Roman Polanski

Well, in many places that use some descendant of the Napoleonic code, 20 years is long enough for prescription to set in and prevent trial for any crime but genocide.

“he wouldn’t be very high on anyone’s list of those on whose behalf one would be outraged”

“where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”

Polanski had been in and out of Switzerland for thirty years, and had a house in Gstaad.

The arrest was political.

Anna Applebaum has the moral sense of a toad so her behavior doesn’t surprise me at all.

You are so right that this is an America vs Europe issue, and Europe’s coming up short again, with their faux civilisation and the smell of old aristocrats everywhere. I’m looking forward to Mark Steyn’s analysis that it’s all because those effete Europeans tolerate the hijab – they’re probably all child molesters morally.

Uh, a lynch mob is only a lynch mob if the accused is denied a trial. The only one who wanted to deny Roman Polanski his day in court was Roman Polanski.

It is interesting how so many people are turning the situation around to be shocked and sorry for Mr. Polanski. He’s been a fugitive for decades.The only shock is that authorities finally were arsed enough to do something to apprehend him, having foregone many opportunities over the years.

Whether or not he’s a threat to anyone at this point is moot. There’s still the fact that justice has not been served.

I’ve always been an outlier about statute of limitations stuff. I can recall some time during my formative years hearing that a persons atoms are completely replaced after seven years. So I figure any punishment being meted out for an action at least that long ago, is punishing the wrong person, i.e. the prepretrator is now simply composed of the unfortunate atoms which replaced the original person. I doubt the science was correct. But my feeling about having some reasonable time limit on prosecution remains.

Oops. Almost forgot the ritual (thanks, Noen!):

[Discussion X complete]

Bush! Bush Bush Bush! Bush bush bush bush bush bush bush!!! Bush! Amen.

More seriously, re: Omega Centauri, I think there’s a difference in personhood/moral-responsibility ascriptions between Polanski’s situation and the example (I’m tempted to say it’s from Parfit but could be wrong here) of the old man who was in a bar fight 70 years ago that he’s long forgotten. Polanski’s actively been on the run for the past 30 years, to the extent that he’s shaped his whole professional life around not having to own up to the crime he committed. By his own efforts to duck legal responsibility, he’s created continuity with the person who committed the crime. I know this doesn’t fly if you want to create a strict identity relation between atomic composition and personhood, as your post implies, but I don’t see why that’s a particularly helpful way to think of personhood if you want to make moral-responsibility ascriptions at all.

Linca: Polanski has been convicted in abstentia, there is no prescription in that case AFAIK, even in civil law countries.

bob: it’s not a “lynch mob”, it’s a “come-back-to-your-country-and-spend-time-in-jail-for-drugging-and-raping-a-13-year-old-girl” mob.

I find it surprising that anyone would defend the right for someone to escape justice, especially for rape and regardless of that person’s qualities as a filmmaker.

Could Polanski’s defenders please state the list of conditions that make the act of drugging and raping a minor acceptable to them?

Even from outside the echo chamber, it looks like Polanski is in the wrong — that is, unless he (or his lawyers) can show that he is indeed being victimised, in the sense that were he not this famous guy, the long arm of US law would have given up chasing him around the world a long time ago.

Polanski is in the wrong, with an asterisk, but still. He fled the country when a plea deal that he thought he had knit up (and that would have had him serving a couple of months, maybe) went sour because it turned out the judge wasn’t going to take the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation. He could have withdrawn his guilty plea (and guilty he had pled) and fought the deal, but no. Unlike so many other folks, he had the wherewithal to bolt to gentler European climes rather than stand for his crime. I have no sympathy. If black kids in my town have to stand in front of the judge every day, so should Roman Polanski.

Yes, when someone rapes a 13-year-old, the playing field becomes really unfair. I’m like a jackass 7-footer dunking in a little kids’ league. Sorry Bob.

He was, in fact, prosecuted, and pled guilty.

Funny how the Polanski defenders tend to gloss over that fact.

Forty years later and still baying for blood? I’m afraid I just don’t get it.

Forty years later and still baying for blood? I’m afraid I just don’t get it.

Like it’s the ‘lynch mob’ bringing things to the fore? That’s a neat thing you’ve done there. Not three months ago Polanski was still trying to have his case overturned.

And what’s not to get? What is it about Polanski that is incompatible with justice?

Is this at all similar to the Einhorn case?

Puritanical Americans simply do not have the enlightened attitude toward wine at the dinner table, quaaludes, and child rape that the Europeans do.

You may think whatever you like about Polanski and his apologists, but this is hardly a reason to go into a diatribe against ‘old Europe’ and its inhabitants, who presumably all are wine-drinking, cheese-eating, Volvo-driving, child-molesters. It’s sad that even liberals in the U.S. find it necessary to prove their mettle by bashing Europe. Maybe one has to adopt this rhetoric in the U.S. (especially as a liberal or European) in order to deflect potential criticism from right-wing nutcases, but pandering to such prejudices only reinforces them.

Yes, I’ve always wondered why a different moral standard applies to Polanski than to Gary Glitter.

And he’s shown absolutely no remorse and received no punishment for what he did in those forty years.

I love the way some people are all ‘Well, if you have to keep HARPING ON about him anally raping a 13-year old, but I think we all know who the REAL VICTIM is here.’

“through his films, he has brought good into the world.”

Ah-hahahahahahaha! Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, stop, you’re killing me!

I think there’s too many layers of sarcasm in this post and I can’t tell what is really meant. Surely Anne Applebaum is an American, not European?

…32 years later he is not worthy of punishment?

In that case, he should return to the US, turn himself in, and hire a lawyer to file an appeal based on this theory.

Oh, it’s about morality. I misunderstood, I thought it was a pragmatic argument: it happened a long time ago, the guy is old, he hasn’t raped anyone since, it wouldn’t serve any purpose, so give the guy a break.

I would be interested to hear why it’s morally wrong to send him to jail.

Extradite him – seems fine to me.
Anyone know why this has happened now? P. Seems to have been in Switzerland alot over the years.

46 – it seems Roman sneaked in the previous times but that this time the US authorities were on the move with their request before he entered. This means he could be served. It is not that it is without effort that you dodge a US court outside of the US.

(and maybe the Swiss justice wanted to make friends with the US justice because anything’s lots better than giving up the bank secrecy)

#36 _this is hardly a reason to go into a diatribe against ‘old Europe’ and its inhabitants_

No ear for irony? This guy has no ear for out and out sarcasm!

It’s not as if Polanski is the only rapist who has ever avoided being sent to prison. Is it.

#57 _Your reaction would be to hang ‘em high?_

Well not exactly. But here’s a case of someone who committed serious crimes in the 1970s and then evaded capture until the 2000s …. they ended up doing some time.

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

re: a @9/28 11:09
“OK, let’s take another scenario: in the 1970s someone kills an individual in cold blood. The murderer goes underground and then lives a decent life, coaches the neighborhood soccer team, etc. , evidently is no longer like the individual who has murdered. His identity is now discovered. Your reaction would be to hang ‘em high”

Well, in these United States, I believe most, if not all, jurisdictions recognize no statute of limitations on murder.

“they ended up doing some time.”

So, from the fact that they ended up doing some time, you affirm that they *should* have ended up doing some time?

“He didn’t go underground though, did he?” I put in underground to make the scenario plausible (and also in line with events that have actually happened). Take it out, if you prefer.

“There’s a very general interest of us all in making an example of people who try to very publicly get away with serious offences.” Sure, if you caught him in the beginning of the 80s, no problem. But you didn’t. There’s now 32-years of water under the bridge. He’s 76. If you want an example of people who try to very publicly get away with serious offences, hang Yoo.

“This isn’t close to being a borderline case.” We agree, at least, on that.

“Wonderful for discussions of personal identity, horrendously impracticable for law.”

Why are statutes of limitation horrendously impracticable?

65 – don’t know the details but I guess it’s because he holds a French passport and there will be agreements not to extradite ….

37:Just FYI, since there is a lot of misinformation going around

1) Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape. If, as Ceri claims, Polanski “confessed” to those horrendous crimes in all details, I would like a link to the signed document

2) The description and narrative of the event are mostly from the girl’s Grand Jury testimony, not subject to cross examination. I am pretty sure it is practice in America to not accept Grand Jury testimony as gospel truth, this is a large of the reason GJ proceeding are kept secret and sealed.

Note that none of this is saying anything about the credibility of the girl’s testimony or about Polanki’s “guilt” which would have to be determined in a trial. It is about following certain procedures that protect defendants, and about trying people in the press and media.

Now, I suppose we will hear again, that Polanski was convicted, and we don’t need a trial. Polanski was convicted of statutory rape, not the horrors listed in 37.

Polanski was convicted of statutory rape, not the horrors listed in 37.

