Pajiba

One of the greatest directors to ever live.

And he should rot in jail for the rest of his life.

All I'm saying...

I was hoping someone at Pajiba would address this bullshit and I'm glad it was you, Dustin.

Someone on another site I frequent mentioned that it's stupid how the whole Kanye West outburst got people more blue in the face than the fact that Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Yes, it was 30 years ago, yes it's been a long time but...gah it was still rape!

I am just at a loss as to how these people, many of them mothers and fathers to children as young as or younger than the girl Polanski raped could even look at themselves in the mirror and say, "yes, today I shall proclaim my support for that good man, Polanski."

There's this saying in Spanish: "con dinero baila el perro."

Guess the dollar is the bottom line. :(

Thank you. I've seen every excuse in the book used to justify Polanski - he's a genius, he was traumatized by the whole Manson thing, she's forgiven him, she lied about her age etc.

What it comes down to is He Raped Her. You cannot make excuses for that.

I'm with you Dustin. It boggles my mind how Hollywood circles around its own regardless of what they do. This idea that because one is talented, one is above the "silly" laws that apply to the masses is really reprehensible. As for the girl, yes I know she wants the charges dropped, but she settled privately with him back in the 90s so if we go by that standard, we're basically saying if you're rich enough to pay off your victims, then you are above the law.
Also, perhaps Woody Allen should keep his profile a little low on this one. He's hardly what might be termed objective on the whole "grizzled old man seducing a virtual child" topic.

Totally with you on this. Let's not forget that not only was he charged, he was convicted. There are no more "allegations." It was proven. All he did was run away from sentencing. He had already been acknowledged as guilty.

Well said, Dustin. I have to admit that seeing some of the names that are on that petition really makes wonder if Hollywood is more fucked up than even I could imagine. (and I've got a pretty vivid imagination)

I am not a parent, but I have a sister who is 16 (3 years older than the victim) and I could not imagine something so horrible happening to her and then having people dismiss it.

I don't understand the lack of outrage.

It's not like he committed a disgusting, selfish, hurtful crime against a 30 year old woman (and that- raping a grown woman- is a horrible crime that I will never excuse). He forced himself on a thirteen year old girl. He was a middle aged man who raped a child less than 1/3 of his age.

And for those who like to state "It was just a technicality, she was close to 14, she had had sex before, he was villainized", she said No. Several times. She never consented. I don't care if she was 45 or 15 or 9, No means No.

I am an artist (a statement that never comes off pretentious, of course not) who is a sucker for the tortured artist shtick.

I don't give a fuck if it happened 30 years ago. He never had the stigma or shame of being a sex offender.

This is quite ranty, but one last thing:

I have no pity for him being confined to France(?) for 30 years. I will likely be "confined" to Canada for my entire life...because most people don't get the chance to travel the world! It's considered a privilege, not a right.

I love Tilda Swinton, but her signing that petition definitely puts a bitter edge to that enjoyment now.

"I don't give a fuck if it happened 30 years ago. He never had the stigma or shame of being a sex offender...."

That is an outright , lie. Are you seriously going to argue he hasn't lived with the "sex offender" stigma?

I didn't know he had raped a girl until he was re-captured. And the fact that he is such a highly-acclaimed artist speaks for the fact that he has NOT suffered for his actions.

The general public does not tend to write off a sex offender unless they mentally reduce the crime. They don't accept the crime and pardon the offender. Does that make sense? That's why his defenders have been talking about how he paid for his crime by running away from the law (!) and how it was all technicalities.

"I didn't know he had raped a girl until he was re-captured..."

Dude, that was just you who didn't know.

Why is it so hard to condemn this man, what was his special talent that would make those want to protect this man at all cost? What is in the psyche of Hollywood to make it want to give this monster refuge?

Are you seriously going to argue he hasn't lived with the "sex offender" stigma?

BarbadoSlim, judging from the fact that he was never blacklisted in Hollywood, that everyone has and continues to pretty much kiss his rapist ass...mmmm, notsomuch.

As for it not being anyone's fucking business...yeah, that's the kind of attitude we want people to take when women and children are getting raped by fucking assholes who smugly think they are above the law.

As a woman, daughter and, at some point in the future, mother you bet your ass it's my fucking business to be remotely interested in what happened to this girl, be it 30 days or 30 years ago.

Fact of the matter is that you can rant and rave about Polanski probably getting the book thrown at him, his due justice being fucked with but fact of the matter is that we don't know if that would have been the case/outcome...because his lil beetch ass ran to another country to make successful movies, drink it up with the Europeans and makes millions of money.

And it's come full circle with Hollywood types now kissing his ass and supporting him...even though he's a fucking rapist!

Forgive me, BS, for not being so sympathetic to Polanski or the, well, bullshit outcry resulting from his arrest.

That's as much as I'll say on the subject because rapists, rape and all that make me stabby.

"As much as I understand and sympathize with the victim's stance, her wishes, as awful as this may sound, have no bearing here..."

No you don't sympathize one iota with her, you just care about satisfying your own misguided sense of revenge.

Tell me about judicial discretion when some documented corrupt judge screws over someone in YOUR family.

DO you even realize how self-serving and patronizing for it is to have some knuckle dragging jack-ass to come out of the woodwork and tell her to jut step aside because she doesn't matter? Do you?

"As a woman, daughter and, at some point in the future, mother you bet your ass it's my fucking business to be remotely interested in what happened to this girl, be it 30 days or 30 years ago..."

SO you are saying it you made it your business because you (due to your female condition) are somehow more important than the original victim?

Ah ok.

Didn't he make most of his really good films *before* 1977? People keep bringing up how he's a genius filmmaker (and he was, in my opinion; Rosemary's Baby is permanently in my top 3 films of all time), but most of his really good work was done before then.

Personally, I find it disturbing that so many people whom so many others look up to would sign a petition asking for the release of Polanski. I would also ask, what punishment has he served? He raped a little girl, left the country, and continued living his life. He just couldn't travel as freely as he wanted.

However, in light of the fact that the victim just wants all of this to go away, so that neither she nor her mother, her husband, and her children have to hear about it, I would ask what purpose it serves to put a 77-year-old-man in jail for a crime he committed 3 decades ago, when the only purpose it *seems* to be serving is to reopen those wounds for her? Not to mention sensationalizing the fact that he got away with it for 3 decades, which is going to do absolutely nothing in the way of prevention either way? She doesn't want to think about it. Should she have to so the rest of the world can get some kind of sense of justice? When it's not up to the rest of the world to need that justice?

i really don't have an opinion i'd like to go on record as saying, however, if someone gets banned because of this thread, i want to be able to say i was there. godspeed, y'all.

Shit, Dustin, you are fucked now. Judge Slim just convicted you of raping this woman all over again. Enjoy France.

Now let me take Slim to task in earnest. The rational behind the victim saying that she does not want this matter pursued is presumably because she has moved on with her life. Lets assume that she could care less about what happened in the past and she has no remnants of psychological trauma.

If that be the case, then she is not being "raped" again and there is no real trauma exacted on her by the government continuing to pursue the matter.

However, lets presume that she does not want the matter pursued because it opens wounds that she wished not be reopened. Well, then that just proves how deep the emotional scars run; how profoundly victimized this woman -- and victims like her -- remains after all these years, and therefore, how justified the government is for wanting justice.

There is a reason why its "The People" v. Defendant. We not only have a duty to this woman, to stand in her place and prosecute this man when she no longer has either the desire or strength to forge ahead, but we also do it BECAUSE YOU DON'T DRUG AND RAPE OUR CHILDREN YOU CUMSTAIN!

As for the Judge, I applaud him for saying that a 43 day jail sentence is bullshit. If anything, his anticipated decision to give -- gasp -- an extra 43 days was too lenient.

Okay, I keep seeing it mentioned that he sodomized and raped this little girl. I don't know the details, but it seems to me that rape is rape regardless of the avenue, to put it inconsiderately crassly.

On a related note, every once in a while the suggestion reemerges on Pajiba (often because I won't let it die) that we burn that city down. Except, we're making the law a pretty big deal here and come to think of it that might be illegal too. And dangerous. But, I was a lurker for so long I'd probably follow yall anyway.

And BSlim, regardless of how everyone else, and you, may be reacting you are absolutley right that while the law may not be about the girl, the situation should not become divorced from her or her wishes. But, again, that's not the law. Right or wrong. But let's not jump too far up Slim's ass, because we need reminding in this case.

Other threads, jump as high as you want.

Nicely put Rowles.

I think it's important to remember that a statute of limitations doesn't apply, and you don't have to say that these are allegations- he was charged and CONVICTED of rape. The only thing up for debate at this point is his sentence.

The only way to make Hollywood pay for this is to not purchase anything by any member of Hollywood that would support this monster. I’m just one person but if everyone would somehow boycott the people that support Polanski maybe something could be done.

Jesus Christ BSlim it's not about revenge, its about upholding the law. YOU DON'T RAPE SOMEONE AND THEN GET TO WALK. PERIOD. You commit a very serious crime, broke the law and you should be punished for it. Simple as that.

