polanski1-550x404.jpg
Hollywood Comes Out in Support of Roman Polanski


I Come Out in Support of the LA District Attorney's Office / Dustin Rowles

Trade News | September 29, 2009 | Comments (232)


Shit. I’ve tried to keep this site away from the fray concerning Roman Polanski’s recent arrest, because it’s not at all a discussion I care to have here. Where rape is concerned, it tends to get heated and oftentimes ugly in our comment section. It makes me uncomfortable, to say the least, when the greatest group of commenters on the Internet devolves into the level of bickering that the subject has often created here.

But the Polanski situation has gotten to a point where it can hardly be ignored by a film site, as the arrest has already resulted in suspension of production on Polanski’s mostly finished film, The Ghost starring Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan.

As most of you probably already know, Polanski was arrested in Switzerland over the weekend, under a U.S. arrest warrant from 1978, stemming from charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He fled the country, then, to avoid imprisonment (he was confined to Auschwitz by the Nazis during World War II and, understandably, didn’t want to face another imprisonment). And honestly, Polanski was sandbagged — he’d been to Switzerland several times, and never expected the United States to exercise its right to extradite him. But they did, and now Polanski is in jail. And today, 110 film industry figures — including Martin Scorcese, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Wim Wenders, Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton and Monica Bellucci — have signed a petition to have him released.

To that I say: Fuck them. I don’t care how long ago it was, or how celebrated a filmmaker Polanski has become since: Dude drugged, raped, and sodomized an a 13-year-old girl. There’s a reason that the statute of limitations doesn’t run out on rape. Because it’s rape. It’s a vile, horrific crime, and for Polanski to suggest that he’s already been served his punishment is preposterous. He’s lived it up for three decades; he’s continued to be an honored filmmaker; and he’s made some great films that, perhaps, should’ve never been made.

But it’s time. It’s long past time. I know that the victim in this case — who is 43 now — wants to dismiss the charges because she wants to put the entire ordeal behind her. I can sympathize with that — it’s awful for her. She was raped, and she’s had to face the consequences for 33 years, while Polanski has lived it up in Europe. But there’s really only two ways to put it behind her: Either Polanski dies, or he’s tried on the charges. And if you ask me — I don’t care how celebrated the man is — if the allegations are actually true, then he deserves to die in prison. He was 44. She was 13. And just because he’s a goddamn Oscar winning director doesn’t mean that he should be excused for his actions.

“This affair is frankly a bit sinister. Here is a man of such talent, recognised worldwide, recognised especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice at all,” said the French Foreign Minister.

You know what else is not “nice at all”? Raping a minor.


Pajiba After Dark 9/29/09 | The Year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood



Comments

THANK YOU.

I don't understand how people can think otherwise. No film is worth anyone's dignity and personal pain. Talent does not mean a free pass from justice. What does the Hollywood statement imply - if you are a mediocre filmmaker, we'll throw you under the bus?

Posted by: Empress of All the Russias at September 29, 2009 8:06 PM

One of the greatest directors to ever live.

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

All I'm saying...

Posted by: Colin at September 29, 2009 8:07 PM

Thank you, Dustin.

Posted by: Lynne Lillie at September 29, 2009 8:08 PM

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. :(

Posted by: smijca at September 29, 2009 8:08 PM

Well said. And fuck those Tinsletown folks backing this guy. I mean when did rape become ok? OF A 13 YEAR OLD??

Personally, I'd like to see him go to jail and get sodomized too, see how he likes it.

Posted by: Tomi at September 29, 2009 8:10 PM

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.

Posted by: funtime42 at September 29, 2009 8:10 PM

Bravo, Dustin.

You should add this *clap*clap*clap*clap* to the list of best slow claps of all time.

Posted by: Sofía at September 29, 2009 8:11 PM

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.

Posted by: PaddyDog at September 29, 2009 8:12 PM

"She was raped, and she’s had to face the consequences for 33 years, while Polanski has lived it up in Europe..."

Let's see how sympathetic you are when she is raped all over again by the media over this. You folks don't seem to give a fuck about that, at all. DO you realize the hell this woman's gonna be put through now? And seriously this stopped being any of your fucking business a LOOOOONG time ago. By posting this thread you're raping this woman all over again.

The fact is there was a FUCKING PLEA and it was ignored by the judge, that's why he fled, there was a PLEA AGREEMENT.

And no, I'm not condoning rape, I'm also not condoning an accused citizen getting fucked by some rogue judge.

Oh, and enjoy the second raping of this poor woman.

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

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.

Posted by: Kate at September 29, 2009 8:16 PM

Mmm-hmmm.

Posted by: sansho1 at September 29, 2009 8:16 PM

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)

Posted by: admin at September 29, 2009 8:16 PM

As both a lawyer and the father of a daughter, I cannot convey how strongly I agree with you -- the only tragedy here is that it has taken so long. But then again, maybe this way he'll die in prison.

Posted by: VampireSlug at September 29, 2009 8:18 PM

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.

Posted by: biscuit at September 29, 2009 8:20 PM

Barbado, I'm....not convinced you really care about the woman. But even if you do, and even stipulating the judge's misconduct, this is supposed to be a country of laws, and he has not paid his JUST due for what happened. It's not about the victim.

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

"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?

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

and he has not paid his JUST due for what happened. It's not about the victim.

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

---------------------------------------------

Paid to whom, exactly? To you? You obviously don't give a shit about the woman either since "it's not about her" Then who the fuck is it supposed to be about then?

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

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.

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

Barbado Slim--

That's how the system works. The judge has the ability to throw out a plea. Rape is a crime against the state. As much as I understand and sympathize with the victim's stance, her wishes, as awful as this may sound, have no bearing here. When victims want more control over the legal process, they bring civil suits. Obviously she didn't have a choice at 13.

The fact of the matter is that he was already convicted and was awaiting sentencing when he left. There is no trial, no subpoena for the victim's testimony. At this point, whether he is released or not, she is still going to have to live with increased scrutiny for a while. It's terrible for her and I wouldn't want to be in that position, but Polanski going to jail or not is not going to change that; the issue is already at the forefront of discussion.

Posted by: Kate at September 29, 2009 8:25 PM

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


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

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

I wonder if it was any other much less talented director being arrested... would he or she have gotten the same amount of support by such notorious talents?

What they're basically saying is that "Rape is WRONG... for two to three years tops. Thirty years later it's OK, especially if you have an Oscar".

I agree with BSlim when he says the victim will be hunted down by the media over this, but I'm sorry, he has to be punished. I don't care if they're doing this to make an example out of Polanski; he better face the consequences. The fact remains: he was a 44 year-old man who anally raped a 13 year-old girl. I don't give a fuck if her mother was there and she allowed it or whatever the fuck people say happened. We all know he raped her. End of story.

Posted by: Sofía at September 29, 2009 8:27 PM

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?

Posted by: Nancy at September 29, 2009 8:28 PM

It's about the law, and how we choose to treat accused people with the means to flee. And he fled before the final adjudication of his case. It may yet be decided that enough is enough, but he used his money and connections to escape the finality of a judgment.

Posted by: sansho1 at September 29, 2009 8:28 PM

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.

Posted by: smijca at September 29, 2009 8:28 PM

Listen, the girl voluntarily made her name public several years ago. She has made public statements about the case, but regardless of all that, it's not about her. That's just not the way the law works. It's about prosecuting a crime (as was done) and the perpetrator paying the agreed upon penalty (which was not done). I realize that doesn't seem fair to many people, but that's how the law is intended to work.

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

"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?

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

BSlim:

I know quite a few people who didn't know. I didn't think about him much before his re-capture, and I young enough that I have never heard about the rape.

However, I knew OF him and his work, and if I had met him in a bar or on the street I would have thought admiringly about him and reacted that way towards him. I sure as hell wouldn't have thought that he had sodomized and raped a girl.

From what I've heard about him, his career suffered only from personal artistic choices, not from blacklisting of any sort.

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

"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.

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

I agree with DR, except on one point:

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

You're taking the power out of her hands for her own recovery. Yes, the crime should be punished, but recovery on the part of the victim doesn't hinge upon it. Sure, it helps, but it's not the only way through it.
I hope the woman isn't raked over the coals too harshly, even though she probably will.

Posted by: myysharona (formerly Sharon) at September 29, 2009 8:38 PM

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?

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 29, 2009 8:39 PM

Maybe it's an age thing (considering I wasn't born when the rape and subsequent plea and stuff happened)....but I also had no idea about the rape until he was arrested in Switzerland.

So clearly, he hasn't suffered the "stigma of a sex offender" all that much.

Posted by: kdm at September 29, 2009 8:41 PM

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.

Posted by: gp at September 29, 2009 8:42 PM

Barbado Slim,

If Polanski had ever stepped foot on U.S. soil, then yes, he would have felt the stigma of being a convicted sex offender. But he didn't. He hid under the skirt of French citizenship, becoming a celebrated member of France's Arts and Letters Legion. Hardly the 'mark of Cain' by any stretch.

I am heartened that America (at least through the Pajibian lens) has not lost sight of the heinous nature of this crime. I really do understand the victim's desire to brush this horror away, that she feels victimized by the media...but she stated it was her being portrayed as a lying Lolita which traumatized her...not waves of support like what's being demonstrated here.

He should have to rot in jail not just for this particular rape survivor, but to send a message to the thousands of young girls out there that reporting a rape matters, for them to see that even the powerful and famous cannot get away with this most personal of violations.

Personally, I'm going to take note of every celebrity who wrote their name on that poisoned petition and make sure to never support their work again. Period.

Posted by: Ms. Mix & Bitch at September 29, 2009 8:42 PM

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.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at September 29, 2009 8:43 PM

Look folks, I sure as hell know I'm not going to get anywhere here on account of how you are in full mob-mode.

But no justice is being served here. The man and his defense made a plea agreement in good faith, he was going to get screwed by a corrupt judge who acted unethically thereby tainting the process. If you are too caught up in your thirst for revenge to see that then, I feel sorry for you. If you allow this type of bullshit in one instance you will be just as willing to allow it for others. You are a MOB.

I hope he fights it and dies while doing it in Europe just so you don't get the satisfaction of seeing him here.

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

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.

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

It's a horrible crime. Polanski deserved to serve time for a crime everyone involved admitted he did whether he agreed to a plea deal or not. As far as I'm aware, had everything held up to the original plan, he would have done his prison stay and continued to make brilliant films in America.

