psychiatric practice. In guidelines issued three years ago, the college stated that psychiatrists should never use forceful or persuasive interviewing to elicit memories.
-
I already knew. A 13 year old really would not understand their sexuality enough for me to consider it fully consensual. It is fucking disgusting also as a 13 year old really isn't developed enough physically, mentally or psychologically to be sexually active. We have enough kids having kids already in this world. Statistically, paedophiles are less likely to be rehabilitated than murderers and rapists. They have a rehab rate of less than 1%, so it is unlikely that he changed. Especially since he seems to not think it was wrong lol.
Until they treat paedophiles as ill and try to help them rather than ostracise them, they are not going to do much good with rehabilitation.
Some psychologists do treat it as a mental illness. Almost all paedos were molested themselves, so it is a vicious circle of sorts. They typically make less of the crime and try to rationalize their behavior.
Having sex with a child or molesting it can sure fuck up their minds.
-
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
-
the same people think both things are wrong and the same people think that both things are ok, mostly.
i'm not sure of either since it depends on the situation. i think Roman Polanski raped that girl though and i think most 13 year olds can't give consent because they are too young and impressionable. especially when it's someone powerful that is pressuring and scaring them.
-
I, for one, do not think it's OK to have sex with a 13-yo.
-
:agreed:
let kids be young, ffs - they've plenty of time later to have that sort of responsibility.
-
Precisely.
But I also think that the Polanski case is more complex than the usual party line. But then, I'm pretty cynical.
-
I don't care if two 13-year-olds want to fuck each other. Some kids experiment, and by 13 most have the equipment. It's the power imbalance that seems to have caused the problem with Polanski. I don't think people should be pressured into sex through a major power imbalance regardless of their ages.
-
Having sex with a child or molesting it can sure fuck up their minds.
It can fuck up the adult's mind too.
-
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
Grael wasn't using drugs.
-
I don't care if two 13-year-olds want to fuck each other. Some kids experiment, and by 13 most have the equipment. It's the power imbalance that seems to have caused the problem with Polanski. I don't think people should be pressured into sex through a major power imbalance regardless of their ages.
I actually think that it's probably better to be
taught by someone older, the first time. Matters
of safety, as well as pleasure.
-
I don't think people should be pressured into sex through a major power imbalance regardless of their ages.
good point.
-
Arrrgh!!! This is awful, not only does it seem like he raped this girl but he then used the age of consent laws to make it into something lesser :headexplode:
-
He raped the girl by definition. Anything sexual with a 13-yo was then (and is now?), by definition, rape.
-
Arrrgh!!! This is awful, not only does it seem like he raped this girl but he then used the age of consent laws to make it into something lesser :headexplode:
Sheer brilliance.
He raped the girl by definition. Anything sexual with a 13-yo was then (and is now?), by definition, rape.
True, but the word 'statutory' inserted in their
reduces the effect, in some courts.
-
she said no. it wasn't a statutory rape.
-
she said no. it wasn't a statutory rape.
That's the brilliance of it. Wish that worked in general.
-
it's not brilliant it's crazy. :P
-
Arrrgh!!! This is awful, not only does it seem like he raped this girl but he then used the age of consent laws to make it into something lesser :headexplode:
Sheer brilliance.
He raped the girl by definition. Anything sexual with a 13-yo was then (and is now?), by definition, rape.
True, but the word 'statutory' inserted in their
reduces the effect, in some courts.
I was under the impression that 'statutory rape' was a separate offence from 'rape', and that forcing yourself on 13 year old would get a 'rape' charge while having consensual-except-that-she's-not-allowed-to-consent sex with a 13 year old is a 'statutory rape' offence. The terminology is confusing and biased, which doesn't make it easy to discuss without a lot of in-depth explanations.
-
well that's why i said it was rape.
-
Same thing.
-
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
Grael wasn't using drugs.
Are you saying he was using drugs when he raped a 13 year old?
-
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
Grael wasn't using drugs.
Are you saying he was using drugs when he raped a 13 year old?
Wasn't that what was said?
That he drugged her.
-
I thought you were saying he was on drugs when he raped here.
I still don't understand then how drugging a 13 year old is okay but it wasn't okay when Grael was in a relationship with a 16 year old. So confusing.
-
Assuming that she's here in the UK, 16 is the legal age for sex.
Roman Polanski did drug the 13 year old.
-
I thought you were saying he was on drugs when he raped here.
I still don't understand then how drugging a 13 year old is okay but it wasn't okay when Grael was in a relationship with a 16 year old. So confusing.
Sometimes, it's easier NOT to try and
understand the minds of those people.
-
^True, true.
-
I thought you were saying he was on drugs when he raped here.
I still don't understand then how drugging a 13 year old is okay but it wasn't okay when Grael was in a relationship with a 16 year old. So confusing.
Sometimes, it's easier NOT to try and
understand the minds of those people.
Then I guess I will assume she is being discriminated. Shame on all of you.
Give her the same treatment you guys are giving Roman.
-
Why on ALL of us? Though, I do have
to say that I see a difference, given
that she never actually had sex with
flagg, nor did she drug him. Indeed,
I would argue he rather played her.
-
:agreed:
Grael is no Roman.
-
Why on ALL of us? Though, I do have
to say that I see a difference, given
that she never actually had sex with
flagg, nor did she drug him. Indeed,
I would argue he rather played her.
So why is it okay to drug a 13 year old and have sex but not okay to date a 16 year old?
I think drugging and raping a 13 year old is worse than dating a 16 year old. What gives?
-
:agreed:
Grael is no Roman.
True. A roman would have done it right.
Why on ALL of us? Though, I do have
to say that I see a difference, given
that she never actually had sex with
flagg, nor did she drug him. Indeed,
I would argue he rather played her.
