Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.We live in a country where, during a death row case, a judge and a prosecutor neglected to inform anyone that they'd been screwing for years. We live in a country where an innocent man was murdered by the state on the basis of hoodoo science. And people are obsessing over some dude who raped a kid?
I really don't want to hear anymore lecturing from the French about the hijab. You're defending a child rapist.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Nope. You are not missing a damn thing, my friend.
What you are perhaps forgetting is that once a young girl looks hot, she is considered, at least by Western cultural implication, fair game. A score, if you will.
Oh my God this shit makes me so mad.
Likewise. I'm so angry about this. And then there's someone in the Salon comments who claims to be a survivor (and may well be, for all I know) who claims that bringing Polanski to justice is a horrible thing because it will remind the victim of her rape. Well, whose fault is that? Personally, I hold the asshole who fled from justice responsible.
Watching celebrities falling all over themselves to defend him, or "pointing out the irregularities in his case", potentially alienating their "fans" seems to generate a bit of Schadenfreude at least....
I mean, Whoopi... come on!
Sometimes I understand why people complain about "West Coast elites." Because seriously, what are these people smoking?
@Persia: They really do live in a completely different world from us. You have to tilt your head a little bit sideways and then you can kinda see what they are talking about - but it's still batshit crazy.
Same deal with politicians - just a different tilt.
Kudos to the Swiss for arresting him.
What's interesting to me is that he and his friends think he has "suffered" enough. Has he done anything to suggest that he understands that he has done wrong? Thomas Harris points out in the NYT that the recent documentary Wanted and Desired stirred the mess up again and blames the prosecutor for being upset that the state's handling of the case is being criticized, but is Polanski not also guilty of stirring it up by trying to redeem himself not by public service or good deeds, but by making himself out to be the victim? His apologists argue that everyone is the victim but Polanski: the girl's mother (and for God's sake, THAT's supposed to excuse it?); the prosecutors; the Swiss for changing their minds about harboring a criminal; the Nazis for the Holocaust. Nowhere is Polanski admitting his guilt. And this wasn't something he did in a cloudy haze. He drugged the girl. He left the country and stayed away when he might have returned and put this behind him years ago. Perhaps part of the misconduct of the judge resulted to some degree from Polanski's lack of contrition. His admission of his guilt was part of a deal, not seemingly an understanding that he did not actually have the right to do to the girl whatever he wanted, and his anger now seems connected to the fact that he cannot travel freely across state borders when he has been convicted of a violent crime.
I am quite unable to figure out just what this alleged "suffering" consisted of. Living in a bunch of expensive homes in Europe? Europe is quite a nice place, especially if you have money. Winning awards is pleasant too.
My sympathy for this felon is everything it should be.
I feel sick to my stomach. Thanks for pulling this back to reality, TNC.
I mean, really.
Did we need a blow by blow description of child rape? I guess TNC would have posted pictures or video if he'd had them too.
Considering there are people on this very thread who claimed not to be sure that Polanski really raped the girl? I'd say it's necessary.
Man, don't even get me started on this...
Since my own comments have, quite appropriately, twice been blocked by TNC's spam filter, I'll outsource this to the good folks at the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/polanski_arrested_on_31_year_old
You're not missing anything. He's not a good person. But he's a brilliant filmmaker, and people appreciate that. The Pianist is, IMO, one of the 10 best films of the decade.
It's the Michael Jackson problem - how to deal with people who have done horrible things, but have also given us wonderful things. How do we deal with it? I don't mean legally. I mean within our own minds. Many people find it very hard to simply hold the two notions in their mind at the same time, and feel the need to either damn him or praise him. I don't think we need to do anything more than recognize both the good and the bad, but I guess some do.
I don't know. I loved Mike's music. But I didn't think that meant he shouldn't be tried, or punished, if convicted. One can be a brilliant artist, and a repellent person at the same time.
Absolutely. Of course Polanski should be tried. He raped a kid, for crying out loud. But I feel like we are socially forced into one of two camps. It's either "He's a brilliant artist" *OR* "he's a piece of crap who should be tried".
It seems to me he's clearly both. The French authorities in question are pretty repellent to me, but I also don't like people who simply dismiss Polanski's art on the basis of his personal crimes. Polanksi, like all of us, is the sum of his parts. And that sum doesn't often make a clean whole. Take him for all in all.
Further on being both: What if one is dependent on the other? What if being a piece of crap is what makes him a brilliant artist? Or that which is inherent to being a brilliant artist, particularly in celebrity culture, is what makes him a piece of crap.
He's a piece of crap whose already been tried. There is a difference. There is already a guilty verdict in the case.
The problem with that is that there are, contrary to popular belief, great artists who aren't amoral fools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/garden/03doctorow.html
I don't know what demons haunt Doctorow--but they don't seem to be any worse than the ones stalking me. Suffice to say he isn't a child rapist.
Sorry, my reply was for Hicks.
The problem with that is that there are, contrary to popular belief, great artists who aren't amoral fools.
The problem with what? Recognizing Polanski is a great artist? He just is. Of course some artists are great people and some are scum. They are people.
This reply button is screwing everything up. Sorry DY.
@TNC, indeed. But for those particular people, I think, one is what makes the person the other. For example, there are lawyers who I work with who will wait until the very last minute to draft something really important, like a motion for summary judgment and it turns out brilliantly. Their procrastination is what makes them brilliant. For other lawyers, not so much.
And I think fourth tier responses aren't available here.
Not just tried, Polanski was CONVICTED. He is not a suspect here, but someone who was found guilty and fled before serving his jail sentence. Thanks TNC for posting on this. I've been so upset with all the news that ignores this fact.
I think the huge difference here is that POLANSKI WAS FOUND GUILTY. Woody Allen is in a similar boat, but, as in MJ's case, he was never FOUND GUILTY of raping a 13-year-old. And MJ, when he was faced with charges, went to trial and emerged victorious. Polanski, by contrast, fled the country. That's a no-no.
P.S. I didn't care for The Pianist, though it's in large part because I have young children and prefer my movies under two hours. Chinatown, however, was excellent. Jack Nicholson is brilliant.
The distinction between legal guilt and innocence isn't really important when it comes to forming our personal impressions, is it? At least it really shouldn't be, to me. We all have to make up our own minds as to whether someone is worthy of our respect. All I'm saying is that whatever one thinks of Polanksi (or Jackson or Allen) as a person, we should resist the urge to carry that condemnation or adulation over to their art. It stands apart.
To me the legal distinction matters a lot because if the case didn't hold up in court, I'm more likely to be skeptical. I know the bare outlines of these things; if you can't convince a jury that anything happened then maybe nothing did. I suspect Jackson might have been a molester but I really don't know--I'm sure he was deeply confused about relating to people in general, including women and children, so I never found the sleepover defense easy to dismiss. In Polanski's case he confessed to an awful crime, and the defense for running is not "I actually didn't do anything but lost my head and confessed" but "I would have to go to jail--ick!"
I totally agree. Celebrities being acquitted or never being tried for their crimes is only partially explained by having a high priced attorney who can manufacture reasonable doubt. It is also about some kind of collective worship of those who are perceived to be brilliant or extraordinarily talented or gifted. These people definitely live in a different world when it comes to justice and that world is largely supported by the very law abiding citizens who would tell you that they support equality with respect to justice.
I've seen a lot of movies in my day and I like the work of Roman Polanski, especially "Chinatown." However, there are a lot of "brilliant" directors out there and if Polanski had gone to prison for raping a child, as he should have, western civilization would have done just fine without the movies he directed. And the sun would have continued to rise in the east and set in the west.
There is no defense for this man and he should pay for his crime just like anyone else would have to, regardless of his age.
I think that Bitter Moon cancels out The Pianist. Hell, I think it's worht a life sentence all on its own.
If they start convicting people for making bad movies, we could not afford to build the prisons.
I say we lock up Michael Bay.
Ratner can be his cell-mate
@Hicks & Dan W:
Someone needs to write that webcomic.
I'm perplexed by the defense of Polanski. It's literally playing devil's advocate.
But there's one sloppy portion in the article you linked:
I've found newspaper comments to be intemperate, ill-informed, and disproportionately Conservative. Philadelphia went big for Barack Obama, but you'd never know it from the comments on philly.com. I would only use them as a barometer of the crackpot community, not public opinion.
P.S. This story reminds me of the controversy and difficulties of getting Ira Einhorn extradited.
Wow, this Applebaum column really is as bad as Harding claims:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
Talk about the punishment not fitting the crime!
Yeah, the Applebaum column is repellent. These people really do believe in a two-tier justice system.
Wow, just wow. She even manages to drag the the fact that Polanski's parents were Holocaust survivors into it. I honestly have to say that I don't know if I can take her seriously after this ... I'm really speechless.
As kilks mentions, her own connection to the situation would be worth mentioning. His "punishment" can't be that he is Polish and that Polish people (and him personally) have suffered in recent history, I mean that is possibly the most weak-kneed criminal defense presented seriously that I have ever read. So much for her writings against the evils of gulags and communism...
As mentioned above, there was a testified crime, a confession and a guilty verdict, and a skipping of bail. This would all be still a crimine if committed in Poland or France. Like TNC says, what am I missing?
I'm going to have a very hard time taking anything she writes seriously-- or at face value-- again.
She also forgot to disclose the small matter that her husband is Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for the release of Polanski in Switzerland.
http://www.msz.gov.pl/Minister,of,Foreign,Affairs,Radoslaw,Sikorski,13614.html
That would be the 'at face value' part of the comment, yeah.
@ kilks~ wow. Yeah, she should have just given him the byline.
Appelbaum should lose her column - and whatever credibility she has as a commentator - on the basis of this. It's a total violation of anything resembling journalistic ethics, which are best summarized as "I don't care if you're fucking the elephant, as long as you're not covering the circus" (attributed to Abe Rosenthal and, I have to admit, I just read that in some other blog's comments in the context of a discussion about reporters and blogging - which Applebaum's editor has "outlawed" because the WaPo is such a bastion of integrity - and fell in love with the line. Also, apparently according to the same commenter, once long ago, the Times music critic told his editor he wanted to campaign for Henry Wallace, and the editor's response was, "That's fine with me, as long as you don't claim he's a better pianist than Paderewski!")
No, you haven't missed anything. Some people stay in jail when the evidence used to convict them has been overturned, and for others we hear "He's suffered enough--the poor man couldn't even come to collect his Oscar."
Normal people--like those in this thread--don't have the option of jetting off to multiple homes in Europe if we fear that a court ruling might go in a direction we don't like. We have to take the court ruling, go to jail if that's the sentence, and fight it out in appeals court. Polanski should have done that; this would all be long over and we'd be saying he did his time. The only reason it's biting him 30 years later is that He Broke The Law When He Ran, And The Law Applies Even If You're A Director.
If it was tax evasion or something I could maybe understand the sympathy, but the drugging and oral, vaginal, and anal rape of a child?!!
My daughter is 13.
Oh, but Polanski is white and rich and talented. And he has suffered so much. He had a tragic childhood and his wife was tragically murdered. So of course he should get off free and clear for raping a minor and then fleeing the country.
Lord knows no one in prison has had a tragic childhood or a difficult life or an unfair trial. No one in prison has talent or skills.
I realize that these issues can be complicated, but one thing is clear in this case. He skipped town, which is breaking the law. If he wants to plead for the mercy of the court or be acquitted of both crimes, he is welcome to man up and face the justice system like thousands of people with fewer resources do every day.
The extent of my knowledge about this issue is two hours following some links. but it reminds me of certain political disagreements.
Harding says we know that Polanski raped a child. Others say that we do not know that. They claim that all we know is that he cut a deal with the prosecutor.
I don't particularly care, myself: I'll reserve my outrage for horrors closer to home, which garner fewer headlines. But I find it fascinating when people cannot agree on what constitutes reality.
Others say that we do not know that.
Except that Polanski himself admitted to it, and pled guilty. He didn't skip the trial, he skipped the sentencing.
Yeah, I know that, and you know that. Have you checked his defenders? They insist he pled guilty even though he didn't commit the crime, because of some prosecutorial threat or something, and they say there's no evidence other than his confession, etc.
It's a completely different set of assumptions.
His victim, who says she just wants the whole thing to go away, has never retracted her statement. But of course she never directed an Oscar-winning movie, so she has no credibility. (I'm not attacking you, here, just to be clear.)
Sorry for having to ask, but I'm especially dense this morning: who's the victim of hoodoo science?
Cameron Todd Willingham, executed by the state of Texas.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/142318/texas_executed_an_innocent_man/
Here's a serious question though, something I think everyone should be grappling with:
Aren't there times when someone's art really does outweigh their crimes? I understand we can't build a rule around this, and we never ever should. But take the greatest artist you can think of - Michalangelo, Beethoven, Harper Lee. Whoever you like the most. And imagine that tomorrow you find out that when that person was 20 years old they got away with some despicable crime. Aren't we better off that person was never punished? Would the world really be a better place if that great artist was jailed or executed, and we were forever deprived of their art?