It's just that the time he should have served was agreed upon and then changed by a judge who repeatedly made comments that he wanted to make an example out of Polanski and hang him out to dry. So, while I can't defend his sexual misconduct or flight from the United States, I can at least understand a pretty damn good reason for the latter.

From a purely selfish perspective, it's now very likely that one of my favorite directors of all time will never have the opportunity to finish another film. Even if they drop the charges against him for the sexual misconduct, he'll still have to deal with all the legal red tape to be extradited to the US, appeal the older charges, and most likely face new charges for, you know, illegally fleeing the country to avoid jail time. Those potential new charges are a pretty open and shut case, since Polanski has admitted to doing just that on many occasions. It's a mess and a damn shame that a man who contributed so much to the art of film is going to go down in history as a controversial criminal, not an artist.

Again, that's me being selfish. The man's responsible for my favorite film of all time, my favorite Charles Dickens adaptation, my favorite Catherine Deneuve film, and one of the most accomplished and non-exploitative Holocaust films of all time.

Posted by: Robert at September 29, 2009 8:45 PM

Nicely put Rowles.

Posted by: grace b at September 29, 2009 8:47 PM

That's exactly why it is such a heinous crime - not only did he ignore a woman's refusal, but Polanski dragged a young girl through a hell made even worse by his fame. Yeah, fucking disgusting that she has to go through this again. BSlim, this motherfucker should have done whatever was necessary through the legal process to serve justice, not to mention kept it to himself in the first place, and ultimately he is the one responsible for dredging this up again, not the authorities. If it wasn't Roman Polanski and nobody even knew the victim's name, you'd be howling for jail time and extradition, and you'd be right. It just proves what a worm he is that he felt entitled to flee and obviously hasn't reflected on his actions seriously enough in the thirty three years since to feel contrite and turn himself in. It's not her fault the asshole who destroyed her life is famous, it's just one more reason this bastard deserves to be arrested and she deserves our pity. I'm ashamed he's been out there enjoying the European life as long as he has. I know I'm not going to get rewarded with the support of a litany of Hollywood luminaries for living a decent life free of such revolting and deviant behavior, so at least they have Roman Polanski on whom to heap their praise.

Posted by: misslit20 at September 29, 2009 8:48 PM

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.

Posted by: Betty at September 29, 2009 8:50 PM

I actually sorta agree with BSlim. Seriously, can you imagine how much shit the media is gonna pull up on her? Seriously, the man raped her and chances are, people are gonna act like it was her fault to begin with.

That being said, it is kind of important that we finally bring the fucker in. The guy may have been on the run for 30 years, but if he's alive, he can at least still be brought to justice, even if it is WAY overdue here.

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at September 29, 2009 8:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Nancy at September 29, 2009 8:52 PM


Right on, brother. Or brothers and sisters.

Posted by: Lance at September 29, 2009 8:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Alex at September 29, 2009 9:01 PM

Dustin Rowles = correct.

Hollywood faggots = dead wrong.

Posted by: The Unrepublican at September 29, 2009 9:07 PM

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.

Posted by: Robert at September 29, 2009 9:08 PM

Let me preface my statement by saying that I am a mother and I am also a person who has been raped. I don't take the charges lightly and Polanski should have served his time.

From what I have read and from what information was in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, it seems clear there was misconduct by the trial judge. At some point, there should have been a new trial or Polanski should have returned on his own to be sentenced. I believe both Polanski (and his lawyers) and the prosecutors in LA should have figured out a proper resolution long before now. I can't really understand why prosecutors thought this was the best way to handle things. I guess basically I'm saying both sides (excluding Samantha Geimer) have handled this most poorly.

I do admit to being fond of Polanski as a director, and sympathetic to his life story.

But most of all, I am sad for the woman (girl) who was raped.

Posted by: Cindy at September 29, 2009 9:14 PM

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.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 29, 2009 9:22 PM

I understand Woody signing due to his questionable child rapist status but for the rest, fuck them. I never understood why hollywood continued to work with this slime after over 30 years. Was is because of Sharon? Fuck no. A lot of those assholes have no moral fabric, never was a 13 year old girl (including the females), and never had or plan to have a 13 year old child. Its about time he paid for what he did.

Posted by: Candy at September 29, 2009 9:22 PM

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

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 29, 2009 9:24 PM

He plead guilty to the crime, and should have done his time. You don't get to choose your sentence.

There are many ways to appeal an unfair verdict, but regardless, you don't get to choose.

The reason they are pursuing it is to show that you don't duck the law, no matter who you are. Justice high and low.

The lady doesn't want to dredge up any negativity in her life, and I have compassion for her. But, isn't there any positive benefit to be had from knowing her abuser is finally paying for his crime?

Last, the reason people are so eager to defend him, is because (mostly) every rapist is a close friend, family member or acquaintance. It is very often difficult to believe or accept, and some people are never able to acknowledge the crime.

Posted by: replica at September 29, 2009 9:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Nancy at September 29, 2009 9:33 PM

What irks me the most about this man is his 'fuck you' attitude concerning what he did. His enablers who helped him continue to line his pockets over the years by throwing scripts and production money at him should burn. Never understood why he's been able to stay in this industry. Never did. Who's to say he hasn't been raping other minors with impunity over the years?

Posted by: Candy at September 29, 2009 9:38 PM

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

Posted by: stardust savant at September 29, 2009 9:40 PM

Dustin = win

Rape is never forgivable. Rape of a minor less so. If anyone hurt my daughter (just about 12) I'd be tempted to take justice into my own hands (as wrong as that is in itself).

Given he's been tried and found guilty and skipped on his punishment, I say BRING IT ON.

That so much of the movie making world is pro-Polanski is baffling (and fucked up).

Posted by: trib at September 29, 2009 9:45 PM

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.

Posted by: Abby at September 29, 2009 9:47 PM

BSlim, it wasn't until now that I learnt of the details of the case. Yes, I knew he was a 'child rapist', and hiding from US law. But, blame good lawyers, excellent PR campaign and/or my lack of interest in the stuff behind the camera, I was under the impression it was statutory rape of a 15-16 year old girl, and that she consented or her mother put her up to it.
I didn't know she was thirteen, that he drugged her, and she said no. I had no idea that he sodomised her. For that reason alone, I'm glad he's been arrested. Because this shit WAS swept under a rug, and it shouldn't have.

As for what the victim now has ahead of her, the problem isn't in the way the law has continued to pursue Polanski. The problem lies in the way the law allows the media and even its own lawyers to entwine the victim with the crime, until one cannot be distinquished from the other, and how that has spread to the wider community.

A victim is now scruitinised as closely as the rapist. 'What they were wearing, what were they doing at the time, were they drunk/stoned?' If the victim is a man, well, he should have fought the rapist off, so he must have wanted it, right?
What we really want to know is 'did they ask for it?' The concept of 'consent' has been eroded until nobody is entirely clear anymore what it actually is. The rules keep changing, and those protections become more demanding. Once, you locked your front door. Now, you have a security door, and locks on the window. Because anything less could be 'misinterpreted' as an invitation.
I wish I could say I'm being ridiculous. I wish I could say that a person is safe in their home. But a few years ago now, a woman fell asleep on her couch while watching TV with the window open and the door unlocked. While she slept, her nightwear crept up, exposing her through the window. A drunk man saw her, went inside and sexually assaulted her.
The judge let him go. The judge called it a 'reaction to the unique circumstances'. The judge wished him luck with the rest of his life.

THAT'S the fucking problem. It's not whether it gets to the court, it's what happens in the court. It's what happens outside the court, in the newsrooms and the living rooms. It's the poison in our minds.
If you want the victim in this case to not be used and abused by the public, perhaps you should start with yourself. Leave her the hell out of this, like she asked. Because, although it's obvious that you mean well, 'she's over it.. she's forgiven him...she's moved on' is really just another version of 'What was she wearing?... What was she doing at the time?... Did she ask for it?'

Posted by: ScienceGeek at September 29, 2009 9:48 PM

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?

Posted by: Miranda at September 29, 2009 9:49 PM

I know I was one of those arguing the "rape" issue in Deadgirl. The difference between my argument there, and here, is the same difference as fact and fiction.

I can argue a rape scene in fiction. What it means, what it stands for, what its importance is, where the argument should go.

Facts, are facts. Saying Polanski shouldn't be brought to trial for the rape case he ran out on is like saying someone who murdered someone 30 years ago shouldn't be brought to trial. A crime, is a crime, is a crime. There is no difference, there is no black and white or grey.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at September 29, 2009 9:50 PM

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?

Posted by: Inaras at September 29, 2009 9:54 PM

It's not as if there is no recourse for a defendant who feels he's been the victim of judicial misconduct. Polanski could have, at any time, returned to the country and filed an appeal. He didn't. He elected to fuck off to Gay Paree. I can't blame the man for preferring the life of a jet-setting superstar director to ducking Cholos in San Quentin, but that doesn't mean Polanski just get to skate because he felt getting shanked in the chow line was unappealing.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at September 29, 2009 10:00 PM

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.

Posted by: Betty at September 29, 2009 10:07 PM

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?

No. I'm saying that as a female, daughter, etc. it'd be pretty fucked up if I stood here and agreed that we should take "stay the hell out of it" stance you seem to be promoting.

Look, I understand the point that you're trying to make about it not being right if the judicial process was tampered with but...why not separate the outrage for that from Roman Polanski and what he did?

i.e. Why not say "folks, isn't it kinda messed up how this dude, no matter how despicable and messed up, didn't quite get a fair trial or might not have gotten a fair trial given what's been written about the case?" Though I can't agree 100% since we don't know whether or not Polanski would have been grossly punished since he ASSumed and ran off.

Yeah, it would have been messed up and when they bring him here I do hope he goes through a fair trial that doesn't become a circus show and that he gets the punishment appropriate to the crime (many, many years in jail).

I don't want him hanged or whatnot but for you to act all outraged about people's strong reactions against the "poor" man and thirst for justice to be served for this crime....look, that outrage should be directed at journalists who are going to take the first flight to Hawaii once the trial starts to pester the woman but fact of the matter is that it's not that people don't care about the survivor or her feelings...it's just that regardless of how much Polanski paid or how many years he was away...that doesn't erase that a crime, which according to law must be punished, was committed.

And now I'm going back into lurking mode because spazzing out on the 'net was so not the first impression I wanted to make.

