Roman Polanski Must Finally Be Brought to Justice

Roman Polanski, 76, is a very famous man, and sometimes for having experienced unfathomable tragedy. Though he escaped Poland during the Nazi occupation, his mother was killed at the Auschwitz concentration camp. In 1969 his pregnant wife, actress Sharon Tate, was butchered at the savage hands of Charles Manson's murderous disciples.

Polanski's also known great success as the brilliant director of several acclaimed films including Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown. But let's be very, very clear about one thing: none of the above has anything to do with the fact that he raped a 13-year old child, nor should his life experiences be used, as some are suggesting, to excuse this despicable act and keep him from being extradited to the United States from Switzerland, where he was arrested days ago, and ultimately jailed.

Back in 1977, the then-44-year-old Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. He was sent for psychiatric evaluation and released after a 42-days, after which he fled to France fearing imprisonment. He's had an arrest warrant outstanding since 1978.

I'm sorry, but it should not matter how horrifically he or his family has suffered; how talented he is; how much time has passed; or who has "forgiven" him, as his now-45-year-old victim has done publicly. He's an admitted rapist; an on-the-lam coward who's thumbed his nose at the law for over thirty years.

Is there really any debate here? Are there really two sides to this story? He raped a child, for Pete's sake. He plied her with drugs, alcohol, and sodomized her. This was not "consensual sex," as a 13-year-old is neither old enough or mature enough to engage in such acts. In America we have laws against 44-year-old men drugging and raping little children. It's absolutely unconscionable that anyone would imply that his cinematic accomplishments should be reason to cut him slack. How dare they. It's time that Polanski pay the price for what he's done. And, he should now serve even more time for fleeing our criminal justice system. The ultimate message from this case cannot be, "make some great films and we'll let you rape kids without punishment."

 

Comments

[zahara2603]

12:50 AM on 10/04/2009

Thanks Andy.

POLANSKI MUST FACE JUSTICE

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-does-not-excuse-rape-polanski-must-face-justice

[zeefra]

03:03 PM on 10/04/2009

Don't make me laugh. Americans are hopping up and down mad about Polanski, who admits he had unlawful sex with a minor. Major breaking news.

But where were these outraged Americans when the US invaded Iraq, and over the last 5 years alone have killed more than 100,000 civilian Iraqis? Oh yeah, I forgot. Any non-American is a lower form of the human species, so it doesn't really matter. Is Bush being prosecuted? No. And which is the most seriously crime?

Brilliant, America. Let's go after Polanski...

[petegrif]

04:45 AM on 10/05/2009

apparently you haven't noticed that there have been many outraged americans when the US invaded Iraq etc etc

It has apparently escaped your attention that this thread is not about iraq of the doubtless millions of other moral shortcomings of the US. It is about Polanski. Jees.

[jackbutler5555]

08:50 AM on 10/03/2009

Andy, have you learned anything recently that would make you change your article? Do you want to learn more? Or do you feel the nature of the crime is sufficient to excuse any mistakes you may have made?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman1.html

[spiritpony1]

09:35 PM on 10/03/2009

oh please---

[jackbutler5555]

10:09 PM on 10/03/2009

Would you lie to expand on that?

[Jeff Norman]

01:40 AM on 10/02/2009

You assert, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski "raped a child" and "plied her with drugs, alcohol, and sodomized her." But that's not really a fact. It's merely an accusation, one that you haven't even tried to support.

Got anything?

[DCMediagirl]

02:16 PM on 10/02/2009

"Got anything?"

Yes. It's called a court transcript. Look into it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

[Jeff Norman]

05:59 PM on 10/02/2009

As I said, it's an accusation, not a fact.

[jackbutler5555]

07:47 PM on 10/02/2009

That's her version of what took place. You probably can come up with something better, no?

[spiritpony1]

09:47 PM on 10/03/2009

no point in bothering w/ this bird; so far, it's only an "accusation" re: garrido's actions (alleged) and eliz. smart's kidnapperc's (alleged)----------but, they aren't famous well-heeled celebs.-----guess what, dude, this is largely a CLASS ISSUE_------

[jackbutler5555]

07:54 AM on 10/04/2009

Class issue, eh. Well, class doesn't enter into a discussion of whether people with money get better lawyers than people without. So, what would like to have happen to fix the problem?

[tomcrews86]

03:02 PM on 10/01/2009

Lets be honest people. Americans don't want an older man to have sex with a 13 year old...but nature has equipped both to do it despite what Americans want. If nature has seen fit to allow it, are you sure right to call it "wrong" and not just pruddish?

[DCMediagirl]

11:27 AM on 10/05/2009

It's right to call it "wrong" when it's illegal. But I guess some only call it "wrong" when the sex takes place between a young girl and an older man in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Africa...then it's barbaric, right?

[Jeff Norman]

02:00 PM on 10/05/2009

Yes, society says it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a minor. But society also says it's wrong to state, as if it were an undisputed fact, that a person has committed a crime when that person has neither confessed to nor been convicted of the alleged crime. Right?