That’s some fine chicanery. There are ‘the horrors’ that the ‘lynch mob’ attributes to Polanski, and then there is plain ol’ respectable statutory rape.

Sure. OK. So he’s pleaded guilty to statutory rape. This implies (at the least) vaginal penetration. He did not plead guilty to ‘drug-assisted anal rape’…but how does this make him any more defensible? He still raped a 13 year old.

“I didn’t say statutes of limitation are horrendously impracticable; I was implying that a legal system which relied on non-bodily identity would be horrendously impracticable. My quibble was not with the principle of a statute of limitations, but rather with the idea of justifying a statue of limitations on an unworkable theory of personal identity.”

Surely a morally sound justification for statutes of limitations is that people change.

74 – that probably answers 65, as a French citizen under French law he’s free so no EU-nation is allowed to extradite him under justice conventions between EU members.

@65 and 74: Is still true even though Polanski and his lawyers are still filing motions, etc. on his case? That doesn’t “restart the clock” on prescription? (I honestly have no idea.)

Yes, people change. But you must agree that it’s at least a little bit unfair that, while poor people change in prison, Polanski gets to do it in Switzerland, enjoying his riches and filming Oscar-winning movies?

It should also be noted that what prompted RP’s flight after his guilty plea was the judge’s intention to have RP serve the remaining 48 days of his initial 90 day sentence. 48 days! And for an artist. C’est affreux!

#60: No ear for irony? This guy has no ear for out and out sarcasm!

Oh, right. I forgot that the original piece is brimming with subtleties of tone and that Europeans have no ear for irony. Except those resident in the British (and other remote) Isles, of course.

#88 Yes, I’m told the Faeroese have an especially well-developed sensibility in this respect.

timing is suspicious, i agree. but not because a purportedly ‘bush-lite’ obama wants to distract the american public from an eviscerated, post-baucus rewrite of healthcare reform legislation. swiss authorities and the legal system are in deep shit because of the UBS tax evasion scandal. and i wouldn’t be surprised if polanski is being served up as a fig leaf of sorts, to assuage irate US officials . . .

Yes, obviously anyone who in this day and age would suggest that Polanski “made a terrible mistake but [has] paid for it” is beyond the pale.

82 – the filing is with the US justice so it won’t restart anything in France, his situation in French justice will be determining who can and may extradite him. (I guess)

I still believe that if the victim wants to let it go that should count. In the end, if he winds up in a court and a prison she’ll be facing the media courts. If there’s a pragmatic argument to leave it, I believe that’s the only one: spare the victim the attention she does not want.

Really didn’t expect this place to sink to the level of the IMDb message boards (frequented mainly by fourteen-year olds, or so it seems) – oh well.

Should count for something, no?

Sure it should. That’s why they have all those appeals, parole boards, clemency boards and so on. But you can’t say ‘fuck ya all, catch me if you can’ and simultaneously ask for clemency. When you get caught you take what’s coming to you.

exactly who are you accusing of behaving like 14-year-olds?

Everybody and nobody in particular.

If you dare to look at the IMDb message boards, you will notice that it is rather rare that somebody posts something intelligent and meaningful about the aesthetics of a film or a director – probably because that’s pretty hard. Conversely, threads à la “Polanski should rot in hell”, “this film is totally racist/misogynist/homophobic/anti-American/offends my religious beliefs” or even “Lars von Trier killed a donkey, what a bastard”, are a dime a dozen and generally get a gazillion responses – probably because moral outrage is something most people enjoy displaying and affords ample opportunity to ride assorted hobby-horses.

Why is Polanski brought up again and again? Because he’s famous. Why is he famous? Because he’s a great director. But since his moral transgressions have nothing to do with his films (at least as far as I can tell) on which his fame rests, those concerned about abuse of minors should be much more worried about the other gazillion rapists who got and continue to get away with it and what to do about that, than about a 35 year old case where the victim has forgiven the perpetrator and repeatedly requested that people shut up about it, because the media attention hurts her and her family emotionally.

Indeed, novakant. Because we silly feminists never talk about “the other gazillion rapists who got and continue to get away with it.” Gosh, thank you so much for letting us know what our priorities are. You know, one thing that allows these assholes to get away with it is attitudes surrounding rape–much like the attitudes in full technicolor glory in the defense of Roman Polanski. Another thing that allows the “gazillion” of free rapists to get away with it is the fact that they do tend to have more power (gender, race, financial) than the women and girls they rape. Sort of like Polanski does.

A lot of us are pissed off because, “the other gazillion rapists who got and continue to get away with it,” are excused with the same tropes Polanski and his rape apologist allies use: she was a slut, he was set up, it was so loooong ago, and he’s such a nice guy now, ZOMG! lynch mob!, he had a lot of trauma in his life, and holding him accountable is just so traumatic for him, poor widdle baby.

And yes, the rape survivor doesn’t want this dredged up. Considering the way Polanski and his rape-apologist asshat allies savaged her and her family, I can’t blame her for not wanting this revisited (I mean, come the fuck ON. Slut-baiting a 13-year-old? Give me a fucking break). You know what would have saved this BS from happening now? If Polanski had not fled the country at the time and had his day in court.

You know what would have saved this BS from happening now? If Polanski had not fled the country at the time and had his day in court.

The other thing that would have prevented all this is Polanski not drugging and/or raping a child. Aside from that, what Sheelzebub said.

If the victim doesn’t want him prosecuted (and, she doesn’t), then whom is this action being enacted for?

OK, let’s take another scenario: in the 1970s someone kills an individual in cold blood. The murderer goes underground and then lives a decent life, coaches the neighborhood soccer team, etc. , evidently is no longer like the individual who has murdered. His identity is now discovered. Your reaction would be to hang ‘em high?

Holding someone accountable for their acts /= “[hanging] ’em high,” but nice try with the hyperbole. I do think they should be tried and, if found guilty, sentenced for their crime. It’s great that they went on to be nice people (as far as we know) but they still have to be held accountable.

I can’t blame her for not wanting this revisited

That’s very big of you – so how about we do what she has repeatedly and publicly asked for.

novakant,

‘ can’t blame her for not wanting this revisited

That’s very big of you – so how about we do what she has repeatedly and publicly asked for.’

Hmmm. What if she publically stated she wanted him staked to a red ant hill to die? Well I would be sympathetic but I wouldn’t do it. I think there are some principles of justice above and beyond her very important wishes.

Also –

Odds are pretty good Polanski has raped more than one little girl. That’s generally how it works. You have the drugs, lines, and everything else all ready as a matter of course.

As Someguy implies, the practical motive for this attitude is particularly clear in the case of pedophiles.

It’s nevertheless not necessary to imagine repeat examples when a crime and conviction already exist for an appalling one.

Novakant appears to have civil and criminal law confused.

I’m not confusing civil and criminal law. Conversely, you seem to think that criminal law is some sort of monolithic entity independent of people’s judgement, yet cases get dropped all the time and for all sorts of reasons. In this case the victim claims that she is being harmed by the proceedings and that the prosecutors are less interested in resolving the matter, but rather want to cover up the grave mistakes that were made in the original court case:

Samantha Geimer, 45, has filed a legal declaration claiming she is being harmed by renewed focus on what happened to her when she was 13.

She believes prosecutors are revealing sexually explicit details to distract attention from allegations of wrongdoing against them and the judge who initially heard the case.

How is this even a gray area? The guy committed a crime and then fled his own trial. There’s no question that he’s responsible. In an ideal world, this would serve as a warning for certain other people who commit crimes and continue to flaunt the law.

I hesitate to even make this point because I have so far had little success in finding a way to express it which doesn’t look like trivialising the actual crime, but more or less notwithstanding the crime, there has to be a general principle of especially harsh treatment of fugitives from justice. The system has to defend itself against people who undermine its authority by trying to lead lives which publicly flaunt the fact that they have escaped the prescribed social sanctions. I was apparently pretty much in a minority of one in thinking that it was totally obvious that Ronnie Biggs ought have died in jail.

Sheelzebub, you are exactly right.

@Linca: I was wrong about prescription, and you are right if your link is correct: Polanski’s crime would be “prescribed” in France. But I do not know about the USA.

I have read several apologist articles for Mr Polanski including Anne Applebaum’s. They were so strident in their defense of Mr Polanski that I thought that my vague memory of his crime was incorrect. I remebered that Polanski bribed a mother to be in a position to have sex with a minor. In the interest of fairness, I googled “polanski trial testimony” and read the court reporter’s transcript of the girl’s testimony that convinced Polanski to plead out rather than face a jury. It turns out I was wrong.

It turns out that Mr Polanski paid to have a “photo shoot” of a partially nude 13 year old on not one, but two occasions. That is child pornography.