Posted by: smijca at September 29, 2009 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 29, 2009 10:12 PM

Dustin for once you and I are in total agreement.

Posted by: John W at September 29, 2009 10:23 PM

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.”

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 29, 2009 10:23 PM

Thanks for the link Stardust. I was totally unaware that, in the minds of some, international film festivals should be treated as "home free" to those with criminal convictions. Good to know, good to know.

Just a question so feel free to lambast me for unfair comparisons and what have you but: What if the crime was murder? Would we still see the outcry that it happened thirty years ago, we're making the family re-live it, he's paid his just due? Quite frankly, I don't think we would; and I, for one, feel that the rape of a child is a far more heinous crime.

Posted by: admin at September 29, 2009 10:28 PM

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

Posted by: Borg at September 29, 2009 10:34 PM

It's been said dozens of times on the internet, and I'm not sure who was the first one to come up with this analogy, but the point's a good one: what would the reaction of those Hollywood luminaries who signed that petition have been if we were talking about Fr. Polanski, the pedophile priest.

Posted by: megbon at September 29, 2009 10:35 PM

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: Viking at September 29, 2009 10:37 PM

One other thing - look, history is rife with examples of people who were great artists and horrible human beings. It has to be possible to separate the art from the artist. I'm not going to avoid White Christmas because Bing Crosby was a child abuser. I'm not going to boycott Rite of the Valkyries because Wagner was a virulent anti-semite. I'm still going to think Rosemary's Baby is a fucking brilliant movie even though Roman Polanski is a pedophilic rapist. I don't think it's all that complicated to separate the art from the artist.

Posted by: megbon at September 29, 2009 10:45 PM

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.

Posted by: George at September 29, 2009 10:45 PM

Thanks for weighing in on this, Pajiba and Dustin.

There is a lot of good stuff being said here.

As far as other crimes, the only mention of the relationship Polanski had with Nastassja Kinski (then 15) around 1979 has been on an AlterNet article linked from Feministe. It's worth checking out. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142939/it%27s_still_rape%3A_a_much_needed_dose_of_sanity_on_roman_polanski

Posted by: Less Lee Moore at September 29, 2009 11:02 PM

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.

Posted by: hatemail at September 29, 2009 11:03 PM

BarbadoSlim, is it really an example of mob mentality that so many people are sickened and outraged by a situation that many people are learning about for the first time?

Or maybe it's indicative of the power of human empathy, that so many people can hear this awful story and feel such compassion for the victim and outraged on her behalf?

The last time I was dragged out of lurkitude it was over your comments about Star Trek and how you decided to speak for all "trekkies". Apparently, that was nothing.

This time you are deciding to speak for a woman who has endured one of the most traumatic things that a person can experience.

Believe me when I tell you that victims of any kind of abuse are usually conflicted about the abuse and the abuser, especially when those victims are young. They haven't yet developed many of the internal mechanisms that people use to overcome adversity. Coming to terms with it is a process that lasts a lifetime.

Please stop speaking for other people and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a member of the "mob". It may come as a surprise to you, but someone can disagree with you and actually be in full possession of their faculties.

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at September 29, 2009 11:08 PM

Just wow.

Posted by: faze at September 29, 2009 11:16 PM

Yikes...

Just read the full list of people who signed the petition. It makes me sad. There are many people on there I did respect.

It seems to me that Mr. Polanski has absolutely NOT paid his dues. He admitted to a crime. He was to be sentenced for that crime, and he ran away. He has now lived in luxury in Europe for 30 years, with an apparently very long list of people telling him that he is a genius talent and an all-around good person. In fact, they were planning a huge celebration in his honor. "Not being able to travel to America" is not exactly a punishment, especially if you are a European citizen to begin with.

Not to start a REAL shitstorm, but I can't help think of Michael Jackson. His talent is undeniable, and his art continues to entertain us. He had a fucked-up life story too. He was also, most likely, a child molester. Although he never admitted it, and was never convicted of it, unlike Polanski. Can we celebrate the art without celebrating the man?

Posted by: MM at September 29, 2009 11:18 PM

slow clap, seconded.

Posted by: Christopher at September 29, 2009 11:18 PM

BarbadoSlim, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I'm happy to see that you are sticking to your guns and supporting your opinions in the face of so much opposition. You’ve defended your point, and you obviously have passion for this subject.

However, my opinion is that this man should face consequences for his actions. I believe that someone who rapes another individual should serve jail time; and feeling so does not make me part of some rabble.

For many of those who wish to see him brought to justice, this is not about buying into the fanaticism of a corrupt and overzealous judicial system looking to make an example of a celebrity. This is about holding all citizens accountable for their actions, regardless of their status, or lack thereof.

If he wasn’t a director of many acclaimed films, these celebrities would not be lining up to support him. Conversely, if he wasn’t the director of many acclaimed films, his case wouldn’t be sensationalized by those out for blood in the media. His status as a celebrated artist has both helped and hindered him, and it will continue to do so. This is not acceptable by any standards, but the fact remains as such.

If he was just some normal guy who committed this heinous act, (Joe Blow the 44 year old truck driver, for example) he would hopefully be tried for the crime, convicted, and incarcerated. Polanski should be held to the same standards as Joe Blow, no more, no less.

The fact was, and always will, remain; he raped a 13 year old. In my book, that transgression deserves punishment, and that punishment includes imprisonment. If feeling this way makes me a part of a mob, then so be it; because I would rather be a member of this particular mob, than a member of the mob which includes another degenerate, Woody Allen.

Polanski ultimately is quite lucky to be the citizen he is; because in the neighborhood I grew up in, raping a 13 year old will guarantee only that you will find a Louisville Slugger shoved up some unholy orifice. His castigation has been getting to share a bed with Emmanuelle Seigner for 20 years while winning Oscars.

Many ask, why has he been arrested now? My question is, why not? Rape is rape is rape; and a 44 year old having sex with a 13 year old is rape, no matter which way you slice it, no matter how many Oscars you win, no matter how many decades have passed, and no matter how many celebrities idolize you. The same rule should apply no matter who you are.

Posted by: Sarah at September 29, 2009 11:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Not Me at September 29, 2009 11:46 PM

Fucking weird choice of causes for someone to stake their Hollywood credibility on.

One of my longest standing friends lost her virginity in a gang rape at the age of 13, then was sexually assaulted by a friend of her fathers at the age of 14 (her dad never found out), before running away and living on the street for a year and a half. She has gotten on with life in the 20 years since, but is still working through the shit that happened to her. Guess where I stand.

Rape is (among many other things) about dispowerment. Outside of this particular case, is it impossible to imagine a situation where a victim can be bribed, coerced or worse into "wanting to move on"? Or that a victim might want to normalise what happened to them, reimagine it as something they wanted and were in control of? Human responses to rape are wide and varied and vengeance is only one of them. Simply leaving the decision to the victim can allow any number of potential outs for accused rapists to go on doing as they do (repeat offenders at least).

That the justice system "rapes the victim" a second time in arguing for the defence is tough(although arguably neccessary in an innocent-before-guilty system), is it seriously worse than a system that doesn't pursue justice at all out of respect for the victim? Or one that just doesn't prosecute at all?

Sorry if Polanski doesn't fall into repeat offender status and that he is the "victim of an inflexible system", but that system exists for a reason.

Oh, and apparently he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Maybe if the Hollywood identities would like to generate sympathy for their cause, they could make a film about it and try to make me sympathise.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at September 29, 2009 11:54 PM

Yet another filmmaker raping someone's childhood.

Posted by: laredo at September 29, 2009 11:55 PM

Michael Mann???!!! Nooooooo.

Now I'm forever going to view Heat as an allegory for the plight of Roman Polanski.

He should have known better not to accept any award that he couldn't walk away from in 30 seconds flat.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at September 29, 2009 11:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Kate at September 29, 2009 11:57 PM

"Simply leaving the decision ...to prosecute"

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at September 30, 2009 12:00 AM

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.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at September 30, 2009 12:01 AM

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

The statute of limitations is the time limit that a prosecutor has to bring charges against someone after the commission of the crime. In Polanski's case, the limitation doesn't apply because he had already been prosecuted and convicted. He skipped town to avoid his already earned sentence.

Posted by: spazmodeas at September 30, 2009 12:06 AM

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

Posted by: sansho1 at September 30, 2009 12:13 AM

When I was raped, no one "dragged [me] off the street, stuffed a cotton sock dipped in ether in [my] mouth, and fucked [me] in the ass before throwing [me] in a ditch." I don't know who "Hatemail" is, but I'd like to say:

FUCK YOU for implying that what happened to that girl, what happened to me and countless others, is somehow not quite horrifying enough. The day I was raped, I was wearing a slutty dress. Does that mean I deserved it?

Roman Polanski should rot in jail for what he did.

Posted by: Kate the Great at September 30, 2009 12:16 AM

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.

Posted by: bleujayone at September 30, 2009 12:18 AM

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...

And yet - even though it's not the point - these seem to be the provisos that Polanski's defenders insist on using to equivocate in all of their arguments. Of course, they tend to leave out the fact that the "little girl" said "no" per her testimony. And - sorry - he was not twice her age but over three times her age. And - as reprehensible and irresponsible as her mother's behavior might have been - that does not absolve him of responsibility. No means no, and per his own testimony he knew her age.

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.

A judge does have the legal right to overturn a plea agreement, and - in Polanski's own guilty plea - he acknowledged the court's right to do exactly that after the mental evaluation. It's unusual but not unheard of. The judge was corrupt, but where's the folly in holding a trial with a judge who is not corrupt now? It's not like the proceedings wouldn't be scrutinized to the point of ridiculousness at this point. And it's not as if Polanski himself wasn't interested in getting this settled as recently as a year ago when he inquired with the LA prosecutor's office about the case's being dropped.

It was a screwed-up situation, and Polanski can at least be understood for feeling that he was treated unfairly. But you don't get to set the terms of your own sentencing in our legal system. "30 years probation," my ass.

As for your point about Chino - look, we can't know if that was going to happen. And this broad brush you're swinging around that assumes that everyone in favor of the arrest is some sort of eye-for-an-eye sadist who wants to string Polanski up with no capacity for forgiveness is frankly offensive. The system isn't perfect, but we don't get to pick and choose. We just have to let it work to the best of its ability.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 12:21 AM

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.

Posted by: Peter G at September 30, 2009 12:31 AM

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.

You're conflating "corrupt proceeding" with "corrupt system". A corrupt proceeding might occur within a non-corrupt system, and ours includes the potential for the redress of a judicial wrong, if one is determined, in the form of an appeal.