[Skeptiqone]

12:47 AM on 10/01/2009

I agree. I don't even have a daughter, but if I did, oh my, I would probably be in prison for revenge. It was a terrible crime, and he had money and connections to get away with it.

[kiksadi50]

02:25 PM on 09/30/2009

it is unfortunate that polanski chose to flee because the issue is no longer about the original alleged crime, it is now about his breaking the law by fleeing. if he were not a famous, popular & wealthy individual, with a tragic past would be still be crying for his "individual rights". we cannot refuse to pardon or comute the sentence of some one like Leonard Peltier, who has never admitted to the crime he has been inprisoned for, but pardon polanski who pled guilty to part of the charge did admit to part of the charge & then fled. he has really tied the hands of the justice system. I personally would like to see him banned from the U.S. for life, & let it go at that. close the case, move on; the victim has. and she is a victim. she too, has paid, & continues to pay as her identity has been bashed & broadcast over the years. she deserves closure. meanwhile why was her mother, who was present during the incident ever held responsible for her part in allowing this to happen.

[Tallulah Morehead]

03:56 AM on 09/30/2009

Okay, I agree with your whole posting, but...

You looked at the Huffington entertainment page, saw the 7000 blog pieces on Polanski, and thought "It needs one more"? If I see ONE MORE POLANSKI PIECE on this page, my eyeballs will explode!!!!

Move on, writers! Hey, didn't Jon Gosselin do anything stupid today? What is Susan Boyle up to?

Time to LET IT GO. The story will be around for MONTHS as Roman fights extradiction, since manning up is clearly not in his playbook. But as of today, if we put together all the two cents that each writer and commenter (including me) has tossed in, we could pay off the National Debt.

[humaneismyth]

04:51 AM on 09/30/2009

who are you to tell others what to let go of and when to let go of it?I have a 13 year old niece..and I have to tell you..I haven't heard enough of this case until Polanski is behind bars for life.

[jackbutler5555]

07:52 PM on 10/02/2009

I guess Tallulah, you're frustrated we're not doing what you want us to do. Now don't get mad. But we're going to do what we want to do -- even though you want us to work on Gosselin. But I am concerned about your eyeballs. If they're really going to explode -- and if you're unable to turn away from the cause of the explosion, I'll do my best to make the others talk about Kate Plus 8.

[Ramaeker]

03:47 AM on 09/30/2009

Does it not complicate things at all that 13 and 14 are the ages of consent in lots of places? That even the notion of ages of consent, indeed of "childhood" itself, are fairly recent cultural inventions? I'm not offering this as a defense per se, but I wonder about the Nancy Grace-like pitch of the moral outrage, and the fact that I have seen so few commentators thinking about this situation, rather than simply reacting emotionally.

[piul05]

08:07 AM on 09/30/2009

I could see some point in your argument if we were talking about a 17/18/19/20 year-old man and a genuine relationship, whether culturally produced (such as the match-making that goes on in tribal societies, with all the responsibilities and ritualistic mechanisms it entails), or the result of a normal encounter between two young people. My own grandmother was 14 when she got married (at the beginning of the century), and my grandfather was 19. She had her first child at the age of 15 and the last one (my father) at the age of 45, and their marriage lasted over 60 years.

Now, there is no moral equivalence between that and a 44 year-old man drugging and forcing himself upon a 13-year-old. No culture that condones that.

[gappedtoothgodwarrior]

09:21 AM on 09/30/2009

No it doesn't complicate things at all. Regardless of what the consent age is elsewhere the age of consent was not 14 in California. To say "well it's younger elsewhere" is countered by the fundamental truth "ignorance of the law is no defense"

Oh and the fact that this was a drug assisted rape, it doesn't matter how old the victim is in that case. Drug assisted rape is a heinous crime regardless of the age of the victim, that the victim in this case was a child merely adds a further level of despicably to Polanski's act.

[jackbutler5555]

02:50 PM on 10/05/2009

How do you know it was a "drug-assisted rape?"

[Michael Seitzman]

01:06 AM on 09/30/2009

Nice, Andy. My sentiments exactly.

[Steve Lanham]

11:16 PM on 09/29/2009

Thanks Andy, finally somebody else gets it.... These people defending this monster are crazy. People do you hear yourselves defending a rapist? Have you all lost your minds?


Once again THANK YOU Andy for injecting some sanity.

[onwisconsin]

08:41 PM on 09/29/2009

Finally, a HuffPost blogger who gets it. Thank you!

[janie@atthelake]

09:51 PM on 09/29/2009

Absolutely! I enjoy his films...but what he did to a girl at 13 is wrong. He must face the law. (does not surprise me that Woody Allen is on this rah rah team).
Thank you Andy!

[jackbutler5555]

07:57 PM on 10/02/2009

Did Woody Allen screw an underage girl?

[javaz]

08:12 PM on 09/29/2009

Thank you.