Like I said I'm not at all advocating for any change in the rules, nor does this have anything to do with Polanksi. It's just something I think about, because as much as everyone (including me) is repulsed by certain crimes, nothing is ever black and white.
No, there are no times when someone's art outweighs their crimes, even the greatest of arts.
Imagine civilization without the work of the artists you named or any other artist and you still have civilization. There would have been someone else.
You need to remember that throughout time there have been countless numbers of very brilliant, talented, and gifted people whose potential and contributions were not realized, for whatever reason.
But you still have civilization even with unaccounted for crimes, no?
That's correct. But when someone is caught, they are supposed to be tried and if convicted they are supposed to be punished.
Criminals will escape justice, most definitely. But exonerating a particular class because of their extraordinary contributions to the culture is unnecessary. No one has ever done anything that either could not have been done by someone else or was not vital to the survival of mankind.
Seriously, name one instance. Some people might say Jesus Christ but I won't go there.
Most people in the world do not actually get to enjoy the work of those great artists. Mostly as a result of their own sloth and ignorance I admit.
Still justice seems much more important to me than art which will be ignored by most people.
Well not to be utterly crass, but even less people are effect by an unpunished crime than are exposed to Beethoven, no? I don't think the numbers game really helps solve this problem.
You may not be affected by a single instance of an unpunished crime but you are most definitely affected by a system of justice that excuses the crimes of certain people based on class.
@DY: Well, that person who wasn't punished might commit more crimes, and if people see that there are no negative consequences to a crime, they might commit more of them. I would also say that one person being raped is creating far more damage/pain than can be countered by even many people enjoying a painting or a piece of music. Shall we try calculating total amount of pain versus total amount of happiness? Besides, I think people have a right to not ever have to experience rape. I don't think people have an inherent right to enjoy someone else's music.
Well in this respect I tend to think about Jay-Z. I know that as a drug dealer, he ruined people's lives. I know he probably stabbed at least one person. Has done a lot of illegal and probably violent stuff. I still love the guy's music, and I think it's been really beneficial for me to help understand a life I and so many people will never know. I tend to really admire the public figure he is now.
First part is, I think it's always worth separating the art from the artist as much as possible. Secondly, I just let justice system work as best as possible, and art should never excuse justice. Art is really just potential, anyway, it's how the world reacts to it that's often more important.
Here's where that road leads: "How many anally raped 13 year old children is the Piano worth?" If one's okay, how about two? Five? It may sound glib, but that's the kind of math we'd be getting into.
Exactly this. And it's not like artists haven't made great work in or after jail. "The Ballad of Reading Gaol" comes to mind, and that really was a bullshit charge that ruined a man's life.
Although Wilde himself had sex with boys in their mid-teens.
thank you janindm.
Damn Yankees, you are surely playing devil's advocate here. I hope you are, b/c otherwise you should really sit down with your nearest thirteen year old relative (boy or girl) and ask yourself, "Really? Did I really just ask such a dumb question?"
I'm glad to see general agreement on this issue. Thusfar, anyway.
The only aspect that gives me some pause here is the forgiveness/comments of the victim (who, for the record, settled a civil suit against Polanski - not sure what one wants to read into that, but that is a matter of record).
We have the right to say there are some crimes that require punishment regardless of passage of time - and almost everyone would agree statutory rape is one of them. If the crime had been, say, battery against paparazzi maybe less so.
But I'm equally not sure that having the victim relive this experience for a court (ie if there were some type of retrial) is justice either.
One other hypothetical - what if Michael Jackson had been found guilty in his trial involving a minor and was on the lamb for years then arrested. Do we think Hollywood would be rallying around him like Roman Polanski? I just can't see that.
Just FYI Polanksi is already convicted. There's no need for a trial - he plead guilty. He's just avoiding jail.
Correct - he pled guilty. However this extract from NY Times below indicates he may have some rights to reopen the case on a claim of judicial misconduct. I don't claim to be an expert in judicial process but seems he has some ability to reopen the case. What the merits of his arguments are I don't know.
A July ruling by that appellate court has opened the door to a potentially volatile round of arguments as early as next month over whether lawyers for Mr. Polanski should be permitted, even without the director’s presence in the courtroom, to show that the case against him was tainted.
Well considering the plea agreement is to a far lesser charge than the one he would receive if he were to actually go to trial, if he wants to withdraw his plea agreement, then by all means, come back and we'll have a trial.
My vague understanding of his argument is that the judge approved the plea bargain and then changed his mind and rejected it (please correct if this is wrong!). Or that the judge was ABOUT to do so. This could roll either of two ways legally - either the agreement is binding, and the judge can't retract his approval, and polanski's bargain stands. Or, the plea bargain is rejected and void, in which case Polanski can retract his guilty plea and go to trial, or try to negotiate another plea bargain.
Either way, Polanski's rights haven't been trampled. No defendant is entitled to a particular plea bargain, or any plea bargain at all. The prosecutor could have refused to bargain, and put Polanski on trial for rape. Nor is any defendant entitled to trial before a judge who thinks he's not a total scumbag (there would have to be factual grounds for a claim of bias, e.g. the judge is friends with the victim's family, or as TNC notes, is screwing the prosecutor).
I don't think they were afraid the judge was going to reject the plea to the lesser charge. I think the fear was that the judge was going to reject the sentencing recommendation attached to the plea agreement. The crime that he pleaded guilty to had a potential penalty of up to 20 years. My understanding of plea agreements is that the judge is not bound, even upon accepting the plea, to follow the sentencing recommendations of the state, and can instead apply the maximum penalty at his own discretion.
It is interesting that you link this with two death penalty cases. One of the things that hasn't been fleshed out is that we don't have solid extradiction treaties with much of the civilized world because we continue to execute prisoners. And so the process is more convoluded to send a criminal back to the United States, so that we are left with this intolerable situation.
But when we live with a justice system that so flagrantly gives us anything but, why are we surprised when other countries are reluctant to submit their citizens to it?
And as to Guster's point, we do have a guilty verdict in a court of law. We know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this crime occurred.
While we know that pleading guilty might technically mean that we know someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that is not always the case. There have been cases of people pleading guilty to a crime that they were later exonerated of. I'm not talking about this case in particular, but this has happened in cases of false confessions.
I don't have a problem with child molesters getting the death penalty.
Wait, that wasn't where you were going was it? :)
Please - anybody show me where Polanski was charged with rape? The 13.95 year old girl admitted at the time that everything was consensual. In the US his rape charges where dropped and he pleaded guilty only for unlawful sexual intercourse which is not rape. Is this just a detail?
Now - either we do not believe the girl and Polanski or we assume that she was too young to understand the difference between free-will, real consent and being pressured into an uncomfortable situation. If we make such claims - we will also need, eventually, some prove.
I have to admit that the average age in Europe where girls and boys experiment with drugs and sex and also older acquaintances has declined from 16 to 14. My first big love, who I'd met when I was almost 18, had been together with a a guy 15 years older since the age of 14.5. She'd been smoking since 14. In fact - there is an infamous, disgusting joke circling Europe's youth: "What is so great about 13 year old girls? You can turn them around and use them as a boy." I am not sure if the joke is Polanski inspired or vice versa.
I recall my own thinking when I was only 15. Oh boy, I can't wait to get old so that I can impress all the young pretty girls with my cars and drugs. It never worked out for me - as I grew older so did my partners of choice. But I can see how some people stay young at heart. Maybe too young.
But maybe I am wrong here. Maybe it was rape and nor unlawful sexual intercourse and there is prove for it. Before labeling somebody rapist - show me the facts or at least the suspicions. Who knows more than the US justice system or the girl in question herself?
PS: Since relativism has been included in the discussion... Here is something that people should go to prison and hell for indefinitely and nothing ever happens. The whole world only makes fun of it.
PS II: I actually know of some animals who would voluntarily want to have sex with humans. They are often younger than 5 years old. Would that be worse than locking them up for life so that they cannot move around, never see daylight and have to sleep in their own shit? We, the French and the Americans, do this to them for fun, taste and entertainment only and for no other reason. What is illegal is not always bad and what is legal is, as today, often unspeakable.
It's worth checking out the victim's grand jury testimony, at the time. Leaving aside the age difference, this really doesn't look consensual.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
Yeah. I know. There's no such thing as conscensual sex between a 43 year old man and a 13 year old (that's why we have what is called the age of consent), but according to her statements at the time she actually said no at every step of the game. Even as she was drugged and drunk. He was lucky to receive the plea bargain.
Consensual? A 13 year old, even a 14 year old, even at the time, could not legally consent. A person who has been drugged can't legally consent. So there was( legally) no consent. Second, to quote from the Salon.com article:
So even if she was 18, it would still be rape.
My point is that it is really worse to really rape an 80 year old woman than to have consensual sex with somebody underaged. I am reading through the Smoking Gun archives that Ta-Nehisi has posted to get my own opinion. Sounds as if he lured her but that is not the same as Michael Vick throwing his family dog into the ring!
No matter what - it is interesting to note that in contrast to the Michael Jackson cases - the girl and the family did not press for charges. There are no rape charges on the table and yet we are all using that word as a proven fact. Not good?
PS: Must read: Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Ape societies are interesting. Chimps, Orangutans and Gorillas rape like hell (they also represent tyrannical or oligarchical societies). More than 1/3 of all births are rape based. With humans it has been historically far less. Human's closest living relatives genetically and psychologically speaking are the bonobos (they represent egalitarian democracies where men and women are equal).
Bonobos rape even less than humans - like never. But there is one strange difference to most other apes among the bonobos - who also seem to be the most intelligent and by far the most peaceful. When it comes to sex - anything goes. Everybody can screw anybody. Same sex - no problem. Children before puppetry - no problem but the norm. The Ancient Greeks as we know followed more the bonobos when it comes to sex, creativity, peacefulness and democracy. Underaged boys were often taught about sex by... never mind. The point is that there can be a big difference between rape and sex with underaged people.
He would have been charged with child rape. The girl was under the age of consent, and as her statement reads, said 'No' every step of the way. That is to say, not only was she incapable of giving legal consent, she literally resisted, but he overpowered her. But, seeing as she was under the age of consent, that's rape anyway.
What he pleaded to was a lesser charge that the victim's family requested that the state accept so as to not force the child into the limelight in a trial.
Legally, if he did what he admitted to doing, he raped her. If he did what she said he did, he raped her. If he comes back and withdraws his plea, he will be charged with rape.
You can't really have just argued that we should act more like animals, right?
The point is that that's not what's going on here. He raped an underage girl. It's both. If you have an issue with our society's treatment of sex with younger people and the age of consent, that's fine, but that's not what Roman Polanski did. He pled guilty to a lesser charge as part of a plea bargain, and then fled the country before he could be sentenced.
Sex before puppetry? After puppetry, sure...I'm willing to keep an open mind. But not before puppetry. No, never. I shan't hear of it.
No sex before puppetry!
"The Ancient Greeks as we know followed more the bonobos when it comes to sex, creativity, peacefulness and democracy"
Oh man, do you know anything about history? The ancient greeks were constantly at war, with each other and with other civilizations. Peacful they were not. I mean, even if you didn't know anything about history, you could have gotten that information by watching "300"?
I could go on about factual errors in your post (if a girl says no, and continues to say it, it's rape, dumbass, not "luring" her) but it really isn't worth it.
The age of consent in California in 1977--and today--is 18. A cursory glance at the state's statutory rape laws make it clear that what he committed (and what he admitted to committing) was a felony.
This argument reminds me of the one people trot out on R. Kelly's behalf, when they tend to blame the "fast ass" girls who were dumb enough to believe he was going to hook them up with a career and a Coach purse. Even IF the sex was consensual--which is a HUGE stretch, considering the amount of drugs and alcohol Polanski pumped into her before going in--guess what? He's still an adult in a position of power, which would still make him wrong. This is why statutory rape laws are in place.
We don't trust 13 year-olds to vote, drive, or smoke because they do not have the maturity or intellectual capability to handle those responsibilities. How on earth should it be ok for them to have "consensual" sex with someone twice their age?
I stand corrected: the age of consent was 16 then. But the point still stands.
You're on shaky ground whenever you start using fractions to make a 13 year old seem closer to 14. A grown man going after a teenager is pure predatory behavior -- he could not have gotten away with the same shit with someone his own age without a lot more drugs.
Ok. I read the whole Smoking Gun thing. I think all 18 pages. The sex does not sound consensual. The girl admits not showing her true rejections because she was afraid of him. That must be awful and I hope that this has not been used against her. But I also learned that she had, at the age of 13, already had alcohol, drugs and sex before with other men. She did not reject to the alcohol or the drugs in this case either. Still - I am now more inclined to think that it was a from of rape rather than just unlawful conduct.