Posted by: sansho1 at September 30, 2009 12:43 AM

"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.

Posted by: Cimorene at September 30, 2009 12:53 AM

PS. lots of Holocaust victims went on to not rape any children.
Lots of people lost loved ones to horrible murders, and managed to live whole lives without raping any children.
Lots of folks are real good at their jobs, and never rape a child.

And there's a difference between "squashing dissent" like a pitchfork weilding mob, and having no patience with rape apologists. I will listen to what people say, and I will keep an open mind. But I won't keep it so open that my fucking brain falls out and I think it's ok to hear someone effectively blame a 13 year old girl for getting raped by one of the most powerful men in the world, just cuz she had the gall to wear a bikini, without saying something. If I see some racist, sexist, misogynist, bigoted, or evil shit, I'm not going to walk by without comment. I'm going to say, "Hey, saying that she was responsible for her own rape, or saying that it wasn't a big deal--that's some evil shit!" And also that's why a boycott is a good idea. Even if they think he "served his time" in "exile" or something while he lived in his mansions in Europe, putting anything ahead of "the time he raped a 13 year old girl...several times in one evening...while she cried and said no...and then running away from the sentencing after already pleading guilty..." is fucking evil, man. Rape and murder are right up there with things like genocide and torture for evil things that have no excuse for their EVIL.

Posted by: Cimorene at September 30, 2009 1:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Sarah at September 30, 2009 1:04 AM

I was scouring the internet and news articles to get more information about his case and what happened and even after reading through it all I still think he deserves to go to jail for his crime.

I thought this interesting and disturbing quote from Roman Polanski a year after fleeing his sentence says everything we need to know about his mentality.

“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!”

Posted by: Virenda at September 30, 2009 1:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Spender at September 30, 2009 1:18 AM

Ug. Somebody should start a petition in support of Polanski's arrest. It'd be nice to demonstrate to those idiots that most people do not agree with them when in comes to forgiving and forgetting child rape.

Posted by: s. pisaster at September 30, 2009 1:19 AM

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?

Posted by: Hatemail at September 30, 2009 1:22 AM

He did indeed say that.

Visiting Mrs Nabokov: And Other Excursions written by Martin Amis has it quoted in there after he conducted an interview with Mr. Roman Polanski. It was written up in the tattler as well.


Posted by: Virenda at September 30, 2009 1:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 1:42 AM

Wow, Hatemail, so some chick once almost-kinda accused you of rape... how is this relevant to your argument? Like, at all?

We're mad at you because of the whole "...it's not like he 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" thing.

Please, have the courtesy to die in a fire. Alternatively, why don't you consider THINKING before you say anything that stupid and insensitive ever again?

Posted by: Kate the Great at September 30, 2009 1:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Spender at September 30, 2009 1:49 AM

"Further" punished? I'm still struggling here with your point. Under our legal system, what was his punishment in the first place? Self-chosen exile from a country that's not even his original home? His sentence was never completed. It's unfortunate for him - and for us now having to belabor this 30 years later - that the system was suspect, but the fact remains his sentence was never rightfully completed. No one is saying this should not have been resolved a long time ago.

As for the victim's lack of desire for his punishment, you're making this argument as if we aren't sympathetic to her. Again, that's a pretty broad brush. You don't have to be painting the entire issue completely black and white in order to take a side in this argument. See Sarah's comments above about retribution, deterrence, and maintenance of a civilized society. That's what we're "fighting for." You might not agree that those other reasons for punishment outweigh the victim's wishes, but they are certainly reasonable justifications, and it's certainly reasonable to want them respected and upheld, isn't it?

Out of curiosity, have you read her grand jury testimony? It's pretty upsetting in my opinion and certainly leaves me questioning whether that original plea bargain satisfies the average person's idea of "justice." If we're going to raise questions outside of the boundaries of the strict legal process (e.g., why can't we throw out charges when the victim wants us to?), then I can certainly raise that question as well.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 1:49 AM

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.

Posted by: blair at September 30, 2009 1:52 AM

I keep reading posts here saying if the victim has forgiven him, everyone else should. I'm just wondering when is it not ok to forgive?

What if he was a priest and she was a choirgirl?
or he had her locked in his basement for maybe 20years? Would that make this horrible enough for the appologists out there? He, drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year old. There's a reason there's no statue of limitation on rape. It's how people get prosecuted 10,20,30 years after the crime.

PS: Oh, he pled guilty, then fled the country, and this makes him somehow a victim? I hope he rots in jail.

Posted by: Tomi at September 30, 2009 1:55 AM

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.

Posted by: Hatemail at September 30, 2009 2:02 AM

To answer the "why now?" question: One of the articles I read about this said that the arrest was prompted when Polanski's own attorney asked for his sentence to be commuted. That's kind of another "Fuck you" not to the victim, but to the Justice System. So, the prosecution responded by asking that he be arrested abroad in a cooperating country. No cooperating country had ever been asked before.

Interesting.

Also, thanks Virenda for posting that quote. Pretty much jibes with my mother's (the ultimate historical resource on 70s pop culture) recollection of how this whole thing went down in the media and what a slimeball Polanski was when it comes to women.

Posted by: Miranda at September 30, 2009 2:04 AM

"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.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 2:05 AM

So I can be clear on my points in what's clearly a very contentious topic:

1. A 44-year old man having sex with a 13-year old girl = Statutory rape. I don't care if her mom said it's OK. Or if he had a history of traumatic experiences that would fuck any of us up. Adult having sex with child is rape. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

2. It's understandable that the victim was this to go away. Every time his name comes up, her name now comes up. And now doubt she now has to prepare herself, her family and her friends for what will be the onslaught of media attention that she never asked for, wanted nor sought. She's wanted out of a tragedy where she's the victim and I can't blame her.

3. It is the job of the judicial system to pursue justice to whatever ends. Police officers, judges, district attorneys; this is why we pay them to work for us. There is no statute of limitations on rape because it is a horrible crime. Since Polanski ran, the case cannot be closed -- no matter anyone's feelings or the time that has passed.

4. What the judge and DA at the time did in trying to void the plea agreement sounds like it was out of bounds.

5. I'm not surprised at all the support Polanski got.

Posted by: Fredo at September 30, 2009 2:16 AM

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.

Posted by: Ben at September 30, 2009 2:20 AM

Roamn Polanski is just like Noah Cross - raped a young girl & got away with it. The only difference is that it wasn't his daughter.

"It's Chinatown"

Posted by: oskar at September 30, 2009 2:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 2:30 AM

That disgusting excuse for a human being Jeffrey Wells (Entertainment blogger...sort of...when he's not bitching about Mexicans in theaters, fat people, those who don't wear high thread count clothing, asking director friends to give him nude pictures of actresses they've worked with) said the following:

"So it was foul and ugly, but it wasn't all-the-way, string-em-up Hungarian rape."

In my best Troll 2 voice: "Oh my gaaaaaaaaaaad!"

Posted by: ShinyKatesShineRag at September 30, 2009 2:32 AM

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

Posted by: EricD at September 30, 2009 3:07 AM

To all those folks saying that "since the victim doesn't want to pursue it further, let's let it drop", if we follow your logic, then when someone's murdered, aren't we making an assumption that the killer should be apprehended and brought to justice? According to you, maybe the victim didn't want the murderer caught.

I've known people who have been raped or abused and didn't want to involve the authorities because it would bring shame onto them - mostly in other countries. The rapists & abusers just continue on unabated.

Where's the motherfucking proof this twatbag Polanski hasn't been assraping kids in France while the French government looks the other way.
It's obvious that they are full-fledged in their defense of this guy.

This man is a convicted rapist - he should not be allowed near children, schools, and playgrounds.

All this talk about Polanski making a plea agreement in good faith...when a 13 yr old girl says 'No' to a 44 yr old man, that's a fucking plea in good faith.

I hope you're just being contrarians, because if not, I only wish the worst for you.

Posted by: Anonymoose at September 30, 2009 3:12 AM

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.

Posted by: JL at September 30, 2009 3:20 AM

I think the fact that the rape victim wants to put it behind her shows that she is still suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and would rather let the man who refused her pleas to 'stop' be set free than to have to relive the ordeal again. Crime victims, unfortunately, can decide if they want to press civil charges (which she settled out of court) but they can't change the law, no matter how painful reliving the crime might be. State legislatures make laws, judges and juries enforce them. My heart goes out to this woman, but it is not up to her. It would set a bad example for other rapists if they were not charged based on the wishes of violently traumatized victims. Too bad Polanski didn't cooperate with the U.S. State department earlier in his life. The longer his crime of evasion continued the more serious it became. He will now, possibly, die in prison. That might not have been the case if he had not evaded the law for so many decades. Seriously, how can a country of laws let this crime go unpunished. There isn't room on the internet to explain all the reasons. Debra Winger is loopy and this make explain why so few directors have hired her over the last few decades. Other middle-aged actors have managed to have careers. Why hasn't she? Sorry Roman, tragic life not withstanding, thumbs down. We don't allow child rape in American, no matter how good your films are. Woody Allen must be sweating bullets and his films aren't even any good.

Posted by: Kimberly Clark at September 30, 2009 3:38 AM

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.

Posted by: EricD at September 30, 2009 3:43 AM

Still not capable of reasonable discussion regarding a sensitive topic?

(notable exceptions, obviously)

I'll check back in.

Posted by: Peter G at September 30, 2009 3:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Drizzle at September 30, 2009 3:50 AM

Kate

I just brought up the statutory aspect just to highlight that even if it had been consensual (i.e. no drugs or booze, she said yes all the way, etc), it still would be wrong and it still would be a crime.

As for the statute of limitation...you're right in that it's for bringing up charges. My bad. Guess I should have phrased it, "there's no specific amount of time that wipes away a crime."

Do I think he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison? To be honest, no I don't. And not because he's 77 or any other excuse. But does he need to spend some time in jail? Yeah, he does.

Posted by: Fredo at September 30, 2009 4:06 AM

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.

Posted by: The Wanderer at September 30, 2009 4:34 AM

It drives me nuts when people say that something 'doesn't affect me, so why is it a problem?'.

Either the writer is very young, or is very, very lucky to be living a life untouched by such events in some way. Hope that stays that way for you guys. Except - that point of view allows you to turn your face away from your responsibility to other people.