He was aware that she was a minor, as he had to go to pick her up from her mother’s home. The girl was too young to drive herself. Knowledge and intent of child pornography.

He arranged to be alone with a minor, who he fed champagne and quaaludes. When he tried to “seduce” her, she objected, got dressed from the “photo shoot” and left the room. He followed her, and despite her repeated protests, forced her to submit to oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex. When he was inturupted by a third party, he removed himself from her anus, made excuses, then returned to the girl, took off the panties that she had put on after he had gotten out of bed, and anally raped her AGAIN until he acheived orgasm. Then he made her wait to be driven home. This is false imprisionment, rape, sodomy, emotional abuse and a slew of other crimes. All of this happened to a 13 year old girl.

It is no wonder the woman does not want to relive these childhood horrors. It is also no wonder that Polanski ran when the judge refused to validate a ridiculous plea agreement. A 1970s US Jury would have given him life without parole.

I was wrong. Polanski’s crimes were much worse than I remembered. It disgusts me that any human being can excuse his behavior, or argue that the inability to travel beyond the beaches of France is adequate punishment for these crimes.

My only dissapointment with the current situation is that Mr Polanski is in solitary in a Swiss prison instead of in the general population in the California penal system. I’m sure the inmates there would change his taste for forcible sodomy.

your rational responses are welcome at PSGute@aol.com

What those invoking the statute of limitations fail to realize is that the SOL sets the period of time before the end of which prosecution must commence. In Polanski’s case, the prosecution on all six charges was properly commenced well within the applicable SOLs. And, in fact, Polanski pleaded guilty to and was thus convicted of one charge. The only thing that hadn’t happened was the sentencing. It is simply crazy to think that the law should reward a convicted felon by allowing him to escape punishment by fleeing in the middle of proceedings and avoiding recapture.

This image pretty much captures my sentiment on the Polanski arrest. Seriously, wtf with the excuses?

I think it’s possible to recognize the gravity of the offense, the cowardice in fleeing, and at the same time recognize the futility in prosecuting a 30 year old crime.

How would a person do that? Maybe by not pretending that appreciating the crime free life of the man over the last thirty years is equivalent to approving of child rape, or on the other hand claiming that there is some large abstract principle to be served by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting a man who hasn’t reoffended and has no intention of voluntarily returning to terrorize American girls.

The only thing I know is that this will not affect anyone’s life, other than Polanski’s and whoever in the media gets rich off the controversy.

I happened to have served on the Los Angeles County grand jury last year, so I can comment a bit on how they’re currently run in California.

Testimony in front of the grand jury is under oath. If a witness commits perjury they will be nailed for it – just ask Scooter Libby. There are two main reasons why grand jury testimony is secret. First is that the grand jury is an investigative body (while the prosecutor presents evidence, grand jurors are not only allowed but are encouraged to submit questions to the witness). Secrecy helps that function since it offers protection to witnesses who otherwise are afraid to testify or sometimes even talk to the police.

The second is to protect people from false accusations. If the grand jury decides not to indict the transcript remains secret for obvious reasons. If there is an indictment the transcript will be released unless the accused successfully petitions the court to keep it sealed within the deadline (which is 10 court days after arrest IIRC).

“It is good to see that Jon Henley in the Guardian has at least remarked on the fact that French opinion is divided. ”

In the same way that it’s good to see, I guess, that American opinion is divided. If you’re going to look at commentators on websites, look at the NYT.

“The system has to defend itself against people who undermine its authority by trying to lead lives which publicly flaunt the fact that they have escaped the prescribed social sanctions. ”

Yes, well, what you mean here is the *American* system, which is not, contrary to popular belief, universal. Apparently the people in France didn’t (and don’t) have the same “prescribed social sanctions” for Polanski.

I’d also just point out, pragmatically, that the best way for a system to undermine its authority is to publicly try to bring someone to justice and *fail*. So, pragmatically speaking, if Polanski manages to evade extradition, which is entirely possible, the system is in a worse position than it started, had it done nothing, with most everyone basically having forgotten about Polanski.

I’ve seen enough comments describing Polanski as “rich” and “powerful” and “living in luxury” to think that what we’re witnessing, in the Anglo-Saxon world, is a transference to Polanski of all the wrongs committed by their political and economic elites. Led into an aggressive war by its political leaders, robbed by its economic leaders, but utterly powerless (and, let’s face it, unwilling) to bring them to justice, Americans transfer their anger onto an elite artist.

Henri-100, sure, the guy has it coming, I don’t care whether he’s 150 and has won 20 Oscars by then. But that’s my point of view and I’m not directly the victim. So my point was – this victim’s point of view should count for something. Mind you, not everything, that would risk too many new victims; but something.

Or Michael Jackson?

Kieran, unfortunately your style defeats any argument you are trying to make. If you can only make your point dripping with sarcasm, then you probably don’t have a point.

“OK, so why don’t I try facing up to my debilitating style, you try facing the inconvenient facts of the case, and we’ll see what happens.”

ROTFL.

He ran from the clause of justice.

Salient, sorry about that. I meant it in the sense, “the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law” (merriam-webster)

I still can’t compute what you meant by Apparently the people in France didn’t (and don’t) have the same “prescribed social sanctions” for Polanski.

I don’t think the French government’s decision not to extradite has all that much to do with what “the people in France” would like to see done or not done.

“if you are Romani Polanski, “No” (Stop it, Continue by all means).”

ROTFL.

You’ve clearly lost it, Kieran, and furthermore you are in a most despicable manner ascribing views to people which they do not have – so there is no reason to carry on this “debate”. Have a nice day.

I guess that some know the feelings of the victim with respect to Polanski based on the fact that they say they don’t want to remember the feeling of being victimized by Polanski.

(I’m not being satirical just slightly not amused at somebody’s words being interpreted to suit a particular argument (s)he’s making)

“The man should be brought to justice for his crimes but lets not pretend that America is some great arbiter of justice. America does in fact fail to have an enlightened attitude about most social issues.”

Well, that’s reasonable. America really stinks as an arbiter of justice, IMO–war criminals running around loose, appearing on TV, their crimes being treated as mere policy differences. I still would like to see Polanski in prison.

Let me kill this thread by suggesting that if we let Polanski because of the sujective judgement of his artistic merit, then we should start thinking about a retroactive pardon for Albert Speer.

I mean, that guy’s architecture totally rocked.

Anyone who reads through the comments here and elsewhere could be forgiven for detecting an undercurrent of petty-bourgeois ressentiment [sic] against “the rich, the privileged, the elites, artists, Hollywood” and anybody who is more talented and successful than your average or slightly above average Joe – it’s bleeding obvious!

Polanski’s getting a pass that your average Joe would not get for doing the same crime. Sorry if the truth offends your sensibilities so. I will duly defer to my betters from now on.

I’m struck by all of this respect that Polanski’s rape-apologist shills suddenly claim to have for the survivor of the rape. Considering the rhetoric flung about over the years (and even now), you’d think that she a gold-digging whore of Babylon who hoodwinked a helpless 44-year-old into having sex with her. I’m so pleased that they are now wanting to respect her wishes–think maybe, just maybe, she wants to drop it because of the Puritanical madonna-whore BS and slut baiting she continues to get at the hands of these same people? With all of this newfound respect, perhaps these folks could make some public and vehement statements about how she was not to blame for what happened, and how it was inexcusable for them to smear a 13-year-old girl and her family. Just sayin’.

I had rather thought that I was being derisive about a ridiculous, patently stupid and offensive claim – viz. your statement that people here who were disinclined to “forgive and forget” the crimes of a child-rapist were motivated by a “bleeding obvious ”

bq. undercurrent of “petty-bourgeois ressentiment against “the rich, the privileged, the elites, artists, Hollywood” and anybody who is more talented and successful than your average or slightly above average Joe.”

But apparently my insult misfired, missing you and hitting the victim (perhaps because, as elsewhere on this thread, you had strategically positioned yourself behind her). I will admit that I had been unaware that she too had articulated this theory of the petty-bourgeois class animus underlying Crooked Timber commenters’ outrage at Roman Polanski’s crimes. My apologies for this oversight.

As is often the case, Orwell has some pertinent words:

It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of benefit of clergy. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word “Art,” and everything is O.K.: kicking little girls in the head is O.K. . . . It is also O.K. that Dali should batten on France for years and then scuttle off like rat as soon as France is in danger. So long as you can paint well enough to pass the test, all shall be forgiven you.

One can see how false this is if one extends it to cover ordinary crime. In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear.