PS: For the record and as I have pointed out in my first post: No, I don't like the smell of this either. Commenters who read "Hugo Pottisch supports rape" have not understood my point.
Unless a woman (or girl) has a history of filing false rape charges, her sexual history should be irrelevant.
So being statutorily raped earlier means that the next guy(s) get a free pass? Since when is the victim's virginity or lack thereof proof of rape?
As for "The girl admits not showing her true rejections because she was afraid of him" and "She did not reject to the alcohol or the drugs in this case either," that isn't quite what is in the report. And she objected but not to the point of trying to beat him up and flee--she cried and said no and did what this much older man ordered her to. That is what children do. That is why we have an age of consent. People look at child abduction and rape cases and ask "why didn't that child flee when left alone in the apartment 3 months later?" and the answer is because they are children. A 13 year old being ordered to do stuff by a 45 year old will react differently than a 23 year old getting the same orders. "Golly gee willikers I thought all those 13 year olds was 23! Every one of em. And when they said 'no' and 'stop' and 'please let me go' I figgered they was bein' playful!" Sound like an okay rape defense to you? Being drastically far off in your age estimation of your partner might be sincere but it does NOT buy you a free rape card.
Hugo-- please be ashamed for this line of thinking. Just because a 13 year old girl has not been properly supervised and protected by her parents and family, and has been in situations earlier in which she was exposed to drugs, alcohol and sex, does not give Roman Polanski free rein to have his way with her. Even if she consented, which she did not, he would be at fault.
She was an improperly supervised young teen, seemingly used or neglected by her parents as well as Polanski. I cannot imagine leaving my 13 year old alone with a strange 45 year old man. i hope one of the outcomes of the case was family counseling; that girl needed someone to watch over her.
But I also learned that she had, at the age of 13, already had alcohol, drugs and sex before with other men.
None of which is relevant here.
Not only teetotaling virgins can be raped.
That's simply wrong. She did not say that everything was consensual. Read her statement. She said "no" at every point. Even if we were to disregard her age, it's still rape because she said no and never consented.
What's really troubling me? The number of stars coming out on his behalf. I don't care how great a filmmaker he is; he still used his resources and influence to avoid serving his sentence, never giving ANY thought to the damage he caused that teenage girl. Fuck his feelings. I feel more for the victim who has to relive this ordeal--one more time--under the public gaze.
Hugo, the girl didn't give her consent. She was drugged with alcohol and a Quaalude. A 13-year-old under the influence of alcohol and Quaaludes isn't capable of making rational decisions.
Anyway, she testified to the grand jury that she said no multiple times.
Kate Harding did some wonderful work, clarifying the issue very well.
Too bad Roman wasn't home while Sharon was away...
Isn't there another argument for this case to be dropped? Not the fact that he is a famous filmmaker, because that's irrelevant.
Has the statue of limitations not lapsed? After all, this happened over 32 years ago. Another person, a nobody like any of us, would maybe meanwhile have been exhonorated, because of the statue of limitations.
But precisely because Polanski is so famous and successfull, a DA has been on his tail for all this time, making sure the international warrant was up to date.
In all Western justice systems, the application of justice seams to work like a lottery. Some people get indicted, others don't. Some people get convicted, other cases get thrown out because the justice system is just too overburdened.
Nope. He was charged at the time, and tried at the time. It's not like they're trying to charge him 20 years later.
No statute of limitations on the rape of a minor in most jurisdictions.
My understanding is that as a technical legal matter the statute of limitations doesn't apply here - The statute of limitations is how long the prosecutor has until filing charges. Here charges were filed, and he pled guilty to a charge but fled before sentencing so he can't use statute of limitations as a defense.
This is correct. Furthermore the statute of limitations is tolled for certain things. Fleeing the jurisdiction is one of them.
Also I believe the clock stops when you leave the country.
The statute of limitations applies to when cases can be brought. So if he had never been tried for this case, then yes, the statute would apply. He has been convicted and fled before sentencing. It is a key difference. And fleeing sentencing is itself a crime, at least here.
He put his penis inside a 13 year old girl's vagina and anus against her will. He's got to brought before a court and tried for it.
That could be the catch though, I think. I don't know enough about the law to really get what's what here, but it seems there's at least a good possibility that Polanski's trial was marred by judicial/prosecutorial malpractice (or whatever the lawyerly word is) and, while that doesn't in any way change/excuse/erase/etc his actions, we need the people on the law enforcement end of things to follow their own rules. Whether they're dealing with someone who raped a kid or not.
I hear that. But the fugitive doesn't get to set the terms of the justice system. He pled guilty; if there are grounds for appeal, he can seek them from within the system the same as everyone else.
This. Most people wrongly convicted don't get to flee to another country and live the high life.
Thank you. Polanski may be guilty as hell, but whether or not someone is a wealthy famous director or a poor person with a 6th grade education, if there's judicial misconduct, it should make it much more difficult and in certain cases, impossible to prosecute that person. That judicial misconduct happens more often to the latter is not a valid reason to overlook it when it happens to the former.
It's not a question of whether he 'may' be guilty as hell. He is guilty as hell. He's admitted as much. He left the country because he pleaded guilty to a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison, and was afraid the RECOMMENDATION of leniancy in the plea agreement would not be followed.
It is very difficult for me to see misconduct as the main issue when he already pled guilty and was awaiting sentencing. However he can persue his misconduct claims like everyone else. Within the system. He can make a motion to withdraw his plea for starters. However all these options require his presence. This is not an unreasonable expectation on the justice systems part.
I keep hearing people bring up judicial misconduct, but what exactly was the misconduct? As far as I can tell, it was that he talked about the case to someone that he wasn't supposed to talk about it to. I've seen that the judge wasn't gonna abide by the plea deal, but it was within his rights to do so. Was there more to it than that? Cause that's some pretty weak sauce to lay a judicial misconduct rap on.
As far as I know, that was it.
I don't want to be seen as defending Polanski hear, but I have to take issue with one thing Kate Harding writes:
"Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial"
I don't think his great movies should weigh in at all to how we judge this situation, but I absolutely care what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial. That matters to me. If the judge did something unlawful or unethical, then that should be a factor in how he's treated right now. People can do terrible things but that doesn't mean they aren't all entitled to fair treatment in a court of law.
I agree. I think with this case, there's a tendency to fall back on the stereotype that the rich and famous can evade justice. But if you look at how the legal case played out, it's not as black and white as that.
For instance:
Except for Polanski and the judge, who's dead, Zenovich was able to interview all the key players, including the girl, Samantha Geimer, now a 44-year-old blond mother of three; the straight-arrow Mormon prosecutor Roger Gunson, and, speaking for the first time, Polanski's craggy and distinguished defense attorney, Douglas Dalton. Looking back, they all agree that the showboating judge and the media circus cost the defendant a fair day in court.
Harding's piece seems to have struck a chord with people who are sick of hearing about how Polanski is a great man, has suffered enough, etc., etc. And I can't blame them for that, because many of those arguments are nonsense. (When I saw one of Polanski's friends being interviewed on TV, I thought to myself, "Do you really think you're doing him any favors?"). But, ultimately, I think Harding just comes down on the other side of an oversimplified argument, which obscures the failings of the justice system in this case.
I'd echo other commenters here who've said that while I think Polanski is guilty, I'm not convinced the standards of justice were met in this case.
So 30 years ago, if the judge had refused the plea bargain, Roman Polanski would have appealed the verdict. And possibly won. That's how it works for everyone else, and he certainly had the financial resources to appeal. A special standard for people wealthy enough to flee to Europe isn't much different from a special standard for famous directors.
When I hear about judicial abuse I don't think "gosh darn I wish that defendent had just taken off for Switzerland."
Deborah, you're responding to an argument I'm not making. I never stated that I think it was right or fair for Polanski to flee. Nor do I think there should be different standards of justice for different people.
When the standards of justice are not met, you appeal. Polanski had money for lawyers. He wasn't going to death row. The judge might be a jerk is not a valid excuse, any more than the other excuses offered.
If the plea was refused he'd go to trial for his crime. That really doesn't rise to the level of something so unusual that it justifies evading trial and jail, even if you're thereby forced to evade the Oscars too.
Maybe I need to be more clear. I am not making the argument that you seem to be ascribing to me. Again, I do not think Polanski was justified in anything he did. Nor do I think any potential miscarriage of justice excuses his behavior, or that he should now be allowed to go free. I have no sympathy for Polanski here.
What troubles me is that in the discussion of Polanski's case, there are many people who don't give a whit whether or not he was treated fairly, because he is guilty of a crime. I believe quite strongly that the integrity of the legal system depends on everyone - even those guilty of odious crimes - receiving a fair day in court. In the quote that Matt cites above, Harding lumps the fact that Polanski's legal proceedings may have been tainted in with other truly irrelevant details about his life and career. I find that problematic. That's all I was trying to say, and it's quite a different point from the one you're suggesting I've made.
OK, if the standards of justice were not met in this case for whatever reason, Mr. Polanski can pursue his remedies on appeal. That's what we have appeals courts for.
I think Hugo Pottisch's comments and Whoopi Goldberg's argument that it wasnt "rape-rape" signal a kind of tolerance for sexual assault of women once they enter puberty or become "hot." Because the girl was modeling there is in some people's minds a kind of invited objectification. The girl acting older than 13 or taking the Quaalude that Polanski gave her to set the rape in motion, in no way excused Polanski's actions. If you view the film "Deliver Us from Evil" a documentary about the priest sex abuse scandal in California there is a similar attitude towards female victims, that they should be able to forgive and move on, they should be quiet and obedient, whether or not their abusers have served time in jail. Its no surprise to me that more victims dont report their abuse when they know that if their abusers found them attractive, or gave them pills, or have great lawyers, or are wonderful filmmakers, or have friends in other countries, or had their wives killed they can get off without punishment.
Roman Polanski had his wife killed? She was murdered by Charles Manson, not a hitman.
yeah that sounds weird or "their wives were killed", but yeah not the most important point in the comment obviously.
Manson did kill Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe, a drug dealer whom the family had crossed, about a month before the Tate-LaBianca murders took place.
She wasn't murdered by Manson, Manson didn't kill anyone.
Normally, I wouldn't draw the distinction but apparently more evidence is coming out that Manson wasn't nearly as influential as a lot of people thought. I don't know if it's gonna hold up, nor am I defending someone who no less than hung around serial killers
Yeah, I've been trying to keep up on this as well. I always find it strange when people claim that Charles Manson murdered people, when it really doesn't seem to be the case. And this no longer might just be a semantical argument.
I just realized that I don't think 'semantical' is a word.
Manson did kill Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe, a drug dealer whom the family had crossed, about a month before the Tate-LaBianca murders took place.
Precisely this. As an "early-developer" I could write a book about all the wonderful experiences I had with boys and men who thought that any young, nubile girl with a perky set was fair game, regardless of how she felt. Reminds me of the line from "The Virgin Suicides" where the doctor tells the youngest girl that she isn't old enough to know what pain is and she says "Obviously, doctor, you've never been a 13 year-old girl."
My argument wasn't that it wasn't rape-rape but that we do not know. There no charges for rape on the table as far as I know. If I were a rape-rape victim that would make me feel neglected. But be my guest - feel free to interpret what I said as a free pass to rape as long as you are influential. Will have a fun conversation that way.
I think people's interpretations of what you said has much more to do with how you view the '14 year old' girl, then how you view the influential director.
The mention of her previous sexual history was especially rage-inducing.
And how would that be? The 12+1 year old girl admits that she had alcohol, drugs and sex before she has met Mr Polanski. As there were no charges back then I can only assume that those events were all consensual? Or do common people only sue influential and famous people? No - I did not make these assumptions about here. I only left the possibility open that it was, again, during her third time, consensual. Or rather - I tried to apply the boring "innocent until charged guilty" principle to both parties as far as I could. The official charge by the way is statutory rape and not "violent" rape. Having read the Smoking Gun archives I now think it might be more than that but iI still do not view this as black and white as many here.
Hugo, I don't give a fuck who she had sex with or whether or not it was consensual. Legally, it wouldn't have been. I don't fucking care. He drugged her and raped her. Period. End of story. "Other people do it to" has never been and will never be a valid defense. Didn't you learn that in kindergarten?
You keep stating that girl had had sex, taken drugs, and drank booze before she met Mr. Polanski. I just fail to see how that is relevant. You are basically claiming that she is more 'grown up' than other 13 year olds, so she PROBABLY did consent to the sex. It just seems like a bizarre stance to take.
There must be a mistake. Please read my very first post. I have never made an argument regarding her drugs or alcohol or even her sex life. 1) The drugs were on the table long before me - as if they confirm involuntary rape. 2) Her age also seemed to confirm involuntary rape. I begged to differ. Involuntary sex is what I consider real rape and not drugs or age per se. 3) I mentioned her sex life after reading the archives in order to state that from what I have read this does not contradict involuntary sex. I said that despite her previous sex life I know believe that it was real involuntary rape and not merely unlawful, tasteless conduct. How and why are you turning this around?
