Roman Polanski is a cinematic genius with a tragic history. But he is also a fugitive from justice who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and the U.S. Justice Department acted properly in asking Switzerland to extradite Polanski, regardless of how much time has elapsed and despite the fact that his grown-up victim isn’t seeking his imprisonment. The 76-year-old director of “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist” was arrested over the weekend in Zurich, where he was to have received an award. Many of Polanski’s admirers in this country and abroad were outraged. But Polanski shouldn’t be left alone because of tragedies in his life or his status as a legendary director. Nor is it relevant that his victim seeks no further punishment for him. Prosecutions are brought in the name of the state, not the victim. The arguments are eclipsed by a simple fact: Polanski fled the country. In February, a judge said there had been “substantial” official misconduct in Polanski’s original case, so the director may well persuade a court to free him. But first he must return.
— Los Angeles Times editorial
Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom, has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film. Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
— Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
50 Comments
Reading about what he did, hell yes he needs to go to jail. And what kind of message does that send if he he gets away with running because he is influential?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-polanski/story?id=8705958
If the allegations are true, he deserves special treatment….in the darkest part of the jail he is sentenced to.
Instead of what he deserves, he should just get sentenced to many years in jail. Regardless of what Whoopie, or many Hollywood elites think. In fact, the more they defend this creep, the less I like them.
“Directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch and Woody Allen are among dozens in the film industry who have agreed to sign a petition calling for the immediate release of Polanski.”
[FE]Yeah, that ought to help with public opinion.[/FE]
I like Polanski’s films (those I have seen, I have boycotted his post exile films), but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the man on this.
I wonder what Mia Farrow thinks of the argument that Roman Polanski has been through enough.
I find the argument that this child molester shouldn’t be prosecuted because he made some popular movies a bit tough to swallow. Theoretically, this is America, where rule of law supercedes celebrity. Maybe it’s time to demonstrate that.
I cannot think of an argument, legally or morally, that would excuse this guy. And for a lawyer, that’s saying a lot.
And the idea that because he’s an “artist” that somehow the rules are different is not just laughable, it’s pathetic. Equal justice means just that. What the court does with him is up to the court, but he must appear and face the music. Skipping out on sentencing (he’d already entered a plea), and his 30 years as a fugative aren’t going to play well.
BTW – according to the victim’s statements, there was nothing “statutory” about the rape; it was a forcible rape.
“BTW – according to the victim’s statements, there was nothing ’statutory’ about the rape; it was a forcible rape.”
Exactly, it would a reprehensible crime if the victim was 45. And come on, the man picked her up from her house and talked with her mother, so it was clear that she was a minor even if Polanski didn’t know that she was 13 (like anyone should think better of him if he thought she was, say, 17, see above about this being a crime if the victim was 45).
“Theoretically, this is America, where rule of law supercedes celebrity. Maybe it’s time to demonstrate that.”
Yes, it is.
I find it interesting that folks need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to call what this man did reprehensible. Setting aside the law (which is based on the Bible), given the atheistic worldview, what was wrong with his actions?
“what was wrong with his actions?”
Any human being who could ask that question could never understand the answer.
Deb not borrowing from any Christian worldview but this man needs to pay the price for what he did. He violated the trust and body of a child. He did it forcibly after drugging her by his own admission.
Not sure what your point is but we as adults have to protect the children from predators. If he had been a nobody on the street he would have been punished years ago.
His time for freedom just ran out. This was one time we knew about. Very few child molesters, and that is what he is, stop with just one victim.
Linda, you misunderstood me. I think the man should get the death penalty if he is guilty of the crime. As a Christian I know this is morally wrong from the Bible. Why do you know it is wrong without borrowing from the Bible?
okobserver: Child molesters should get their just due as well.
My religion is much too personal a subject to be discussed on a blog. I’ve never met anyone on this earth who has the right to judge what is or isn’t acceptable on the subject of religious convictions.
Mark this down as a red letter day. The right and left both agree won this one.
Manufacturing child porn photos of the then 13-year-old naked girl is by itself a typical 10-to-20 year federal penitentiary sentence. Then, the confessed drugging, raping, and sodomizing of the girl against her will should put him in prison for a good 40-year sentence.
That is, if the safety of your children has any value in our corrupt criminal justice system that allows celebrity justice instead of equal justice.