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/dali.html

I’ll assume that, at this point, a mild thread-jack will not be taken amiss. Following up Beryl’s point, I just recently read Chris Lehmann’s “Revolt of the Masscult”, which I didn’t much like. This is incidental, but at one point he advances what seems to me a perfectly incoherent version of the ‘if you’re good enough, you can be as bad as you like’ argument. Sort of an ‘if you’re brilliant enough, you can be as stupid as you like’ argument. He contrasts the way Jonathan Franzen was peppered with negative op-eds in the wake of speaking ill of Oprah with the way V.S. Naipaul got a fairly free pass for saying a lot of idiotic and offensive stuff about various individuals and groups. The Naipaul way is the proper way, argues Lehmann.

“”The laureate’s many outbursts were (and continue to be) simply written down to the “contrarian” prerogative of the celebrity author. And that is entirely proper: If a writer wants to issue provocative, even brazenly offensive, views, that’s part of his job – and it’s a healthy precent of any cultural democracy that the general reading public can handle ill-considered writerly opinions like grownups.”

In context – the Franzen case – it’s pretty clear that what Lehmann is approving is not Naipaul’s immunity from punishment. It isn’t a free speech issue. He just thinks it’s good that Naipaul, being Naipaul, has been more or less immune from being called an idiot for saying things that are in fact idiotic. It doesn’t compare with the Polanski case, for severity, but the general idea that somehow if you are a ‘celebrity’, you should be held to lower moral or intellectual standards, because you have proved yourself capable of meeting higher artistic standards, is simply bizarre. It’s only noteworthy in that it gets expressed by people, like Lehmann, who you wouldn’t think would be very sympathic to the idea.

Anyone who reads through the comments here and elsewhere could be forgiven for detecting an undercurrent of petty-bourgeois ressentiment against “the rich, the privileged, the elites, artists, Hollywood” and anybody who is more talented and successful than your average or slightly above average Joe – it’s bleeding obvious!

What the fuck? I know that Ayn Rand was all about the romantic heroism of rape, but I didn’t realize that Atlas Shrugged was being deployed on behalf of Roman Polanski. If that’s life in Galt’s Gulch, count me out.

Michael Jackson might be a fair contrast. Same charge, different fans, the treatment?

Al-Megrahi is in much worse health than Polanski and has submitted to the process of the law (although he does still protest his innocence).

OK, you win: when I said (in response to a rather sarcastic post) that someone:

“could be forgiven for detecting an undercurrent” of X

I was actually saying:

“every single participant in this discussion is solely motivated” by X

Thanks for clearing that up for me, my bad.

There is much fun to be had on the internets by consistently applying an inverted principle of charity to the utterances of your opponents, sure, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.

Come to think of it, I don’t know why Rosemary’s Baby is considered such a great film. Boring. And Chinatown would’ve been boring too, if not for the leading actors.

Milos Forman is certainly a much better director, why is he not a celebrity (or so much less of a celebrity)? Is it because he hasn’t raped anybody?

The legal and moral case seems pretty clear. He should be locked up.

But I’m somewhat perturbed by the assumption that his “Artistic Genius” should be a mitigating factor. And forget the general argument as to whether artistic genius should be granted moral leeway. Mine is the much narrower point:

Polanski isn’t that good, is he?

“Sanction” is one of those annoying English words that can be its own antonym—to sanction the action mean to approve it or ban it..

I have been carrying around for some years, like a pretty stone in my back pocket, a pair of words that are both synonyms and antonyms: “Outgoing” and “retiring.”

Every time issues of crime and punishment come up in the USA there is a certain tactic which is always used by the advocates of harsh punishment, and it’s pretty uncomfortably close to what we’re seeing the folks here doing. If you don’t like setting the threshold for drunk driving at my level – you support drunk driving! Uncomfortable with laws marking people as child predators for life? Pervert! Mandatory minimum sentences; the death penalty; harsher and harsher, longer and longer. Take books away from those prisoners. Prison rape: they deserve it. Stand up for due process, or legal rights for the accused – criminal coddling.

Every time that I see a post like this, taking the bold moral stance of condemning something like child rape, I think of all of the times in my life that I’ve seen this approach used as an excuse to build up a fearful and cruel social structure. Brick by brick we’re erected a brutal and massive prison system – but you can escape from the worst consequences if you have the resources. And then we focus rage on those undeserving ones, those who worked the system and “got off.”

We throw millions into it’s maw – and, yes, most are bad people in any moral calculus. But in my lifetime we have given up on rehabilitation, and have abandoned judgment for vengeance.

That’s what goes through my head when I see people baying for blood. It’s not because there aren’t evil people in the world who do evil things. It’s that small still voice in the back of my head that speaks to me about the horrible cruelties justified by past outrages, real and imagined, and the persistent minority of cases where an innocent man is released after a life spent in a cage.

A motion to dismiss filed by his attorneys recently is available online — I’d have to google for it, but it’s not hard to find — and has the probation report, including Polanski’s version of events, attached as an exhibit. His version of events isn’t substantially different from the victim’s — he says that he ‘found’ the Quaaludes, and that after some conversation about them she took one, but that he didn’t ‘offer’ them to her, and that he gave her champagne to drink. And that after the thirteen-year-old had been drinking, and had taken a Quaalude, he told her to go lie down in a bedroom. And that he then went and had sex with her. He does claim that she didn’t object. And on the advice of his lawyer, he neither confirms nor denies the victim’s allegations of anal and oral rape.

Really, his contemporary version of events isn’t exculpatory at all.

“Every time issues of crime and punishment come up in the USA there is a certain tactic which is always used by the advocates of harsh punishment”

Or, in this case, any punishment. Nobody is calling for his head.

Yes–it’s quite telling that wanting a rich White dude to be held accountable for his crimes is the same thing as hanging him high, lynching him, or now building up a fearful and cruel social structure (because a rape culture where 13-year-olds are asking for it and 44-year-old rapists are blameless are free of fear and cruelty).

Here is a French lawyer talking about the case:

Q: Ses soutiens ont-ils tort d’invoquer la prescription ?
A: Absolument car cet argument est juridiquement faux. La prescription suppose une inaction. Tout nouvel acte fait repartir le délai à zéro.

Q: Que reprochez-vous aux artistes qui le soutiennent ?
A: On attaque un des leurs, les artistes le défendent : c’est du corporatisme. À l’inverse, lors des débats sur Hadopi, certains artistes réclamaient une sévérité impitoyable contre les téléchargeurs, quitte à bafouer un droit fondamental. Cela creuse le divorce entre les artistes et l’opinion publique. Je suis également en colère car ceux qui s’insurgent contre cette arrestation invoquent de mauvais arguments, ils ont tort juridiquement et moralement. Par exemple, lorsque le réalisateur Costa-Gavras affirme que la victime “avait 13 ans mais en paraissait 25”, il enfonce Polanski plutôt qu’il ne le défend.

All somewhat interesting. I added the “Q” and “A” markers.

If he was an arms trader or an exiled dictator from certain countries, everyone would be whining that the French wouldn’t extradite him.

Jail the rapist.

So it’s been 30 years and we should just forget it? I don’t think so. Mr. Polanski needs to be returned to America and face the punishment for a crime he freely admitted. As for those of you who are saying he has’nt committed another crime, exactly how do you know that? I’m not saying that he has or not, but I for one find it a little hard to believe that that was the only incident like that in his life. Maybe I’m wrong, but statistically I am probably right. Regardless it is time for the matter to be dealt with once and for all!

I am appaled that anybody would even consider NOT having him pay his dues! He RAPED a child…perhaps you would feel differently if that child were your child…perhaps not, if so, I feel sorry for you and your child.

“…because that crime was against the State of California.”

So to was the one he broke his plea agreement on, lest this would have been a civil case, no?

Since RP had no issue with finishing the rape of a 13 year old child after being interrupted (See post 128), he should not have a problem with finishing his sentence for that rape after a 30 year interruption.

He admitted to having sex with a minor, not to having raped her. Now Geimer seems very believable, but it doesn’t matter in front of a court, what we’re inclined to believe. And since the victim is actively seeking dismissal of the case, I don’t see how he can be convicted of this charge, unless you set up a kangaroo court. “Innocent before the law until proven guilty” must hold in every case.

As for the charge of evading justice, if that is what it’s all about in the end, I don’t understand the ruckus all of this has caused. I’m sure a few murderers have slipped through the fingers of the State of California in the past 30 years, yet they seem to be doing alright still.

“I’m sure a few murderers have slipped through the fingers of the State of California in the past 30 years, yet they seem to be doing alright still.”

If you know the location of any, please post – law enforcement would be interested. Even better, if you run into any at the Zurich airport or Gare du Nord, please offer to buy them a ticket to the US or UK, where real extradition efforts will ensure they are returned to their proper position. BTW, I’ll pay for the tickets!