The most horrible thing here is that some think 'drugs = rape' and 'age = rape' and that I do not agree. But if 'rape = rape' we are all on the same page.
"The girl did not say no to the drugs and had take them on her own before. She was also no virgin when she met Polanski."
What do you mean by 'she was no virgin when she met Polanski.' I am not sure how to interpret this in any other way except to say that she's not as innocent as most 13 year olds. If that is not what you are saying, I apologize.
The most horrible thing here is that some think 'drugs = rape' and 'age = rape' and that I do not agree. But if 'rape = rape' we are all on the same page.
What age do you consider it to be rape? Go to Asia and you will find "willing" prostitutes of age 7, 6, 5...because once the 11 year olds have aids you need to go for 9 year olds, but then the 9 year olds have aids so...Or in cases of incest with a child, it is possible to make a small child "consent." They are doing what adults tell them to do.
That's why there is an age of consent. And yes it will always be a line in the sand, but most people are comfortable with 13 being well south of that line. If its 2 13 year olds then it's tragedy all around, but a 13 year old and an adult--there's coercion. They are not on the same playing field.
If we had a 17 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend I'd be happy to call it muddy; a 13 year old and a grown man it's quite clear.
There *were* charges of rape, but the plea bargain led to a conviction for statutory rape.
But we do know. Everyone concedes that Polanski had sex with a 13 year old, so that argument is moot. Did you ever think that the reason the victim wants this whole thing dropped is because she's spent the last few decades hearing people (like you, above) debate the degree to which she "wanted it" with a man in his 40s and she couldn't take it anymore?
She's pretty much said that, actually.
I think you're missing the fact that Polanski may be the victim of the same legal system you have correctly criticized in other cases. I'm no lawyer but to me the key issues are
1) He only fled when he learned that the judge was not going to honor the deal under which he pled guilty. What if he's innocent, but only pled guilty based on the deal?
2) If the case is as "open and closed" as many in these comments seem to think, why did prosecutors allow him to plea?
3) The grand jury testimony is only the prosecution's side of the story. It has never been challenged legally due to the plea.
4) In this particular case, if the victim feels he's been punished enough, I'm inclined to agree. It could be that she's doesn't want to relive the case. It could be many other things. Maybe her unchallenged grand jury testimony was less that truthful.
Honestly, I think he's probably guilty, but I'm not sure that meets the standards of our judicial system.
I can answer #2 pretty damn quickly-- because he was rich and famous and had influential Hollywood friends who would talk about how awesome he was and how much he'd suffered, omg poor man. As is happening right now.
1) You have the right to withdraw your plea if a judge will not accept the state's recommendation (the plea deal). This is a right the judge has to inform you of at the time of your plea along with all your other rights (cover in case you have a crappy attorney). However you then have to go to trial. On the original charges. Which in Polanski's case would have included rape. This is probably not an option he wanted to take.
2) You don't "allow" someone to plea. They choose to and there is absolutely nothing a prosecutor can do to stop them. Every case no matter how "open and shut" will have a plea deal. 99% of criminal cases are disposed of in this matter. I make a plea offer in every single case I have including murder.
3) The plea is an admission of guilt. Aside from a few exceptions that are not in this case, the prosecutor summarizes the facts and then the defendant admits he did it. So yes her testimony was never challenged because HE ADMITTED TO IT.
4) I am constantly amazed by the number of people who think as victims they have the right to decide the outcome of a case. Grand jury indictments always say blah blah did blah blah to blah blah a crime against the state the good order peace and dignity thereof. In other words in the criminal justice system crimes' victims always include the state and the state not the victim gets the final say as to how far to proceed in a case. I certainly take the victims feelings into account but I will not follow them. I don't take instructions from them. My job as a prosecutor is not to seek redress for victims. It's to seek justice. And justice demands that you can not pay off a victim in a civil case and therefore escape prosecution. Or a fragile victim who doesn't like media attention can say just let it go and I let it go. Of course I am a meany. I am known for attaching (which is a fancy legal word for arresting) victims who try to disappear on me and not testify.
I feel like I am living in a parellel universe when I hear people defending this guy.
Me too. Thanks for the legal background, too.
1) I understand your point here. My point was more to correct the earlier comments in the thread, many of which seemed to imply that at the end of a full jury trial, Polanski was found guilty by the jury and then fled before sentencing. That's not the case. He negotiated plea deal and fled when he found out that the judge might not accept the deal. I see that in later comments you claim that, "It is not at all unusual for a judge to not accept a plea. It happens all the time on the simplest of cases." I realize that "not at all unusual" and "all the time" are open to interpretation, but my non-legal common-sense says that if it were that common, the process of plea bargain negotiating would be a huge waste of time unless the judge was involved from the outset.
2) Not being a lawyer I think I mistakenly used "plea" for "plea bargain". My apologies.
I would assume that the more "open and shut" the case, the closer the "deal" is to what you'd go for in a trial. My general point is that the level of evidence in the case was probably related to the terms of the deal - a deal that Polanski was prepared to take. In other words, I'm assuming you wouldn't offer a plea deal of jaywalking for an alleged murderer if you had a strong case.
3) "HE ADMITTED TO IT," to take the plea deal he was offered. Does the "factual summary" include everything in grand jury testimony? Some commenters seem to think that the Smoking Gun report is a transcript of live audio from the alleged rape and not a transcript of grand jury testimony
4) I realize that the victim doesn't call the shots. My point is that in a case like this, where only two people really know what happened, if she feels like justice has been done, I personally am fine with that.
1) How active a judge is at sentencing is up to the judge. Some almost never change the deal. Some do it routinely. It really just depends on the judge. However deals are usually crafted with the judge in mind. In other words, knowing the judge, I try to craft something I know the judge will accept.
2) Yes the strength of the case effects the plea deal. But you seemed to imply that just making a deal meant it was a weak case. That is not the case. Only in the very rare times when I am seeking the maximun legal punishment (a circumstance that has happened in a handful of thousands of cases) do I not try to make a deal. No matter how great a case I'd rather not have to try it unless absolutely neccessary.
3) I think you are confusing entering a guilty plea with plea bargaining. As I understand it Mr. Polanski already entered his guilty plea. This always happens BEFORE sentencing regardless of any plea arrangments or deals. You have to admit guilty first before you can be sentenced. Frequently sentencing happens at a later date, for example after a psychological is done. Even though Polanski was awaiting sentence he had already entered his plea. This means someone stood up in court and gave a summary of the facts and he admitted to doing that summary. So at the minimum he admitted to sex with a 13yr old. How that sex came about is frankly irrelevant in my eyes.
4) I would no more consider her fairly unreasonable position then I would a victim who wanted him to get the death penalty. People only care what victims think when they want the criminal forgiven. When they want him killed then their unreasonable crazy people who shouldn't have a say. I am not saying that's your opinion. I'm just saying that Justice is not best served by allowing those most personnally invested in the events to decide the outcome.
Judges are not bound by plea deals. They have the discretion to reject them. And if a plea deal is rejected, a defendant has a right to change his plea.
Cause he was rich and famous and had the ability to hire a high-powered attorney and to spare the victim the "she asked for it" defenses that usually happen in rape trials?
It has never been challenged because Polanski chose to flee the country rather than go to trial.
There are plenty of people sitting in prison cells right now who have been forgiven by their victims.
I read the transcript of his plea. He was forced to respond to a question of whether he had been promised anything (other than dismissal of some of the charges) in exchange for his plea and he said no. He was asked to state his understanding of the potential punishment and he said one to 20 years of incarceration, not 90 days in a psych facility. He pleaded guilty before he was even evaluated for sentencing. He was asked if he understood that the judge had discretion in imposing the sentence and he said yes. If there were a deal at the time he copped a plea, it was clearly corrupt, because his understanding is clearly other than what he stated under oath in open court. His attorney specifically asked for him to be under oath at the time. His plea would still be suspect, but unless his attorney or the prosecutor comes out and testifies that this was the case, I have difficulty understanding how Polanski formed the belief that he had a virtual contract for a light sentence -- or that he relied on that deal in pleading guilty.
I just read the plea at Smoking Gun. I think your reading missed several relevant facts.
1) His statement re: 1-20 years of incarceration was related to his understanding of the MAXIMUM sentence. The prosecutor's very next question to Polanski is whether he understands that he, "could be placed on probation, with OR WITHOUT being required to serve up to one year in the County Jail?"
2) Polanski answers all of the prosecutor's questions routinely until asked, "Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?" He does not respond and the question has to be asked again.
3) Not sure what point your making re: "his" attorney asking him to be under oath, but it's not true,
Mr. Gunson: "Your Honor, the People request that this plea be given under oath, and that Mr. Polanski be sworn by the court."
Gunson is the prosecutor.
TNC,
If you're still following this thread, do you feel that a guilty man deserves a fair trial? I think what's alleged by some Polanski defenders is that the judge was going to reneg on an agreement (not necessarily a plea-bargain) to which he was a part, of which Polanski had already done 1/2 the time. This may be legal but is it just in your mind?
There was a plea bargain agreed to, with the partial purpose of sparing the victim the trauma of a trial.
Here are some quotes from the vitcim: "Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother, and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case".
On her grand jury testimony: "True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me. I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney".
"People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since."
The California DA is not working for justice for the victim, it's about publicity. It's easy to say that Polanski needs to be punished. But the truth is if the Judge had kept his agreement, and honored the victim's wishes, this whole thing would have been concluded 32 years ago.
Anybody who tries to defend Polanski's actions is missing the point. His actions are not defendable. But this situation is about politics and publicity.
But the truth is if the Judge had kept his agreement, and honored the victim's wishes, this whole thing would have been concluded 32 years ago
The truth is, if Roman Polanski had kept it in his damn pants, it never would have happened at all.
Absolutely. I can't argue against that. You're absolutely right.
But that's not an option now. The victim would rather the whole thing be dropped. She has flat out said it causes her a good deal of pain to have the DA pursuing this case. So whose interests are they serving by doing this? I'm assuming Polanski won't be extradited. So this whole exercise will accomplish nothing except once again pushing the victim into the spotlight that she has tried to escape for 30 years.
I sympathize a great deal with the victim, but to drop it would be unthinkable at this point. How would they drop it? By what procedure? The "oh never mind, you win" motion? I mean that seriously -- unless there is a real issue with the plea, something I haven't seen substantiated anywhere, you don't just tell a defendant to forget the whole thing.
What he should have done, because he wasn't sentenced, was to agree to turn himself in based on an agreement to resolve all charges and pleas. Yes, I am certain that would have entailed jail time, but for pity's sake, how many people are serving long sentences for doing things not nearly as bad as what Polanski did? There are an awful lot of nonviolent drug offenders in jail, for instance.
Yeah, but this thing also would have been concluded 32 years ago if Polanski hadn't (A) raped a 13 year old, and (B) fled to europe instead of facing his (quite light) prison sentence like a real man. I get it why the victim just wants all of this to go away, but it is pretty apparent that the person who has been causing her problems is Polanski, NOT the DA or the late judge. I really feel for her but let's not lose sight of who is actually to blame here.
It's not the judge's word. Plea deals are not between judges and defendents they are between prosecutors and defendants. It is not at all unusual for a judge to not accept a plea. It happens all the time on the simplest of cases. So too bad for Polanski. That's just the way our system works. I'd be suspicious of a judge that had never changed a plea from what the prosecutor wanted. Remember it works both ways. Sometimes the judge decides to be harsher, but it's just as likely she decides to be more lenient. I don't always get my way.
I don't know anything about the legal system, but you're saying they can effectively trick someone into pleading guilty, by promising them probation, and then after the fact send them to jail? Even though they never would have plead guilty in the first place had it not been for the promise of probation?
That doesn't sound right.
No-- when a judge throws out a plea deal it goes to trial.
Have a little more faith in our criminal justice system. You can withdraw your plea if the judge does not accept the plea deal. However you then have to go to trial on all the original charges. Which isn't an option many people like, especially when they are guilty. So it's not a trick. And if the judge doesn't accept it you can back out. This is I think a very fair system.
I just read your more detailed explanation further up in the thread. That cleared up my confusion. Thanks.
@HugoPottisch: Dude. It wasn't consensual. Drugs and/or repeatedly saying "no" alone would establish that; here you have both.
That said, it is true that Polanski only pled guilty to statutory rape, so in the eyes of the law he isn't guilty of "real" rape, but unless you completely discount the girl's testimony, there's no doubt about his moral guilt.
The girl did not say no to the drugs and had take them on her own before. She was also no virgin when she met Polanski. Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape charges himself. Black and white?
