Well, there you have it. According to the legal giants at the View, a guy can give a ~14 year old girl a champagne and quaaludes (or roofies) cocktail, screw the heck out of her while she repeatedly tells him "no" and it's not "rape rape." It may be statutory rape, but it's not "rape rape..."
Rape, statutory rape and "rape rape"
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1749
Bill Clinton got off--no pun intended--because he was a lefty.
Same effect I suspect with Polanski.
Now had P been a right wingnut, well then don't look for Ms Whoppi to stick up for him, even if said 14 yo girl was sober and saying "yes" all the way.
It may be statutory rape, but it's not "rape rape..."
Close enough.
A friend of mine in high school eagerly put out for an 18 year old senior when she was not quite 14. Ever since I found out about that, I've never been able to take seriously the suggestions that it's just a given that they don't know what they're doing.
In this case, Polanski is guilty of the kind of rape that applies to a woman of any age.
Amazing. What can I say? The disconnect between the real world and the "elite" society of celebrities is astounding.
Okay, it may have been "rape rape", but it wasn't "rape rape rape".
It seems there are two primary sides to this issue. The first, most visceral, and ultimately least important, is what we as individuals feel about what he did.
Franky, to me, his actions were sleazy and classless at best, but that is my opinion.
The second, and truly salient issue at play are the legal facts of the case, of which, to be honest, I do not have full knowledge of.
That's a euphemistic way of describing what he did.
True, it is euphemistic, and my use of euphemism was not to mask his actions.
He drugged a 13 year old girl and had sex with her. In most of the United States, that qualifies as statutory rape, and likely endangering the life of a minor. I'm not sure about European laws dictate regarding the age of consent - let alone drugging a minor.
The fact that he has stalwart defenders is the main issue that confuses me, which is why I took a supposed road of least resistance, and simply stated that what he did, whether technically legal or not, makes him a douche bag.
Cultural snafus and ideological wars aside,what I would really like to understand are the legal issues:
1. Is a 30 year old arrest warrant valid?
2. How do statute of limitations apply?
3. Was his extradition legal? Why did it take so long to extradite him?