Marc – there’s much of merit in your comment (#194) when it comes to talking about our “brutal and massive prison system,” and the processes by which we build and maintain it. Our society often seems to have made a kind of vast etymological error, forgetting that “penitentiary” comes from “penitent” and not from “pen” (as in: a structure used to restrain animals). But just to focus on a very narrow sub-sub-issue here – as far as I can tell, “post[s] like this” are less about “people baying for blood” and more about people responding to the rather appalling sight of Polanski’s supporters rushing to exonerate the man. Indeed,this actual post is quite explicit on this point – that’s its entire substance and purpose – as are all of the others I’ve read.

You talk about how “Every time that I see a post like this, taking the bold moral stance of condemning something like child rape …,” and I won’t argue that group exercises in boldly condemning, say, live-kitten roasting also relate to social, psychological and probably neurological-basis-of-evolved-morality issues which don’t always necessarily further the cause of justice. But . . . when that Bronx teenager was arrested for breaking into an ex-roommate’s apartment, ransacking the place, and then throwing the roommate’s kitten into an oven and roasting it alive to, in her words, “play a joke on Valerie”, I missed the flood of commenters furiously explaining why this was a travesty of justice/waste of resources/the result of a surely difficult life/the ex-roommate’s fault/etc.

Of course, in other times and places, kitten-roasting would have been judged great fun. (One could also get into the issues and conflicts over Michael Vick’s dogfighting/dog-killing exploits). And of course, in other times and places, most of what we understand to be rape wouldn’t be that much of a big deal. Although given all the Polanski apologists, that “other” would seem to partially include “our”. Functionally, there are people trying to rip up the presumable consensus that raping 8th graders is a really really bad thing even if you’re a famous filmmaker, and I don’t think it’s inappropriate that other people are trying to smack their hands away. I understand and agree with your concern over how “brick by brick we’re erected a brutal and massive prison system” – but some walls need to built; some things need to be kept out.

novakant, yes, the victim doesn’t want him to be tried and yes, that should count, but where are you finding the infinite wisdom to judge on her behalf that, if called to testify she would say – “I really would like this man to go on making great movies.” It is the press she wants to avoid, if it’s unavoidable there’s no reason to believe she’ll seek his dismissal, & certainly not in court where it matters.

What Roman Polanski did was wrong and disgusting. He should have serve time in jail for his crime. In no way can I excuse or apologize for his actions, except to say that he knows what he did was wrong-he is not a psychopath, and so unlikely to offend again. He should have faced some form of legal sanction, though a life in exile could be considered punishment in itself.
However, the law consists of two factors. Justice, which has not been served, and also proportionality. It is the issue of proportionality which is the problem here. The United States has expanded and harshened sex offender laws continuously to such an extent that thousands of innocent citizens are incarcerated. Mid-Level sexual offenses such as Polanski’s have been elevated to a worse status than serial killing, torture or genocide. The principal of proportionality has been lost, and Polanski could face life in jail, assuming he is not murdered by inmates or prison officers.
My argument against his extradition is not that his victim has forgiven him, but that America has a justice and prison system so irredeemably corrupt (and England is catching up) that sending him or anyone else there, regardless of the nature of their crime, is a violation of human rights. Would we send women back to Saudi Arabia or to face execution for adultery? Of course not. The USA is a primitive nation with a similar injustice system, so all extradition from Europe to the USA should be suspended. The recent case of a computer hacker in the U.K. being extradited to America proves my point.
I would go further. The justice U.S. system has become so corrupt that those responsible for the mess-ambitious politicians and lawmakers-should actually face trial for crimes against humanity. But that is another issue.

he recounts as enthusiastic participation she describes as her begging him to stop

Actually, even in his version of events (linked above in comment 197) he doesn’t pretend she was an enthusiastic participant. He just denies that she resisted.

People!!! What justice ever happened to Nixon for his war crimes in Cambogia? What justice was served to the dirty prosecutor who handled the Polanski case (while he was alive)? Did you ever hear anything of years in prison? What will happen to the war criminals that ordered the massacres in Serbia, Irak and Afganistan? Is that American justice? You twisted, angry people! Free Polanski you idiots! He has served his sentence!

Trevor Loughlin 09.30.09 at 11:18 am

“However, the law consists of two factors. Justice, which has not been served, and also proportionality. It is the issue of proportionality which is the problem here. The United States has expanded and harshened sex offender laws continuously to such an extent that thousands of innocent citizens are incarcerated. ”

True; however raping a child is not one of those offenses which were ‘overharshened’.

“Mid-Level sexual offenses such as Polanski’s have been elevated to a worse status than serial killing, torture or genocide. ”

Wow, so many, um, things to unpack: (1) usually, child-raping would be considered a high-level sexual offense. (2) even now it has not been elevated to a worse status than serial killing or genocide, both of which get one at least a life sentence (unless you win the war, of course).

“The principal of proportionality has been lost, and Polanski could face life in jail, assuming he is not murdered by inmates or prison officers.”

If he hadn’t fled the country, he’d have gotten a number of years (5? 10?), served them, and been done back in the 1980’s.

His big problem now is that he’s added flight to his crimes. As for ‘life in jail’, the only reason that he might get that is that he’s starting a sentence when he’s in his 70’s. Again, if he had not fled, he’d have done some time and probably have been out over 30 years ago.

IMHO, in terms of proportionality, Polanski should be more harshly punished. He didn’t live 30 miserable years in the slums as a hunted fugitive; he lived them as a rich exile, with the local laws protecting him. That calls for more punishment.

Just as a reminder to all you self righteous jackoffs who feel Polanski should be punished for this “set up crime” (the mother of the girl was a real fame seeker and encouraged her daughter to “get close” to the director) this man has suffered all his life in a way few of us will ever know. His mother was killed in a concentration camp. He lived in a Jewish ghetto. It is a wonder he survived though out world war II. Next his pregnant wife was butchered by several true blue AMERICANS who felt they were doing the will of god or at least that of Charles Manson.
The sinister hypocracy of the USA never ceases to disgust me. Americans play the high card on domestic child abuse but constantly turn a blind eye to the the acts their own war machine which has killed millions of innocent children in cold blood in the name of spreading freedom. Give me a break.

I could care less about what other countries’ (or our country’s) celebrities and dignitaries think about extraditing a child rapist.

If they get the message that defending our children is more important to us than good movies, then so bet it.

Let Harris, Mitterrand and Applebaum offer their own daughters up as sacrifice.

The petition by Sorsese et al. echoes a similar petition in 1949 to the French President by Cocteau, Sartre, Picasso et al. to get Jean Genet out of a life sentence after ten convictions for theft, lewd acts, etc. Genet escaped that life sentence. Now I’m not sure what sort of lewd acts he committed–the experts can wrangle over historical context, persecution of homosexuality, what have you. But it’s an interesting sidelight to the massing of the artistic/literary/cinematic panjandrums behind Polanski.

Assuming Unfogged counts as popular, I’m the same LizardBreath, but I’m not a DA — I’m a gov’t lawyer working in civil litigation, so I’m not an expert in criminal law.

That said, there’s not going to be a trial here on the statutory rape charge and doesn’t need to be, because Polanski’s already been convicted — he pleaded guilty thirty years ago. If there were going to be a trial now, there might easily be a statute of limitations problem. I don’t know what the statute of limitations is on statutory rape in California. Barring a statute of limitations problem, he confessed at the time to knowingly giving a thirteen-year-old girl alcohol and Quaaludes and having sex with her (I linked his confession above). Even without testimony from the victim, then, he could be convicted today of the same crime based on his own contemporaneous confession.

unbelievable…. to all you guys and girls that think 20 years or 30 years or 40 year or 1000 years time expires because of the statue of limitations please spend a few dollars and go talk to somone about law in america. when you skip bail, and flee to another country the statue of limitations clock freezes. for mr polanski, in about 3 months right around the new year he will be araigned in a LA court and even though it has been 32 years since he took it on the lamb, that day in court, the clock will start ticking just like the day before when he left. now if the dumb SOB had not have left the US and just went on the run and all the powers that be inside the US knew he was her and he still evaded them in about 20 or so years (different statutes in different states) he could argue the statue of limitations, only argue it mind you. i certainly look forward to the day we see the wonderful mr polanski in the LA court.

people have been arrested after skipping jail before.

if he did in fact drug and have sex with a 13 year old, then that is rape, no gray areas

what if it was your daughter?

Whenever I have read a full account of the victim expressing a desire that the case be dropped, she expressly says she has no sympathy for Polanski, but every time this comes up the media crucifies her, her mother, and her family and she finds that quite painful.

So the best way to fix this, it seems to me, is for the media to leave her alone and for the child-rape apologists to stop blaming her mother for what Polanski did and and stop saying the 13 year old child was basically asking for it and the ‘real victim’ is 44 year old adult man who plied her with drugs and alcohol and ignored her telling him no and then tried to make the trial all about her past. I thought we were years past the ‘only virgins can be raped’ arguments, but according to the Polanski defenders apparently not.