The wishes of the victim are to be heard during sentencing in the form of victim impacts statements. They are NOT meant to influence whether a case goes to trial or what the verdict of that trial will be.
The act of violence itself is worthy of criminal charges, regardless of the will of the victim to participate in the process. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that victims in cases of rape or domestic violence are often scared to press charges - scared either of the assailant or public perception and social ostracism. Moreover, two goals of punishment are deterrence and social safety/protection. Neither of those are related to how one particular victim would like his or her assailant to be treated. If the only goal of punishment were retribution, then the victim's feelings toward her assailant would have more weight. Fortunately, our justice system isn't based purely on vengeance.

I don't agree at all with how it's being handled and publicized and I think it should just be done with. He's arrested for a crime he committed and that's that. It'd save everyone a lot of griping and pain (ie the victim). So you can thank the media, Hollywood and France for the massive amount of blubbering going on.

I sure hope I don't regret posting this later.

So now we should boycott the work of 110 other people because it is their belief that for whatever reason they believe Polanski should be released? Maybe some believe the judicial misconduct that occurred in 1977 is enough to have the case thrown out. Maybe a few others believe he should still face jail time but have the facts of the case reviewed including prior plea deals to determine an appropriate sentence. Maybe some of them believe that inviting the man to Switzerland, making a big deal of his arrival, charging tickets to see him, then using all of this as an opportunity to strategically position Switzerland as a strong ally of the US by capturing this fugitive was pretty sketchy. Maybe some of them even think he's above the law and should receive special treatment.

Until I know what, exactly, each of those 110 film industry people actually believe about that case, I refuse to boycott or condemn them for expressing their opinion on the matter. To be blunt: this is the single most ignorant idea I have come across on Pajiba in all my years of reading the site. Make sure to get that lynch mob ready to string the fucker alive for raping a girl 31 years ago since the US doesn't have the balls to castrate him and drench the soil with his perverted blood. Don't forget to assault anyone with a differing perspective on the unsettled issues in the case as a warning sign to anyone who ever goes against your ideas of justice. After all, it's no different then what the judge decided to do when he said he wanted to hang Polanski out to dry after a plea deal was offered. The best justice is the type that, in a country where the prison system has grown to mean rehabilitation, makes an example out of a person and prevents them from ever being properly integrated in society again. Perhaps an elaborate series of patches should be issued so we know who to shun based on their opinions in any and all legal cases. That way we know who is in the right at all times and don't support any sick fucks who believe the legal system shouldn't be allowed to break the law just to bring a criminal to justice.

Just one request from me: before anyone goes off too much on the high horse on this issue, he or she should really read both the victim's original grand jury testimony and Polanski's guilty plea in court. There's a lot of vitriol being tossed around on the internet about this issue, and it seems to me that much of it is lacking information. It's all available on The Smoking Gun. I had some ambivalence about the matter, but reading the official records put me rather firmly on one side of the matter.

By the way, I work in Hollywood, and despite the very famous list of supporters protesting the arrest, there is a sizable contingent within the industry (dare I say a majority - myself included therein) that wants to see this matter settled via the court system as it should have been done over 30 years ago.

Anyway, well said. But Dustin, you're still dead wrong about the 80s movies from earlier today. :- )

Robert, only an idiot would liken a boycott to a lynch mob. Does it even bother you that 110 industry people are siding with a rapist? Polanski coped to the charge of having sex with a minor, but didn’t cop to giving her drugs.

For anyone curious, here is the full text and list of 110 industry people that signed the petition:

http://www.thewrap.com/article/petition-release-roman-polanski-7901

And I believe that this is the official petition site, but I'm not sure because it won't load. I imagine that are are probably millions of people trying to access it, but here it is anyway:

http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman-Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html

Privilege backs privilege, always has always will. Talent has nothing to do with it, art has nothing to do with it.

That said, I'm disturbed by the lack of empathy for Polanski. The guy didn't have your garden variety fucked up childhood. "Hunted by Nazis" is no way to grow up. And he didn't lose his wife to a typical Hollywood divorce, but in the most horrific way imaginable. None of this excuses him, but it should earn a measure of compassion. Fuck Nietzsche, what kills us doesn't always make us stronger. Sometimes it really messes us up and causes us do bad bad things. Hollywood may present victims and survivors to us as ennobled by their experiences but I think Polanski represents the story people don't want to acknowledge.

I wish he'd come back and resolve this issue, for his victim and himself and all of us. But somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

A coupla things to just throw into the fray.

1) I believe he served 42 days and that was to be used as his time served for charges under the plea.
-Not nearly adequate in my opinion.

2) I believe the victim has received a financial settlement from Polanski.
-I don't even know what to think about that in relation to her current position on letting the matter drop.

3) A question: Wouldn't there have been legal recourse after the sentencing if the judge had ex parte communication as has been alleged?

Dude plead guilty to raping a little girl then did a runner because he couldn't stand the thought of a few weeks in the clink (most of the sentence would have been time served). Why are people defending him?

BarbadoSlim-

When I was 15 I was raped by a guy who I thought was a friend at my high school (he was 19). My mom insisted that I press charges. It was awful and humiliating because his lawyers dragged it out for over a year, and a lot of people at my high school knew about it ... I had to relive it a lot. When it finally came time for the trial he plead guilty, and my mom read a statement talking about how I had gone from an A student to C-, how my tone had completely changed, and how I'd gotten very depressed and angry at myself. At the time I was mad at my mom for telling everyone in the courtroom about my problems, but as I look back I realize that it was VERY important that this guy got prosecuted and that he served his time in jail. After the trial other girls approached me and told me that he'd done the same to them, but that they hadn't had the courage to tell anyone.

Even though at the time I was angry and each time the trial date got changed I relived the experience over again, I am thankful that my mom didn't listen to me and didn't let the charges get dropped.

How do you know that Mr. Polanski hasn't assaulted more girls in the intervening thirty years? Do some research on sexual predators ... they don't generally just say, "Oh, well, that was fun ... I got such a surge of adrenaline by exerting my power over this helpless person ... well, now that I've gotten away with it I'm never doing that again."

Is it terrible that this woman was his victim? Yes. But don't forget that by fleeing the country and refusing to let the matter end (he even asked for the case to get repealed last year ... does that sound like he feels guilty?) Mr. Polanski is the one who is victimizing this woman all over again. He's the one who drugged her, raped her, and sodomized her. He's the one who brought up the case thirty years later. Are there media people who will make a profit on this story? Yes. Does that it any way take away from the heinousness of his crime? No.

The 42 days was not "time served." The 42 days of incarceration was a designated period of time (up to 90 days, actually) in which mental professionals determined whether or not Polanski was a "Mentally Disordered Sex Offender." (The shrinks determined in 42 days that label did not apply to him.) The terms of his guilty plea allowed the court to reevaluate Polanski's possible sentencing after this evaluation, reserved the court's right to reject any terms of the plea bargain, and has Polanski on the record waiving many of his rights and accepting these conditions (not to mention acknowledging that he knew the victim to be 13 at the time of the crime).

Now, were the judge and the prosecutor corrupt? Did they screw Polanski over at that point? It appears so. But he fled before any of this came to bear, and it's my opinion that if you are the victim of corrupt legal proceedings, you appeal via the due process of the system. Additionally, does the prosecutor's office have a not completely noble agenda in finally attempting to settle this thing now? That appears to be the case, too. But that does not change the fact that - in my opinion - the system should play this thing out through the proper legal channels.

I sympathize with the victim and her desire for this to not be dredged up again in this manner. But who's really most at fault for not settling this thing and causing her to go through this again? The LA prosecutor's office bungled this thing badly, but I'm afraid it's the guy who fled unlawfully after raping her in the first place.

Again, read the testimony.

And for the record, I'm not in this thing with a pitchfork or a lynch mob. I sympathize with Polanski's sad history, I tend to think he's probably a good guy (at least at this point in his life) with all this backing from artists that I generally respect, and I think he's obviously a good filmmaker. It's a regretful situation, but he did a horrible thing, and for me justice as it can be best meted out in our system comes first.

Check out Luc Besson's take on this:

“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”

Completely agree with you, except for the part about the Goonies.

I am appalled but not terribly surprised that this is a controversy at all. During and after trials, if they are 'lucky' enough to have one, rape victims are belittled, accused of creating their own misfortune, slut-shamed by members of their own community and forced to relive the trauma every time they recount it for the courts, doctors, cops and shrinks.

I'm sorry for Sharon Tate and for the loss of their unborn baby. I'm sad for everyone who ever spent so much as a second in a concentration camp. But that doesn't give anyone a right to visit the horror of rape on anyone, no matter what their age. It is an act of hatred and an abuse of power. It is meant to humiliate and hurt. Polanski had the forethought to drug her to make it even harder for her to stand up for herself.

I feel strongly that he should pay for his crime, but it isn't just because his talent and his own traumas doesn't excuse it. It is because examples need to be set for the penalties of rape. Women need to be encouraged to report and prosecute rape.

I would like to find out where I can see a full list of those who have signed the petition. I would also like to boycott, if at all possible, any media outlet that hounds Polanski's victim.

