Is this in reference to the rape or running?

I'm saying it was the seventies in Los Angeles, a time and place that was extremely loose and experimental and had an anything goes atmosphere about it, especially in the circles in which Polanski traveled. You read any biography or memoir or historical reference to the time and place and you see it was just not anything that the majority of us would even have a passing acquaintance with. I'm not using it as an excuse for now but rather for the attitudes and mores of that particular time and place. I'm not saying they were right, they just were.

the attitudes and mores of that particular time and place.

I feel incredibly parochial even saying this, but I have a very hard time believing that even among the Hollywood beautiful people in the anything-goes 1970s, that drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl who repeatedly said "No" would be an accepted more.

I heard the NPR piece just now on All Things Considered about Polanski. It did not diminish my rage.

I'm saying it was the seventies in Los Angeles, a time and place that was extremely loose and experimental and had an anything goes atmosphere about it, especially in the circles in which Polanski traveled. You read any biography or memoir or historical reference to the time and place and you see it was just not anything that the majority of us would even have a passing acquaintance with. I'm not using it as an excuse for now but rather for the attitudes and mores of that particular time and place. I'm not saying they were right, they just were.

I don't understand what you're saying here. The relevant information isn't the mores of his social circle, but the laws of the state.

It's okay, Steph, you went to parochial *school*! (Right?)

I'm saying it was the seventies in Los Angeles, a time and place that was extremely loose and experimental and had an anything goes atmosphere about it, especially in the circles in which Polanski traveled.

Just to be clear here, it wasn't consensual sex that people are calling rape because of the statute. He forced vaginal and anal sex on a 13 year old who was saying no, who he had given champagne and qaaludes. I don't think a western culture in the 20th century finds forcible sex of an adolescent "ok."

You read any biography or memoir or historical reference to the time and place and you see it was just not anything that the majority of us would even have a passing acquaintance with. I'm not using it as an excuse for now but rather for the attitudes and mores of that particular time and place.

I guess this might explain why Polanski ran, or thought he could get away with it, but it doesn't, for me, mean that he shouldn't be punished for something that was clearly wrong.

Nope, no sympathy or pass or anything for that guy.

There are plenty of people who commit crimes who have the money and connections to free the country and stay gone. That's the only "very similar case" that is relevant.

With the addenda of the victim saying "I consider it resolved." Then you have a very similar case. If the victim is saying "Nail the bastard already", it's not a similar case.

I, for one, don't believe in one size fits all justice. But I also know this is an imperfect world where all the judges and lawyers are not honorable people.

It's okay, Steph, you went to parochial *school*!

Man, I walked right into that one.

(Right?)

You betcha!