Andrew Vachss talks about Roman Polanski

In this excerpt from the Family of Choice webcast (01/14/2009), author and children's attorney Andrew Vachss talks about movie director and convicted child rapist Roman Polanski. [Q52]

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Andrew
• Vachss
• Roman
• Polanski

[kloggeddrayn]

So let's say she's lying, Joan. Let's say she *threw* herself at him. That's not what *he* pleaded to, but ... for the sake of argument, let's say that's what happened. SHE WAS 13 AND HE WAS 44. Do you fail to see the imbalance of power, and how Polanski abused that? Unless you're going to start campaigning for 13-year-olds to have the right to vote, you should stop campaigning for them to have the right to consent to sex. (And this *clearly* wasn't consent--even Polanski confesses to that.)

[c0m9xa]

I agree. Polanski should have been in prison a long time ago.

[buzzclick500]

@topperheartramada : He's not evading anything, he's living his life, and that seems to bother you. You probably work for the government. And Americans are about to elect a NEW government, so get ready for massive change.

[topperheartramada]

@rexmiles77 All of what you listed is completely IRRELEVANT.All of it. The fact is that while he was in the USA, a 44 year old man, stuck his dick into the ass of a child. This girl was not 'almost 18' or something. 13 years is a child. What matters is that he did this to a child, and he is guilty. Who this child is is irrelevant. How well he behaves is irrelevant. The ime elapsed is irrelevant - if anything it makes it worse because all this time he has been evading justice.

[Zamudiokid]

Anyone read CROSS by Vachss?

[bigmikevt]

As stated by the esteemed Mr. Vachss, He gave a guilty plea, got the deal of the century, and still never did the time

[keytoothed]

Vachss is the real deal and always tells it like it is. Cuts through all the bullshit.

[tandooriicecream]

What matters here is he raped a 13-year-old. There's no such thing as consent with a 13-year-old. Why? It's not an issue of morals--it's an issue of brain development. The connections to the frontal lobe aren't developed at 13. You *can't* make an informed decision quickly, period. But Polanski was 40-something when he drugged and raped her. He admitted it. You say he is "not a threat to society." How do you know? When he fled to France, first thing he did was "date" a 15-year-old. What else?

[tandooriicecream]

So ... drugging a 13-year-old girl and have sex with her while she says "no," that's *not* a real crime? Because that's what Polanski *confessed* to doing. The victim doesn't get to "press charges," the state does--and it was only a few years ago that the victim *wanted* to see Polanski brought to justice. Why doesn't she now? I don't know. Maybe she got tired of the system failing her and just wants to give up, or maybe she received a payment. Or something else entirely. Doesn't really matter.

[rexmiles77]

The girl is now an adult; she doesn't want to press charges. The director has not committed any crimes since his original arrest. He is not a threat to society. This is just a circus trial as it was 30 years ago. The media and the America court system want to burn this guy at the steak for having sex with a 13 year old girl (who by the way was not a virgin and not a stranger to sex). Meanwhile, there are muderers and drug dealers who get away with REAL crime every day in America.

[slowmovement]

At the age of 13 you are simply not old enough to "consent" to anything an adult is trying to manipulate you into. The adult who is takling advantage of a teenager is to blame and he alone. The parents' motives? Look for egotism and lucre. Finally, to be precise about that point: Children don't learn to speak the truth, the learn to speak the lie - from adults and under their pressure. There is no such a thing as a born liar

[Pumablues2525]

No, Roman Polanksi admitted, he's guilty and if you bible thumpers are more loyal to any higher power then the well being of the innocent, then fuck whatever higher power would have you.