So why is it okay to drug a 13 year old and have sex but not okay to date a 16 year old?
I think drugging and raping a 13 year old is worse than dating a 16 year old. What gives?
Why, if there's a distinction, does it have to
Why, if there's a distinction, does it have to go in the direction which you
are assuming?
-
No answer, I assume. Always ask questions before you assume but if you don't get an answer then it's their problem whatever you think of them. Don't want false assumptions, answer.
I expect people to ask me questions before they assume anything.
-
I just assume, shoot first, and ask questions later.
Like, "are you dead yet?"
-
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
I think that what Roman Polanski did is completely despicable and I think that he should be castrated.
My daughter is not that much younger than 13 and if someone raped her, I could wield the rusty razor blade to do the job myself.
I also think that Graelwyn was wrong to groom Flagg into being her "boyfriend" because she was twice his age.
I think that she was a pedophile to try to seduce him but it's not on the same level as what Roman Polanski did.
If Flagg had been 16 and she had been 18 (which would be considered a legal adult in Oregon) I personally would not have had that much of a problem with it, but things are too unequal when there is that much age difference, IMO.
And if she is trying now to make it seem like Flagg conned her or something, then that sounds unlikely to me. I think that it is more likely that he finally came to his senses and realized that she was way too old for him, or maybe that she was wrong for him for some other reasons as well. Why should he not be allowed to realize that he made a mistake and get out of a bad situation?
-
No answer, I assume. Always ask questions before you assume but if you don't get an answer then it's their problem whatever you think of them. Don't want false assumptions, answer.
I expect people to ask me questions before they assume anything.
i do too. i try not to assume stuff and ask questions instead. it pisses me off when people assume and react before checking stuff.
-
she said no. it wasn't a statutory rape.
That is what she says. Polanski's version is different.
-
she said no. it wasn't a statutory rape.
That is what she says. Polanski's version is different.
No answer, I assume. Always ask questions before you assume but if you don't get an answer then it's their problem whatever you think of them. Don't want false assumptions, answer.
I expect people to ask me questions before they assume anything.
i do too. i try not to assume stuff and ask questions instead. it pisses me off when people assume and react before checking stuff.
Okay I'm confused. Lot of you seem to find it okay he had sex with a 13 year old but you guys didn't find it okay when grael was in a relationship with flagg and you guys called her a pedo for it. So why isn't it okay for her to date someone under 18 but it's okay for the director to have sex with someone who was 13 at the time while Grael's online bf was only 16?
Having sex with a minor under the age of consent is worse than dating one IMO.
I think that what Roman Polanski did is completely despicable and I think that he should be castrated.
My daughter is not that much younger than 13 and if someone raped her, I could wield the rusty razor blade to do the job myself.
I also think that Graelwyn was wrong to groom Flagg into being her "boyfriend" because she was twice his age.
I think that she was a pedophile to try to seduce him but it's not on the same level as what Roman Polanski did.
If Flagg had been 16 and she had been 18 (which would be considered a legal adult in Oregon) I personally would not have had that much of a problem with it, but things are too unequal when there is that much age difference, IMO.
And if she is trying now to make it seem like Flagg conned her or something, then that sounds unlikely to me. I think that it is more likely that he finally came to his senses and realized that she was way too old for him, or maybe that she was wrong for him for some other reasons as well. Why should he not be allowed to realize that he made a mistake and get out of a bad situation?
-
He was arrested when he tried to enter Switzerland yesterday. Good on him.
-
I have trouble viewing Grael as a full-blown pedophile for her thing with flagg, but I think it was totally inappropriate and creepy as hell.
How do you feel about the people who got caught on some bullshit charge for silly things like public urination (http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/03/florida_banishe.html)? What I find so scary about sex offender laws is that anyone can run afoul of them for stupid little things that would never even matter in a sane world.
Those laws make me crazy. Rape isn't viewed as enough of a crime in the U.S., but then we make peeing in public almost equivalent to it... fucking psycho, IMO.
I don't care if two 13-year-olds want to fuck each other. Some kids experiment, and by 13 most have the equipment. It's the power imbalance that seems to have caused the problem with Polanski. I don't think people should be pressured into sex through a major power imbalance regardless of their ages.
I care in that I think that they're too young to deal with the potential consquences of STDs or pregnancy, but you're right, it's the power differential. I don't think two 13-year-olds having sex should be considered to be raping each other- or really doing anything morally wrong- but I think they're enganging in an activity that they don't (and can't as far as cognitive development goes- kids are hitting puberty faster, but their brain development isn't speeding up accordingly) understand the dangers of.
-
He was arrested when he tried to enter Switzerland yesterday. Good on him.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
-
I think 13 is way too young to be having sex in the vast amjority of cases. Obviously a lot of people are mature enough at that age and would end up fine, but I think most 13 year olds are no way near ready to be fucking each other. That being said, as long as they use a condom and both want to do it, then it's not a huge problem.
I was still a kid at 13 though, I wouldn't even say I was a teenager really (obviously physically I was 13, but emotionally I'm a few years behind), so maybe I'm not the best judge
Fucking a 14/15 year old isn't paedophilia though, as they're not pre-pubescent kids. I can't remember what the word is... begins with E?
Either way it's not right, but Graelwyn isn't a paedophile in any way imo.
-
Don't forget Jerry Lee Lewis and his Great Balls Of Fire.....
-
I think 13 is way too young, too, but I'm not sure Polanski will get a fair trial because of who he is. His version (as told in his autobiography) is quite different from the one the media presents as the truth.
-
Just because he's a paedo, does not invalidate his work. Sure I don't agree on it, but I'd watch his films.
Similar to how people like Gary Glitter's songs but want him dead.