This 44 year old predator went on to give an interview just a year or two after he raped the child where he said everybody wants to have sex with little girls anyway, and he’s also on the record as stating that he finds it unbelievable he could be prosecuted just for ‘making love.’ And then he had an affair with a 15 year old.

Three months ago he tried to have the case dismissed, and part of the legal argument was that it ought to be dismissed since the DA wasn’t still pursuing him. I would guess the DA was willing enough to have Polanski ‘pay’ for his rape of a child by basking on the beach in the South of France and not being able to pick up his Oscar in person, but given Polanski’s flaunting of his ongoing freedom and attempt to use that to revoke all charges just was too much.

I don’t care how long ago this was or how good his movies are. Child rapists should go to jail.

Roman Polanski raped a 13-year old girl and fled the country. He deserves nothing. In what way is it acceptable to intoxicate, drug and force a young girl to have vaginal and anal intercourse with you. Fleeing the country just prolongs the inevitable, especially when one admits and pleads guilty to such charges.

As for those who signed the petition for him, like Woody Allen (of course):
Some might think you are “brilliant”, the rest of the civilized world sees you as a cancer on society. Oh yeah, and getting it on with your adoptive daughter (no matter her age) means your a very sick individual. But then again your movies are “great”, so let’s just turn a blind eye.

“Genius” does not in any way make up for the act of sexual or physical violence.
Some say that his exile for 30 years is punishment enough, that he is a pioneer of our time. I on the other hand do not believe that the little girl’s justice was served. Some say that enough time has passed, and that because she has now decided to drop the charges it is all better.

These things are not acceptable.

Just as a reminder to all you self righteous jackoffs who feel Polanski should be punished for this “set up crime” (the mother of the girl was a real fame seeker and encouraged her daughter to “get close” to the director) this man has suffered all his life in a way few of us will ever know. His mother was killed in a concentration camp. He lived in a Jewish ghetto. It is a wonder he survived though out world war II.

And yet, oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of Holocaust survivors somehow managed to live out their trauma-haunted lives without perpetrating anything remotely as monstrous as raping a thirteen-year-old girl.

The victim’s view might be colored by the fact that she received a generous legal settlement.

However that may be, society and the law have an obligation that goes beyond the victim. That is why the state and not the victim conduct the trial.

I agree that high profile people should not be allowed to set an example of flouting the law.

“We might as well have all our facts in place”

Yes, we might as well. To that end: A plea agreement is not between the defendant and the judge, so the judge cannot renege. The agreement is between the defendant and the prosecutor–the defendant pleads guilty and the prosecutor *recommends* a sentence to the judge. The judge need not accept the recommendation–he has discretion to reject the agreement.

If the judge had rejected the deal and Polanski thought he had done so improperly, Polanski could have filed an appeal. As it was, we don’t know whether the judge ultimately would have accepted the deal or not because Polanksi short-circuited the process by fleeing.

Is the United States the ONLY country in the world standing up for the safety of little girls? We need a list of every single one of these hedonistic creeps defending this man and boycott any film they have been associated with. In fact, we should cut diplomatic ties with any country that does not respect the basic human right of a child to be a child without fear of molestation. That includes every country that has sheltered this man. This is a human rights issue. Child molesters don’t have any rights.

He should be brought back and given the maximum sentence possible.

Hollywoodites and Europeans reading this, be aware: There are a lot of people in the U.S. still standing for what we have always stood for — the protection of the innocent. The viewpoint of the majority of Americans is certainly not expressed by the degenerate Hollywood and European cultures. The vast majority of us are completely unimpressed by European (so-called) “culture,” and a great many of us see Europeans as having spinelessly caved in to the immoral social evils associated with your new government system. Or rather, one is the result of the other. We are the last bastion of Western CIVILIZATION and I guarantee you we aren’t giving it up without a fight. Any society that does not protect its children does not deserve to exist.

I pray we never get to the condition of spinelessness that we see in Europe.

You can spout all the garbage you wish about “genius” and “brilliance,” and persecuting a poor old man or whatever other manure bs you wish. We are fighting for a minimum of life in prison without parole for people who rape children, and we will win. And I personally would deem the death penalty more appropriate for such crimes. Maybe a good old-fashioned hanging or two would send the right message.

I would hope to hear from at least one European reading this that the views expressed at the film awards in Switzerland that this sub-human was going to attend, do not reflect the views of all Europeans. But I’m not holding my breath.

Having had 2 girls my question is: which mother lets a 13 year old girl alone with a man?

Aside from the fact that this kind of speculation is why the victim in this case wishes the whole thing would go very far away (that, and all the talk about what a slut she was at 13), the girl was there to do a job. Perhaps the mother expected professional behavior. Obviously in retrospect, that was unwise since Polanski is a rapist, but hindsight is 20/20. Do mothers always stay on set when children are working? I don’t know if that’s common now or if it was common then.

Regardless, Polanski was an adult and he had a responsibility to NOT rape a 13 year old girl. Who gives a damn about the mother at this point?

The transcript recently released regarding the Polanski trial omits important information. The girl readily admitted the following:
• She accepted the glass of champagne that was offered. No one forced her.
• She knew what the quaalude was as she had taken this drug before, she told Polanski this.
It is unclear that he knew her age. She looked much older and presented herself this way intentionally, with her mother’s help.
This girl was not a virgin and had sex prior to this with more than one man, at age 13.
Her mother was shopping her around to directors in Hollywood hoping to make her a star.
Who decided to take this to the police? I have to ask if it was her mother, hoping for the eventual monetary settlement. Once that deal was done the girl seemed to be willing to walk away.

People have lost their jobs, their homes, and for some even their self respect. If ever there was such a time to try to defend a criminal on the grounds that since he was wealthy and popular enough to evade justice for years he should be set free and go unpunished, this is the worst time possible.

Someone should tell the people in their ivory Hollywood towers that the peasants do not need to organize to go out on a search for torches. They already have them in their hands and they have been alight for awhile now.

if he is guilty then he should serve his time

Yeah this is bush’s fault. Just when you think, They can’t beat the dead horse anymore. Neon shows up.

#254: Demonizing those who disagree with you, and falsely characterizing their opinions, can be deeply satisfying. That doesn’t make it right. I’ve seen your certainty before, and it’s been employed to horrible ends (look up the Scottsboro Boys, or the McMartin preschool trial in more recent memory).

Marc: I suggest you take a look at your comment #194, with your assertion that those people who think Polanski shouldn’t be above the law, and that he should be held accountable for his crimes (to which he pled guilty, BTW) are “baying for blood.” Then take your own advice. Pointing out that slut-baiting is not okay, that it’s quite the Victorian double-standard to cry about puritanism and then whine about how the 13-year-old girl was loose, and that “having sex” with a 13-year-old girl (and giving her drugs and alcohol to boot) is illegal when you’re an adult is hardly at the level of the false accusations against the Scottsboro boys.

Sandi: are as far left as you can get

Sandi, seriously? STFU. I’m about “as far left as you can get,” as are a lot of critics of Polanski’s defenders. You are drowning in straw there.

Carole:

•She accepted the glass of champagne that was offered. No one forced her.
•She knew what the quaalude was as she had taken this drug before, she told Polanski this.
It is unclear that he knew her age. She looked much older and presented herself this way intentionally, with her mother’s help.

Polanski was aware that she was a minor, because he had to get permission from her mother to photograph her, and her mother thought that this was a job. A 13-year-old is still a 13-year-old, no matter how much older you think she looks. And really, it’s illegal for an adult to offer a minor alcohol or drugs–it doesn’t matter if she took them before or drank before. Polanski was the adult–he was a middle-aged man–and she was a young teenager. He damn well knew better.

Laurie: Hollywoodites and Europeans reading this, be aware: There are a lot of people in the U.S. still standing for what we have always stood for—the protection of the innocent. The viewpoint of the majority of Americans is certainly not expressed by the degenerate Hollywood and European cultures.

Uh, Laurie, the folks defending Polanski are the glitterati in Europe and the US–not the general population of Europe, who have made it clear they think he should be held accountable for his actions (including, BTW, the leftist Green Party in France).

As for the US standing for the protection of the innocent–oh, puleeze. There are plenty of “innocents” who would dispute that point, including rape survivors (say, civilians who were raped and slut-baited, female soldiers in the army who were raped and punished for their rapes, and girls in Iraq who were raped by soldiers). Might I remind you, Huckabee set a rapist free because the teenaged girl he attacked was a distant relative of Bill Clinton, so she must have been lying and it must have been a setup, amirite?? And said rapist went on to attack other women. Great record we have there!