This is ducking the essential issue. She said no to sex--repeatedly. He did it in anyway. There is no way to turn that into anything but rape. The docs are all there.
Many here bring drugs into play. In fact - I am trying to make the same point as Ta-Nehisi - that drugs should not matter. She took the drugs without objections but that does not lesser the rape issue. As I wrote before:
Similarly - the age issue should not come into play. Rape is bad no matter what age. She has had consensual sex before she met Polanksi but that does not mean we have to find those other bastards and charge them too. Her first two sexual relations were obviously consensual and do not require the same charges as Mr Polanski.
Yes, but the issue raised by Harding is the moral case that he raped a child. There is no meaningful sense in which she was still a child, which is why her sexual history is in fact relevant. (Though she is also clearly not an adult either, which is why stat rape laws exist.)
Stat rape of a minor and child molestation are very different things, not just morally, but in many legal juurisdictions.
Harding makes it worse rather than better, and her repeated claim that he raped a child is an offense to every child that has ever been molested or raped.
Polanski raped her under every legal definition of rape. Why do we have to exaggerate and call her a child when clearly she was not? Do you seriously think he's a child molester?
I am further surprised that nobody is jumping on the girls mother - she is a lunatic, dangerous psychopath for pushing her daughter into this life-style and by far the worst "villain" in this whole story. But careful, she is... female.
PS: Who killed Sylvia P - her husband or her... mother?
I'm absolutely amazed by you. Roman Polanski's dick must've just wandered into this girl, by your account. Maybe he had one of those detachable ones and it ran away.
Persia,
All I'm trying to say is that all old men should try to fuck as many 10 year old girls and boys as they can. By any means necessary. In fact - I think that all women should be stripped off their rights. What is so strange about that? No old men has ever been guilty because we are the masters of the universe and if you are famous even more so. All young women are witches and deserve to burn and raped! Hope this clears up the temporary confusion.
Her mother's mental state--much like the amount of drugs and sex she had with other men beforehand is STILL IRRELEVANT.
Yes, you stick bastard, it's black and white. Are you really trying to suggest that a 13 year old girl can't be raped if she had sex before? Get a clue, please. I don't know you but simply read what you've written here and I loathe you, you are acting as an apologista for the rape of a 13 year old girl and that is a sick as it gets.
Whatever legal bullshit went on should be irrelevant to any person with any sort of moral compass. Grown men who fuck little girls deserve to go first to jail, and then to hell. And anybody who defends them on technicalities deserves our utmost contempt.
That goes for Hugo, and people like Pedro Almodovar and all those other artists defending Polanski.
How is it that in today's world we still can't get a consensus that grown men can't fuck 13 year old girls? The mind reels. I can only assume everyone is blinded by celebrity, because I can't for a moment believe that people think this is otherwise okay.
Hugo, I get that you are trying to be devil's advocate here, but you need to study up before you open your mouth because you don't come off like a wit, you come off like a sociopath.
Thanks for calling me a sociopath. Please - do me just one favor. Show me where I have defended Polanski? From where I am sitting - I just said I need more prove that it was rape than I got. This alone, look at the commenting times, started an avalanche. Ta-Nehisi posted a link to an Internet site with some old transcripts. I took the time to read them all and then concluded that I am more inclined to call this rape than mere unlawful conduct.
Regarding the being blinded by celebrities thingy - I am sure you know that this can go both ways? I have not tried to engage in that but have tried to look at all sides. And I stand by my psychopathic point that I find violent rape of an 80 year old worse than voluntary sex of minors. In other words - I do not agree with you that ALL Grown men who fuck little girls deserve to go first to jail, and then to hell. AND this does not mean that I am one of those grown men who fuck or want to fuck little girls.
I am more convinced of now that the Polanksi case was not voluntary. That is the sad part. Not so much that she was little or took drugs. I therefore thank you for the discussion.
Please watch the name-calling.
Only sober virgins can be raped?
She wasn't a virgin. Really!?!!! Is that what it comes down too? Are you really going with the she's a slut so it doesn't matter? How disappointing. I see further debate is pointless.
I don't know the statute under which Polanski was charged, but I do know the statute in England, where the definition of rape is intentional penetration of the anus, mouth, or vagina of another by the penis without consent or reasonable belief of consent. Polanski did this, he confessed to doing this, had he been convicted under English law he would have faced a potential life sentence. This to me seems the end of the discussion.
On the broader matter of extradition, the United States hardly has a shining record, as is evidenced by the instances of convicted IRA terrorists avoiding extradition to the UK from the US due to concerns over whether they would face a 'fair trial'. Nor is it really fair to talk about 'France' saying anything when what you are talking about is their government. Finally, since the US has a whole ex-government full of people who under any reasonable definition of the words 'war criminal' should have stood trial ages ago but who still are currently at liberty, could we have a bit less of the anti-France smugness please?
This might give a little context to how France is reacting. Wikipedia article, I know, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age_of_consent_laws
Apparently back in and around '77 there was a movement among some French intellectuals to get rid of statutory rape altogether, making all consensual sexual relations legal regardless of the age of the people involved. That was never actually enacted, but the idea was out there and being endorsed (if the Wiki is correct) by people of no less stature than Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault - just around the time Polanski's crime happened.
Now obviously his case was not consensual. But if that idea is still widespread at all in France (and I have no idea if it is or not), it could explain why the age difference isn't such a big deal to them.
That may all be true, but the age of consent in France is (and, presumeably was) 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#France): "The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a child under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000." I mean, that plus the fact that he drugged and coerced her means rape, regardless of the age difference.
Maybe there was a segment of the French intelligentsia that argued for something more libertine (I recall reading something about Sartre having a mistress in her mid-teens when he was in his 70s), but even by the standards of French law, Polanski would be a criminal. That, plus the fact that their civil law adversarial system would put even MORE pressure on him for a confession.
I think that the official French reaction has more to do with extradition treaties and Polanski just being rich and famous.
The Bill Wyman article from Salon also included this tid bit:
"But that's just the Polanski team's legal strategy: keeping as many balls in the air as possible to make it seem as if the director has something to negotiate with, which he hasn't. Around the time of the documentary's release, they actually cut a deal to settle the case -- but balked at the prospect of cameras in the court. . . Thirty years later, the director was still trying to call the shots"
This leads me to believe that this whole matter could have been put to rest earlier this year likely allowing a child rapist/fugitive to go on living his life without any additional jail time or warrant out for his arrest. But Polanski stopped cooperating because he didn't want cameras in the court room. Considering he was willing to cooperate with the documentary, one can assume that he rejected cameras in the court room not to protect his victim from any more exposure but to protect his own image.
His apparent arrogance disgusts me.
His arrest is truly his own fault. He raped an under aged girl, he fled the jurisdiction after receiving a generous plea deal, and has recently refused to a cut a new deal. He wants everything his way and thinks that his rights and desires exceed anyone else's and the rule of law.
The issue wasn't the rape. He admitted to that. It is the judge's last second plea bargain rejection and hi intention to lock Polanski up for 10 years that created this mess. Of course what he did was heinous. Remember, though, you are talkingh about a flawed man who was the children of Holocaust victims, and the guilt-ridden husband of Sharon Tate, a Manson victim. Somehow, he should have seen a shrink long before he photographed teenage girls. That he was at Jack Nicholson's house is also interesting. I think he will walk even if extradited because this was politically motivated.
1. 10 years is not really that much time for forcibly sodomizing at 13-year-old.
2. Does everyone get to trot out their bad history at their rape trials?
3. I don't care whose house he raped someone at.
4. What's 'politically motivated' about this?
What's politically motivated? After 30 years we are suddenly going afterthe Swiss because their banking systemm is hiding out lots of tax$$$, just as it hid Nazi $$ and they hauled Jews in rail cars to their deaths. Connect the dots. There is a smoking gun...
Persia
I would not have left my sons alone with Michael Jackson, guilty or innocent, just based on common sense as a parent. Likewise,I would never leave my 13.75 year old daughter with a 43 year-old Euro director at Jack Nicholson's house alone for a photo shoot unless I was loopy, or possibly even setting her up to be in the position she found herself in.
"Trot out?" How contemptuous you sound! It is no small, insignificant trivia what happened in his life; it is a viable psychological defense. Between your parents being gassed by the Nazis and your spouse and unborn child, near-term, being butchered by Susan "I have no mercy for you Bitch!" Atkins.
Polanski probably was so luded out for years he didn't know his own name. No that doesn't excuse him, but it explains him.
I find it amazing you have compassion for this girl's puppeteering mother and not for Polanski as a victim of numerous crimes.
I am not making excuses for what he did. He raped and sodomized a teenage girl. That's pretty damn despicable. Yet, the judge desecrated the justice system, and no matter what our opinion of the crime, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney agreed that Polanski was denied due process. That is what you cannot spin.
Oh, and FTR, I was the victim of a violent crime, so please don't pontificate from your high tower down to me.
I had a dear college friend accused of a rape he didn't commit and his life suffered immeasurably. It is not always the woman as victim, nor are all attacks equal.
He admitted to statutory rape - which to me is not 'real' rape. What I now believe he did is real rape - or as another commenter called it: rape-rape. I therefore think that the issue is only the rape and that the rest is icing on top of the cake. That, of course, does not mean that the drugs and the age issue is not bad either. I hope that nobody here would assume that I see no difference between 13 or older for making these arguments.
a) The issue is the rape; if he hadn't raped a child the judge accepting or rejecting a plea bargain would be moot.
b) See Sabriyahm's explanation of plea bargains, accepting and rejecting, upthread.
c) Many people in jail have a tragic history. They don't get a free pass to skip trial and go to Europe. We're going to start only trying criminals who are not flawed individuals or only criminals who have no sadness in their past; all flawed or suffering individuals can skip trial if they want? Come on.
B2L, actually Polanksi created this mess himself. He could have stayed and faced trial. Certainly all of those "mitigating factors" you mentioned would have come up at sentencing-had he not been acquitted.
Prisons are filled with bad childhoods and trauma.
I'm also a descendant of Holocaust survivors (and, in some cases, those who did not survive.)
I'd ask you please kindly to not defame us by calling us child rapists. We've been through a lot already.
It's so funny. Europeans such as Hugo would probably seek leniency for a 13-year-old criminal, on the grounds that the kid doesn't have fully developed judgment. But Hugo believes that a 13-year-old has sound-enough judgment to make decisions about sex and drugs and alcohol.
I'll go with good ol' American common sense and say that it's improper for a middle-age man to ply a 13-year-old girl with 'Lude-laden champagne and rape her in a hot tub. Perhaps Sartre would disagree. But it sounds like Hugo is slowly coming around.
Hi Holden,
Hugo had two problems and wishes to apologize.
First - I missed the Smoking Gun link in the original quote by Ta-Nehisi. He fortunately pointed it out to me after which I read all 18 pages myself and could form my opinion for the first time. There was no coming around but rather an arriving. I have always believed that involuntary acts of any sort but especially something as personal as sex are immoral and should be prosecuted.
Second - I legal term "statutory rape" is indeed new to me. Indeed, in Europe, one does not use the word "rape" when no involuntary action is involved. For me - rape is always involuntary. When something is or feels involuntary it leaves other types of psychological scars than when the act is perceived as voluntary. Still - as mentioned before - I can understand arguments as to why 13 year olds cannot act voluntary etc but for me this was never the main issue here.
You Holden however give great arguments as to why champagne and drugs and age are equally immoral as rape. I don't agree but I can see your point - even if you don't want to hear it.
Perhaps the terminology isn't the same in Europe, and the sentences are generally lighter and ages slightly lower than in the states, but Europe does have laws broadly similar to the states. Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_Europe US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_the_United_States#United_States Of course, most European states operate under civil law, so the maximum and mimimum sentences are written into the law. But they still recognize that there is an age under which minors, even if they "consent", would be considered legal victims of sexual abuse.
But just to reiterate, this is all really tangental to this particular case (outside of the plea), as the actual charges against Polanski were "real" rape (ie coerced, involuntary sex).
I love that Hugo has no issues with a 43 year old man drugging and raping a teenager but keeps posting about animals' rights. In his formulation clearly, who cares about the 13 year old girl; that slut was fast anyways, but those barn animals who never screw indiscriminately, they must be protected from the sick humans and their desire to eat, or use them for labor or what not.
I know you're probably going to counter with some sarcastic response Hugo, but you showed some effed up misogynistic tendencies by proceeding from "oh was it really rape?" to "but she was a slut anyway" to "why aren't we blaming her pimp/mother"? When clearly, the only guilty d-bag in this whole affair is the grown man who drugged and then raped a thirteen year old against her consent and then fled. Nothing else needs to be said.
terminator,
I didn't and don't mean to be sarcastic. Slips happen. I think we can agree that you are fortunate that I am not a judge and that I am fortunate that you are not a permanent member of the jury.
