Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spetulhu wrote:
And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.

One of the most extreme example of this I know of comes from an old French Canadian movie called Aurore l'enfant martyr. It was a drama produced in the 50's based on a real life event centered around a young girl, about 10 years old, named Aurore who was abused and tortured for years by her step mother who finally killed by basically poisonning her by forcing her to drink dishwasher soap (the actual real cause of death of hte child on which the movie was based). The most tragic part about the movie and the real life event was that she lived in a little village where everybody knew she was badly abused. The local priest knew thanks to confession that the step mother fantasised about killing the girl who told the same priest she was tortured and was wondering why. Anyway, the performance of the actress playing the step mother was fantastic. It even holds up quite well today despite 70 years, but that performance ruined her life. People identified her as her character. Nobody in the small Quebec movie industry of the time wanted to hire her as they feared she would be immediatly identified as the villeness. People spit on her and insulted her in the streets. She reseived death threats and copious letters of insults. Her neighbours stopped talking to her and looked at her suspiciously when she was with her child. It's a pretty sad story and a cautionnary tale about the sometime small line between fact and fiction within some people. Up to a center point, we are all a bit vulnerable to it. Many of us might think an actor is tough because he or she plays tough character, or sophisticated for the same reasons.

Back in the 1970's the actress that portrayed Mrs Olsen on Little House on the Prairie made people uncomfortable in public, although in real life she was super nice.

The opposite of that is also true. "good guy" characters are often portrayed by some real donkey caves. A friend of mine got a good video of Avery Brooks (Captain Benjamin Sisco of Star Trek DS9) being less than cordial with a preteen kid that simply asked for an autograph.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Taking a stand for your principles makes for a nice and easy simple sound bite, but it’s a complicated mess to put into practice.

I'm not seeing it tbh. Actors perpetually insist that fans should create a hard mental distinction between them as people and any parts that they play - hell, Shatner has recorded a whole awful, awful, just really bad pity-party album on that theme - so that's the attitude I've cultivated, plenty of other actors have said or done things I consider repugnant; I choose not to let that affect my enjoyment of characters they've played.

And that goes the other way around too, as many actors have found out. Playing the "evil" role in a long-running TV series (or "solves problems with his fists guy", or whatever) have often made watchers think the real person is like that, failing to separate the character from the actor. Which ofc does make it even more disturbing for fans when someone they always considered to be a nice person - based only on their TV/movie roles - is revealed to be quite a nasty person in real life.

Heck, Alan Hale Jr. - who played The Skipper on Gilligan's Island - took a cut in pay when he took the role, because he wanted to move away from always playing the black hats.

The Auld Grump

Most children grow out of thinking their favourite film star is really a superhero. Soap audiences seem to be quite bad at this separating life from fiction, actors playing villains in soap operas often describe getting hate mail. It’s baffling people are so dumb, maybe it says something about the general intelligence of the audience. It sounds snobbish, but I really don’t think audiences watching intelligent dramas commonly have the same issues.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most children grow out of thinking their favourite film star is really a superhero. Soap audiences seem to be quite bad at this separating life from fiction, actors playing villains in soap operas often describe getting hate mail. It’s baffling people are so dumb, maybe it says something about the general intelligence of the audience. It sounds snobbish, but I really don’t think audiences watching intelligent dramas commonly have the same issues.

Soap operas are just really committed to maintaining kayfabe.

 feeder wrote:
New developments:

Cosby's wife calls conviction trial by mob.

Cosby and Polanski both expelled from the Oscars Academy.

interesting that it took them so long, even nominating him last year.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.

I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.

This.
However to add to that there was a dodgy case against Polanski that was mishandled badly.
Peregrine speaks of 'convicted child rapist', the more accurate description is a plea bargained defendant. Plea bargaining s one of those aberrations in the US legal system more interested in file keeping than crime solving. Plea bargained and factual are often greatly separated. The case against Polanski was so unsound that extradition has been refused by competent legal authorities. If it is good enough for them it should be good enough for me.
Polanski deserves some sympathy for what happened to his family, it may have set him on a dark path. He is responsible for his consequent actions, but then so are prosecuting authorities. No case against him was proven, we only have hearsay and fumbled out of courtroom deals. That is not enough to condemn a man in Switzerland, the Swiss authorities kept Polanski under house arrest for nine months to give an extradition case a chance. That was a fair shot and it ended with Polanski being a free man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 soundwave591 wrote:

 feeder wrote:
New developments:

Cosby's wife calls conviction trial by mob.