First of all, here is a well stated editorial.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
Secondly, though, I feel very sad that I have to address an expression of anti-atheist (indeed perhaps non-Christian) bigotry.
“I find it interesting that folks need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to call what this man did reprehensible. Setting aside the law (which is based on the Bible), given the atheistic worldview, what was wrong with his actions?”
Let’s break this down.
“I find it interesting that folks need to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to call what this man did reprehensible.”
As an agnostic, and a functional atheist (since I can not justify expressing a definite belief in a god), I for one did no such thing. My anger at Polanski comes from being able to take the perspective of the young girl who was victimized. Furthermore, I am also the father of teenage (and formerly teenaged) girls. I also work with children and adults with disabilities, who are often especially vulnerable. To say that I or others like me need to “borrow” from the Christian worldview to condemn the actions of Roman Polanski is more than simple ignorance, it is truly hurtful.
Secondly, there is the whole assumption that only the Christian worldview would consider an action like rape reprehensible. The Golden Rule was independently expressed by many cultures, some non-thestic and well before the expression of it that was attributed to Jesus. The idea that other people are subject to lives, and have interests that are worthy of consideration, is not limited to any particular religious or philosophical viewpoint.
“Setting aside the law (which is based on the Bible), given the atheistic worldview, what was wrong with his actions?”
1) There is no such thing as “the” atheistic world view. Atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in a god or gods, and covers people who see no evidence sufficient to justify their expression of a belief in a “god”, to those who actively argue that “gods” do or even can not exist (there is a considerable difference between those two viewpoints, and all the points in between). Anyone who goes to self described atheist forums will find just as much heated disagreement on a wide variety of issues, including those concerning the fundamentals of morality, as they will find on this board. Atheism is not a unitary world view, it is a broad definition covering a huge variety of people on one single question.
2) I can easily find lots at fault with Polanski’s actions from “my” personal, “atheistic” world view. As I explained above, I need no reason to presume either the existence of a god or gods, or to presume a transcendent source for morality, to empathize with the victim or to object to the victimization of a child who was brutalized.
3) To say that our laws were based on the Bible is to ignore the history of common law, pre-Christian western thought, the influence of Native American sources, and enlightenment thinking.
Now, all this being said.
“Deb, not borrowing from any Christian worldview but this man needs to pay the price for what he did. He violated the trust and body of a child. He did it forcibly after drugging her by his own admission.
“Not sure what your point is but we as adults have to protect the children from predators. If he had been a nobody on the street he would have been punished years ago.
“His time for freedom just ran out. This was one time we knew about. Very few child molesters, and that is what he is, stop with just one victim.”
I have had harsh words for and with you, okobserver, and I probably will again. That being said, I not only completely agree with your statement, I greatly appreciated it as coming from a self described Christian woman. I particularly appreciated your first paragraph, where you recognized that you weren’t borrowing from a Christian perspective to come to your conclusions.
Thank you.
I wouldn’t be too quick there okobserver…
I am still waiting to hear from BlueJay on what he has to say about this.
“Mark this down as a red letter day. The right and left both agree on this one.”
Indeed.
I can’t believe what Whoopi Goldberg said…
That it wasn’t “rape-rape”
Yeah, we might have some agreement here between the right and the left, but that is not the case for many of those on the left in Hollywood.
What do those of you on the left here think about that?
This is like when they put some 95 year old guy in jail because he was a guard in a camp in another lifetime. What pound of flesh can be made to feel better by putting an old man in prison I don’t know.
But I DO want that spirit kept alive. Dick Cheney still has a lot to answer for.
“What do those of you on the left here think about that?”
That Whoopi should know better.
I don’t have enough interest in this to go back to the original case, but here’s what I remember from 30 years ago.
The original slap-on-the-wrist punishment per the plea bargain seems to indicate prosecutors didn’t think they had that strong of a case against Polanski.
There could have been any number of contributing reasons. Perhaps the victim was deemed to be an unreliable witness. Perhaps the cops botched the investigation somehow. Perhaps it had something to do Polanski’s celebrity. I dunno.
But I do know the LADA preferred the plea bargain over their chances to get a jury to convict.
That 60-days of community service deal was in exchange for Polankski’s confession. Without the DA honoring that agreement, the “confession” is meaningless; forced under duress.
So returning him to trial means 32-year-old evidence, a 45-year-old teenager, a worthless “confession,” and tainted jury pool.