Indeed - after reading that it was rape myself I almost got more angry at the mother than Polanski. (Which does not mean I feel no contempt for Polanski but you would not believe this anyway). After reading the 18 pages - in which conversations with many adults including the mother had taken place and are described at much greater lenght that the rape discussion - of course I started thinking "why hasn't anybody done anything earlier - especially the mother"?
But here is why I actually respond to you. I take the issue of rape more seriously than you think. The reason why I post about animal rights is because I can't really influence what Polanksi did or will do etc. I can't change what is going on in many parts of the world regarding mutilations, killings and genocide and I am also not directly responsible. I am trying to judge it from afar but there is no real explicit action involved to stop making this world worse (some call it making it a better place). I know as a fact that if I were to consume cow milk products today - I that I would rape an intelligent, sensitive female for certain.
I can live with being misinterpreted and called a pedophile or what not. I know that I am not. I also know that I am not supporting rape on a daily basis myself. Be it the rape of old or young, female or male, black or white, human or non-human. I am not part of it - for certain and I don't know what Polanski did for certain!
I see; when its the rape of an animal it's more important; thanks for clarifying. When it's a man who has had a few questionable sexual relationships with teens; the victim in this case and Nastassja Kinski, let's parse all the details and blame the victim first and if that doesn't work, blame her mother.
"I recall my own thinking when I was only 15. Oh boy, I can't wait to get old so that I can impress all the young pretty girls with my cars and drugs. It never worked out for me - as I grew older so did my partners of choice. But I can see how some people stay young at heart. Maybe too young."
Is calling a rapist young at heart defending them? Just maybe.
You mean in the Gone With The Wind sense? Are you flirting with me? Send me some pics and your address and I might get back at you. And no means.. you no.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3949042/
You might want to talk to my buddy Chris before you start flirting with people online.
The thing that seems to keep getting lost in this whole kerfuffle is the fact that Roman Polanski submitted to authorities, admitted guilt, and worked out a plea bargain on lesser charges. Maybe that was not enough, he probably should have received a harsher sentence, but everything was done according to the rules of the American legal system.
TNC, you bring up the Willingham case and the Hood case as two examples of the legal system run amok. The Polanski case is another example of that; there were serious concerns about judicial misconduct (that's why Polanski ran; yes, it's cowardly, but even the prosecuting attorney on the case has said he didn't blame Polanski for running). I'm not trying to defend a rapist. But in our legal system, everyone is supposed to get a fair shake, and Roman Polanski didn't. Neither did his victim, for that matter.
Polanski could have appealed-- he had plenty of money for it. He chose not to. He chose not to ever strike a deal that would send him back in exchange for jail time. I have zero sympathy.
And by the rules of the American legal system, a judge is not bound by a plea agreement.
Please explain what the judicial misconduct was.
I'll quote from Roger Ebert's review of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the flawed but fascinating documentary about the Polanski case:
So corrupt was [Judge Laurence J. Rittenband] that the documentary finds agreement among the three people (aside from Polanski) most interested in the outcome: the defense attorney, Douglas Dalton; the assistant D.A. who prosecuted the case, Roger Gunson, and Samantha Gailey Geimer, who was the child involved.
Their testimony nails Rittenband as a shameless publicity seeker who was more concerned with his own image than arriving at justice. Who broke his word to attorneys on both sides. Who staged a fake courtroom session in which Gunson and Geimer were to go through the motions of making their arguments before the judge read an opinion he had already prepared. Who tried to stage such a "sham" (Gunson's term) a second time. Who juggled possible sentences in discussions with outsiders, once calling a Santa Monica reporter, David L. Jonta, into his chambers to ask him, "What the hell should I do with Polanski?" Who discussed the case with the guy at the next urinal at his country club. Who held a press conference while the case was still alive. Who was removed from the case on a motion by both prosecution and defense.
The most significant fact of the film is that the prosecutor Gunson, a straight-laced Mormon, agrees with the defender Dalton that justice was not served. Both break their silences for this film after many years, Gunson saying, "I'm not surprised that he left the country under those circumstances." Samantha Geimer, whose family asked at the time that Polanski not be prosecuted or jailed, came public in 1997 to forgive him, and now says she feels Rittenband was running the case for his own aggrandizement, "orchestrating some little show that I didn't want to be in." And in 2003, I learn from the New York Times, she published a statement, concluding: "Who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?"
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/REVIEWS/694288051/1023
AFAIK, it was that the judge clearly signaled that he would accept the prosecution's recommendation for a minimal sentence. But it leaked out that the judge had every intention of reneging on the deal and slapping him with the full 20 AFTER he pled guilty and the plea was accepted. (No appeal, Persia. Get it?) That's why the prosecutor didn't blame Polanski for running.
One thing that I have not seen raised is the possibility that Polanski only made this plea based on the minimal sentencing assurance by the prosecutor. Had it not been offered, he may very well chosen to go to trial.
And won. Think of the mother, the drugs, the dirt. Then think of WHEN it happened and the resources Polanski had at his disposal. You really think he would have been convicted? Part of the reason so much hard work has been done improving rape trials is because they weren't all that fair for a long time.
Am I missing something? What part of the above involves Polanski not getting a fair shake? You haven't mentioned any misconduct.
You've clarified. Thanks. I will say that none of this is an excuse to flee.
I'm pleased to say that I haven't followed this in detail, and I have no idea what goes on at the View, but I've read some comments elsewhere that suggest a plea bargain was made on the basis of Polanski's confession and then withdrawn, at which point Polanski fled. That's not exculpatory in any sense, but it sheds some light on why there are some questions being asked about prosecutorial conduct and current priorities three decades after the fact.
Personally, I'm in the camp with folks who hate to see elites get away with shit that ordinary people would get totally nailed for. But I don't believe that everyone raising questions about the circumstances of this case has absolutely no moral sense or some such. Although any questions that aren't directed substantively at actual facts of the case and the conduct of his prosecution, rather than bullshit about "he's suffered enough" or "he's a great artist" do indicate some screws loose.
Also, I love Chinatown but Polanski's on my "good" not "great" list, partly because he's always struck me as a total creep and partly because some of his films are very good and some are just total pieces of shit. If Phil Spector belongs in jail - which he very definitely does IMHO - so does Polansky.
And I think that Anne Appelbaum needs to be offically exited from the world of columnists and pop punditry. I've never much liked her stuff, but her latest use of her column is a violation of whatever "journalistic ethics" might still exist: "I don't care if you're fucking the elephant as long as you're not covering the circus." Appelbaum's fucking the elephant while covering the circus. Hiatt needs to finally, at long last, enforce some semblance of rules over at his little whorehouse of punditry. Meanwhile he's "outlawing" blogging by his reporters.
Statutory rape is not really rape, Hugo? You say that you're from Europe, not from the U.S. Well, I don't know what the laws are in the country where you're from, but in the U.S. statutory rape is real rape. You're using your own definition of rape in order to get Polanski off. Why? Do you think it's right for a much older man to have sex with a 13-year-old? Do you think that a 13-year-old girl really can freely consent to a man more than twice her age? (Not that she did consent in this case).
I've also read the Smoking Gun document, which reveals that the girl didn't consent in any way to having sex with Polanski. She kept saying no, and he kept ignoring her. He didn't care about her at all.
And also - it's totally irrelevant if she had sex with someone before Polanski. With that defense, the only woman who could ever claim to be raped is a virgin. It's even more irrelevant here, since if her prior sexual experiences were with older men, they would also have been guilty of statutory rape.
This case still exists only because Polanski fled the country before begin sentenced. He pled guilty. Case closed. If he wants to contest his conviction, he should come back to the U.S. and appeal, like any other criminal defendant can. In the meantime, he can sit in jail and wait for his hearing.
You might want to read up on U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 109a -- Sexual Abuse, for what is actually criminal "in the U.S" and what the names of those crimes are, keeping in mind that state sovereignty applies in many cases. More light, less heat, and so forth.
I scanned a bit of Hugo's comments and they were too much for me. I don't know if this has been touched on in a non-wack context, but I definitely believe that the parents are culpable in this particular case and should have also been charged with something on the order of child endangerment. Leaving one's kid unattended in those circumstances is inexcusable - especially since it seems like the mother was actually trying to use the girl to bait Polanski for some variant on a starfuck, movie role or whatever. Very, very disturbing. But again, in no way exculpatory. Just one more maddening aspect of this creepy story.
Things that are unwise are not neccessarily illegal. I don't think the mother was very sensible but she is certainly not criminal. The law generally punishes the action not the result. By your logic leaving your 13 with another adult would be criminal. We can agree that doesn't make sense. Especially when it's okay to leave your 13 yaer old child alone.
It's not simply that she left the child alone. From what I've read - and its admittedly scant so I'm perhaps leaping to a conclusion - the mother had every reason to know the circumstances and actually encouraged her daughter to pursue this association with Polanski. My gut tells me this goes beyond "unwise" and into something very close to pimping your kid.
Rapists are disgusting people, scum. Polanski was celebrated and honored, treated by the cultural elite as one of their own. Therefore, Polanski cannot be a rapist. It must have been some statutory thing, some grey area, let's call it a moral failure in his youth. Maybe it was the mother's fault or the judge's. Hell, we may never now, it was so long ago. And blame the Swiss, that'll always work.
I think that Ta-Nahisi is right when he stated numerous times that the art and the person behind it are not always of the same quality. From what I can gather - the European perspective is that we are dealing with statutory rape and not violent involuntary rape. Europeans believe that no matter what happened - after the incident his reputation had been damaged for good, everyone he meets knows, and that he had to be careful regarding his travels for decades. Most Europeans have not read through the trials, as I have now, and do not understand that it was potentially more than what the current, statutory rape charges reveal.
I personally do not believe that time makes up for old crimes. Not if we want to respect the unbiased legal system. Speaking of which - was he charged with rape or statutory rape? If it is the latter - the judge should also be critiqued? If you want vengeance - the right things to do is to scream the obvious that rape is bad and rapists are bad.
If you look at this issue from a "what can we do to prevent this" point of view - do not look at rapists to better themselves. Look at judges to sentence them properly and at parents to not throw you in the ring. No?
Often a plea deal will be agreeable to all parties because it saves the victim from having to face the trauma of a trial.
That's what I'm saying. But most people have not read through the trials of other accused sex offenders either. But do you see them defending them? Do you see Frédéric Mitterand attacking other nations because they arrested some unknown creepy sex offender based on an international warrant? Without knowing the facts? Wouldn't that be an absolute no-go for any minister? So, why isn't it here?
PS: TNC, that hijab remark was right on target. Thanks.
He was charged with rape. He just pleaded out. You don't get to plead out, then skip out on your punishment, then argue the plea bargain was invalid, but you can't charge him now because of the statute of limitations, which is what he's trying to do.
For this case boils down to a conflict between an abstract ideal of justice in which evildoers are punished and a more pragmatic point of view which wonders if that should really outweigh the desire of the victim to leave the situation as is in this case.
While I realize, as some commentors have pointed out, that justice is about far more than just the victims feelings - the victims feelings should count for something too - do the benefits of his arrest really outweigh her increased suffering?
That said, now that hes been arrested and massive publicity is unavoidable anyway, I don't see any reason for leniency.
I know it sounds a little odd, but the criminal justice system isn't really about defending or avenging the victim of the crime. It's about defending society as a whole from criminal behavior. Thus the names of such cases: The State of California v. Smith. Not Mr. Victim v. Smith.
It certainly seems unfair to the victim in this case to drag this whole thing out again, but the alternative would be to say, "There, there, Mr. Polanski, we know you pled guilty to the forcible rape of a child and then ran off, but you're so rich and famous that it's OK now, don't you worry your little head about it." This would not be in the State's interest: we need to be protected from people like this, and the criminal justice system should incarcerate people like this, both to get them off the streets and to serve as a warning to others.
I'm a bit confused why our friend Hugo hasn't been banned. There's insulting, and then there's arguing from the intellectually indefensible place of "children who have had consensual sex before are able to consent to sex with 43-year-old men because they're, you know, sluts."
I can't believe I have to write this to someone who is presumably themselves also a sentient adult, but 13-year-olds who are sexually experienced are not open season for the adult men who find them hot. 13-year-old girls who are sexually experienced in this culture have usually already been coerced into sex, and they are not open to further victimization by men who cannot keep their dicks in their pants. I mean, Jesus, I hate to be crude, but it's just too much for men to get to define what sexual freedom is (adult men raping 13-year-olds) and then project their vision onto children (those 13-year-olds really like and want to experience being raped by adult men).
Never mind that Polanski's behaviour would have been equally inappropriate had he done it to another 43-year-old! No means no. But I know that's whole other kettle of fish.
Michelle,
I am also a bit confused as to why I have not been banned yet. After all - here is Hugo arguing that girls who have consensual sex are all sluts and deserve to be raped? Is that, by the way, my projection or yours? Where is this coming from other than a deeply routed panic anxiety with the issues at hand?