Cosby and Polanski both expelled from the Oscars Academy.

interesting that it took them so long, even nominating him last year.

The have to be seen to do something. It keeps the focus off digging for fresh cases.

 Orlanth wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The Manson family's gruesome torture-murder of Sharon Tate however is a matter of record, and that will have had some follow up effects on Polanski. Yes I have sympathy for him. Bite me.

Boo hoo. Lots of people suffer personal tragedies and don't cope with it by drugging and raping children. Your apologism for a convicted child rapist is horrifying.

I think these two things are separate. Polanski DOES have my sympathy for Sharon Tate's murder. If he had Jack Ruby'ed one of the killers I'd have considered his mental state for a reduced sentence.

However, that's a LONG way from saying, "He had problems years ago, forgive him for drugging and forcibly raping a 13 year-old."

I don't think Peregrine is not saying those two things aren't different. Just that when something terrible happens to you it doesn't give you a free pass to go break the law.

I was agreeing that Polanski doesn't get a "rape pass", but he still does deserve sympathy for Tate's murder. Even victimizers can be victims.

This.
However to add to that there was a dodgy case against Polanski that was mishandled badly.
Peregrine speaks of 'convicted child rapist', the more accurate description is a plea bargained defendant. Plea bargaining s one of those aberrations in the US legal system more interested in file keeping than crime solving. Plea bargained and factual are often greatly separated. The case against Polanski was so unsound that extradition has been refused by competent legal authorities. If it is good enough for them it should be good enough for me.
Polanski deserves some sympathy for what happened to his family, it may have set him on a dark path. He is responsible for his consequent actions, but then so are prosecuting authorities. No case against him was proven, we only have hearsay and fumbled out of courtroom deals. That is not enough to condemn a man in Switzerland, the Swiss authorities kept Polanski under house arrest for nine months to give an extradition case a chance. That was a fair shot and it ended with Polanski being a free man.

1. Not "this", giving a man sympathy is entirely different than what you said.

 Orlanth wrote:
Roman Polanski may have been jailbaited, and in the early 70's people were far less cautious than they are today with regard to age checking who they pull. He gets a sympathy pass from me after what happened to Sharon Tate and his unborn child. He was in a dark place, and I am yet to see any evidence that he is a repeat offender

2. No, an accurate description is man who forced himself on a 13 year old. Polanski never denied having sex, you can't have consensual sex with a 13 year old, regardless of his protest against the rape allegation. Hearsay? We have a 13 year old victim testifying in court what Polanski did, exactly the opposite of hearsay

3. The extradition case wasn't given a chance. The DoJ made a mistake on the extradition request, he walked out on a technicality, not because the request was given a fair shot.

Shhh, you are ruining the narrative! Poor Polanski only took a plea deal saying he raped a 13 year old! Poor poor Polanski, think of his family!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Shhh, you are ruining the narrative! Poor Polanski only took a plea deal saying he raped a 13 year old! Poor poor Polanski, think of his family!

The plea deal was for a sentence that did not reflect raping a 13 year old. Polanski took that offer showing something was wrong somewhere.
You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound. That is how plea bargaining works often a plea bargain differs from the truth considerably, its the point of a plea bargain. The focus is on the deal not the admission. If you dont want huge international question marks over your justice system don't use the plea bargain system.

The actual narrative is that Polanski was never convicted of child rape, or anything else, we have a plea deal which doesn't reflect the alleged offence, an attempt to renege on the plea deal by prosecuting authorities, a subsequent abscondment to foreign countries with advanced legal systems that have repeatedly refused to extradite and a double helping of trial by media.

My 'narrative' has nothing to do with going easy on child rapists, it is on actual justice. Polanski has never been properly convicted, as no case against him has been proven and the prosecution has failed and extradition has also failed. I believe that the words 'innocent until proven guilty' have a price, if this means that questionable individuals go free because the system failed or was incompetent or corrupted then so be it. The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.