Does anyone else suspect she isn't the only girl he's raped? Did he get the seriousness of his crime or did he feel that he could do whatever he wanted?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:15 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:22 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:24 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:26 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:32 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:36 PM

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 29, 2009 8:44 PM

Yeah, ol' Slim's totally entering the Pookie club after tonight, until the old pederass dies, and people go on for months about his talent as a director, how brilliant Chinatown was, and how people were so mean to him.

They will do this as Polanski's house is raided for the latest news scoop, and people will exclaim, "this is worse than Michael Jackson's death." The race card might get played a few times, and some of Polanski's unreleased work will be released on a constant interval for the next few years until his family finally gets proper ownership of the film rights.

It will be the most annoying dealing with a celebrities death ever, at least until Phil Spector finally dies from permanent neck damage due to overly heavy wigs, and the whole damn thing will start over again, just as Michael Bay is convicted on 193 counts of child molesta- tion.

Everyone's screaming for justice. That he get a fair trial before string the motherfucker up.

He got a trial. And he was sentenced to 90 days of mental evaluation. And he was found not to be a sexual deviant. And so he was intended to be released on five years probation. This was agreed upon by the defense, and by the victim, and by Polanski and his attorneys.

But then, in steps the cowboy judge demanding that Polanski get the book thrown at him. And that's when he fled. Because do you know what happens to child molesters in prison? It's death and rape and murder. But that serves him right, because he violated a little girl.

A little girl who's mother said, go with the nice man and take naked pictures. Who was jacuzzi-ing in a hot tub in Jack Nicholson's house with a man twice her age. Am I saying she deserved it? Of course not. Don't be disgusting or stupid. But it's not like Polanski dragged her off the street, stuffed a cotton sock dipped in ether in her mouth, and fucked her in the ass before throwing her in a ditch.

But that's hardly the point. The point is that his impending prison sentence was based on one fucking judge's opinion. A judge who had been coerced and had violated the law himself in making his decision. If a jury had decided that Polanski should have the book thrown at him and should do 40 years in hard labor sitting on a rusty bicycle seat, and suddenly some liberal judge came in and said, "Nah, 40 days in Promises and you have to buy her a teddy bear." We'd be up in fucking arms! But because the reverse happens, we're horrified.

Polanski should have stayed and taken everything through due process? Sure. He would have definitely survived a stint in Chino. He would have been raped and sodomized himself. But he fucking deserves it, because it's justice, right?

But we need justice. For who? The girl who said, just please stop it, I want to move on with my life? When she's openly said stop, no more, leave me alone? No. We should punish him for his crime. Well, he was already punished. We're after him because one judge decided that fuck that guy.

Polanski served his sentence. He did more than 30 years probation.

Just wow.

slow clap, seconded.

Changed up my normal Pajiba name for this.

I was raped as a young teen, as well. The rapist is now married, has a daughter, and is living the good life.

I didn't dare tell anyone at the time. I was mortified, humiliated.

I have since discovered that he had FOUR other victims in the same six month period.

Not a day goes by that I don't regret reporting it. Doing something, anything. Who knows how many other victims he has had since then or before then. It's something I get to live with for the rest of my life.

The girl shouldn't be penalized for having a stupid mom. Rape is always wrong. And he ducked the consequences, plain and simple.

I do have to say, I'm surprised to learn there's no statute of limitations on this crime. I really thought there was.

Yet another filmmaker raping someone's childhood.

Not Me--

There is a statute. They vary state to state and often change, but it doesn't apply in this case because a complaint was already filed, charges were already pressed, a plea was already drawn up, and a guilty plea was already delivered. The only thing left is sentencing, which of course, has no statute.

hatemail, I just don't have the energy to address all the illogical points in your post.

So let me just say this, if I had to make a decision as to whether "one judge" with appellate oversight should determine this rapist's sentence, or if the rapist should get to make that decision himself, I'm going with the judge.

Polanski essentially decided his own sentence should be freedom to live in his home country, freedom to work in his chosen profession, freedom to live his life without answering for his crime, and he's given the middle finger to our judicial system. I'ma going to give him the middle finger right back.

A young woman in my office missed work today -- when I asked where she was I was told she was receiving a court-ordered restitution for having been raped by her uncle.

That, in addition to all I'm reading here tonight, is a reminder that there's a world out there I know nothing about. I have had some ups and downs with women, and in weaker moments as a younger man I railed against women in general. But not in my most frustrated state did I ever conceive of the possibility of engaging in sexual violence (or any violence, for that matter). And to hear about all this...I'm at a loss for words. It's just so fucking sad.

So I thought I'd share a happier story -- that of Mukhtaran Bibi, who was the victim of judicially sanctioned rape in Pakistan. At the moment the sentence was handed down, and later carried out, can you imagine a less-powerful human being? Who would have expected anything of her? But that's not how it turned out. Seriously, go read about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi

First- I don't care that he was a victim of the Holocaust, it doesn't give him a mulligan on future crimes.

Second- I don't care that his wife was a victim of a violent crime, it doesn't give him a mulligan to commit one of his own (although I might give him one had he gone all "A Time To Kill" on Manson and his ilk.)

Third- I don't care if he's good at his job, is richer than God, or is someone one might enjoy having dinner with. He committed a terrible crime, was convicted of it and then ran away rather than own up to it. He has paid no real penalty apart from not being able to set foot in the US. And as we've seen, Hollywood has had a history of coming to him instead.

Fourth- It's bad enough to look the other way and say nothing concerning this case, it's quite another to continue working with him, giving business to his work, and giving him awards for them. This joke of a petition is only the latest in a long, shameful history of Hollywood and the like giving Polanski support in spite of what he's done. This tells me that either A- they themselves have equally heinous skeletons in their closet and therefore do not seem the wrong in his acts, or B- like so many narcissists in Hollywood they are willing to work with someone such as a child rapist if it means they can reap personal success from it. I wonder if anyone would be stepping up for him if he were Roman Polanski, factory worker, who drugged and raped a 13-year old girl? Why does the fact he's a movie director make what he did seem any less disgusting?

And one final thought. It has been my experience that those who commit such crimes are extremely rare to commit them only once. It certainly seemed very a very well planned out act. Almost like he might have had practice at this. I do not know if he did such things before or since, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were other victims.

I'm tired of the excuses. He committed this crime. His punishment is 30 past due.

I believe Mr Polanski should be punished, but I can understand why he ran, considering his circumstances. Still doesn't change anything.

I am extremely disappointed at the fact Pajibans can't have a discussion without nailing dissenters to a wall. I just reread BS' comments, and believe everyone slamming him missed the point. He was, actually, not discussing the events of the rape, but rather exclusively defending the woman's current POV.

I would think his comments might lead to a public interest debate: public sentiment in relation to child molestation and particularly sexual assault have come a long way since the 70s. Is it justifiable to continue pursuing such a case? Will it send the desired message? How much weight is provided to the victim's opinion? Should a civil settlement be considered at all?

I don't agree with BS, by the by, and think he should be extradited and prosecuted, particularly as the publicity should ensure a fair trial.

PS, I've read comments such as, "if you are the victim of corrupt legal proceedings, you appeal via the due process of the system". That sounds kind of retarded to me - if you're the victim of a corrupt system, I wouldn't be relying on the system to then correct itself for you.

"A little girl who's mother said, go with the nice man and take naked pictures. Who was jacuzzi-ing in a hot tub in Jack Nicholson's house with a man twice her age. Am I saying she deserved it? Of course not. Don't be disgusting or stupid. But it's not like Polanski dragged her off the street, stuffed a cotton sock dipped in ether in her mouth, and fucked her in the ass before throwing her in a ditch. "

I love a good rape apologist. I mean, are you kidding? Her mom sent her in to get pictures taken, then a 13 year old girl had the audacity to be in the hot tub with the guy who was in charge of her (he being a GROWN UP and all).

I'm just wondering, from your perspective--how pushy does a stage parent have to be for it to be not so big a deal for the kid to get raped? Like, clearly if a mother sends her daughter into a house with another grown up, that would be license to rape the kid. What if I was a kid and my mother only reluctantly let me go be a model for a famous artist--would it be ok to rape me because she agreed at all, or would be not ok to rape me because she was reluctant about it?

And at what point in an evening in the hot tub does it become not so violent as getting thrown in a ditch when a grown up rapes you? She was wearing a bikini--if she was wearing a one-piece suit, would the rape then have been violent enough to warrant jail time? What if it was a tankini--is that slutty enough to be asking for it?

Or what about this sock and ether business. I mean, he did give her booze and quaaludes. So that's clearly within the parameters of rapable. What about roofies? If I willingly go to a bar and drink a beer, and someone puts a roofie in my drink, am I responsible for my own rape because I had the fucking audacity to try to drink a beer at a bar? Heavens, no!

Because here's what's true. You say that her mother sent her and she was in a jacuzzi with an old man, then you go on to say that it wasn't that violent because he didn't drag her off the street. I mean, no he didn't stick a sock in her mouth, but he did drug her. He didn't throw her in a ditch, but he did rape her several times and he did fuck her in the ass while she said "no" and told him she wanted him to stop and told him she wanted to go home.

But that slut was in a bikini, what a whore of a teenager. I mean, she didn't deserve it or anything. But she sure as fuck was asking for it, right?

Jesus fucking christ.