I suppose we come from different worlds. I suppose that even though you might be agnostic - you have grown up among christian values of sin and justice? So have I but I must add that for random reasons my upbringing must have been different than yours.
In my family we have at least 4-5 generations of truly emancipated women. Women in our family have been self-sufficient for generations - with their own education (degrees in law about 60 years before Harvard admitted females) and incomes. In fact - men in our family have started demanding that their partners to remain independent of them. When my mother considered becoming a housewife when my younger sister was born - my father threatened her with divorce for the first and last time. They have been happily married for decades now and seem to be still enjoying their company more with time.
My sister turned out just the same and if anything suffers because many men have issues with her being better educated and better earning than them. But that is a good problem to have.
When we were younger - my mother told us a few rules to follow. For example - she told us that we should avoid talking to strangers. She did not say that all strangers are dangerous or bad.
She told us that when crossing the street - it did not matter if the lights showed green - you still had to check if a car was coming or not. It did not matter if you were legally entitled to cross the street - the car is stronger than you and what good is it to be able to sue the driver if you were crippled?
Similarly - when my mother heard about the Mike Tyson case in 1991 - her reaction was counterintuitive to many. Especially to her feminist friends. Instead of being angry with Mike for raping a girl - she got mad with the victim. She told us children that she did not know what happened in the hotel room for certain. What she did know was that the girl had certainly agreed to go to a hotel room with Mike Tyson. For her it was like crossing the street. What good is it to know that in case you get raped - the law might be on your side? If you do not believe in cosmic justice and an afterlife - there is no point in risking such a situation. The message she wanted to covey to us children was not that Mike Tyson was bad per se but that the girl was irresponsible or stupid or scheming. The message was that there is a risk when you take obvious risks.
My mother would feel different in case the girl had no control over the situation herself. In other words - a girl walks down the street, a car pulls up, somebody kidnaps and rapes the girl. In such a case - my mother would demand the harshest possible punishment for the rapist and nothing else. In case she learned that the girl walking down the street was only 13 and it was 2am in a dodgy neighborhood her feelings would change again. Her instinct would then tell her: "what the hell was she doing there" and not simply "get that bastard".
For my mother - true feminism means that if you are finally given control over your life and do not take responsibility for it - you are and will never be free or your own master. You will only have the victim role to play and can hope for magic justice and that is not enough.
In the case of Polanski - my mother would get mad, not at the girl herself who is too young, but at the victims mother - just like me. That is because she knows that one cannot control strangers but one can somewhat control oneself and/or children.
Despite harsh sentences for murder - there are still murderers out there. In fact - there is no correlation between the severity of legal sentences and the amount of violent crimes. This would be different if we could somehow punish crimes before they happen but we can't. The obvious guess is that real murderers and rapists do not care if they get 5 months or 5 years in jail - they would go for it without thinking in such terms. There must be other ways to protect ourselves and our children?
Again - in case my mother learned of a girl who at the age of 13 had already experienced with sex and drugs - independent of rape - she would wonder about the parental situation and not legal proceedings. She would by the way not distinguish between Mr Polanski and the other two gentlemen who came before him. In fact - it waters down the sincerity of the preventive argument in case only Mr Polanski would be tried alone and not the first two as well? Is the American justice system about protecting victims or about exposing rich and famous people? If we cared about statutory rape I would assume that we should exposed all offenders? When somebody rapes you who is not famous and rich you can still suffer and the girl admits to that happening?
But as we live in different worlds, Michelle, I assume that you will not read my last sentence as a sign that I could despise all rapists and not merely some. You will not hear my general concern regarding prevention and not mere punishment. I fear that you will again only hear that I am defending and quasi promoting child rape. If others agree - please ban me.
The tragedy of this is the way that a child was successively abused by Polanski, the media, and the judicial system.
Polanski abused his position of power and trust by brutally raping and sodomizing her. The media abused her by portraying her as sullen, grasping, and a "Lolita." The justice system failed her by playing games with her attacker. Maybe they sought to protect her from a trial. Maybe they didn't think they could secure a conviction. But they failed her. I can't even begin to describe how heartbroken I am for her. How does she explain the new media furore to her three children?
Polanski has haunted her life for more than thirty years. I hope that, this time, they get it right, close the book and stop exposing her to further pain.
Re A. Applebaum: My favorite example of her idiocy is a column she did a while back in which she in passing referred to Indira Gandhi as Mohandas Gandi's daughter. (She later corrected. Oh yeah, it was jsuta slip.)
She is simply not a serious columnist. But it's nice to knwo that the bien-pensant believe that they, and their lot, should get free passes.
Let's assume for a moment that Polanski did indeed rape the girl. Let us agree that it was heinous and disgusting crime.
The interesting question to me is: The girl in question apparently grew up to be a well-adjusted woman with a family of her own. Polanski, as far as I know, has never committed the same kind of crime again. Most important, the victim has repeatedly and adamantly asked - even begged -- the LA DA not to open this case again, mostly because she doesn't want the publicity, but at least party because she had forgiven him and doesn't want to see him punished. (She actually said she hoped he'd win the Oscar for the pianist.)
So punishing him also entails punishing her. Does that change anything for any of you?
You apparently haven't read the comments, as this was discussed above -- justice is not pursued based on what victims would like to see happen in their particular case; it is, and must be, pursued for its own sake.
I'm sorry, but this "noble pursuit of justice" line is just odious. There is so much injustice right in front of our faces that we are not addressing with any vigor (say, prison rape) that this just rings false.
It was a mistake to write "I really don't want to hear anymore lecturing from the French about the hijab. You're defending a child rapist." That's really not true. From today's NYT:
Nowhere does any apologist for Polanski (including Polanski himself) seem to understand that what he did was wrong. It sounds very much as if HE is the victim: the prosecutor, the judge, Charles Manson, the Nazis, the girl's mother, the girl--all set out to ruin the life of this very gifted man and he has "suffered" enough. Well, we all suffer, some more than others, and while that can help us, as one commentator says, understand Polanski's behavior, it doesn't seem that he's ever understood it himself to the degree necessary to face up to the fact that he did something wrong. Nobody forced him. And of course, victims often put themselves in (or are put by others) into terrible situations. This is why predators go after the weak and the unprotected. Maybe the judge was incensed because it doesn't seem that Polanski ever got it.
Yes, of course I read the earlier comments. I just wanted to separate this particular issue more exactly from the other legal, procedural, and moral issues, distill it down to its essence, and re-introduce it, because I thought the earlier discussions had been tied into other considerations.
I understand the argument that prosecutors represent the people, not the victim, and that the victim's sentiments should therefore be irrelevant. That's the way we do things, but I'm not sure that it's the only way, or the best way, especially in cases like this where, as I say, there's no evidence, to my knowledge, that Polanski tried this sort of thing on any other children, and where, therefore, the question of "protecting society" might be considered moot. Most child predators are serial offenders: Polanski is not. Ms. Geimar was, as far as we know, his only victim; if she feels very strongly that he should not be prosecuted, I think that should be taken into account when we try to determine how to procede.
Sorry: that last comment was for ST, above.
JL, when you think about the way people even in these comments have spoken about the victim and the fact that Polanski managed to evade justice, if you'd been assaulted, would you come forward? (He also was involved with a 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.)
Persia: I don't know what I would do. I do know that the woman in question *did* come forward, albeit some years later, to tell her side of the story, but also to state unequivocally that further prosecution of Polanski was absurd. Even in this last point, I don't know if I agree with her; but she said it. My question was, how much should we take that into account. -- Because there's a very plausible scenario in which she testifies in Polanski's *defense*, he goes free, and the LA DA looks foolish.
As far as you know. That's a rather significant qualifier, don't you think?
Yes, it is. Which is why I made it: if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. My understanding of the Kinski relationship is that however distasteful we may find it, it was consensual and legal.
Right, and one reason why you treat even the first known incident seriously is because many people would never come forward. You truly don't know whether it was the first, the fifth or the fiftieth -- or how many more came afterwards. This is, of course, what the Catholic Church has been dealing with. That "one" offense was almost never the whole story.
Also, please note that this argument, or question, has nothing to do with Polanski being an artist, or wealthy, or the victim of Nazis, nothing to do with earlier judicial misconduct, admissions, plea bargains, etc. It's solely about the question of how far we take the notion that prosecutor's represent the people, rather than the victims, and whether there are any factors which might mitigate such a standard.
JL, to your question -- I think that at no point is the justice system obligated to follow a victim's wishes when it is deciding whether to PROSECUTE a crime. A victim's wishes could come into play when we decide how to *sentence* someone. But if the justice system was to follow the wishes of victims, most criminals would be executed on the spot and some random others would walk free. That's not how things should work.
I am sorry that punishing Polanski, in this case, means punishing his victim. The media attention to this sucks, and I feel terribly for her. I think she's been victimized by the media at least as much as she's been victimized by Polanski. But I don't want criminals walking the street because their victims are in a forgiving mood that day.
Hugo -- you are all over the place. I literally can't understand all of the arguments you are making; perhaps the sarcasm isn't coming through or there is a language barrir.
But I think part of the problem is that you are talking broadly, and all the rest of us are talking about a specific situation. If you want to argue that there are some situations where some underage girl could possibly want to have sex with some older man, that has nothing to do with whether THIS girl wanted to have sex with THIS guy. And as has been said, it doesn't matter if she wasn't a virgin, if she had taken drugs before, if her mother served her up on a platter...WHATEVER. Just because, in some universe you have imagined, a girl and an old man are having great consensual sex, it doesn't mean that has anything to do with this rape case.
Christina,
I agree and have been trying to make this point.. all over the place. I can actually imagine that a girl and an older man can have consensual sex. I do further believe that in this case it was not consensual but rape. My point about her not being a virgin was merely that somebody else, besides Polanksi must have had sex with her first. Keyword statutory rape.
Can you actually believe that I am not promoting child rape and that I am personally not turned out by children? This whole discussion started with the French and some actors defending Polanski. I dared to ask if it was statutory rape or rape-rape. Boom.
My "European" girlfriend and her friends for example do not know that it was rape-rape. It goes under in the media in Europe. I am actually "fighting" the other way too - trying to convince them that it was more than statutory rape. There are a surprising number of women who can imagine a young girl having consensual sex with an adult. I think it is important to stress that it was more than statutory rape and not merely scream around. Most people in Europe are much more against rape-rape than against so called statutory rape.
And it is true - there was a language challenge. In most European languages the term rape is not used in combination with underaged sex. And by the way - only because the term is not used in such a way does not mean that Europeans support underaged sex. Implying that the French or even hundred actors are pro child rape is maybe more counterproductive than singling out a single person like Polanski?
It is further true that many around me do not understand why the court does not respect the victims wishes. I personally do understand why and argue with them too. Either way - neither you nor I can change something about the whole thing. We can only control our own actions. Thanks for the most genuine and friendly comment to me in this debate by the way.
I'm sorry, rb6, but the way I understand justice, you don't ever factor in all the bad things you think somebody might have done, but for which you have no proof, or even evidence. And 'most guys who do this sort of thing do it multiple times' is not evidence. This is an excuse that cops use when they arrest the wrong guy -- 'Well, maybe he didn't do that crime, but I'll bet he did some others that we never got him for.'
IF the argument for arresting and imprisoning Polanski against the wishes of his victim is that in doing so we're protecting society as a whole from marauders, and IF there is no positive reason to believe that Polanski has been such a threat in the past thirty years, then that argument dissolves.
If, on the other hand, his victim wanted to see him arrested and imprisoned, I would have no problem at all seeing it happen.
Hugo, I believe you when you say that you are not interested in having sex with underaged women. I think you bring up an interesting pont that your feelings about this situation changed when you read the deposition that TNC linked for you. Perhaps all of Polanski's supporters should do the same, so at least some percentage of them can stop blaming this woman for what happened to her, or implying that it was consensual, or saying that it wasn't *really* rape, or whatever. This is not a mere case of underaged sex, which I fear you keep focusing on. It's not rape because she was very young -- though in this country, we have statuatory rape laws because we have determined that women of a certain age cannot legally consent. (I don't know what the law is where you live.)
In *this* case, in addition to her age, it is rape because his victim has never, ever, to my knowledge, said that she wanted to have sex with Roman Polanski that day. So all these issues of "consent," her age, his age, her virginity or lack thereof, her mother, her use of drugs, etc, go out the window. He drugged her, and then against her will, he raped her. It wouldn't matter if they were both 44 at the time. That is rape.
(By the way, you have referred to the fact that she may have had other sex partners. In the U.S., some statutory rape laws take into account the age of both parties. So, if she were 13 and having sex with a 15 year old, it may not be rape because both parties are underage. The law does see some shades of gray in these situations -- not that they are applicable here.)