And don't be confused about it - you are not some isolated rock existing on your own merit, guided by your own light. You are part of a system which, in this case, has a debt owing to it. Let one or two slip by, start trading value judgements for ticket sales and critical acclaim, and you fail people just like yourself.

Posted by: replica at September 30, 2009 4:41 AM

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.

Posted by: silchas ruin at September 30, 2009 4:57 AM

It drives me nuts when people misquote me, then make judgments about what I said based on their faulty memory of it.

I will clarify, however. Rape is *clearly* a problem. It obviously impacts a great deal of people in some way or another. Rape in general, that is. Specifically, the rape of that girl by Roman Polanski does not make him indebted to me. On the other hand, he does have an incalculable debt to the girl (now woman). The only thing for which he is indebted to the system is that he spurned its rules and procedures in favor of a vacation destination and a successful career. For his contempt of the justice system, I do feel slighted.

Posted by: Drizzle at September 30, 2009 5:21 AM

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?

Posted by: thatstudent at September 30, 2009 5:46 AM

Thank you Dustin.

I cannot believe the excuses these celebrities are willing to give for a 43 year old man drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.

It disgusts me.

Posted by: missh at September 30, 2009 5:55 AM

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.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at September 30, 2009 6:31 AM

Drizzle, replica was not misquoting you, or forgetting your meaning. She was pointing out that sure, it doesn't affect you...until it affects you.

Saying "Specifically, the rape of that girl by Roman Polanski does not make him indebted to me. " can be said for any rape that does not directly involve you or people you love. Would you prefer a return to blood feuds?

Rape is a societal problem where rapists are free to go about their business without fear of prosecution (as it is, conviction rates are damnably low). When laws have loopholes wide enough to allow a 40 year old man to fly away from justice and enjoy a long and successful career, it is a crime against the state, because it's citizens are put at risk through lax enforcement of laws designed to protect them from those who would do them harm.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at September 30, 2009 7:20 AM

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

Posted by: Nadine at September 30, 2009 7:38 AM

Like most commenters here, I am disgusted at the actions of those who signed the petition supporting a CONVICTED rapist.

I just wanted to point something out regarding some people's reference to a corrupt/incompetent judge - the judge was absolutely within his right to reject the sentencing recommendation of the prosecutor, if he felt it to be inadequate (which it was - 43 days for the rape of a 13 year old girl? You better believe that is inadequate). It was just that - a recommendation. Only a judge can hand down a sentence - making it completely inappropriate, and misinformed, to speak of a corrupt judge 'reneging' on a plea bargain.

Roman Polanski not only benefited from a reduced sentence - he was charged with illegal sexual conduct with a minor, or something along those lines, instead of RAPE (which is what he should have been charged with), but he was only going to be in jail for, at maximum, 3 1/2 months (the judge was only going to double the sentence - 86 days - big fucking whoop), and he fled form punishment. He deserves absolutely everything he gets.

Something else about the legal side of things. The law is there for several reasons, one of which, of course, is justice/retribution for the victim, but it is also used, importantly I think, as a deterrent to others who may think that by fleeing the jurisdiction they can avoid punishment for their crimes. If Roman Polanski got away with this, it would be a lesson to any person rich enough to flee the jurisdiction: flee, stay somewhere long enough until the victim(s) has gotten on with their life, then you have pretty much gotten away with it.

This is not a message we as a society should be condoning.

Finally, I, like other commentators, will never see a movie made by, or starring, any of the people who signed that petition ever again. Sympathising with a child rapist is reprehensible. Shame on them.

Posted by: Tiffany at September 30, 2009 8:33 AM

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.

Posted by: b at September 30, 2009 9:02 AM

I'm not going to defend Polanski or anything like that, but to anyone who's actually considering boycotting Scorsese, Woody Allen, Wes Anderson and Arnofsky for signing a piece of paper ... 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.

I know it sounds contrived, but when you consider the fact that these festivals celebrate films and film-makers that are considered "criminal" in their home countries for simply presenting an unconventional point of view, it's easy to see how a government, let's call it Russia, would use the same means as the U.S. to arrest someone involved in a film about Anna Politkovskaya

I don't necessarily agree that this will happen, but I can understand the concern.

also, if you support the boycott but went to see "The Pianist" in the theatres or bought/rented the DVD, then you're a fucking hypocrite and should not be taken seriously. Polanski's status as a child-rapist did not magically disappear when he made a good film then returned when he got arrested

Posted by: lelnguye at September 30, 2009 9:07 AM

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.

Posted by: chenry at September 30, 2009 9:13 AM

I just forwarded this to a large group of people with the title, "And this is why I love both Pajiba and Dustin Rowles forever and always."

Posted by: Kowala1000 at September 30, 2009 9:14 AM

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!

Posted by: chenry at September 30, 2009 9:18 AM

Tiffany - a to the men. There is nothing legally sketchy or even controversial about this case. The only controversy is that it's Roman Polanski.

I have to believe that those who signed that petition simply don't understand the law, because if they did they'd see that there's really no outrage whatsoever. I noticed many signers aren't American - maybe they just don't get it?

As to his being a survivor, apparently some survivors rape children...and others become Elie fucking Weisel. Polanski was justified in fearing jail because of enduring the Holocaust? Apparently he wasn't so scared that he demurred from banging thirteen-year-old girls.

As to the French, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with those people? This isn't a matter of Americans being "Puritans" (an insult that grates on my nerves each time I hear it).

Posted by: samantha t at September 30, 2009 9:24 AM

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.

Posted by: b at September 30, 2009 9:31 AM

Hear, hear--and this is just another sorry episode for Hollywood, providing grist for the mill every time someone claims that Hollywood is morally bankrupt. Imagine how they'd act if the exact same set of circumstances had occurred, but the fugitive wasn't a talented filmmaker but a Catholic priest. Apparently, according to these people, it doesn't matter what you do but who you are.

As for forcing this woman to re-live the ordeal, it's Polanski who's doing that--by staying on the lam for 30 years. And while the victim's opinion is often taken into consideration, it's not controlling. Otherwise, every time a husband beats the crap out of his wife and she forgives him, that would get him off the hook. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Bd at September 30, 2009 9:59 AM

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.

Posted by: Corey W. at September 30, 2009 10:12 AM

"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."

Right. Because film festivals are special gatherings where the rule of law shouldn't apply. They should be considered "neutral territory", like Switzerla......

Wait a minute.

Posted by: tatertot at September 30, 2009 10:15 AM

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.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at September 30, 2009 10:18 AM

BarbadoSlim - Sorry to burst your bubble, but the judge IS NOT bound by the recommended plea agreement between the parties. The judge has the final say on ANY sentence handed down. If he wants to give him 20 years, he can. He is not bound by any agreement between the prosecution and defense.

Posted by: NickelBagofFunk at September 30, 2009 10:20 AM

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.

Posted by: pissant at September 30, 2009 10:23 AM

I breathed a sigh of relief when I understood your stance on this issue. I'm glad not everyone is jumping to defend the rapist.

Thanks

Posted by: Mala Malum at September 30, 2009 11:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Some Guy at September 30, 2009 11:20 AM

Drizzle,

in regards to comment #5, I'm not opening the door to anything, though I do agree that it is a slippery slope. It, however, is not a new concept by any means. I'm not sure what the law was in 1977, but most states accept consent given while under the influence of alcohol or drugs to be invalid. Hence part of why the scene in Observe and Report was a rape scene and why Tucker Max is pretty much a rapist.

Now, I find the law to be problematic in some ways. Unfortunately, in some states, even when both parties are drunk to the same degree, a woman can still bring rape charges against the man after consenting under the influence, even though a man cannot bring charges the other way around. That's a problem. I'm sure its a problem of false reporting, though not really as big as people make it out to be. It is the law, however. I do think a conversation about the validity of that law is very important, but I believe the law should stay in place in one form or another. Because someone that boozes someone else up to a point far past intoxication to get them to mumble a "yes" or not respond at all is a rapist, pure and simple.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 11:25 AM

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.

Posted by: MM at September 30, 2009 11:32 AM

Wow Dustin, you weren't kidding at what this topic brings out in the pajibans.

First and foremost though, after having read all of this... to those who have told personal stories of sexual abuse, thank you. Those stories help, regardless of our own perspective. As a guy, i can't imagine the feelings attached to that experience, and those thoughts alone make me wish to shoot the little boy load when it comes time for baby-making. People are entitled to their opinions on this case and others like it, but nothing will ever change that this girl was drugged and raped. We can argue legality, but let's not lose sight of that fact.

Secondly, B-Slim... this is no mob. I've (somehow) trudged through all of these posts and everyone is speaking their truth, eloquently. Sure, some of it might be blunt opinion, but it's not attacking you or anyone else here. The only person doing that here is you. Ease the fuck up and join the debate, not force your issue.

Posted by: Todd at September 30, 2009 11:34 AM

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.

Posted by: nieve at September 30, 2009 11:41 AM

To that I say: Fuck them.

Here, here.

Polanski needs punishment, as severe as possible- as do all rapists.

Posted by: krza at September 30, 2009 11:56 AM

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

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 12:14 PM

Excellent post.

I have no problem with people who say that Polanski's art should not be judged based on his crime, but anyone who argues that Polanski's crime should not be judged based on his art is vile scum with no conscience.

One minor factual quibble, there is a statute of limitations for rape, and it has expired. The reason he is facing justice is that fleeing the country to escape jurisdiction of the court tolls the statute of limitations.

Posted by: Irving Washington at September 30, 2009 12:24 PM

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?

Posted by: frothygirl at September 30, 2009 12:44 PM

People can't WAIT to get their hackles up around here...

What's a pederast Walter?

SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY!

I was going to say "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass" but that just would have been in poor taste.

Posted by: PissBoy at September 30, 2009 12:50 PM

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.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at September 30, 2009 12:55 PM

To me, this is a simple issue: Polanski knew he was committing a crime when he put his hands on that 13 year old. And not only did he do that crime, he also skipped out on the punishment.

Nobody made him do those things. Those were choices he made. However, he can be compelled to serve the sentences for those crimes, and that time has come.

I think it's unfortunate that some people in Hollywood think he requires some support - other than three hots and a cot, prison style - because of the job he does. Perhaps if I thought more of his films, I'd regret his poor choice to completely disregard the law, as he did. I don't support the rape of children, no matter how long ago the crime. I'm not really understanding all the "support" coming out of Hollywood or France, nor anyone suggesting that he not go to prison, because the crime went unpunished up until now. He's a criminal going to do his time, like so many others. He's not a hero because he makes movies or managed to elude his punishment for thirty years. He's a man who hurt a child (sodomizing and raping a child, for God's sake! How can that be ok with anyone?!). It's time to do the time for that.