The only justice to be meted out in this case was poetic. Effectively he was deported for being a skuzzball. Perhaps we should deport all pedophiles.
Christians make the case that sex is God’s gift to married couples according to the Bible. Many have taken the view that as long as “whatever” is consensual it is o.k. The only caveat is that it is between consenting teenagers or consenting adults. There are some in other countries who are trying to change that law to allow children and adults to legally have sexual relations. There are some in the US who are sympathetic to that view.
Christians have a standard which they point to when they say without reservation, “victimizing children for your own pleasure is wrong”. What I want to know is where is the standard for others?
Agnatha, I understand that you consider it common decency to treat the weaker members of society with grace and honor which I agree with whole heartedly, but mankind tends toward wicked behavior when society winks at what Christians call wickedness.
It is true that people can be hypocrites, and of course Christians rather excel in that area, but at least when Christian morality is trumpeted, society has an actual standard to measure itself against. Besides, hypocrisy generally gets exposed to those who are observant, besides providing great humor.
Polanski quote
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f___ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f___ young girls. Juries want to f___ young girls. Everyone wants to f__ young girls!”
“The original slap-on-the-wrist punishment per the plea bargain seems to indicate prosecutors didn’t think they had that strong of a case against Polanski.”
Actually, the plea bargain was likely to fall through, because the judge was going to reject it (on the basis of admittedly inappropriate contact between the judge and the prosecuting attorney). That’s why Polanski fled. And the case was hardly that weak, even by 1977 standards. The plea bargain was probably more related to the fact that Polanski had the resources to draw the thing out, the trial would have been a media circus, and a 13 year old girl would have been subjected to the circus. However, the fact of the matter is, when the plea bargain appeared to be on the verge of falling through, he ran. He must not have been that confident in his position.
“That 60-days of community service deal was in exchange for Polankski’s confession. Without the DA honoring that agreement, the ‘confession’ is meaningless; forced under duress.”
They still had the girl’s testimony.
“Christians make the case that sex is God’s gift to married couples according to the Bible. Many have taken the view that as long as ‘whatever’ is consensual it is o.k.”
Irrelevant. First of all, it’s not one or the other. Many who are not Christians do not take the view that “whatever” is consensual is OK. But more to the point, most of those who do also recognize that developmentally, a 13 year old can not meaningfully give informed consent to sex, and consent that is not informed is not really consent.
“The only caveat is that it is between consenting teenagers or consenting adults. There are some in other countries who are trying to change that law to allow children and adults to legally have sexual relations. There are some in the US who are sympathetic to that view.”
Again, irrelevant. Christianity is hardly the only philosophy in the world that would lead people to disagree with that point of view. More to the point, teenage marriage and even adult-child relationships were common in western societies, including devoutly Christian ones, before the 20th century. Changes in attitudes have more to do with increased life spans, extended time in school, and greater knowledge of child dvelopment than with Christianity. If that was not the case, then increases the age of consent would be directly related to the proportion of devout Christians. Thus, for example, one would expect to see a higher age of consent in Alabama, than say, Washington state. This is not the case.
http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_sex/statelaws_chart/statelaws_chart.html
Ages of consent are pretty much the same across the board.
Christians have a standard which they point to when they say without reservation, ‘victimizing children for your own pleasure is wrong’. What I want to know is where is the standard for others?”
I answered that. But it also goes to this. If you truly think arbitrary standards, such as “because Christianity says so”, are the best ways to ensure good behavior, then I am frankly frightened of you (fortunately, even many people who express this belief, when you really talk to them about their outrage over child rape, you find that they have the same reasons for their outrage as anyone else, namely, thinking from the perspectives of the person victimized and of those who love her/him). Restraint based on empathy is much more solid than restraint based on “because my religion says so”.
“Agnatha, I understand that you consider it common decency to treat the weaker members of society with grace and honor which I agree with whole heartedly, but mankind tends toward wicked behavior when society winks at what Christians call wickedness.”
Part of the problem here appears to be that you are unable to take a view outside of your assumptions as a devout Christian. One could easily say that humanity inclines towards “wicked” behavior when society devalues the worth of some human beings over others. The referencing of Christianity is not as self evident to others as it is to you, which is my point. The fact that you may be unable to see why someone could condemn the actions of Roman Polanski without referencing Christianity is a reflection of the limitations of your perspective, and not on the perspectives of others.