[Secularist]

07:46 PM on 09/29/2009

Rape and statutory rape are vastly different crimes. People have a puritanical, knee-jerk reaction to sex acts that they rightly consider icky, but they should not let those feelings alone cloud their judgement. When you consider the damage done to the victim as well as the intent of the person doing the harm, you should see that while both are wrong, there is in fact a world of difference between a rapist attacking women in alleys and the kind of thing you see on "To Catch a Predator". To quote a Marc Maron joke, "All men like young girls. That's why there has to be a law."
Polanski only admitted to the statutory rape charge and denies the more serious rape allegations.

[Andy Ostroy]

08:28 PM on 09/29/2009

This is the most ridiculous parsing of terminology ever. I'm sure your philosophy would be different if it was your 13-year-old daughter who was drugged and raped in all three orifices by a perverted jerk three times her age. And I'm sorry, pal, not all men "like young girls." Only insecure creeps on a power trip, who cannot relate or successfully interact with women their own age, like little girls. Your post reminds me of the NAMBLA freaks who justify their perversion with "what a grown man and a 10 year old boy decide to do in private is their business." My God, did you actually read what you wrote before you hit send?

[Secularist]

09:22 PM on 09/29/2009

Read my post again. I called both kinds of rape a crime. But just as manslaughter differs from premeditated murder, so does statutory rape differ from the other kind. Degrees of a crime do matter, and the criminal system recognizes that.

And you clearly did not get the joke. I did not say men like little girls, I said men like young girls, which is why porn shops are full of "Barelly Legal" DVDs. And the main point was that it's a good thing that we have a law, because it's needed.

If my daughter was raped, I'd probably want the guy dead. If it was statutory rape, however, and the guy ran away from serving further jail time after being publicly humiliated, serving for a brief time already, and paying off in a settlement to which I agreed to, I certainly wouldn't get that riled up about it. And if I knew that he has since lived peacefully and productively without causing further harm to others, I would not lead a witch hunt and call for his head.

[jackbutler5555]

07:59 PM on 10/02/2009

"This is the most ridiculous parsing of terminology ever

Ever?

[kellec]

09:53 PM on 09/29/2009

so did you read the transcripts on Smoking Gun ?
why not do that - then make a more informed comment
13 years old........R A P E

[Secularist]

03:35 PM on 09/30/2009

In all fairness, if I'm not mistaken, those transcripts are only of the victim's testimony, and Polanski denies many of those allegations. Ultimately, the other charges were dismissed with the exception of the statutory rape charge, although, of course, that does not necessarily mean that some of those dismissed charges were not true.

[jerkzilla]

04:51 PM on 09/29/2009

So both sides of this argument , the apologists and the rage-a-holics, are missing one thing: Why Now? It's the one question that's the most important in this case, and it's the one question that nobody will ever seriously probe. (remember real investigative journalism? sigh.) For 31 years this guy hasn't been extradited and everybody knew full well where he was. He hasn't exactly been living in a spider-hole for the last 31 years, but now is the time the L.A Prosecutor's office decides to go after Polanski? Why? I'm not enying that the guy should face justice, but why now? I highly suspect that behind the story of "We Got Him!", there's a more sinister story about how and why the D.A. decided that they needed the press at this particular juncture in time. So everybody think. Put down your pitchforks and your petitions to the Swiss authorities and really think for a minute: Why Now?

[Andy Ostroy]

08:30 PM on 09/29/2009

Does it really matter "why now?" A crime was committed. The criminal never served jail time. Who cares when the law catches up with him?

[Secularist]

09:27 PM on 09/29/2009

But he did serve jail time, though you'd no doubt prefer he stayed longer.

[jerkzilla]

08:40 AM on 09/30/2009

It does matter. They had 31 years to catch him. The guy's not Bin Laden. He wasn't hiding in the caves of an inhospitable mountain range. He had a house in the country where he was arrested. They could have walked up to his house at any time and grabbed him. Why did the Swiss decide that NOW was the time to arrest him? What machinations were at work behind the scenes that forced the Swiss police's hands at this point in time? If we as a society let our outrage at the monsterous act this man committed blind us to what could be not-so-heroic behind the scenes actions by the D.A's office, how is that okay?

[wonder6789]

04:09 PM on 09/29/2009

If every pop or rock musician who had been sexually involved with a young teenager under influence of drugs and booze was to be arrested, the American music industry would stop in its tracks and the Grammy and Rock'nRoll Hall of Fame ceremonies would have to be cancelled and for the next few decades.

[politicalpollyanna]

06:54 PM on 09/29/2009

Huh? Your defense is "No big whoop. Everybody does it?" Oy!

If every pop or rock musician pled guilty to drugging and sodomizing a young teenager but ran like a coward when it came time to face the consequences of their actions was to be arrested; GOOD!

[Secularist]

07:54 PM on 09/29/2009

Polanski pled guilty only to having sex with a minor. And speaking of the drug charges, if you give a teenager a beer at a party, does that mean you drugged him or her? It's wrong, but there is a world of difference between sharing a joint or offering a teen a pill (she took it, right? He didn't shove it down her throat. They shared it) and slipping somebody a mickey.