Posted by: Chickaboom at September 30, 2009 1:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Dude Manbro at September 30, 2009 1:30 PM

You know what else is not “nice at all”? Raping a minor.

Very well written, Dustin. It's unbelievable to me how easily the victimization of a 13-year-old girl can be swept under the rug by the people who have signed this petition.

I also think it speaks volumes as to how little respect is given to these victims. What is usually subtle and subversive has been very visibly brought to the surface with this petition.

Honestly, I'm tempted to boycott any future projects from the directors that have signed this. Anyone that puts their "art" above the well-being of an entire person is not someone I want to support.

Posted by: Kathleen at September 30, 2009 1:31 PM

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.

Posted by: Sally at September 30, 2009 1:38 PM

I know this is a serious discussion about a very serious topic, but...

Did no one else catch hatemail protesting that we were "forcibly" putting words into his mouth?

Almost like...we were raping him?

I giggled.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at September 30, 2009 1:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Kathleen at September 30, 2009 1:56 PM

Irving Washington >> As many have noted above many times, there is a statute of limitations to bring charges for rape. The charges were already brought, and he plead guilty - not to rape, but for "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor." There is no statute of limitations on sentencing, so, no, this is not just a case of arresting him for flight from justice. His original sentence is still pending, as are any potential charges for his skipping the country.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 2:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Adam at September 30, 2009 2:33 PM

I am new to this site. I looked down at least 5 posts and say NO IS SAYING THIS: Roman Polanski is NOT wanted for RAPE, he is wanted for avoiding arrest (I think). I know this because he was NOT ON TRIAL FOR RAPE when he fled. HE WAS WANTED FOR HAVING CONSENTUAL SEX WITH A MINOR. That is why we did not get him from France. France would have had to give him to us if he were wanted for Rape, but not for consentual sex with a monor.
I think this blog is very "frightened" of opposing views (maybe I am the one who is afraid). I just know that I am not coming back here so I don't even care what you think of my truthful blog post.
LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE YOU THROW THAT FIRST STONE.

Quiz Question: What is the difference between consentual sex with a minor and rape of a minor. Answer: CONSENT. It made a difference then (Polanski could NOT be extradited from FRANCE) and it makes a difference now. Polanski was offered complete resolution of this if he simply came back to the US. Are we upset that he did not come back. WATCH THE HBO SPECIAL ABOUT THIS MATTER. I OWE MY VIEWS ON HAVING WATCHED THE HBO SPECIAL, it features the "victim(s)" both the girl and Polanski. Let it go... or throw that stone (I don't care what you do). bye forever

Posted by: Mike at September 30, 2009 2:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Williamg at September 30, 2009 2:52 PM

My stance hasn't changed ONE. BIT. This isn't a personal issue, or consenting rape issue, or what the fuck ever issue. I don't give a rat's ass about alleged victims ESPECIALLY if they are going to be used to justify unethical judicial behavior. That's how I roll, it's either done BY THE LAW or it don't count. Americans need to get over ourselves about "rule of law" or just come out and say you want vigilantism. You either play by the rules or then don't complain when everybody gets to solving shit at gunpoint. Oh and I have no problem with that BTW, but then again, I don't leave the Bill of Rights lying on my bookshelf when it doesn't suit me. I WALK IT LIKE I TALK IT every day.

THIS IS a judicial misconduct issue that that can affect any of one us. There were ex-parte communications in pursuit of screwing over a defendant. That I DO care about

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 2:56 PM

Oh and:

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

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 3:01 PM

I scanned all the comments and found many good points.

I'm surprised NO ONE has mentioned the fact that fleeing as he did is itself a crime. Or did I miss it?

If for no other reason he has to be processed for that crime.

The rape is the worst part of this mess. But by supporting his release one is saying it's also ok to run. There's a reason that's a crime as well.

Posted by: Shannon at September 30, 2009 3:05 PM

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

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 3:07 PM

Should read:

*for fleeing, flight..whatever.

I don't know about California but in MY jurisdiction, fleeing if you are in imminent harm is a valid defense. That's up to his lawyers I guess.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 3:10 PM

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.

Posted by: williamg at September 30, 2009 3:15 PM

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?


--------------------------------------------

Because like all rich white boys: He's a PUNK, that's why.

It still doesn't make his position/defense any less valid. I would really like to see this thing go ALL THE WAY. Hopefully Cali doesn't have a statute of limitations on ethics violations. If he goes down then, so should EVERY motherfucker who made this happen.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 3:20 PM

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.

Posted by: williamg at September 30, 2009 3:38 PM

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

Was he screwed, forcibly and against his will, orally, vaginally and anally? Oh, no, wait, that's what he did TO a 13 year old child, not what was done to him.

I too believe in due process. And it was followed, up to and until the point he fled the country to avoid a harsher penalty than the one he felt he deserved. The only one who broke any laws or violated the rule of law was Polanski himself.

That's how I roll, it's either done BY THE LAW or it don't count.

It's well within the law for a judge to change the conditions of a plea agreement. I'm not saying there wasn't some shady shit going on with that (by most accounts) fame grubbing judge, but that shadiness PALES in comparison to the crime he openly admitted to committing.

I like Roman Polanski's work. I think he's a gifted filmmaker and artist. However, that gives him no right to flagrantly disregard both the wishes of his victim and the potential consequences of his act. An act which all circumstances point to the idea that it was pre-planned, which against all odds makes the crime even more heinous in my view. Not to mention he studiously avoided visiting countries that could have extradited him to the US.

You can frame this as a difference in European values vs. American values. You can frame this as a case doomed from the beginning by judicial misconduct (though I still point out the judge did nothing legally wrong). You can frame it as a greedy stage mother forcing her child into a harmful situation. And I respect your right to frame it however you want.

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 haven't read one comment that said "string him up!" in this whole contentious thread. What I HAVE seen are repeated calls for a criminal to face the consequences of his crime. 30 days later or 30 years later, upright, solid judge or fame-whoring judge, loving, supportive mother or greedy stage mother...those are all just frippery. This man committed an atrocious act against someone smaller and weaker than himself, just because he wanted to and thought he could get away with it. Forgive me for my lack of pity if he felt his punishment was too harsh to face.

Posted by: JustBill at September 30, 2009 3:39 PM

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.

Posted by: dsbs at September 30, 2009 3:59 PM

I was raped and sodomised as a child. Everyday I live with the fact that my abuser is out in the world.

Debating and calling each other out gets us so far, although I have read some fascinating insights on this thread. May I suggest a few productive things to take from this:

1)Can we acknowledge how excellent it is to read the words from real men on this forum attesting to their abhorrence for these crimes. It may not resonate with you all but it's a beacon for those who know too well the evil that men do. Real Men seek the company of real Women. Thank you to all of you who speak up.

2)Rape is complicated. (who'd have thought it?) My experience does not allow me judgement or authority but I want to say a few things that are relevant to a film community. Rape is not ravishment or erotic. It is not what you read in novels, see on soap operas or even see in the grittiest movies when it looks terrible and there's Dolby surround sound. The actions involved are as variable as any other act and Hollywood's portrayal of it is almost always for titillation.

3)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. It's rare we see a character that shares the life force behind the mothers, wives, sisters and daughters we know and share our lives with. We rarely see real women on the screen let alone real young women. (Thank God for for Katherine Hepburn. Polanski could never have handled her!) The nuances, darkness, humour, culture and intelligence that every young woman carries AS WELL as their sexuality is so often missing in action. This fuels a sadistic streak in the attitudes towards young women today. You'll spot it surfacing in debates like these.....

Something is rotten with Polanksi because he does not see the humanity of his victims. And that's what you feel is insulted and robbed from you when you experience this. I pity him. He's missing a deep part of himself. To anyone here who has been hurt, the consolation I can offer is that we have our souls in full, albeit forged unfairly with horrors.

I don't want to use my emotions and experiences to fuel hate or revenge but I do hope for justice. And I try to live my life as a proper human being. One day I am going to make movies and they will wipe the floor with anything Polanski ever churned out. ;)

SO Pajiba community what I say to you is if this debate has incensed you in anyway TAKE that energy and put it to being the change you want to see.

Posted by: Sarah at September 30, 2009 4:23 PM

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

Posted by: Sarah at September 30, 2009 4:36 PM

Snuggiepants the Deathbringer, all i was really doing was aiming to convey my own personal fears of having a daughter. I get ready to slay a motherfucker when a girlfriend or friend goes through or tells me about some shitty sexual experience. So, I can't imagine how filled with hate i will become when it's a daughter of my own seed. I think a lot of men fear it... we've all thought about (and tried really, really...really hard) getting a girl to do unspeakable sexual acts with us (things they would enjoy as well... easy does it) And perhaps it's just fear... only to dissipate when you are actually in the situation, I don't know. Just being honest.

Recently, I sat across the table from someone at a dinner... and he asked me what i thought about Michael Vick being allowed back into the NFL. When I said i was ok with it, he scoffed and looked me with slanty eyes. I explained... the man committed a crime, heinous and shitty. He was found guilty and he went to prison. He paid the price our society dictated for him. It's what we created, whether it's fair... or whether it's properly up to date, it's what we have. He did the crime and he did the time. So, yeah, he gets paid millions once again, but that's his vocation and it's what he gets to do. NFL and Hollywood... the places you can get away with it all. That's America. Polanski committed the crime and never did the time. He's been making millions at his craft for 30 years now. The legal situation seems hazy at best, admittedly, but there will always be a time where the price has to be paid. Now is that time. Mr. Polanski, welcome back to America. Fuck yeah.

Posted by: Todd at September 30, 2009 4:38 PM

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.

Posted by: JL at September 30, 2009 4:57 PM

But burning your husband to death (with car keys and cash in your hand) is excusable under 'battered spouse syndrome,' right?

And we all know that a District Attorney never uses the power of his office to get a conviction rather the seeking justice (Or a star struck Judge?)

And Mumia must be freed for shooting a cop, but Roman must spend time in prison?

I understand the demographics of the readership and "commentators" to this site - the self-congratulatory language and inside references: "godtopus" and "squee" and "to the bunk" of over-educated, underemployed work-from- home mom and/or graphic designer.