JL, the argument for arresting and imprisoning Polanski is that that is what we do that with criminals. We cannot have a "justice" system that is guided by the capricious wishes of victims. The fact that this particular victim says "no more prosecution" is interesting, but that's all. It's noteworthy. It's something to weigh, perhaps, at sentencing. But if victims' wishes were all we followed, then we could have a lot of criminals running around just paying off their victims, perhaps, so that they would never face prosecution.
We also cannot have a justice system that says that if you merely evade the imposition of your sentence long enough, you get a free pass. Or, if you have enough money to get out of the country, oh well, no more case. Our system is tilted toward the well-off enough as it is. Do you really want to skew it even more in that direction?
Again, his victim's wishes are noteworthy. But we don't have to follow them any more than we'd have to put a bullet in his brain if that was what she was arguing for.
1. Polanski is a rapist and a scumbag.
2. The victim does not want the case to go to court. She is the one who was wronged. I do not believe anyone saying our government does a good job of protecting women and its authority to protect them should be given precedence over actual women.
3. In a better justice system than ours, concerned with making every judgement about some universal principle, Polanski would be brought back to the US, and the victim's family would be given the opportunity to beat the shit out of him to the point of death. Alas, we have what we have.
4. The extension of US law to Zurich, when there is no extradition agreement already in place, could set a very unwelcome precedent. I'd appreciate input from anyone with knowledge on that aspect.
5. No-one giving Polanski a free pass based on his "contribution" gets any recognition from me. He's despicable. But the case is still highly flawed and possibly likely to have a lot of negative impact on the legal system as a whole...
Christina, you make some good points, but when the victim says that more publicity is liked being raped for a second time, I find my devotion to abstract principles wavering.
djbtak, on the other hand: my devotion to those principles is strong enough that I find your comment (3), above, at best blustery, and at worst appalling. It's representative of what troubles me about all of this -- an absolute bloodlust, as if people are tired of having to hold in their rage, and having found, in Polanski, an apparently indefensible figure, are absolutely delighted to let loose with remarks that "in a better justice system" some sort of frontier vengeance would be given its due. My answer is, 'No, that wouldn't be better at all. That would be a disaster.'
I don't want to sound like I am cavalier towards Polanski's victim. I truly cannot imagine what she is going through. But the answer to a media industry run amok cannot be to let criminals go when everybody decides they just get tired of the publicity.
If she had been arguing that Polanski should be killed, and that every day he walks the earth a living person is like being raped again, I hope you wouldn't therefore say he deserves capital punishment for his crime. This isn't an abstraction. There are absolutely people rich enough to do heinous crimes and skip town, and they are paying attention to this.
But in a larger sense, I wish there was some sense of propriety. There was a story on CNN.com, might still be there for all I know, that talked about the "alleged" rape and that she "had sex with him." That kind of construction is objectively false. And, here Hugo is, arguing that because she was young and had had sex before and had a "bad" mother, maybe all this was consensual and it's merely a case of "underage sex." I understand why she sees that further pursuit of the case is an attack on her. But that just means that some people suck, not that Roman Polanski gets to go free.
Christina, you say: "If she had been arguing that Polanski should be killed, and that every day he walks the earth a living person is like being raped again, I hope you wouldn't therefore say he deserves capital punishment for his crime."
No, I wouldn't. Because, frankly, I think forgiveness is a good, and vengeance is an evil, so I think it's fine for the state to recognize the former, but not to promote the latter.
As far as CNN goes: journalistically, they're on the right track. Newspeople are supposed describe men or women according to they've actually been convicted of. Everything else is "alleged" or "suspected". In Polanski's case, he plead to statutory rape. He was never tried for rape, or for drugging the girl -- and this is not trivial: he never got to see the evidence against him, he never got to form a defense, question the other side's witnesses, and so on. I believed he raped her, but until he's tried, and convicted, I wouldn't say so in print. No, I'm afraid "alleged rape" the accurate way to go.
I don't understand your reasoning, JL. If I plead guilty to murder, and go to jail, I'm just an alleged murderer because I wasn't tried and convicted? That seems crazy to me.
I believe it is false that he never got to form a defense, etc. One usually pleads guilty to crimes when you know what the other side has on you, and you worry that you don't have an adequate defense.
He pleaded guilty to statutory rape. He is not arguing that the event didn't happen, that his plea was coerced, or that he did not get a chance to see the evidence, form a defense etc. Why are you giving Roman Polanski more of a pass than he even gave himself?
This conversation feels like it's taking a turn down a "Roman Polanski has been screwed over by the justice system" road, and I don't think either one of us want to go there. I tried to respond to your original point about the victim and her feelings and how I think they should apply or not apply, and I guess that's all I, at least, can say on that.
Where was all this outrage the last 30 yrs? All of sudden we're shocked at this situation? Never did we say, hey, France, how about you hand him over? Where were our higher moral attitudes then? It's a shame our ADHD society can only get mad when it's the story of the week.
This should have been handled 30 yrs ago.
And for what justice is worth, the victim did win a civil suit against Polanski.
It may seem crazy to you, but it's a well-established journalistic convention, based on the principle that all men -- including short, foreign, wealthy men -- are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. So yes, absolutely, as far as the press is concerned (as with the legal system itself) you're just an alleged murderer until you either confess, or you're tried and convicted in a court of law. The system may have its absurdities, but the alternatives are much worse. In general, it's very important that the press not make assumptions about who's guilty and who isn't. People shouldn't be tried in newsrooms: they're tried in courtrooms.
I'm not trying to give him any kind of pass. He's guilty of whatever he was convicted of, or confessed to -- in this case, statutory rape. He may very well be guilty of more, but that's not for you, me, or the New York Times to decide. We're all welcome to have our opinions, and to express them as we see fit: you're welcome to refer to Polanski as a rapist. But, if you recall, we were talking about CNN. Ideally, I think, news outlets leave that sort of judgment on the editorial page.
My own experience is that my first take on something like this almost never survives the second wave of facts. It's happened to me again and again, so I try to be skeptical about things, including -- especially -- my own beliefs.
In this instance, as it happens, I don't really care whether Polanski was screwed over by the justice system, but I'm very glad that someone out there does care. That's what keeps the system honest -- or more honest than it would otherwise be, anyway. Justice isn't just for people we like: it's for people we find abhorrent, too. In fact, I think it's precisely when someone strains our sympathies that we need to be most vigilant.
Sorry, Christina, I may have failed to address the misunderstanding, here. Yes, as you say, a confession is as good as a conviction; I'm afraid I may have been a little unclear about that.
JL --I'm a working journalist. I understand "journalistic conventions," and I also understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I don't *think* you meant that all to sound quite as pedantic as that read on the page, or to suggest that I think Roman Polanski is guilty because he's short, foreign, or wealthy.
Just to note again, Roman Polanski *confessed to rape* (actually, "unlawful sexual intercourse" if you want to be exact) and was prepared to face some kind of sentence for it. These weren't just words he was throwing around; there is no more "alleged" crime to talk about, and no more questions about his guilt in the eyes of the law. I'm not merely "welcome" to call him a rapist -- he is a rapist. He saw what the prosecution had on him, and worked out a plea. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression he never got a chance to mount a defense or see the evidence against him. How would he have decided to plead guilty without that information? There is a whole trial transcript where he testified under oath to what he did, that he understood he was waiving his right to a trial, that he understood what that meant, he was working with a lawyer, etc. Enjoy:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
If he had fled the country before any kind of trial or plea deal, of course then the media would need to say "allegedly." But I'm sure you know that's not what happened -- he just ran away before sentencing -- and that's where CNN is just wrong. And their reporters' carelessness and stupidity is another twist of the knife, I'm sure, in the heart of his victim. Whether she "forgives" him or not, she has never said that she just "had sex with him" and was not raped.
I very much hope we are on the same page with this. I feel like you are arguing that your skepticism is making you a bit more honest than the rest of us who are howling for Polanski's head. But I don't need to be skeptical. I'm just taking the guy at the word that he gave under oath, since at no point has he argued that he was forced into a confession. At least one CNN reporter, unfortunately, doesn't get that. We don't need to spread that misapprehension any further.
No need to get your dudgeon up. I didn't know you were a working journalist. Some people aren't.
As for me: yes I do want to be exact. So, for whatever it's worth: (1) I believe he raped her. (2) I believe he confessed to, is guilty of, can fairly, in print, described as a perpetrator of, and should be punished for...
Well, here it gets tricky, and more than a little hair-splitting. He confessed to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, which, given that it makes no reference to consent, is a different crime than rape, as we usually understand it. Indeed, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as "Statutory Rape" in California; and nowhere in Polanski's pleas does the word "rape" arise. That said, "convicted Unlawful Sexual Intercourser" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue.
If I were a journalist, would I call him "convicted rapist" or "alleged rapist"? Eh, I'd probably go with "convicted sex offender". Presumably my editors or producers would have the final say. But your argument that "he is a rapist", and "CNN is just wrong" is...well, just wrong.
As for people howling for his head, I give you:
1. Andy -- 'I don't have a problem with child molesters getting the death penalty."
2. thefoulness (sic): "Grown men who fuck little girls deserve to go first to jail, and then to hell."
3. djbtak: "In a better justice system than ours, concerned with making every judgement about some universal principle, Polanski would be brought back to the US, and the victim's family would be given the opportunity to beat the shit out of him to the point of death."
Etc.
That's not everyone, by any means, but you have to admit, emotions have been running high on this one.
More importantly, I don't see anywhere (if I'm wrong about this, please tell me) where Polanski stipulates that the girl's account of what happened is accurate. Because many people here seem to be assuming that her testimony is accepted fact. And I believe her, too; but then, I believed the Duke stripper.
JL -- I never said that emotions aren't running high. But I'm suggesting that your skepticism is misplaced, and it makes me feel like for some reason you're arguing just to prove that you're more wise and less emotional than everyone else. And I'm sure you are wise. But I don't understand why you feel the need to split hairs *in this case.*
1. Roman Polanski confessed to a crime.
2. He didn't flee the country because he said he was coerced into that confession. He fled becauase he was afraid of the sentence that might be imposed on him.
3. To my knowledge, he has never denied any of the parts of this confession.
I'm not wrong about CNN. Please trust me on this, if you can trust a stranger on the internet who says she is a journalist. Whatever he is -- he isn't an "alleged" anything. That was my point. My problem was that they were calling him "alleged," and wrote that he "had sex with her," like there's some question here as to whether a crime was committed and maybe it was "just sex." A crime was committed. She has never changed her story, he has never offered a different story in a court. Her testimony that she was raped (or was the victim of unlawful sexual intercourse, whatever) became accepted fact when he confessed to that crime. Isn't that what a confession is?
(Also, legalese like "unlawful sexual intercourse" is routinely shortened to "rape" in news accounts. Just like legalese like "fled on foot" is turned into "ran away.")
The Duke case is irrelevant because of course, in that situation, there were huge, valid questions of guilt from the very start (for what it's worth, I did not believe her fairly early on. Not that it matters.) Those guys protested their innocence. They didn't plead guilty to other charges.
If all these years Roman had been arguing that the girl's account was not accurate, that they put thumb screws on him to get him to say he did it, that they had some man confess in his name, that he didn't understand the charges, etc. then we would have something to talk about. That kind of thing does happen to people. But he's never argued that it happened to *him.* From my perspective, I feel like you're introducing "maybes" into something that's pretty cut-and-dried, from a legal perspective.
Your original thought, I believe, was, "maybe this shouldn't be prosecuted because it will hurt his victim." I agree with you all that this hurts his victim, but I would argue that actually finishing up this case hurts less than this seemingly pointless musing about whether her testimony is fact, whether she's believable or perhaps can be linked to the Duke stripper case, whether he's an "alleged" criminal or really a criminal, is he a "rapist" or an "unlawful sexual intercourser," etc. If for the sake of being level-headed you'd like to introduce doubt into something that neither she nor Polanski have ever in all these years recanted, I don't understand that.
I'll make you a deal, Christina: I won't patronize you, if you'll stop patronizing me (i.e., by pointing out, in a schoolteacher's voice, what you have decided are my "real" motivations.)
No, that's not what a confession is. Read Polanski plea, and you can see exactly what he admits to (it's on page 8), and what he remains quiet on. In effect he says, "yeah I knew that she was 13 and that it was a crime". The rest of it -- the drugging, for example, he doesn't respond to because the state dropped all those charges in exchange for the plea. Indeed, the State explicitly *dropped the charge of rape*. Why would he bother to defend himself against charges that have been dropped?
So the state says, "We're not going to charge him with rape". Polanski doesn't admit to rape (though his victim says it happened). He confesses to, and is convicted via plea bargain of unlawful sexual intercourse.
And yet you, Christina, think it's not only OK to refer to him on CNN as a rapist, but disparage people who don't.
I don't think I want to talk about this any more.