I understand what you’re saying, Peter G, about BarbadoSlims discussing the victims' current POV concerning Polanski and this case.

And in response to that, I must say I'm not in favor of dismissing charges against Polanski simply because the victim has forgiven him and/or wants the charges dropped.

A victim can forgive the one who committed a crime against them, and at the same time, the perpetrator can be held accountable, legally speaking, for what they've done.

Forgiveness is a personal choice, and one that I must commend this particular victim for; I don't believe I could be as forgiving. But forgiveness does not resolve one's legal concerns.

My aunt was killed by a drunk driver; my family forgave the drunk driver (more for our own peace of mind, rather than for the drivers') but that doesn't mean the drunk driver didn’t deserve punishment for what he did to my aunt, and my family.

Many victims of domestic abuse forgive their abusers, but does that mean the man who breaks his wife’s’ jaw should be acquitted because his wife has forgiven him? I should think not.

Forgiveness is more an act of spiritual/mental cleansing for the injured party, rather than for the person responsible. And even if the victim in this case no longer wishes to pursue the matter, her opinion doesn’t undue the fact that a crime was committed. In this society, we punish offenses for a variety of reasons; as retribution for the victim, to set an example for those who would commit similar crimes, and to uphold the standards of decent society.

Polanskis’ victim may have forgiven him, but that does not lessen the severity of his crime, nor does it exonerate him.

This will be my one and only comment.
Virenda, if the statement you quoted is actually attributable to Roman Polanski, it confirms what most of us have been saying/thinking: this is a man with absolutely no remorse for committing a horrific act on a child and he should be brough to justice.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Fuck you.

Listen. I am NOT a rape apologist. You disgusting fucks. I'm saying he did it. I'm saying he was prosecuted for it in a bullshit way. I'm saying that the judge was shifty.

I'm saying the girl says leave him alone. So who are we fighting for? I'm not saying she deserved it. You fucking gross motherfuckers shoving words in my mouth. How fucking dare you. I'm saying she gets to relive this again for what? She's decided he deserves forgiveness. Why punish him now? Why after the fact? It's not like they didn't know where he was. It's bizarre.

Forgive me if I get defensive. You see, I was accused of rape. A girl I had been dating came over my house drunk. We made out. We got undressed. She suddenly got upset, freaked out. I stopped. immediately. Because no means no. I had to calm her and sent her home. Her friend calls me an hour later, aghast that I raped her friend. I was never charged, but the story went around. Some people still can't look me in the eye. And I never even had sex. But I'm a rapist. Same as some of the ghouls who violated you. So I get furious. Because it could have been worse. I could have been on a sex offender list. Because I tried to get up on a drunk girl I was dating.

Polanski did it. I know he's guilty. So does he. But if his victim wants him left alone, why does he deserve to be further punished?

Hatemail,

Because rape is a crime. Rape victims are treated very differently than victims of other crimes. Attempted murder, robbery, mugging, etc. No one would think of not sentencing someone who admitted to doing those crimes just because the victim wants to have it be over with. No one questions the validity of an attempted murder victim, robbery, mugging like they do a rape victim either. It's miserable that she has to deal with this again. But now that its in the main stage of the public eye, she will be forced to deal with it publicly whether Polanski serves his time or not. Since he committed a crime and admitted as much, and ran away and lived the good life for 30 years, care-free enough to think he could go into a country that has an extradition agreement with the US and NOT be picked up, I vote for serving time.

Also, he was never punished. There is no "further." There is simply what he has always tried to evade.

And as for the "it's not like he grabbed her off the street or anything" comment, THAT was a fucking gross motherfucking thing to say.

Virenda, I wasn't doubting your honesty but wondering if it was an actual quote or something someone had fabricated and sent through the etherwebs... and the only reason for wondering is because it was such a mind-bogglingly stupid comment as to make me think that one of his enemies or with an agenda had made it up and attributed it Polanski.
Thank you for the follow-up info... and for letting me know about another book I'll look forward to reading.

fyi: rape and sodomy are different crimes
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=28888113179+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
In addition to his other crimes.
Also, it is within a judge's purview to not accept a plea agreement if they do not like the terms. However, they cannot unilaterally change the terms of plea agreement.

As for the victim in this case, others have said it before but it bears repeating, the state prosecutes on behalf of the victim, for that victim and for society. So when people say her wishes don't matter, legally they don't. As a society we have agreed that crimes committed against one are committed against all. That's why it's the People versus. That's why they didn't just let the girl's father have a baseball bat five minutes alone in a room with Polanski.

You're right. It was a crass point to make and poorly thought out. It was said in the heat of fury. I'll just do you all the favor of leaving the site forever. It's what I do best.

"There's a reason there's no statue of limitation on rape."

No there is. Murder is the only crime w/o a statute.

In my state, within the last 10 years, the statute has changed from 5 years to 12 to 7. When the assault occurred is what statute constraints the system operates under.

Thank god this post went the way it did, cause if you'd come out defending him too I would probbably have to stop reading the site.

Fredo,

A lot of people seem to be glossing over this as statutory rape because our society seems to believe that this is a lesser crime. (not you, I just need to point this out.) Yes, she was underage. But statutory rape is a term applied to when a minor consents to sex with an adult. There was no consent. This was forcible rape with a minor. He fed her booze and drugs and she said no multiple times, yet he continued. When you think about it, it was rape 3 times over because
1. she said no
2. she had not reached the age of consent
3. she was under the influence and not able to give consent

Also, as someone said above, statues only apply to bringing charges. Had there not be any charges brought against Polanski 30 years ago, the statute of limitations would have run out (yes, rape has a statute.) But statutes don't apply to the total length of time until someone receives and serves their sentence, just to the amount of time until charges are brought.

It's nice to see that most of us who usually diagree on everything agree that Roman Polanski needs to be locked up.

Just one request from me: before anyone goes off too much on the high horse on this issue, he or she should really read both the victim's original grand jury testimony and Polanski's guilty plea in court.

Did Polanksi specifically acknowledge that her account of what happened that night was accurate, or did he plead guilty as a legal matter because he thought he was getting a plea bargain? If the latter, then while my guess would be that her story was probably true since that's not the sort of a 13 year old girl would likely make up, and he would probably have tried to fight it more if it was a lie, I still think people should be a little more cautious in throwing around the term "rapist" before his side of the story has been heard. That said, he should definitely go to trial for it.

Also, obviously if they had sex at all it was statutory rape, regardless of whether or not she gave verbal consent. But from a moral rather than a legal perspective, to me statutory rape involving a willing postpubescent teenager is a lot lower on the list of moral outrages than rape of an unwilling victim, so the latter seems like the more unforgivable element of the story if it's true.

Have any of you read A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens? For some reason the scene where Marquis Evrémonde runs over the child then just throws money into the street comes to mind.

The comments on this post (from both sides of the argument) have angered me enough to bring me out of lurking. I'd just like to make a couple of points:

1. Rape is wrong, no matter when it was committed, and especially in the case of minors.

2. Rape is wrong because of the physical and emotional trauma inflicted on the victim and his/her family.

3. Saying that rape is a crime against the state and not the victim seems incredibly harsh and inconsiderate to the victim.

4. My life is completely untouched, unaltered, and unaffected by Roman Polanski raping a girl. I really can't see how it is a crime against everyone.

5. The claim that because one is "under the influence" one is not able to give consent opens a very scary path on a very slippery slope that leads to people only having sober sex for fear of being branded rapists.

I'd also like to point out that these are points of a general, societal nature, not specifically about this case. As far as this case goes, I think he should be punished, but I'm still going to watch and enjoy his movies and those of the people who signed the petition. Art is quite distinct from the artist. And boycotting the artists who signed the petition is not going to affect them in any real way; it will just deprive you of cultural exposure to the great talent (for the most part) of those on the list.

I'm unsurprised that Woody Allen's in support of a fellow pederast.

That being said ...

If the judge was shifty in the case, that's a matter for an appellate court to decide; one does not skip town simply because they think something's wrong.

I've encountered lots of rape and domestic violence cases in the past 22 years; having the victim express forgiveness is laudable, but the State will usually pick up the charges and prosecute.

Polanski didn't serve his time; he ran, and hid out where he could not be easily extradited. He has to face the consequences of his actions.

First off I think he is guilty and should be punished.

That said, pleading guilty to get a for him good deal can make me doubt the hole truth is out. Also I totally understand running when a judge fucks with that plea. If you have place to run to a country that will not turn you over to the US, fuck yeah I would do that rather than sitting in jail trying to fix it "the right way" using the system.

I was cagey about what it means for the victim to say that she wants the case put behind her because it would be nice if she could have full control over the punishment of the man who raped her. But I was reading someone's comment on another site, which essentially said that allowing the victim's forgiveness dictate the law's actions opens up a dangerous possibility of victims being coerced into giving their forgiveness in order to allow the legal process to stop.

I don't know enough about law to know if that's a valid argument, but it made sense to me. Is there anyone who knows more about law who could explain if this is indeed a correct train of thought?