But you've really outdone yourself this time Dustin - what a brave and lonely stand - you are squarely against statutory rape.

And the questions raised in the documentary "Wanted and Desired" dont raise any hesitations? Hooray!!


Posted by: Michael at September 30, 2009 5:07 PM

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.

Posted by: jules at September 30, 2009 5:13 PM

JL >> Correct - that characterization is not accurate. Polanski has never confirmed that version of events. Publicly and on the record, he has only acknowledged it as consensual.

And, yes, on the spectrum of morality, I would agree forcible rape is more outrageous.

However, there comes a certain point when the forcible aspect of it as it relates to age tends to become blurred or even disappear completely when applying the label of "rape." Sarah's pull from Hard Candy above is very relevant. Can a 13-year-old reasonably consent? Can a 10-year-old? Can a 5-year-old? How about when they are under the influence of drugs? Does everyone meet the same standard of consent at every age? Perhaps not, but the law must draw that line somewhere, and that protection is in place because many children might not have enough awareness of "yes" and "no" or what's best for them in those situations to protect themselves as they should. Placing that responsibility on the adults in our society is more than reasonable.

People are understandably outraged because of what it appears that Polanski did, but at the very least he should face the music for that which he did plea guilty, and - as far as I'm concerned - that's a serious charge.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 5:14 PM

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.

Posted by: JustBill at September 30, 2009 5:17 PM

Okay, so I've been having this out with my friends over email, and a few issues have come up:

My understanding is that Polanski did reach a plea bargain with the prosecutors, but had also signed an agreement acknowledging his awareness that the deal had to be approved by the judge, and that the judge could disregard it (which I think is generally how it works in most jurisdictions). And there were allegations that the judge had ex parte conversations with the prosecutor before sentencing, and when Polanski heard the judge was considering disregarding the agreement in favor of jail time, he fled the jurisdiction. If the allegations of misconduct are true, that's terrible, Polanski should have been given the opportunity to appeal the sentence (if he had actually waited around to see if he if he was given a harsher sentence) and a new judge should have been brought in to consider the plea bargain and preside over sentencing in general. Although I've always been sickened by Polanski's behavior in terms of the girl, my desire to see him in prison is also motivated by the fact that he decided on his own that he was done with the American legal process.

As far as the timing of the arrest, my understanding is that in the past, the US has tried to extradite him from Switzerland, but never had enough lead time to prepare the necessary paperwork to coincide with his time in the country, and that on at least two previous occasions, the district attorney’s office had found out about Polanski plans to travel to countries with extradition treaties with the U.S. and prepared paperwork for his arrest, and Polanski found out about it and decided not to go.

While I understand the argument that Polanski's an old man, and that the victim wants all this dismissed, and that putting him away 30 years later doesn't help her, I do think that there's something to be said for indirect deterrence, particularly in this type of situation (celebrities/rich people who think they can do whatever). While the threat of punishment through the American criminal system may not deter the vast majority crime, I sort of think that if anyone is going to weigh the costs and benefits of committing crime, it's going to be those who have the most to lose. And while it's a shame that it's taken 30 years to get there, I think that there's a lot of value to the message (however skewed it might be because of the unique circumstances present here) that if you do something horrible, you can't just flee and expect everyone to forget about it eventually.

Furthermore, while it's impossible for me to say whether he is or isn't the same person as he was when he was 44, or whether he is or is not a danger to anyone anymore, it's been my experience and understanding of the psychology underlying rapists that it's often not just a one-time deal. Polanski's position as a high-powered director has given him and continues to give him the opportunity to be in contact with small children over the years and well, he's never expressed any remorse over any of it.

Posted by: Kowala1000 at September 30, 2009 5:18 PM

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.

Posted by: ScienceGeek at September 30, 2009 5:35 PM

i bet you wouldnt have this uproar if it was eli roth!!
Anyway I am glad someone said something about
this because I was beginning to really feel like
i was in the twilight zone and I kept saying to
myself why are people defending him he raped a child!

Posted by: blacksred at September 30, 2009 6:04 PM

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.

Posted by: Spender at September 30, 2009 6:15 PM

Dustin, you stirred up a hornet's nest with this post. I'm not going to weigh in on this because I don't want to get in a flaming war with people I don't even know.

I will say this: Learn how to walk away. He/she who shouts loudest is not right. He/she who shouts loudest looks like the biggest douchebag.

Posted by: bignick at September 30, 2009 6:35 PM

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'.

Posted by: Slash at September 30, 2009 6:53 PM

RE forgiveness: I've never agreed with the idea that you have to forgive someone to move on with your life. I don't know if the victim has ever expressed "forgiveness" or if she just wanted the whole thing to go away. Probably the latter.

As tempting as it is to go along with that (wouldn't that make everything easier?), we shouldn't. The problem with sex offenders is, if you don't stop them, they continue. Your "forgiveness" of one of them might have a terrible cost for someone else later (in fact, it probably usually does). That's really not your right. You forgive the sex offender now, and someone else pays the price. That shit ain't right.

Posted by: Slash at September 30, 2009 7:00 PM

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.

Posted by: JL at September 30, 2009 7:18 PM

Slash, what does his being white have to do with it? Do you honestly think that the people who are supporting him (a group of which I am not part) are doing it because he's white? It seems to me that when Kobe Bryant was under suspicion of rape-- I know, Polanski's no longer under suspicion; he was convicted-- people came out in support of him, despite his skin color. This argument seems heated enough without bringing race into it.

Posted by: Drizzle at September 30, 2009 7:25 PM

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

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 30, 2009 7:37 PM

RE "Slash, what does his being white have to do with it? Do you honestly think that the people who are supporting him (a group of which I am not part) are doing it because he's white?"

Yes, and because he's a famous director (most of whom are white). Which is why I also qualified it with the "janitor" comment. If he was a black guy or a white janitor, and the circumstances were exactly the same, Martin Scorcese wouldn't have signed shit in support of him. Just my opinion. You're free to ignore it if you want.

RE "It seems to me that when Kobe Bryant was under suspicion of rape-- I know, Polanski's no longer under suspicion; he was convicted-- people came out in support of him, despite his skin color."

Yes, people meaning black people. Other players. Maybe some white people who are fans of basketball and not fans of women, too. But I don't remember tons of white people signing a declaration of support or whatever for Kobe Bryant.

RE "This argument seems heated enough without bringing race into it."

So?

Posted by: Slash at September 30, 2009 7:50 PM

"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.

Posted by: Amy at September 30, 2009 8:02 PM

"degrees of maturity about sex can differ quite a lot between teenagers at any given age"

JL, she was 13, he was 44. Think it through.

Here's why it is difficult for us to muddle through this: we're dealing with generalizations about millions of cases. The flip side of this is how easy judgment should have been for Polanski. His choice was informed by the one individual before him.

The one and only correct answer, tell them what they've won, Johnny: Don't have sex with children!

Congratulations you win a car.

Posted by: Sarah at September 30, 2009 8:05 PM

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...

Posted by: Drizzle at September 30, 2009 8:13 PM

I would encourage anyone and everyone who has read this thread to take a look at the links DarthCorleone posted above. I didn't read the girl's testimony, but I did read Polanski's acceptance of his plea agreement and the letter from the girl's attorney that followed. Honestly, if you care and you're really worked up about this case, it's worth reading. It's not long, it's not unintelligible legal-ese, and it's factual (in that it's a record of what was actually said, at the time).

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

A couple of things that stood out to me:

Mr. Gunson, LA Deputy District Attorney, asks, "Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?"

Polanski: "The Judge."

[...]

Gunson: "Do you understand that at this time the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?"

Polanski: (no response)

Gunson: "Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?"

Polanski: "Yes."

Mr. Polanski is asked several iterations of that question and other related questions. I don't think it's really fair to say the Judge pulled a bait-and-switch on him. It may have seemed that way after the fact, or there may have been off-the-record assurances that he would only do X amount of time, but officially, he agreed to take a plea with whatever sentence the Judge would give him.

Also, the letter from the girl's attorney to the judge in the case asks the judge to accept Polanski's plea. Even though the girl's attorney/family wholeheartedly believe that they could win the case at a jury trial, not just for "unlawful sexual intercourse," but for rape and all the other charges that were filed against Polanski, the girl/family wanted the plea to go forward specifically because they wanted to spare the girl the trauma of a trial. Things could have been a LOT worse for Polanski if he had been convicted by a jury of his peers of all charges.

Posted by: MM at September 30, 2009 8:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Sarah at September 30, 2009 8:27 PM

JL, at 13, her maturity doesn't enter into the issue. *Legally* speaking, she was a minor child. And that's why these laws are in place; to protect those who are *not* mature enough to make that decision, who, I believe, are in the majority (though I certainly admit I am not infallible and will happily read any studies that prove me wrong).

I can tell you this: While I concede that I was probably a late bloomer, at the age of 13, I hadn't even had my first kiss yet, let alone sex. Let alone *anal* sex, which was a deeply disturbing concept to me at the time. Again, that's me, but I grew up in about the same era as that girl. She's about 6-7 years older than I am. And while that was a different time, it doesn't change the fact that she was, legally, a minor child.

Please do read that link that Darth posted to the transcript of the girl's testimony. It's enlightening.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at September 30, 2009 8:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Peter G at September 30, 2009 8:57 PM

"degrees of maturity about sex can differ quite a lot between teenagers at any given age"
JL, she was 13, he was 44. Think it through.

I'm not saying it wasn't wrong, but that the degree of wrongness can be different depending on the person's maturity. Some 13 year olds have the psychological maturity of, say, a typical sexually active 16 year old...would a relationship between a typical 16 year olds and an older adult be a bad decision on the part of the adult? Sure. But would it inevitably be a terribly exploitative thing that the teen will look back on with a sense of regret and violation? I don't think so, not in all cases.

Again, I would guess that Polanski probably did force sex on her, in which case all of this is a moot point (and even if it was nominally consensual, it seems more likely than not that he manipulated her into sex rather than it being as much her idea as his). But I don't think it's right to leap to the conclusion that he is definitely guilty of nonconsensual rape, and likewise I don't think it's right to leap to the conclusion that the age difference alone puts him in the same class as, say, pedophiles who have sex with prepubescent kids.

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.

But my whole point is that black and white terms like "wrong" and "right" don't really capture the nuances--such relationships may generally be wrong, but there are degrees of wrongness which depend on the specifics of the people and the situation. That's why I asked some more specific questions about these kinds of older woman/teenage boy relationships to see if people would agree that they may often be less wrong then more exploitative types of teen/adult relationships: "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?"