The conviction was unsound? You mean the case? No, the problem was that there was no witness so it would turn into a he said she said case. A plea deal was offered to get at least something out of it. The problematic part is that we don't know exactly why it got offered but it did not reflect what happened which is why the incredibly problematic cancelling of the deal happened.

Innocent until proven guilty is nice and all, but Polanski never denied the sex with a 13 year old. You started off stating he was jailbaited and got a sympathy pass, that's a pretty big narrative to craft. I guess actual justice doesn't extend to looking at what the victim stated.

 Orlanth wrote:
You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound.

Unless you're offering a celebrity a deal, or buying into sexist "she looked 18"/"she probably wanted it"/"she was wearing a short skirt and tempting him"/etc nonsense, or merely using plea bargains to keep your conviction rate numbers high for the upcoming election. I'm not sure why you're defending him here, he admitted to having sex with her and that's child rape. The only possible dispute is whether or not he drugged her and raped her by force while she said no, or merely abused his power to coerce her into it.

The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.

And it shouldn't in any way do this. Anything Polanski suffered previously has nothing to do with the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Shhh, you are ruining the narrative! Poor Polanski only took a plea deal saying he raped a 13 year old! Poor poor Polanski, think of his family!

The plea deal was for a sentence that did not reflect raping a 13 year old. Polanski took that offer showing something was wrong somewhere.
You don't offer wrist slap plea deals for child rape, if you do its likely because the conviction is unsound. That is how plea bargaining works often a plea bargain differs from the truth considerably, its the point of a plea bargain. The focus is on the deal not the admission. If you dont want huge international question marks over your justice system don't use the plea bargain system.

The actual narrative is that Polanski was never convicted of child rape, or anything else, we have a plea deal which doesn't reflect the alleged offence, an attempt to renege on the plea deal by prosecuting authorities, a subsequent abscondment to foreign countries with advanced legal systems that have repeatedly refused to extradite and a double helping of trial by media.

My 'narrative' has nothing to do with going easy on child rapists, it is on actual justice. Polanski has never been properly convicted, as no case against him has been proven and the prosecution has failed and extradition has also failed. I believe that the words 'innocent until proven guilty' have a price, if this means that questionable individuals go free because the system failed or was incompetent or corrupted then so be it. The fact that Polanski is himself a (secondary) victim of a terrible crime sugar wraps this enough to be easier to swallow.

He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.

You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.

Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.
You didn't commit either crime but you have no alibi, there is a dodgy witness and an angry jury will likely find against you.
What do you do?


For the record this happens all the time in the US, only that child rape rarely, if ever, gets linked to a wristslap. It did in Polanski's case, that is utterly unusual.

So for the last time Polanski too a plea deal that doesnt add up. Look at the deal not the allegation. One could slap a criminal with a beef of stealing the moon and a smart defendant will accept if it means serving less time than the crime they actually did.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.

You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.

Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.

As a general rule, whatever you admit to doing under a plea bargain is usually a lower offense than what you would be facing in court.

I am fairly certain that if neither him, nor anybody else, would admit to child rape if he could have a shot at "only" being convicted of inappropriate conduct with a minor together with a shot at being found not-guilty. That's how plea bargains work: If you have a case for Murder, you offer a plea for manslaughter. If you have a case for multiple rapes, you offer a plea for one rape. If you have a case for child rape, you offer a plea for child abuse.

In a plea, everybody gets less than what they want. The prosecutor gets a conviction for a lower crime and a shorter sentence than what they would like, but they are not taking a risk of a "not guilty" in open court. The defendant gets a guilty verdict with a (usually) known sentence, but they are not taking a risk of a "guilty" verdict for more severe charges in open court and are not looking at even longer sentences. Sure, the prosecutor could get a guilty to every single charge they throw at him and send someone to the chair. But they could also watch someone charged with murder walk out of the court room. An innocent person might beat the murder charge in open court, or they might get the death penalty. A plea bargain removes the uncertainty for both parties, with the prosecutor "only" getting a conviction for manslaughter and the defendant "only" going to prison for 20 years.