Of all the celebrities to come out and support Polanski, I find Pedro Almodovar the most shocking. Seeing as how his films for the most part focus strongly on women and their lives and relationships, to hear that he's willing to fight for Polanski's release is kind of off putting.
Personally, I think that if he's confessed (which he has), he should stay in jail. And this is coming from someone who loves Rosemary's Baby along with Chinatown. Just because you're famous, doesn't mean you should escape your rape charges.

Rowles, WORD.
I read something recently, some one saying 'the family has forgiven him, hollywood has forgiven him, the LA judicial system is corrupt' or words to that effect.

Fuck that shit. When he was first arrested I admit, I was shocked and thought how it happened was sketchy at best, he'd been allowed to travel to and from Switzerland all summer while making this movie, then was invited to an awards ceremony but arrested instead. Just an odd way to go about it.
A British talk show over here was debating it saying that since it was Statutory (sp) rape and the victim wanted it dismissed, it should be. I wanted to scream. Statutory SHIT, by her account she said no, she begged him not to, and he did it any way.

Did you know by polish law, paedophiles can be chemically castrated?
Let's let them deal with him

Dustin, I absolutely agree with you. I remember watching one of Polanski's films many years ago, and thinking it was brilliant, and then having my mother tell me about this rape business. I was shocked, and I could not get my head around his having been able to live a comfortable life and continue to make films throughout all these years since. Who the fuck would even want to associate with the guy, let alone work with him and heap mountains of praise on him, and now apparently defend him? It's bullshit. The guy should have served his time.
I've read all of the comments now. I started last night, went to bed, and then read the rest of them this morning. Yes, this reminds me in some ways of the catastrophic Observe and Report thread. But that was a stupid scene in a stupid movie we were talking about. This is real life. And I'm so saddened that so many people here have been victims of sexual assault. It just shows you that, unfortunately, it's not just the one victim whose wishes matter. Our society as a whole needs rapists to be punished, because they will go on to rape others. The fact that there are so many people here in our little Pajiba microcosm who have been raped just proves that it's a crime we all need to care about, and we need to take a stand against this.

I agree wholeheartedly, Dustin.

It doesn't matter how fucking talented he is. Yeah, he's had a hard life. Up to the rape he'd been in a concentration camp, his mother died at the hands of Nazis, his wife and unborn child were stabbed to death.

But he drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 yr old girl. Fuck him. Fuck it. Everything he's done, everything's he's suffered is moot. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, agreed to do his time, and then pussied out and fled to France to live free for 30+ years.

And the artists saying he should be released because he's oh so talented? Fuck you too. Go fuck yourselves with a cactus. Yeah, he's talented. Sure. Since when does talent put you above the law. This isn't a drunk driving charge, or an assault-and-battery charge. He didn't get drunk in public. This isn't the usual bullshit Hollywood revolving-door misdemeanor we get everyday.

This is rape.

You let him off on this, and what kind of slippery slope are we going down. What does that say to everyone else? Oh sure, he's famous! That's why he can get away with it.

Oh. And yes, it is true there is a statute of limitations on rape.

The statute of limitations applies to bring forth charges, not to sentencing. A guilty verdict was already entered, Polanski pled guilty. The statute doesn't apply when you've been convicted!

samantha t, I'm not American, and I get it. So I'm guessing that's not the issue. I feel like they view Polanski as one of their own, and hence want to protect him or something. Or they view him solely as Polanski the Artist, rather than Polanski the Rapist, and feel that his art somehow makes up for his crime? I don't know... I just can't make sense of it.

Roman Polanski needs to be shipped back to America. I'm amazed that he won best director in the 2002 movie year and the guy wasn't there and everone cheered for him.What's mindboggling is that really talented people in Hollywood are defendind or wanting his release from arrest, only in America, ehh? But hey, Polanski, everything will be okay; the music that'll be playing for you as soon as you're back in America is: The Price Is Right Loser Horn.

Let's all consider what the support of Polanski really says about the culture and intellectual foundations in Hollywood.

I think it's a pretty ugly statement. To think that there are 110 people anywhere who want to exonerate Polanski because he has "great talent" should make us consider what these people are thinking when they talk to us about other moral issues.

But there’s really only two ways to put it behind her: Either Polanski dies, or he’s tried on the charges.

Did you ask the victim what she thought her options for putting it behind her were? It is so arrogant of you to think you have any idea what is best for her. That would be her decision, and I'm sure the range of options is much larger than the pathetic two you've just laid out.

So yeah, I read the petition, and well, lelnguye is much more accurate in saying it is more a protest against a sketchy arrest that might set bad precedent in the future whilst souring the relationship between the countries of France and Switzerland (and the US, who is at the receiving end of the criticisms...)

I didn't really get the impression that they were excusing his actions, more that certain gov'ts previously mentioned got all sketchy n shit.

Either way, they're kinda stupid seeing as he was a wanted felon and convicted rapist in the US and they knew this and were still his friends for 30 years or so.

What is really intriguing is why the US gov't actually followed through with the arrest and whether or not they will commence with his extradition.

have you actually read the petition they signed? they do have a point that this may set a precedent for other governments to interfere in film festival events.

Yes, I read the petition they signed, and it says:

"Filmmakers, actors, producers and technicians -- everyone involved in international filmmaking -- want him to know that he has their support and friendship."

They're not making a general point about how laws are enforced, they're specifically supporting Polanski and giving him their friendship. That's pretty disgusting, if you ask me.

Well said Dustin,

I have read all these comments and people have been very passionate in their attack and defense or Polanski.
For those who are in defense of him just remember that 33 years a go he made a choice to drug, rape and sodomise a child-no one forced him to do it he made a choice and then decided not to face the consequences. Well now it is time for him to face up to what he did and serve his time.
Its about time these so called 'celebrated' celebs actually payed for their crimes instead of being lavished with praise and good attention.

JL >> It is the latter. The reason I'm encouraging people to read the grand jury testimony for themselves is that - even if she was coached, even if only a tenth of what she said is true - it's still pretty appalling. As for what Polanski acknowledged on the record in his guilty plea that would bypass any of the argument over the specifics, he admitted engaging in sex acts with her, and he admitted knowing that she was only 13. Essentially, he's already been to trial for it, as you say, but only sentencing remains. Of course, I realize that when making a plea bargain legal expediency trumps revealing the complete truth, but that is what's on the record. I also don't know legal procedures well enough to know if it's possible this whole process could start over from scratch immediately given the 30 year interim and the suspect procedures during the first iteration.

Here is Polanski's plea...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

And here is the victim's original testimony...

Part 1
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html
Part 2
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html

Good job, Dustin. I am so disturbed by the statements of outrage saying "it was over 30 years ago". That type of attitude leads us down a slippery slope.

Is murder okay if it happened a long time ago?

Todd I don't mean to be overly morbid, but as for wanting a boy child rather than a girl child to avoid the possibility of rape or sexual abuse, well.....

it happens to boys, too.

My best friend's husband was sexually abused by a male babysitter from the ages of 5 to 7 and was so screwed up by those experiences, it took him years of intensive therapy to even begin to function as a normal, emotionally healthy person. He'll probably always deal with it on some level.

People do sick things to kids sometimes. It's unfortunately how the world is. You just protect your kids the best you can, advocate for them when needed, and teach them as well as you can about healthy boundaries and safety.

Then hold your breath, hope, pray, whatever. Raising kids sometimes feels so vulnerable. Like any moment: total broken heart.

And on that happy note.

I am truly shocked and disgusted that ANYONE is lending Polanski their support, moral or otherwise. I don't care about the circumstances, I don't care about the hardships and tragedy he's endured, I don't care about the brilliance of his work. The man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. There's no "grey area" or room for debate here. He fully deserves to be punished for that crime.

I'd like to point out something to the "you're raping the victim again" contingent among us. Rape is not the only crime where the judicial system in many states has decided to prosecute regardless of the wishes of the victim--domestic violence also falls under that territory. So the notion that California is prosecuting him for crimes against society, regardless of the wishes of the victim, is somehow an aberration because he's famous, or wealthy, or is somehow wrongheaded with regard to the victim's autonomy, is just not correct. We've been prosecuting lots of crimes this way for a while now. Because--thankfully--justice is NOT about revenge, it's about societal standards. If someone were to shoot my husband, I can't demand death by firing squad where I pull the trigger. But likewise, if the man doing the shooting is my (hypothetical) boyfriend, I can't instruct the judge to let him off the hook. And people, that's a good thing.

It seems to me that the ones arguing that it's the victim's decision to prosecute have this idea of our judiciary as the hangman's noose of the public, that it's meant for nothing better than to serve "an eye for an eye" justice, assuming, of course, that's what the wronged party wants. But people, that's just not the way America rolls. We don't have wergild or blood money paid to wronged parties, we have justice that's served by society for society. You can't just fly in the face of the Law, pay someone and make it all better.

After reading some of the comments, I would like to add that, as a person dealing with trauma-related depression and anxiety myself, I cannot imagine how devastating it must be to not have had an opportunity for some kind of tangible closure for 30 years. I understand the victim's perspective.

It's all the more reason for Polanski to serve his time. Although some may see this as harsh, I feel that he deserves life in prison or the death sentence. Because he clearly has no remorse for the unspeakably horrible thing he did. What was brief satisfaction for him was something horrible for that child, something that will affect her throughout her life. It is in her everyday. It should be in his everyday as well.

So the transcript of the People of the State of California vs. Roman Polanski is interesting stuff.

http://geekslovesex.com/roman-polanski-underage-rape-trial-transcript-original-documents

Beyond the champagne, qualudes and eventual rape....one has to ask certain questions. Like...what were this girl's parents thinking when they let her wander off on at least two separate occasions to have Roman Polanski take her picture? And what the fuck was going on at Jack Nicholson's house that he had some grown woman there the entire time this girl was being drugged, "seduced" in a jacuzzi and raped?

And although I'm not sure how accurate the folloing is, but RP sounds like a complete perv from start to finish:

Posted: January 31, 2003
1:00 am Eastern

By Judith Reisman

Editor' s note: The following column contains language that may be offensive to some readers.

The year 2003 may just be the year Hollywood pedophiles come out of the closet to launch their national offensive.

In March, MGM / United Artists and Francis Ford Coppola Jr. begin shooting a film starring the admired Liam Neeson as Alfred Kinsey – the single most sadistic scientific pedophile propagandist in history. Is it prophetic that the Kinsey film follows on the heels of mass media kudos for Roman Polanski's "sensitive" film "The Pianist"?

The film is clever by half with Polanski staking his Yankee rehabilitation on a Holocaust story. If you missed the publicity spin, Roman lived through the Holocaust. The film allegedly has no sex and our hero is aided by a Godly Christian.

That said, for the price of a ticket to "The Pianist," we are supposed to forget Polanski's notorious brutality and pedophilic crimes.

But lest we forget, let's take a quick turn down memory lane.

Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.

Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.

Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

The child "had practically begged him" – "to f--k her," he said. "So I f--ked a chick," he exclaimed. "So what?"

After the charges of raping the unconscious girl were established, and it was clear that Polanski would go to prison, he fled to England. When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting "I love young girls … very young girls."

Articles in the French press echoed Polanski's whine.

He was victimized by America's "excessively prudish petite bourgeoisie."

Now, while few can deny Polanski is a fugitive child rapist, some argue that his crime was a reaction to the brutal murder of his lovely young wife, Sharon Tate.

Except, notes Kiernan, that six weeks after their marriage, Roman found "a whole new field of girls that interested him." Although Sharon was reputed to be highly traditional in her mores, Kiernan reports that:

Polanski and Sharon celebrated their love affair by consenting to have some nude pictures of the actress – taken by the director during the shooting of their movie – appear in the March 1967 issue of Playboy.

Ah, young love. Sharon was now part of Roman's stylish Hollywood druggie crowd.

[She] went along with [Polanski] in some of his more bizarre sexual practices – allowing him for instance to videotape the two of them making love and then sitting by quietly while he screened the tapes at parties.

Young love shared.

After finding videos of Roman engaging in sexual variations with other women in their bed, Sharon planned to divorce him – until she "found out she was pregnant."

Kiernan describes Polanski's abuse of his distraught and vulnerable wife, no longer girlishly slender:

[Roman] was bored with her being pregnant … He treated her like she was a piece of excess baggage. He was even pointedly cruel to her in front of others at times, calling her a dumb hag and criticizing her whenever she expressed an opinion.

The hostile father-to-be sent his wife to California while he partied in London with Arab sheiks who preferred boys. Roman instead used "a series of girls." He is quoted as saying:

I can't stand seeing Sharon blown up the way she is. This pregnancy has made her such an insecure, nagging b--ch.

Kiernan reports that Polanski secretly planned to remain in Europe until the baby was born. "Then maybe I could go back and find Sharon the way she used to be."

He was with some, friends, "sipping champagne, passing a marijuana cigarette around … when the phone rang" in his London flat. His wife and unborn child were just stabbed to death in a gory satanic ritual in California.

The grieving husband now rushed home and, "posed at the entrance of the death house for Life magazine a week after the slaughter. He charged Life $5,000 for this picture."

Roman Polanski

Polanski didn't miss a beat after Sharon's horrifying killing in 1969.

It bears repeating that Polanksi's reputation for seducing very young girls was legendary in Hollywood and Europe.

That reputation preceeded and followed both the barbaric massacre of his wife and her unborn child and his callous rape of an unconscious child.

Pray that our memories are not so cynical and our understanding so enfeebled that the dazzle of Polanski's Holocaust Pianist "art" cleanses the cruelty of its creator. And, beware Neeson's upcoming portrayal as, says the National Review, the "big daddy of pedophile chic," Alfred Kinsey.

2003 may just signal the entertainment industry's support of a pedophile-rights movement.

If you rape a child, you go to prison.
If you support the petiton, you should understand that people have the right to boycott your work every bit as much as you had the right to sign said petition. That is the nature of these things.
I remember Tim Robbins going on television years ago mewling about the fact that people were openly calling for boycotts of Susan Sarandon's work because of her extremist (and very public) criticism of George W. Bush. That also seemed like a very faulty argument.

Oh and:

I'M BarbadoSlim and I come out In Support of Due Process and Judicial Ethics.

He SHOULD be tried to fleeing, no better chance to prove he was screwed IMHO.

If he had such a solid case delineating"ex parte" communication (and I do know EXACTLY what that means) why did he flee the jurisdiction? It's unlikely he'd have spent the duration of the appeals process in jail/prison, yet he still chose to run.
Was he dead scared of the same verdict given a re-trial?
I would hazard a guess in the affirmative.

Now that I agree with. You have come across as excusatory, whether or not that was your aim.
Some of your comments/theories have likely been overlooked because of that.

Well said Dustin (and well said Todd). This is a complicated, messy issue in many ways, and a simple one in many others. The trick is to not let emotion cloud judgment and force broad generalizations, and I think, for the most part, the people on this thread has done an admirable job debating the issue fairly. I've read every single post so far, and am thoroughly impressed with the eloquence and empathy so many of you have displayed, for both sides.

That being said, I'm firmly on the side of: The man belongs in jail. If he was committed to serving any version of a fair sentence, regardless about how he felt about the judge in the original case, he's had 30 years to look into a retrial. Instead, he's been making films, friends, and money, and winning awards. That doesn't speak of remorse to me.

Not that I think that shows of remorse should dictate the severity of the punishment, but...how should I put this? There's a case that's getting a bit of coverage in Toronto and Ottawa about the murder of a young girl by her friend, a boy, who was pressured into doing it by his girlfriend, who had never met the now-murdered girl, but was insanely jealous of her anyway. The girlfriend was pretty much called a sociopath by the court analysts, while the boy, who actually committed the act of murder (multiple stabbings of a 13-year-old girl who he had known for years, and who had no idea what was coming), was labelled immature and impulsive, but ultimately capable of rehabilitation. What struck me about the case wasn't the way the boy broke down during the trial - we've all heard of crocodile tears. It was his statement to the victim's family. The quote can be looked up online, but the gist of it was that he would never forgive himself, he couldn't apologize enough though he knew how useless the words were, he felt he deserved, and would accept whatever sentence was given to him, because as long as he was alive, and she was dead, nothing would be fair, and finally, he said he hoped that somehow, the family could find a way to be happy again, because although he had irreversibly ended one life, he hoped that family's wouldn't be ended as well.

Does that excuse him? Not at all. But it does make me feel more confident that if/when he is released from prison in 10 or 25 or however many years time, that he won't be a danger to anyone else.

Has Polanski expressed remorse or regret for his actions? Has he even paid lip service to the justice system by serving a short sentence? No.

There are so many angles from which to look at this case. Many of them have been covered in this thread. They are all important, and have been covered well, but so far, I haven't seen too much mention of the rehabilitation and protection side of the justice system. It isn't all about vengeance, retribution, and fairness. Very rarely is a crime committed in a vacuum without some circumstances that make crime more likely to be committed (in Polanski's case, concentration camps, and the murder of his wife and child; in other people's cases immaturity, excessive anger or jealousy, improperly controlled neurotransmitters, malformed frontal cortex. Whatever).

But the fact is, these sorts of extenuating circumstances do NOT EXCUSE any kinds of crime. They may explain it, they may make it easier to come to terms with or understand. But the complete destruction of your life does not entitle you to the complete destruction of someone else's. It may make people more sympathetic (and some, perhaps, less sympathetic, if their view is that you know first hand what it feels like, and are therefore even more barbaric for inflicting that feeling on someone else), but that's where its affects should end.

Let him serve his sentence, like everyone convicted of a similar crime is, or should be, required to do.

And let this be separate from the issues of corrupt trials, and unfair arresting procedures. Are those serious problems that need to be dealt with? Yes. But each are separate from each other and should be treated as such, as hard as the separate threads are to unravel.

I'm done my essay now. Back to Latin homework.

Oh has anyone seen the excellent and hilarious Ellen Page film Hard Candy? Here is a good exchange:

Jeff Kohlver: You were coming on to me!

Hayley Stark: Oh, come on. That's what they always say, Jeff.

Jeff Kohlver: Who?