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

A movie like Rushmore doesn't seem like a very good way to build intuitions about these things, Max was pretty obviously a virgin who was totally naive and unexperienced about actual sexual relationships. Not all high school boys are as unworldly as Max was.

Posted by: JL at September 30, 2009 9:13 PM

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.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 30, 2009 9:50 PM

Everyone has been civil here but you. So I don't feel at all bad telling you to fuck off, you arrogant self-important little prick.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 10:06 PM

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.

Posted by: Kate the Great at September 30, 2009 10:21 PM

I think there is at least one other Kate around here, unless I forced her out of her name.

Posted by: Kate at September 30, 2009 10:46 PM

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.

Posted by: james at September 30, 2009 11:26 PM

Oh, brother... a "mob." Motherfucker, please.

You're implying this is some horrible miscarriage of justice, like he was some poor black teenager railroaded by a lily-white Southern kangaroo court for raping a white woman in 1950. He was a 40-something white man who had his day in court (in goddam California, which has to be the most celebrity-friendly place on earth) and took a plea so he wouldn't have to go to trial. And the victim agreed to this as well. He got justice. The implication that this process was in any way unfair to Polanski is ridiculous. Plenty of men have been unjustly accused of rape, I don't think Polanski is one of them.

I think I misstated above that he had been convicted. Would like to clarify that I know he accepted a plea deal. So technically, he wasn't convicted, he pled out. Not the same legally, if I understand correctly.

Posted by: Slash at September 30, 2009 11:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Lucy at October 1, 2009 1:12 AM

There may be an element of devil's advocate in this post, but there are so many interesting ideas being drowned out by outrage on what is usually an intelligent and thoughtful site. I was hoping to tease a few out.

I'm not entirely sure that not prosecuting him 30 years on sends a message to all kiddy fiddlers that NOW you can't get away with this kind of behaviour. Maybe to all Oscar-winning kiddy fiddlers. I don't think it represents a softening stance on molestation or sexual assault. It's just more tabloid media fodder at the moment.

I think there is an argument that it is not in the public interest to prosecute this guy. I'm not saying pardon him or drop the charges, but the case is going to be a sensationalised media cluster fuck: that might not be in the best interests of anybody, least of all the victim.

What if he gets off? What if he gets 3 months community service after all the time and expense, and the pain suffered by the chick involved? Now that's a fucking message.

I don't think there is going to be a good result out of this. As in, 'yay, the bad duy gets 30 years'. And without a strong result, I think it might turn out to be a worse result than had he died in exile, disliked by 95% of the planet (and if you didn't know, regardless of age, start reading more).

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a suggestion as to what could have been done in the alternative, but I feel this is lose/lose whichever way you go about it, and the victim will lose most of all.

Will the legal system's ultimate purpose--justice--be reached by prosecuting the old cunt? Maybe, but maybe not. There is some grey here, largely introduced by the media for people like us. Interested parties.

In relation to my first point, there is less and less "turn a blind eye" in this day and age, and the Court is becoming a far friendlier place for victims of sexual crime (it used to be downright disgusting how victims, particularly women, were treated by the Court).

I don't think one rich perv getting away with disgusting behaviour will embolden other predators. That sounds more like empty rhetoric to me, and not particularly well thought out rhetoric.

Want to send a message to kiddy fiddlers? Turn off the internet.

Posted by: Peter G at October 1, 2009 1:43 AM

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.

Posted by: CptCrckpot at October 1, 2009 2:51 AM

OK. Here's the scoop from someone who HAS gone through this. I have just lived through nine months of fighting to put my soon-to-be-ex husband in prison for being a pedophile. And yes, his victim was our daughter.

The statement that the only way this could be put to rest is if he goes to jail or dies is bullshit. You know what happens when they go to jail? Especially if they're lucky like in our case and they go to a special prison for pedophiles where they're kept nice and safe from the general population? Not a damn thing. This is a trauma that never goes away. Yes, they should be put behind bars and they should stay there until their victim no longer suffers which mean, they don't get out.

I live in Minnesota and once we reported the crime it was the county that we lived in that brought the charges, not the victim. Yes, the victim makes a plea perhaps but a part of the agreement contains the consequences for the perpetrator's actions.

I had to watch as my child was dragged through a rat hole and in the end, the consequences were 90 months in prison for him. Hmmm, that means that people that swindle you out of your retirement are far worse than people that swindle you out of your childhood.

Don't give me the bullshit of people standing up for this piece of crap, especially Woody Allen. I had the pleasure of listening to my sister in law tell me how much her brother "really loved his kids" and that he "really isn't a bad guy".

I call bullshit.

Posted by: harkness68 at October 1, 2009 7:51 AM

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.

Posted by: Another Kate at October 1, 2009 8:27 AM

The thing that is interesting to me is that while there are allegations that the judge participated in ex parte communications with the prosecutor (which, if true, was unethical and corrupt in and of itself and a totally separate issue from Polanski's conduct with regard to the girl and his flight from the U.S.), Polanski fled upon hearing

rumors

that the judge might be considering refusal of the plea agreement. The judge never actually issued a decision regarding the plea agreement, and never handed down a sentence. Who knows? Maybe the judge would have ended up signing off on the agreement after all, or would have ended up handing down a light sentence - maybe if Polanski had stayed and faced the legal consequences of his actions (pleading guilty), he would have been done with all of this in short order (which also would have been gross, because dude's a child rapist, but at least he would have been legit in the eyes of the law and not a fugitive).

Posted by: Kowala1000 at October 1, 2009 9:04 AM

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".

Posted by: JustBill at October 1, 2009 12:08 PM

I really think that overall this has been a fairly well-reasoned discussion of this issue, BarbadoSlim.

I don't know about everyone else, but I read and thought about your posts just as much as the others- ok with the exception of Mike- who has no idea what he's talking about!

It seems to me that most of the idiots in the media who have come out in support of Polanski believe that he was charged with Statutory Rape. I don't know about y'all but to me Statutory Rape connotes images of 18 year olds having sex with their 15 year old BF/GF.

This was not the circumstance.

After reading the victim's testimony, what really irked me was the fact that Polanski asked questions to figure out whether she was fertile, and then decided to penetrate her anally. While she said no and that she wanted to go home.

He was a sexual predator. I don't know if he still is.

The judge engaged in misconduct. I get that.

I would like to know what the legal ramifications of the judge's misconduct would have been if Polanski had not fled. Anyone? Come on lawyers, I know y'all are lurking!

Does the original trial get thrown out? Then is he tried separately for fleeing or is there a determination of whether he was justified by the misconduct?

Isn't it always kind of a gamble when somebody takes a plea?

Guess I'll have to start watching Court TV. TruTV? What the hell's it called now?

And hey...Everybody take a deep breath, 'cause I got more questions I need answered...

Posted by: Miranda at October 1, 2009 12:10 PM

"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/

Posted by: jvon at October 1, 2009 2:24 PM

Okay, I'm a lawyer. I tend to favor the defense. I don't think I could survive as a prosecutor. And anybody who is sticking up for this monster is totally out of line. Again, the judge may have not followed the plea agreement. That's his privilege, and Polanski knew it. As has previously been stated, Polanski could have simply appealed if he felt that he had been mistreated. But he didn't. He fled. After pleading guilty. Maybe it's just because I'm "in the system", but fleeing justice is a terrible crime to me. However, raping a thirteen year old is a much, much worse crime. Polanski has admitted on numerous occasions his frankly evil sexual predilections. He deserves far worse than the sentence he'll ever actually serve.

Posted by: jmag at October 1, 2009 2:42 PM

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.

Posted by: dirtytricks at October 1, 2009 7:15 PM

"What everyone is missing about BS is he's just another angry black man..."

I completely disagree with B Slim and think that his argument is bull in addition to him being an asshole, but that's still not cool.

Posted by: Kate at October 1, 2009 9:27 PM

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.

Posted by: MJ Taggart at October 3, 2009 12:32 PM

No disrespect, but... Ted Kennedy was
operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, drove off a bridge,
where his negligence and indifference
led directly to a woman's DEATH. Then
he fled the scene.

Jail time? ZERO. I dont remember
any of the "Eloquents" calling for
St. Teddy's head on a stick

Posted by: Michael at October 3, 2009 5:12 PM

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.

Posted by: CptCrckpot at October 3, 2009 6:56 PM

Um.. this is a bit late but, blair, sodomy is no longer crime under U.S law since 2003. Before that it technically included the criminalisation of most/all non reproductive sexual acts and was rarely enforced except when people wanted to beat up on the gays (but it's gone so yay!)
My biggest problem with this whole story comes from me living in France, and more specifically Paris, where the man in question has been lounging around for the past 30 years. Almost instantly, French political and cultural figures were screaming bloody murder. Though this does not surprise me (I live in a morally forgiving country towards the artistically gifted and eccentrics) it did sadden me. But have hope my hearties! Every other French person I have met has either muttered angrily at his/her paper or not given a shit when the topic arises! There is hope.
And on a cinematographic note, rewatched Rosemary's Baby the other day and was struck by the passive nature of the female character. Seriously just a thought.

Posted by: roseaepines at October 3, 2009 9:03 PM

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.

Posted by: blair at October 5, 2009 4:43 PM

A legal point for those accusing the original judge of misconduct: A plea agreement is an agreement with the prosecutor's office for a sentencing recommendation. The judge is not bound by the agreement and can impose any legal sentence regardless of a prior plea deal. While judges usually honor such deals, they are under no obligation to do so. This is not judicial misconduct.

The transcript of Polanski's original guilty plea is available online and during it, he is reminded of, and agrees to, this fact many times.

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2009 12:51 PM

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.

Posted by: CptCrckpot at October 8, 2009 8:57 PM

To anyone who would even consider "standing up for" Polanski: You lying, moronic, hypocritical jerkoffs. If this were a Republican or conservative or priest (or God forbid all three) you'd be screaming from the rooftops to kill him, then burn the body. And that's what needs to happen here. No double standards. No special treatment. End of story. If you don't agree, do us all a favor, "take one for the team" and help save the planet by getting rid of yourself. No, I really mean it. Let's go. No time like the present.

Posted by: Rex Range at October 11, 2009 10:59 AM

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

Posted by: Esteban Wombolt at February 4, 2010 10:34 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment: