quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
I totally missed his comparsion to child rape to homosexuality!
[no no no]
I wasn't comparing the two, that was G-Man's misconception.

quote:
I see anyone who doesnt think they can handle prison time shouldn't be imprisoned.
How you can continue to draw that conclusion from my posts despite my specifically stating that I'm not implying or suggesting that at all baffles me.

quote:
How can you possibly compare to someone saying SHES hot and not knowing her age between bringing a young girl over to home with the sole intent of raping her?
1.That's not the comparison.

2.You don't know that was his sole intent(if it was his intent at all).

quote:
You can't "tarnish" someone's reputation if they committed the act in question.
Of course you can. Tarnishing has nothing to do with the validity of the claims.

quote:
Yes, his wife was brutally murdered years previous; I understand that. But human nature is such that one must take responsibility for one's actions.

Can't blame it on Auschwitz (or any type of occupation.) Not on Sharon Tate. He is responsible for his own actions.
Well, you could argue that his past experiences might be reason to believe that he is mentally unbalanced(and it would be very difficult to come out of all of these ordeals without being at least slightly screwed up), in which case, his place isn't in a federal prison, but in an institution.

That, however, doesn't excuse his actions, for which he should certainly receive punishment.

quote:
Whether or not the young girl tempted/coerced/forced Mr. Polanski to have sex with her doesn't matter: only the act matters.
In terms of his being a criminal, absolutely. Again, I'm not debating that angle at all.

This isn't about whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of statutory rape. It's about whether or not he should receive recognition for his artistic merits, and to a lesser extent, whether or not it's fair to pass judgement on him the way most here seem to be.

quote:
Originally posted by G-Man:
A person, especially a child, can be raped by physical force without leaving visible evidence of same.
If you say so; I won't doubt your credentials. However, disregarding the law for just a second, doesn't it seem somewhat contradictory that physical force can be proven...without physical evidence? Isn't that why it's referred to as "physical" force, rather than psychological, mental, emotional, etc?

Anway, it's unimportant. I'll revise my statement if it pleases you:

We know that whatever methods of coercion he used, if any, left no physical evidence on the victim's body(such as scratches, bruises, welts, etc).

quote:
Your continued insistence to argue myth or ignorant opinion as fact in this case is, to be blunt, quite troubling.
I wasn't continuing to argue; I spoke in layman's terms, and when I was made aware of the fact that my personal terminology didn't identically resemble that of law, I restructured my statement, without hesitation or argument.