Polanski admitted to having sex with her, maybe a 13 year old made all the moves and regretted her decision, maybe the victim was really the aggressor, maybe she just regretted her decision, maybe she was asking for it, maybe [insert generic whataboutism argument used in every rape], we don't know the details. But, for what it's worth, we have his admission to the rape. Maybe it was a coerced admission, maybe they had more dirt on him that was ever made public and admitting to one rape was the best case scenario for him, we don't know. But I think all of his complaints against the plea deal was not that he admitted to something he didn't do, it's that the judge didn't hold up his end of the deal. So we can take that for what it's worth.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
. Look at the deal not the allegation. One could slap a criminal with a beef of stealing the moon and a smart defendant will accept if it means serving less time than the crime they actually did.

If there is enough lack of evidence, nobody is going to plead. A smart defendant would look at the sky, point at the moon, and laugh at the prosecutor. That is one thing you pay your defense lawyer for, to give you expert advise on what kind of case the prosecutor has and what your chances in court are looking like.

Bill Cosby ‘s sentencing date hasn’t been set, but will be in 2-3 months. That gives him time to be with his family, get his affairs in order and then suffer a self-induced heart attack.

They say Kenneth Lay’s (Enron) heart attack was not a suicide, but i’ll always suspect otherwise.

Doesn't everybody pretty much agree that the vast majority of Cosby's tactics have simply been "stall long enough to die at home"?

 kronk wrote:
They say Kenneth Lay’s (Enron) heart attack was not a suicide, but i’ll always suspect otherwise.

Man I know what you mean. I'm not really one for conspiracy theories but I could totally be convinced Ken Lay is still alive in some non-extradition treaty now.

Cosby lived a full and wealthy life. If he had gone down 15-20 years ago it might have had some impact. But at 80 you might as well put him in a care home for the few years of difference it makes. He is too old to be properly sentenced beyond a few years, if he even lives to see a prison cell that is. Not a very satisfying end for his victims, but its at least some measure of justice. What kind of prison can he expect?

Well, it's not all about how much he suffers. For all of the women he raped, it's a sense of closure, of finally being able to tell their story and hearing "I believe you".


it's even enough to sway those people who can look at someone accused by 60 people of rape in the exact same method over decades, and handwave that away unless there was a criminal conviction.

And what's the alternative? You let someone accused by 60 people or rape in the exact same method over decades just go, because they're old?

Nah, I think I'll pass on that one. Too little too late, but still better than nothing.

Wait what? I wasn't suggesting that at all. I'm in the complete die-in-prison camp. I'm not sure how I implied I felt otherwise.

Even if he manages to appeal until he dies of old age, though, at least there is some vindication for his victims. That's what I meant.

 Ouze wrote:
Wait what? I wasn't suggesting that at all. I'm in the complete die-in-prison camp. I'm not sure how I implied I felt otherwise.

Sorry, I was referring to Disciple's post. I agree with you entirely.

I'm saying this is the best possible way it could have played out, because you can't go back in time to make it happen sooner.

 daedalus wrote:
And what's the alternative? You let someone accused by 60 people or rape in the exact same method over decades just go, because they're old?

Nah, I think I'll pass on that one. Too little too late, but still better than nothing.

No of course not. I never meant to imply he should be let go. I'm just saying is his life in prison is going to be all that different from people cooped up in retirement homes 24/7, because lets face it, at 80 you don't tend to be the adventuring type anymore. I also don't assume his going to max sec.

Cosby already had a life most of us can only dream of (minus the horrific rape). He got to 80 without seeing a jailcell. He should most definitely go to prison. I'm just wondering how much he will be punished at that age. It is justice, but it doesn't feel like justice when he could keel over after a month or so.

Yeah, I know. It's a frustrating situation for the victims and for society. I just can't think of anything else that could be done to make it better. Of the two things that could have happened, this is at least the closest to a 'win' we get.

 daedalus wrote:
Yeah, I know. It's a frustrating situation for the victims and for society. I just can't think of anything else that could be done to make it better. Of the two things that could have happened, this is at least the closest to a 'win' we get.