“It is true that people can be hypocrites, and of course Christians rather excel in that area, but at least when Christian morality is trumpeted, society has an actual standard to measure itself against.”
I really don’t think that “standard” is as apparent as you think it is, especially when you reference the Old Testament, which was written from the perspectives of a bronze age middle eastern society and their heirs. An ability to think things through, and to consider the implications and consequences of actions, leads to much better conditions and behavior than referencing imposed standards based on “because a god (which I assume the existence of, but you may not) said so”.
“This is like when they put some 95 year old guy in jail because he was a guard in a camp in another lifetime.”
Actually, I think this is an apt comparison. Sadistic guards in Nazi death camps should be tracked down and brought to justice. Another apt comparison would be the eventual conviction of Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medger Evers.
“What pound of flesh can be made to feel better by putting an old man in prison I don’t know.”
It’s not “pound of flesh”, it’s basic justice that has been evaded.
You know of course, “Agnatha” that if this were a hero of the cons they would forgive him anything. I’m going to play by the same rules they do.
“You know of course, ‘Agnatha’ that if this were a hero of the cons they would forgive him anything. I’m going to play by the same rules they do.”
Why?
Did I call it or what?
Here comes BlueJay to prove me right…
I have some reasons for why BlueJay doesn’t think a guy who raped a 13 year old after drugging her shouldn’t face justice… but that would involve dredging up some of his past comments on his own thoughts on young girls and “what they do for him”
It wasn’t that hard for me to predict where he probably stood on this issue based on his past comments in regards to young girls.
Cry me a fuqing river Applebaum.
He made his choice to skip the country. If he believed he was innocent, have your day in court.
Even if convicted he would have been out of prison by now having served his debt to society and could have accepted his precious Oscar among other things.
We’re all sorry you still can’t get a date Nathaniel.
““You know of course, ‘Agnatha’ that if this were a hero of the cons they would forgive him anything. I’m going to play by the same rules they do.”
Why?
Why not?
So Blue Jay you are ok with pedophiles?
No Mark Foley should DEFINITELY be in prison.
I believe in relative justice just like you cons. If people agree with me politically, I’m inclined to forgive just as you do.
“Florida officials have closed the investigation of Foley, stating they found “insufficient evidence” to file criminal charges, since the page was over the age of 18.[38]“
The killer of Jessica Lunsford died in prison today of natural causes,hope he died a slow,miserable painful death
BlueJay,
It doesn’t look so good for you, no matter how you try to justify it, that you are defending the actions of a child rapist when you yourself have made questionable comments about what young girls “do for you”
Disturbing. Very disturbing.
So BLueJay….
Just exactly how old was your son’s mother when you “donated” the sperm?
Well it’s a good thing for me then that I don’t seek reflection in the eyes of a thirtysomething daddy’s boy there Nathaniel.
Did you wine and dine her similar to Polanski or did you use candy?
“Just exactly how old was your son’s mother…”
24.
Your turn. How old were you and your mother when Daddy abandoned you?
“Why not?”
Because I’m not 12.
Nathan.
Why use this thread to continue a p*ssing contest with Blue Jay?
Kia: “He made his choice to skip the country. If he believed he was innocent, have your day in court.
Even if convicted he would have been out of prison by now having served his debt to society and could have accepted his precious Oscar among other things.”
Exactly.
“It’s not “pound of flesh”, it’s basic justice that has been evaded.”
The cons look the other way for their politically own all the time.
WTF does a pedophile’s political bent have to do with whether or not he should be excused for his actions?
Politics aside you either condone child molestation or you don’t
“The cons look the other way for their politically own all the time.”
And this has what to do with Roman Polanski?
Which is basically a rephrasing of freebird’s question.
It doesn’t even make sense at all.
Polanski isn’t a political figure, he isn’t a politician, he is a Hollywood elite.
Even if BlueJay’s premise was true, Polanski doesn’t even fit the bill.
I don’t even really see the argument, at first, to be if Polanski is guilty or should go to prison. The first argument is should Polanski have to face Justice at all? He left part of the way through that. He fled justice.
Even if all the arguments about the trial being rigged are ture, that the Judge was biased, that there was misconduct…etc…etc… this has not been proven in a court of law.
Polanski should at the very least have to face justice and once there he can prove or argue those points.
So far, he hasn’t even done that. He fled.
There is no excuse for that.
Perhaps Polanski needs to experience some prison love.