There are numerous contenders to be sure, but the following is my runaway favorite for most fatuous comment thus far:

“… what we’re witnessing, in the Anglo-Saxon world, is a transference to Polanski of all the wrongs committed by their political and economic elites. Led into an aggressive war by its political leaders, robbed by its economic leaders, but utterly powerless (and, let’s face it, unwilling) to bring them to justice, Americans transfer their anger onto an elite artist.”

With these two sentences, the majestically erudite “a” (comment 138) perfectly encapsulates all the pet delusions of the poseurs who would have us believe they’re more culturally evolved, and therefore morally superior. According to this enlightened breed, calls for Polanski’s extradition are a function of (take your pick): class resentment, corrupt and rapacious leaders, a feckless and/or under-educated populace, or Americans’ innate provincialism. Of course, such a list would hardly be complete without a token anti-war comment.

Dear “a”: Your idiotic posturing notwithstanding, you’re not terribly bright or original, but Ill give you this much: You’re laugh-out-loud funny.

A commenter here called those seeking justice re Polanski’s crime representatives of “all that is wrong with this world. ” What world is this man living on?
Simply: we want children to be safe. This is done by prosecuting sex offenders. Polanski should not take this personally and neither should his supporters. You rape a kid, you go to prison — that’s just how it works, or should work. I admire Polanski as an artist but this doesn’t mean he shouldn’t serve his time!
And yes, Polanski’s personal life is tragic, made even more tragic by his own hand, by the fact he chose to rape someone.
I saw an interview with him about six years ago in a magazine like “Vogue” or some such, and in it he says “It was all my fault” about the rape. He has admitted guilt more than once, and indeed quite recently, he just doesn’t think he should have to serve any time or be punished for what he did. But of course he should. His worshippers have convinced him otherwise though. And then we wonder why sex offenders are almost impossible to rehabilitate!
I’m tired of how much sexual assault happens on this planet and how many happen to kids. Sexual assault deeply scars its victims, affecting them immeasurably. Yes some make good ecoveries, but there is always a partial amputation that happens. Rarely does a sexual assault victim regain full mobility.
Perpetrators need to be held accountable, just like priests have begun to be held accountable (at last, thank God) for raping children.
And to those who think that this was the first and last child he ever laid his hands on–you are living in a fantasy world, or you are a sexual abuser yourself. Look it up, rapists never just rape once.

but but but……your echo chamber is being unfair to the libertarians again!

Maybe I’ve missed a running joke here, being new, but all the libertarians I know want this man shot in the head until dead for the crime of raping a child.

To JDKBrown:

You are mistaken about the process of plea bargains. Defendants don’t need prosecutors or “bargains” at all to simply plead guilty and “throw themselves on the mercy of the court” which is what you think it is.

Of course there is a quid pro quo, that is the defendant is offered the certainty of a known sentence in exchange for his pleading guilty, rather than the uncertainty of trial. Likewise the state gets the certainty of the conviction, etc.

The state presents this plea bargain to the court which, in almost every instance, has signed on the the bargain and commits to abide by the terms thereof.

If this were not the case, wouldn’t be too many plea bargains, now would there be?

For once, I fully agree with engels – what’s next, world peace?

Out of interest (as I am almost completely ignorate of the case) is it the case that Polanski’s defense attorney conspired with the judge to ignore the plea deal during sentencing, at the same time recommending his client take the deal? If so then while it doesn’t make him not guilty, I think a retrial is required (and his fleeing the country is more understandable if he considered he had no realistic chance of getting a fair trial).

In addition to drugging and raping the 13 year old girl, Polanski took nude pictures of her which were found on his camera. Imagine this happening today and Polanski had only taken the pics. How much trouble would he be in? Under current federal law, production of child pornography carries a miniumum sentence of 15 years.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/childporn_stats.html

jdkbrown:

Sure, the judge could reject the plea bargain, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The judge accepted his guilty plea, which strongly suggests the case had proceeded to a plea bargain with the consent of the judge. Plea bargains are not done by pleading guilty first and THEN ASKING the judge if he’ll agree to a sentence: that comes prior to the guilty plea.

If it’s the case he did plead guilty based on a promise of a specific sentence (or range of sentence), and then was confronted with a judge who refused to abide by that agreement, then we have a contract broken. It’s hard for me to imagine polanski pleading guilty with no quid pro quo. It’s not like he couldn’t afford legal representation to proceed to trial.

Interesting that no one has mentioned that criminal sentencing has two components: punishment and deterrence. Everyone is focusing on the punishment aspect and overlooking the deterrence aspect. If just one rich and famous adult decides not to drug and rape a child because he recalls that Roman Polanski rotted in prison in his old age for that crime, it will definately be worth the loss of Roman’s golden years in the French villa. If lots of rich and famous adults decide not to rape children based upon pictures of Roman spending his golden years in chains, it will be one of the greatest contributions Roman made to modern society, although his films are also OK, in a disturbing sort of way.

What Polanski did or didn’t do, how much damage was already there how much he should bear responsibility for, I don’t know.

The document LizardBreath links makes it clear what he was willing to cop to.

Polanski’s getting a pass that your average Joe would not get for doing the same crime.

Are you sure about that ?
Let’s say that if an unknown Joe the Plumber had raped a thirteen year old girl AND managed to flee the country for 30 years, living in anonymity, would the LA district attorney STILL be pursuing him after 3 decades, and spending what will probably run into tens of millions of dollars of California taxpayers’ money in legal and extradition costs, when the current state budget deficit is 26 billion US dollars and essential welfare, public school and other programs are being cut.

I am NOT in any way condoning Polanski’s actions. Of course rape of a 13 year old should be prosecuted. Justice should be done in an ideal world. Nevertheless the world is far from ideal and resources are finite EVEN in California, or rather especially in California given their fiscal situation.

I am questioning the assumption that Polanski is having an “easy” ride.

“I would wager a guess that you do not have any real understanding of what is at the root of the failure of the public school system, or who is behind it.”

The victims, obviously. Duh!

P.P.S. to Cripes,

What is the SYSTEM, if it isn’t the law and the courts?

Dan S, why don’t you sit and figure up the total amount of money that has been thrown at the public school system in the last fifty or so years.

Laurie”G”:

Oh, sure, child poverty is the result of ATTITUDES, like yours, that the poor are to blame for every social and economic ill in this nation, although they have zero power, and the US is ruled by sociopathic plutocrats who are raping the entire nation. Gee, there’s some abuse you can sink your teeth into.

But hey, why worry about that when you can focus your lazer-like intellect at insignificant individuals like Polanski, or gangster rap, or sister souljah, or some other irrelevent nonsense.

As for “addressing the root causes of poverty,” I have spent much of my adult life working to house, clothe and employ homeless people, immigrants and prostitutes. What the f–k have you done?

Still waiting for your explanation why the US has the WORST record in child health, poverty and education in the entire developed world. Oh yeah, it’s their ATTITUDES. Moron.

Roy Belmont has a point, you knuckleheads like a witch hunt, even if there is a real witch in polanski, it shows you for the vicious creeps you are.

All right, to cut the hyperbole, aside from the position that Polanski should pay a just penalty, which I don’t dispute, it seems the position of the torch wavers is that the US justice system should be yet more punitive towards “sex offenders” than it already is.

This reflects a deep ignorance considering the US already has, without doubt, the most punitive criminal justice system in the world, with the most prisoners , second most executions, and an extremely aggressive sex offender policy.

This includes lifetime sex offender status for 19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds, “peeping toms” and even public urinators. It also includes preventive detention beyond completion of their sentences, and banishment from living in cities, forcing entire communities of “ex” offenders to live under bridges in places like Miami.

No lack of aggressive enforcement there. The problem is homeless and isolated sex offenders–surprise– are less likely to report to authorities, and more likely to reoffend. Oh well, as long as we make an example of them, huh?

And it’s so much easier to go to sleep at night, pretending we are “protecting the children,” instead of actually building a society where children have health care, education and housing, and don’t feel the need to sell drugs, or their bodies, or suffer the condemnation of hyprocrites who blame them for their “ATTITUDES” being the source of all social problems.

Hell, tell that to the bankers that actually control your lives and steal your retirement savings, and they’ll slap you with 33% card fees, foreclose your house and take your job, since you’re now an unreliable employee as a result of bad credit.

But that takes courage. Let’s just rail on about Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski, this week’s milk carton missing child, and the decline of “morality” among the poor. Dupes.

I’ve been staying out of this since I don’t have anything to add, but this really got my goat:

LaurieG 10.01.09 at 3:07 am (#252)

Is the United States the ONLY country in the world standing up for the safety of little girls?

Obviously not. Was that meant to be a stupid question?

This is a human rights issue. Child molesters don’t have any rights.

They forfeit many; they don’t forfeit all.

He should be brought back and given the maximum sentence possible.

Tempted to agree, though if maximum means death through natural causes I don’t think the retribution is sufficient motive. Punishment, yes.