Hayley Stark: Who? The pedophiles! 'Oh, she was so sexy. She was asking for it.' 'She was only technically a girl, she acted like a woman.' It's just so easy to blame a kid, isn't it! Just because a girl knows how to imitate a woman, does NOT mean she's ready to do what a woman does.
[pause] I mean, you're the grown up here. If a kid is experimenting and says something flirtatious, you ignore it, you don't encourage it! If a kid says 'Hey, let's make screwdrivers!' You take the alcohol away, and you don't race them to the next drink! .

When Jeff says Hayley's accusations will ruin his career she retorts "Didn't Roman Polanski just win an Oscar?".
:D

JustBill:
Regardless of the frame in which you hang it, however, the picture remains the same, and I encourage you to take a long look at it when debating this subject:
Roman Polanski gave alcohol and sedatives to a 13 year old CHILD, performed forced cunnilingus on her while she said "no" and "stop", forcibly penetrated her vaginally while she continued to tell him to stop and asked to be taken home, and then proceeded to forcibly penetrate her anally, while she CONTINUED to ask him to stop. That's the picture, painted by the victim and confirmed by the attacker.

I wish people wouldn't keep talking like this stuff was a simple matter of fact--this is what the victim accused him of, but we don't know if it actually happened this way or if it was more consensual. My guess would be she was probably telling the truth, but there's no way to know, and the fact that everyone is leaping to the conclusion that he did it starts to sound a little like a mob mentality.

Of course there's no doubt he had sex with her, since he admitted to that, and sex with a 13 year old is in itself illegal. Still, if she had given consent at the time I wouldn't see this crime as nearly as morally outrageous as forcible rape.

I don't care how fucked up Roman's life was as child, I don't care about his wife dying, I don't care what the victims's mother said or did, or even what the victim did before the rape happened.
I don't even care that she was 13 years old.

He drugged and anally raped another human being.
He took a plea and then ran.
If he feels the plea agreement was wrong or the Judge was a nut, he can appeal while he sits in jail since he is an obvious flight risk.

Jesus, there is no excuse for rape.
None.

I'm just glad Kevin Smith is the voice of sanity in Hollywood. On Twitter:
"Please don't be one of those FREE POLANSKI people" Look, I dig ROSEMARY'S BABY; but rape's rape. Do the crime, do the time.

My guess would be she was probably telling the truth, but there's no way to know, and the fact that everyone is leaping to the conclusion that he did it starts to sound a little like a mob mentality.

Leaping to the conclusion? I'm basing that statement on the fact that he plead guilty and was convicted. And then fled rather than face his punishment. I think you might need to redefine "mob mentality" in your brain dictionary, because we're all speaking from fact, not wild conclusions.

And really, who gives a flying fuck if it was consensual? Sarah's quote from "Hard Candy" is spot on. He was an adult, she was a child. He gave her alcohol and drugs. He took advantage of her youth and naivete. Even if she DID say "Why yes, Mr. Polanski, I would LOVE to have multiple forms of sex with you whilst my mother is away," it doesn't make the fact that HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD any less reprehensible.

Todd> I sometimes think the future Mr Geek is more afraid of me being raped than I am. Don't get me wrong, I'm terrified of it, but I guess I've gotten used to that fear, know what I mean? It's always there, the 'it could happen', and, in a way, I've done the best I can to prepare myself for it. I know, I never could be prepared, but it's like knowing, statistically, somebody you love might be killed in a car accident. So you do what you can, with seatbelts and airbags and whatever, try to make yourself as strong inside as you can be, and cross your fingers.
I was 'sexually assaulted' by a cousin in my mid teens. I add the quotation marks because, when he groped my breasts during a 'wrestling match' for the second time (once is an accident, twice is deliberate), I punched him in the balls, and he never 'wrestled' with me again. I didn't think about it at the time, it was just instint, a 'get your mitts off me, arsehole!' response. In hindsight, I wonder if somehow my mum (who was raped herself) instilled in me some kind of automatic defense. I know it'd be worth very little in a more determined attack, but, fuck it, I'll take what I can get, and maybe, that's the only thing you can give your kids, girl or boy.
I can't speak for every woman. Maybe I'm just incredibly strange or over-inclined to violence or something. But you're being honest, and I think that deserves honesty in response.

After reading some of the comments, I would like to add that, as a person dealing with trauma-related depression and anxiety myself, I cannot imagine how devastating it must be to not have had an opportunity for some kind of tangible closure for 30 years. I understand the victim's perspective.

I am now 55 years old.
Never once was I given the opportunity to accuse, confront or even identify the relatives who abused me sexually during the first seven years of my life. My parents either did not know or chose to pretend that it never happened. I spent the first thirteen years of my life believing that what happened to me was normal. It was with the help of a local minister that I was steered into counseling and started learning how to live like a normal human being.
I was never given a chance for closure; my parents died before I could ask them why they had allowed their child to be so thoroughly damaged in so many ways. Every single day I carry so much pain and anger in my heart that time cannot lessen and every single night I go to sleep, fearful that nightmares will remind me of things that my conscious mind tries to shut out... unless, of course, I drink myself into a coma, to be certain that I won't recall the dreams.
Forty-seven years of shame and self-loathing, insecurity and mistrust moderated only slightly by therapy and prescription medications. Forty-seven years of living in hell.
Should any of us who have gone through this feel sorry for Roman Polanski?
Should we care that a judge may have been somewhat corrupt?
Should we worry about the "sketchy" arrest in Switzerland?
No.
My heart goes out to his victim but she is getting an opportunity to do what I never had a chance to do - see her attacker face justice and, I hope, gain a sense of closure.
We should see that he is returned to face any outstanding charges and sentenced accordingly.
And then, we should all do our very best to defend the rights of children against abuse and mistreatment in any form.

The Polanski thing just illustrates that when it comes to rape, it's OK if you're an affluent white guy. People just assume that a rich white guy doesn't "have" to rape, so whoever is accusing him must be exaggerating what happened. "Rape" is such an ugly word. If Polanski was black or had been a janitor at the time, nobody would be sticking up for him. And he'd have gotten out of prison long ago.

Shouldn't really surprise us that so many people support Polanski. Many people just don't think there's that much wrong with rape. Most things that affect women disproportionately just aren't seen as a big deal by most of the people who aren't women and some of the people who are women. All you have to do is watch most TV or movies to see how women and assault against them is perceived, even in "liberal" Hollywood. It's really kinda sickening.

We still prosecute people who committed murder in Nazi death camps who managed to flee Europe before they could be apprehended. Ironically, this seems to be no different whatsoever. The facts are not in dispute here. He just doesn't wanna go to jail. Whatever ex parte communications allegedly occurred are kinda beside the point. He messed up as soon as he left the country.

As for the victim being unimportant here - just means that the legal proceedings need not involve her. Her part of it is over. He was convicted. He fled. Has nothing to do with her. I'm sure she's sick of hearing/thinking about it, but for that she has no one but Polanski to blame. If he'd served whatever sentence he'd received then, it would be over now. That part of it anyway. She isn't being victimized by the press or the United States legal system. She's still being victimized by Polanski's selfishness.

He is just an unusually sympathetic perpetrator due to his life circumstances, but I don't think that should get him a Rape for Free card.

It is really impossible now to reconcile Hollywood's attitude towards the Catholic Church's protection of pedophiles (I get the general impression that the industry disapproved of that) and their support of Polanski now. Yeah, I know that all of Hollywood didn't pledge support of Polanski, just sayin'.

Leaping to the conclusion? I'm basing that statement on the fact that he plead guilty and was convicted. And then fled rather than face his punishment. I think you might need to redefine "mob mentality" in your brain dictionary, because we're all speaking from fact, not wild conclusions.

My memory is that he only plead guilty to the charge of sex with a minor, not to any charges relating to the accusations that it was against her will. I could be wrong though--anyone know the details on this? This article says Sharon Tate's sister is arguing the sex was consensual, and it's hard to believe someone that close to Polanski would be totally unaware if he had publicly admitted it wasn't.

And really, who gives a flying fuck if it was consensual? Sarah's quote from "Hard Candy" is spot on. He was an adult, she was a child. He gave her alcohol and drugs. He took advantage of her youth and naivete. Even if she DID say "Why yes, Mr. Polanski, I would LOVE to have multiple forms of sex with you whilst my mother is away," it doesn't make the fact that HE HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD any less reprehensible.

Do you literally think the imaginary scenario you describe above is not "any less" reprehensible than the scenario as she described it? I think forced nonconsensual rape is pretty clearly more reprehensible than consensual sex between a teenager and an adult, even if the latter is usually pretty reprehensible on its own terms. And when it comes to sex between teens and adults I do think the degree of moral wrongness needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, even though from a legal standpoint I understand why all cases need to be treated as statutory rape. Think of those cases you sometimes hear in the news about adult female teachers having ongoing relationships with teenage male students, for example--is it your intuition that every one of these women is a sex predator, that every one of those males had to be manipulated into entering a sexual relationship, and that they will all look back at the experience with pain and regret? If not, is it fair to assume that any case involving a teenage girl is automatically going to be more exploitative? Plenty of teenagers of both sexes are already sexual active with others their own age, they aren't all totally naive and incapable of agency--degrees of maturity about sex can differ quite a lot between teenagers at any given age.

JL >> I answered your question about what he has admitted with respect to consent. See above.