Perhaps a financial settlement to help his victims, I assume something like that might be in the works?

As far as trials go, this is a good outcome, that would be improved upon by a speedy appeal to reduce stalling.

Well, at this point, that'd be pretty good.

Thinking about a person of that age, and trying to put myself in the shoes of a person that age, you don't really have much left at that point. Yeah, you got money, but that counts less at 80 than I think it does younger. The thing I can think of that you'd probably preoccupy yourself with is what you are leaving behind. Assuming you possess any sort of ego at all, the mark you left upon the world is probably something that you spend those years thinking about, at least a little.

In that sense, genuine punishment did occur. He might not live to see it, but the name Cosby is going to be blackened with his actions for at least the span of living memory. That's pretty powerful, particularly when you consider the amount of things his name is attached to.

Well I'm not sure, but I assume he's still leaving behind a boatload of money to his family, who have kept up their support. I mean it is his family, but still dissapointing to see. Will they still make money off his legacy/shows after he dies as well?

I forsee 60 civil suits for damages against his estate. That's why his family are protesting so hard. The gravy train is leaving the station, and they might not be on it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


He took the plea deal admitting he had sex with a 13 year old. He admitted to having sex with a 13 year old. One last time here, he admitted to having sex with a 13 year old girl. A 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So he admitted to raping a 13 year old. Polanski is a child rapist. End of story.

You are arrested charged and offered a plea bargain.

Admit to child rape for a very short plea bargained sentence, with early parole at half that time.
Go to court under the full charge of say inappropriate conduct with a minor which will end up with a sentence three times as long if convicted, and likely no early parole.

As a general rule, whatever you admit to doing under a plea bargain is usually a lower offense than what you would be facing in court.

I am fairly certain that if neither him, nor anybody else, would admit to child rape if he could have a shot at "only" being convicted of inappropriate conduct with a minor together with a shot at being found not-guilty. That's how plea bargains work: If you have a case for Murder, you offer a plea for manslaughter. If you have a case for multiple rapes, you offer a plea for one rape. If you have a case for child rape, you offer a plea for child abuse.

In a plea, everybody gets less than what they want. The prosecutor gets a conviction for a lower crime and a shorter sentence than what they would like, but they are not taking a risk of a "not guilty" in open court. The defendant gets a guilty verdict with a (usually) known sentence, but they are not taking a risk of a "guilty" verdict for more severe charges in open court and are not looking at even longer sentences. Sure, the prosecutor could get a guilty to every single charge they throw at him and send someone to the chair. But they could also watch someone charged with murder walk out of the court room. An innocent person might beat the murder charge in open court, or they might get the death penalty. A plea bargain removes the uncertainty for both parties, with the prosecutor "only" getting a conviction for manslaughter and the defendant "only" going to prison for 20 years.

Polanski admitted to having sex with her, maybe a 13 year old made all the moves and regretted her decision, maybe the victim was really the aggressor, maybe she just regretted her decision, maybe she was asking for it, maybe [insert generic whataboutism argument used in every rape], we don't know the details. But, for what it's worth, we have his admission to the rape. Maybe it was a coerced admission, maybe they had more dirt on him that was ever made public and admitting to one rape was the best case scenario for him, we don't know. But I think all of his complaints against the plea deal was not that he admitted to something he didn't do, it's that the judge didn't hold up his end of the deal. So we can take that for what it's worth.

We don't know, what we know is that he accepted culpability for a misdemeanour crime as benefiting the wristslap sentence in the plea deal. How that misdemeanour offence it labelled is less relevant if the accused is not being tried as a felon.
If the prosecution services had properly charged him with child rape from the outset we would not be having this conversation. Either he would be inside, and out by now, or he would be aquitted. The fact that they did so raises questions about the surity of the evidence.

It is hard to defend someone accused of child sex crimes because I am going against the flow of the mob, but the principle of law has to be the same for everyone. The US legal system offered Polanski a minor sentence for a big label crime. How there is such a thing as misdemeanour child rape is beyond me, but that was the law as it was applied in his case. To remain ethical we have to go by the law, not mob instinct. The law failed and that is that.