—assuming they also ban new church steeples, church bells, carillons, etc.

Seems to me that anything else would fall afoul of the European guarantees of religious freedom and would void the law.

What, they didn't ban steeples, church bells and carillons? This demonstration of Swiss bigotry is surprising, and I don't expect the law to last long.

I'm not saying that what Polanski did was ok. I think it was pretty horrible and he should have been tried for rape. But he wasn't.

He was charged with rape. He wasn't tried for anything. There's only a trial if there is no guilty plea. Obviously you don't understand the criminal justice system--the vast majority of charges, especially first offenses, are resolved with pleas, like it or not, the existing criminal justice system could not exist without them. If I burgle your house and plead guilty to trespass and petite larceny to avoid prison, that doesn't mean there's any question of fact as to whether I am a burglar, and I may well have to admit as much, even though I'm pleading to a couple of minor misdemeanors. There is even less question as to whether Polanski is an admitted rapist; he is.

Now of course you yet again make the irrelevant and ridiculous jump from saying you-believe-that-Polanski-was-atrocious-and-should-have-been-convicted-of-rape-but-he-didn't-plead-to-that-specific-charge-so-we-can't-call-him-a-rapist to your lovely thesis that sex-is-okay-when-she's-ready-for-it-and-I'm-not-saying-Geimer-was-I'm-just-sayin':

"My point is that neither you nor I should decide who is old enough to have sex, but scientists and judges should."

Leaving aside that this is completely irrelevant to Polanski's case or the law in any actual country, I'm glad you think that you should have to have your sexual partners examined by a psychologist, consult with a lawyer, and perhaps seek a declaratory judgment from a judge in advance of having sex with a girl in order to determine whether you would be raping her. Because such a system would not only be much more sensible than the existing one, it would be so much more cautious!

That way you know whether someone is old enough or not. You can disagree with the limit, but you know for sure whether or not someone is old enough or not. An age of consent of "what DKO thinks is old enough" is legally unworkable and leaves persons unable to know whether or not they are breaking the law. Especially with an offense as serious as statutory rape, it is essential to have a bright line rule.

In this case there was no question whatsoever; Polanski did give illegal drugs and alcohol to a girl who was far too young to legally drink and had sex with her when she was far too young legally to consent to sex, and moreover he was middle-aged and she was 13 so there is no question of "Romeo/Juliet" injustice here. He knew the rules and he broke all of them, he plead guilty to conduct that was statutory rape, and she gave uncontroverted testimony that he forcibly raped her (no, pleading to a lesser charge does not in any way imply that he denies that she said no). You can attack the girl and her mother's character all you want (stay classy, folks), but he's a convicted child rapist who fled the country to avoid serving his sentence or contesting his sentence through legal means. There is nothing defensible about that.

If you want to claim that for Polanski to rape a child was understandable and shouldn't have against the law, that's another matter. But it was, he knew it, he admitted to it, he got caught, he plead guilty to it, he didn't serve time only because he was a fugitive, and he is fully responsible for the situation he is in today. There's millions of men incarcerated in American jails and prisons whose cases are more worthy of defense than Polanski, the only reason he is being championed is because of his status.

Because the settlement was complete and confidential. That means both parties signed, not that both parties performed. As of 1996 he hadn't paid.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-paid-samantha-geimer-601583-in-civil-settlement-of-sexual-assault.html

Geimer probably can't talk about his performance under the settlement terms, certainly doesn't want to discuss it based on her statements, nor can she sue him in an American court to enforce the settlement while he was a fugitive at large in France and could not be served. There's no way to know if he has paid since 1996.

You can't point out where Polanski went on the record and "diverged" in his account, because he didn't.

Secondly your opinion is irrelevant because legally the child is incapable of consent and it the charge that he plead to, while not rape, is identical to statutory rape under the facts of the indictment; he admitted to sex with a 13 year old girl which is statutory rape. It's not even close. Leeandra and Transition Girl are correct that a 13-year-old is not fully developed and is certainly mentally fully a child, whether or not she is sexually experienced, and Polanski was a middle-aged man plying her with drugs and alcohol. In an alternate universe where she was ready willing and eager that might not have been rape in the Netherlands but that was certainly rape in Califoria at the time and place that Polanski raped her.