"Added to this is the treatment of the teenage girl on screen. Most of the time so ridiculous and fake that the very term 'teenage girl' feels like a sexual word."

sarah seriously, you need your own website! you've pinpointed so much of whats wrong with the respresentation of women in such few words thats a rare talent. I agree with you and my sentimenst are the nerve that people say we need to see polanski as a human being when he himself could not see this 13 yr old girl as a human being.

Slash, maybe you're right about these actors and directors choosing whether or not to support someone based solely on his affluence and race.

Confusing that there were so few McCain supporters on that petition though...

Also in response to the enquiry over how we feel about adult/child/teen sexual relationships, I for one would like to state yes, I do think an older female teacher having a sexual relationship with a younger student, male or female is wrong.

Again film quotes come to mind, and one with that very plot dynamic in fact: Rushmore.

ROSEMARY CROSS: Do you think we're going to have sex?

MAX FISCHER: That's a kinda cheap way to put it.

ROSEMARY CROSS: Not if you've ever fucked before, it isn't.

I don't wish to sound insensitive to those offering their personal experiences, but to delineate a couple of points...

A corrupt judge / judicial system can allow just as much injustice, pain and devastation to pass as can a w@nker paedophile.

Send RP to jail, but don't excuse what the judge did in this case.

And, JustBill, it wasn't changing the plea conviction, it was, y'know, cosying up to the prosecution. Which may well have resulted in a situation in which the prosecution says to RP, "we'll recommend x", knowing full well the judge is going to go with y.

And this is just little corruption. It only goes downhill from there.

You are a MOB, slice it, dice it, cut it any way you like it. You are A. MOB.

Blah blah blah, Pajiba has proven, over the course of this thread that they are as retrograde as a fat Mississippian at a Dale Earnhardt retrospective on the Speed Channel.

Rest assured that I will be there to call you out on your bullshit, you hipster.... conservative? DOUCHEBAGS.

By your standards anyone could be sent to pound you in the ass prison, I just hope I'm there to sign the order...or line you up against the wall. Children and rape victims first.

I'm with Kate! KATES UNITE.

Seriously, BS, what's gotten into you? HE PLED GUILTY and then FLED. He's guilty of serious crimes, and to set him free would equal a serious miscarriage of justice.

Also, I think you've lost your bloody mind.

It's not about the victim.

Posted by: sansho1 at September 29, 2009 8:21 PM

WTF??
...so the important thing is that he goes to prison...

rrright
US has always being devoted to convict all felonies...

let's ask to the CIA if they agree with that statement.

Wow! Woody Allen leading the charge to free a child molester! Go figure....

Polanski should go directly to jail and get at least a thirty year sentence to make up for all the time he was free. This isn't just about the woman (child rape victim) she has forgiven him, it's about all the other little girls out there who need to be protected from these creeps. If Polanski goes free, it sends a horrible message to children in abusive situations. It says there's no hope anyway...why bother?? And God only knows what kind of message the child predators will take from it if he walks.

BSlim> The law says that Roman Polanski should be punished for his crime. It does not say he should be punished... but only if the judge is not corrupt. It does not say he should be punished... but only if the victim wants him to be punished. It does not say he should be punished... but only if he is not rich or famous. It does not say he should be punished... but only if he feels the punishment is fair. 30 years ago, Roman Polanski committed a crime. He fled the country in order to avoid punishment. It is only right that he should be returned to this country to face the punishment that he has for so long evaded.

As for not punishing him now, because of the trauma it will put the victim through... should he have not been prosecuted 30 years ago, because of the trauma that it put her through then? Does the trauma that this will cause her now somehow outweigh the trauma that he put her through when he drugged and raped her 30 years ago?

As for the corrupt judge, if there is evidence that the judge acted illegally in regards to this case, then that evidence could of and should have been used to have the sentencing appealed. Instead, Roman Polanski fled the country, which in and of itself was against the law.

Judicial misconduct does not give him or anyone else the right to flee the country to avoid punishment, nor does it absolve him from ever being punished. He was found guilty of a crime, and admitted that he was guilty. He should have used the appeal process and the evidence of judicial misconduct to try to have the sentencing changed. He did not do so. He chose to flee the country instead. He has evaded punishment for 30 years. Now it is up to the judicial system to determine what his punishment should now be. It isn't your choice, or my choice, or the victim's choice. It is for the law to decide.

This holds true regardless of the crime, whether it is rape, murder, or kicking a dog. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished according to the law. The law is not perfect, and those involved in the judiciary system are not saints, but that does not give anyone an excuse to avoid punishment for their crime.

Kate> "I think there is another Kate around here..." Why, yes there is! (In fact, a couple of us, I think.) I haven't weighed in because I don't understand why this is even a discussion. Dude admitted a crime, then ran away when he didn't like his (probable) sentence. Now he's back in custody, and both the original offense and the escape are going to be addressed in court. Sounds entirely reasonable to me.

As I logged in this morning to read new comments since last night, I came across this article on MSN.com.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=434191>1=28101

Apparently the support within the documentary for "judicial misconduct" is based on a lie.

JL, I understand what you're saying about varying levels of maturity from person to person. The thing is, that simply doesn't matter. You can't base judgement on adult/minor relationships on a sliding scale like that, because it's entirely subjective. You might THINK Teenager X is mature enough to handle the complexities of a sexual relationship with an adult, but there's really no way of knowing that for sure until it's too late. And it's really not just about the age difference, but also about the difference in life experience, things that inform your view and decisions and help you decide right from wrong.

Becoming a teenager does not suddenly vault you to lofty new levels of maturity. The fact remains she was 13, only barely a teenager, and if you honestly believe a 13 year old has the insight and depth to evaluate the pros and cons of a sexual relationship with a man over 3 times her age, then I have no response to that.

Were you yourself involved in a (consensual) relationship of this kind when you were younger? If you met a particularly bright and mature 13 year old now, would you consider a relationship with that person because he/she seems particularly "grown up"? These questions aren't meant to flame you or ignite any sort of vitriol. They are honest questions, because your comments baffle me. I genuinely don't understand your position of (paraphrased) "some kids are mature enough for it".

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

-- Roman Polanski. Sound remorseful to you? No? Me either.

http://patterico.com/2009/09/29/polanski-in-1979-everyone-wants-to-fuck-young-girls/

What everyone is missing about BS is he's just another angry black man who thinks roman getting off is someone else sticking it to "THE MAN". Reread his posts. As for Roman I think there is some justice in the fact that he is most likely going to face felony flight charges which will stick his ass in prison for longer than his plea agreement.

I'm another American lawyer (not a trial lawyer, thank God; that would completely drive me insane) who wants to see Polanski brought back and sentenced.

Dustin, if there are a time and a place to say "fuck you", I've never seen a better time or place than those you just picked.

You said what a lot of people think about the scum who are backing Polanski because he raped someone who is of no importance to them.

Well said. Thank you.

Michael>
There is a big difference between Ted Kennedy and Roman Polanski, which makes your comparison rediculous.

Ted Kennedy (who I have never been a big fan of, BTW) went to court, plead guilty, and was sentenced. Regardless of what one may think of the sentence, he fulfilled his legal obligation. Roman Polanski did not.

roseaepines, you are right, consensual sodomy is no longer a crime in the US, after Lawrence v Texas, with a few exceptions for the military. And it was not a crime in California after 1975. (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11895res20030616.html)
I worded my post poorly. What I meant was: non-consensual sex (rape) and non-consensual sodomy are different crimes. So one can be both raped and sodomized.
As was the victim in this case.

You are correct Mike, though I don't think that's quite where the accusation of misconduct is coming from. From my understanding, the judge is supposed to have colluded with the prosecution in regards to the sentencing of RP. Basically, the prosecution told the judge "We're going to offer him X.", and the judge told them that he was going to reject that and impose sentence Y. The prosecution, knowing this, still offered deal X to RP. If, in fact, that is true, then that would be judicial misconduct, and would have been grounds for RP's attorney’s to challenge the sentencing, or to even have the plea thrown out. However, RP chose to flee. In a way this is understandable, actually. If he had stayed and challenged the ruling, it is quite possible that another judge could have decided on an even harsher punishment than the one he was challenging. If the plea deal were thrown out, then the prosecution could have decided to go ahead and take the case to trial, something RP certainly wanted to avoid. As such, no challenge was ever made, therefore the judge remains in the clear, since no ruling was ever made in regards to whether or not he did something illegal. No evidence was ever entered to prove any misconduct on the part of the judge, so while some people may accuse the judge of misconduct, as it stands now, that is all they are, merely accusations, and not actual legal fact. Now RP not only faces sentencing for the original crime to which he plead guilty, but he also faces sentencing for fleeing. He will also have a very difficult time proving misconduct by a judge 30 years after the fact, so fleeing certainly compounded his problems, to say the least.

Hey guys do ya'll remember that time the TTC guy who was caught napping? Well yesterday another TTC driver, who's bus was 15 minutes late decided to take a 7 minuet 'doughnut break', leaving his passengers sitting in the bus. The dude even threatened the passenger who confronted him! (Digg it to make it viral) -

http://digg.com/world_news/Toronto_TTC_bus_driver_s_regular_donut_break_caught_on_video