Hollywoodites and Europeans reading this, be aware: There are a lot of people in the U.S. still standing for what we have always stood for—the protection of the innocent.

Oh please. Rights of the individual, yes. Protection of the innocent? You’re just another country, doing better than many, but falling far short of what you’d claim.

The vast majority of us are completely unimpressed by European (so-called) “culture,” and a great many of us see Europeans as having spinelessly caved in to the immoral social evils associated with your new government system. Or rather, one is the result of the other. We are the last bastion of Western CIVILIZATION and I guarantee you we aren’t giving it up without a fight.

Well, a great many of us Europeans (unfairly, perhaps) see you as consumed with a quite striking bilious, self-satisfied, self-serving, self-aggrandizing image of yourselves. Social evils my arse, quite frankly.

I pray we never get to the condition of spinelessness that we see in Europe.

I pray we never forget ourselves so far as to get to the condition of sanctimonious, self-righteous, incurious, bigoted, “no bullshit” bullshit that we see on occasion in the US.

Maybe a good old-fashioned hanging or two would send the right message.

And maybe not. The point is to be better than barbarians, not to outdo their barbarism.

I would hope to hear from at least one European reading this that the views expressed at the film awards in Switzerland that this sub-human was going to attend, do not reflect the views of all Europeans.

Well I’m European (by birth), as is Kieran Healy if I recall correctly, and the views expressed on that petition by self-deceiving or self-misguiding actors and directors do not reflect my own or Kieran’s, or any of my friends. And I suspect they don’t reflect the views of most Europeans, let alone all of them. Does that slake your thirst? or do you wish to vaunt your superiority over us in some other way?

But I’m not holding my breath.

Try it. It might stop you from posting such hateful bile in what should be a just cause.

“Dan S, why don’t you sit and figure up the total amount of money that has been thrown at the public school system in the last fifty or so years.”

I agree, it is a horrible shame how the Air Force has to keep holding all those bake sales just to buy a bomber or two.

After all, one would expect a country that’s the world’s richest and third most populous – while also having entrenched poverty, deep social divisions, substantial levels of immigration and a historical system of racial apartheid not legally abolished until well within living memory – should be able to fund a nation-wide system of public education for some spare change found under the White House sofa cushions, right?

Less flippantly, it really helps to keep in mind that in effect there isn’t actually a “public school system,” but several. At a minimum, there’s one for affluent, often suburban areas, one for often struggling rural(ish) areas and one for impoverished, often majority-minority, usually urban areas. There’s this persistent rhetorical twitch where these wildly different systems get subsumed/conflated/erased into each other, as if Philadelphia ($9,947 per pupil, per capita income $16, 509, median family income $37,036, 22.9% of the population below the poverty line) and suburban Lower Merion Township, PA ($17, 184 per pupil, per capita income $55,526, median family income $148,123, 4.5% of the population below the poverty line) shared the same school district.

Granted, this is going rather off topic, as Polanski is presumably too infirm to rape all of the eighth graders in the U.S. (and so clearly should be set free!)

“In fact, we should cut diplomatic ties with any country that does not respect the basic human right of a child”

For what it’s worth, we and Somalia are the only two countries which have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Granted, compared to some poverty-ridden, high-infant-mortality, child-soldier-using, underage-prostitution hotspot, we’re doing amazing, but compared to our peers . . . meh.

“Child molesters don’t have any rights.”
Yes they do – seriously curtailed of necessity in order to protect others, both directly and indirectly – but they’re still human. Depressingly.

“Hollywoodites and Europeans”

Again, this isn’t some issue of ” degenerate Hollywood and European cultures”, but privileged moral morons and those who imagine that they’re somehow allied to them vs. everyone else (here and in Europe)

“There are a lot of people in the U.S. still standing for what we have always stood for—the protection of the innocent.”

Well, as an ideal, and largely in retrospect, maybe. But as a practical matter, for quite a while certain innocents could be torn away from their (similarly enslaved) families, abused in every possible way (talk about rape culture!), and etc. Now, from the beginning there were folks here who opposed that, to their undying credit, and if you want to claim them as part of the heritage of Ideal America, I wholeheartedly agree. But as a historical matter . . .

“the immoral social evils associated with your [Europeans’?] new government system”
Wha . . .?

(And are there moral social evils?)

“I pray we never get to the condition of spinelessness that we see in Europe.”

I know – it would be hideous to have guaranteed affordable health care, sane levels of parental leave, reasonable access to child care, enough vacation days that one can actually get to spend time with one’s children, even home nurse visits for new parents. The horror – the horror! (Yes, I know this isn’t what you’re talking about – but again, it’s clear that Europe has no monopoly on child-rape apologists. Honestly, I wish we could roll up all evil and stupidity in a neat little ball of Other conveniently labeled ‘Hollywood and Europe’ (or ‘mega-rich vultures’, or ‘the GOP’, or whatever) – we’ve got a kid on the way, and I am horrified to find so many of my fellow citizens are apparently ok with them being either a middle-school-aged rape-object or a middle-aged child-rapist (if of sufficient fame and status) – but I don’t know if it’s that easy.

“ We are fighting for a minimum of life in prison without parole for people who rape children, and we will win.”

I disagree with a lot of what roy belmont and cripes are saying, but they’re right that one has to careful – from what I’ve , there is a real problem with people being imprisoned for years/hounded for life because as kids they engaged in with consensual sex with other kids, etc. Not that justice is a finite&conserved quantity and letting Polanski go will somehow fix this, or that cases like his are in any way analogous to that! But we want to avoid slipping into a worst-of-both-worlds scenario, where there are seriously punitive consequences for the poor and middling sorts – even when this is wildly disproportionate to the actual acts – but in practice the wealthy and well-connected get away with slaps on the wrist. (I know you certainly don’t want the latter, but given the distribution of power, I can see what those two are worrying about, where this utterly appropriate outrage ends up falling on the low, but missing the high. Not sure what to do about that. Keeping quiet about Polanski’s crimes & the current vomitous outpouring of rape apologia obviously isn’t the answer – again, there’s no law of conservation of (in)justice where pooh-poohing rape reduces the amount of privilege & neofeudalism in the world; if anything they share a distant & tangled root in the idea that those “above” own & can dominate those “below”; oppressions are intertwined and overlapping, etc.), but . . .

“ And I personally would deem the death penalty more appropriate for such crimes. Maybe a good old-fashioned hanging or two would send the right message.”

Of course, there’s the obvious problem with the justice system’s documented inability to determine guilt accurately enough to get to dispense such irreversible and uncurtailable punishment. Beyond that, I’d personally oppose the death penalty for any crimes, on the grounds that just as high-status primate Polanski doesn’t get to rape children, super high-status metaphorical primate ‘The State’ doesn’t get to kill folks.

Of course – roy and cripes, beating straw-torchbearing peasants is fun, but note that at best the only (partial) example in this whole almost-300-comment thread is Laurie, and most of the other discussions I’ve seen don’t even have one. Not that there aren’t real life examples, but seriously!

Search for ‘immediate’. Two cases found:

I raise my voice for immediate release Roman Polanski.
Important and immediate issue, my ass.

what on earth do the “19 year olds who have sex with 17 year olds, peeping toms and public urinators” have to do with Polanski?

About as much as evil bankers, health care, credit card fees, high unemployment, drugs, prostitution, foreclosures, and the Iraq invasion do.

“It’s about identity politics, and that we must prove ourselves feminists with an exuberant outrage at this insignificant miscreant. Are we, or are we not, sympathetic to child rapists? Important and immediate issue, my ass. Mom, apple pie, flag for the SWPL set.”

1) You should read Dr. B’s post, which starts off in a vaguely similar place, but ends up with very different conclusions, and 2) As I wrote above, most if not all of this “exuberant outrage” would seem to be in response to the exuberant rape apologism (-gasm?) pouring out of various folks, everything from “but Nazis were mean to him” (poor Roman, the only person in the world who ever suffered horribly at the hands of the Nazis!) to “it was her mom’s fault” (apparently her mom invisibly teleported into the house, used mind-control powers to make Polanski give her daughter drugs and alcohol, and then – oh, I don’t even want to go there). I don’t think feminist purity tests tend to be a useful road to go down, but if somebody needs one for some reason, I’d say calling out blatant and noisy rape apologists is as reasonable a demand as any!

The recently unearthed vintage video of Polanski on “To Catch a Predator.”

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/conservative-satire/roman-polanski-on-to-catch-a-predator/

Cripes, you are right! But nothing you say excuses Roman Polanski’s actions from rape to fleeing. The power brokers, every last one of them, need to face justice.

Cripes is very, very good at making the complex and deep connections between seemingly unrelated issues (and sentence fragments) than any mere human. We are blessed by his presence.