A Child Rapist Is Not a Political Prisoner
Right-minded souls who reject claims of mitigating circumstances in the case of Roman Polanski should follow the example of Fred Goldman. He's the father of Ron Goldman, the waiter who was butchered along with Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson's ex-wife. Since Simpson's acquittal in 1995, Mr. Goldman has refused to utter the name of his son's accused murderer. Instead he calls him "the killer." This is what Polanski's opponents should do on TV. Refer to him only as "the child rapist." Remind people of what he is. Put his defenders on the spot. Notice how they avoid mentioning the specific crime to which he pleaded guilty. And when they do, they're made to wish they hadn't. (We'll get to Whoopi Goldberg in a moment.) So let them bring up the Holocaust, Charlie Manson, Judge Rittenband. It'll make no difference. Every time viewers hear "the child rapist," their hearts will harden against any morally relativistic argument.
As for his defenders, many of whom I've admired, they should be ashamed. Among those who've signed the petition demanding the child rapist's release: Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Darren Aronofsky, Sam Mendes, Mike Nichols, Steven Soderbergh, Pedro Almodovar, Alfonso Cuaron, Bernardo Bertolucci, Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Paul Auster, Jeremy Irons, Harrison Ford, Penelope Cruz, and Natalie Portman. (Woody Allen signed it too, but I crossed off the little creep when he slept with his lover's adopted daughter.) I was especially disappointed to see Rushdie's name. I've interviewed him. He's a warm, funny, brilliant man who was forced to go into hiding for years after publishing a novel that offended militant Muslims. But the child rapist spoke up for him during that dark period so Rushdie may be repaying a debt. Whoopi Goldberg has no such excuse. "Rape-rape"? A curious observation from an actress whose first leading role was as a young victim of repeated sexual abuse in The Color Purple. If what Goldberg says is true and there's a difference between "rape" and "rape-rape," every convicted date rapist should be pardoned. Unless they used provable physical violence, they did nothing wrong. As my Cuban parents would say, "Que comemierda!"
Since she shot herself in the foot on The View, Goldberg has been awfully quiet. As have most of the signatories to the petition. Their agents and publicists probably advised them to shut up after public opinion was found to run overwhelmingly against the child rapist. I'll be charitable. Maybe they were unfamiliar with the details of the 30-year-old case. Maybe they believed the child rapist was a worthy cause to rally around. But a child rapist is not a political prisoner. Political prisoners tend to be brave and selfless. A middle-aged man who treats a 13-year-old girl like an inflatable sex doll, and who then flees justice, is a degenerate and a coward. This is Humbert Humbert we're talking about, not Nelson Mandela.
Conservatives have trouble fathoming why writers and filmmakers attack the rich and the powerful. Why don't they produce works like Atlas Shrugged, which celebrate the strong at the expense of the weak? But art requires empathy. If you're an artist, chances are you're drawn to underdogs. And yet Hollywood overlooked a horrible act perpetrated on a helpless minor by an acclaimed director. Another Oscar-winning director, Bernardo Bertolucci, signed that petition. In his film, The Dreamers, a poet's son quotes one of his father's lines: "A petition is a poem, a poem is a petition." Last week, Bertolucci and his friends wrote a lousy poem.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"But art requires empathy. If you're an artist, chances are you're drawn to underdogs. And yet Hollywood overlooked a horrible act perpetrated on a helpless minor by an acclaimed director."
Think about the recent movies by some of those who signed the petition. Art or repackaged formula? What I find the most silly about this is that, for people who have made statements regarding the terrible crime of piracy, or who have had the silly anti-piracy PSAs placed on their DVDs, they think child rape is something to be excused. These people aren't artists. They're simply modern aristocratic prostitutes.
The news that has not been seen in Huffington is that Sarkosy's interview in Le Figaro, here in France.
He said "Mais j'ajoute que ce n'est pas une bonne administration de la justice que de se prononcer 32 ans après les faits alors que l'intéressé a aujourd'hui 76 ans." which means "I add that it is not a good application of justice to rule after 32 years when the person is 76 years old today. "
Sarkosy doesn't seem to care that a majority of french are not in favor of supporting POLANSKI.
Sarkosy himself knows that there is NO time limitation prescribed to what Polanski, himself admitted to doing to a 13 year old girl.
What is 'unfortunate' is that a not-so-popular party in France, Front National, the extreme right, is 'correct' with its declarations against Mitterand (french minister that support Polanski and who exclaimed that United States is scary). The Front National reflects the values of the majority of french people as it concerns the Polanski affaire. I say 'unfortunate' because not a lot of french want to be connected to Front National but in this case, it does seem to be the only party that has the moral-and- sense-of-justice that reflects the majority of french.
It's also been written that Sarkosy called Obama concerning Polanski. Whether this is true or not, I'm happy to say that United States is not a banana republic in which the President can pardon Polanski.
Thank you. I think this highlights the ridiculousness of that petition. I'm sure a rational case can be made for Polanski, but I have yet to hear it. Instead this petition scrapes every last bottom-of-the-barrel excuse for Polanski, which tells me that this is not about fairness for these signers- it is squarely about favoritism for their cinema god. I've yet to hear one intelligent argument for Polanski. Everyone can conjecture all they want about celebrity, elitism, conspiracies. Emotions run high on both sides, but the bottom line is: Reneging on a plea agreement is 100% legal. Fleeing a charge is 100% illegal. Rape is 100% illegal. Statutory rape is 100% illegal. Corruption of a minor is 100% illegal. It doesn't matter if you think it's "fair." What is "fair" is what is the law in that country.
What's truly appalling is the degree of vengefulness against Polanski exhibited by some people on this and other sites. Anyone who says that maybe the victim and her family have it right, and that Polanski has seen enough jail time, is "misogynist" or "pro-rape:" Frankly, it's contemptible to suggest that the victim and her mother's input regarding sentencing should be ignored.
But, let's assume for a moment that for some reason we SHOULD ignore the victim and her mother's desire, and that the state should determine the sentence without considering them. Why, the representatives of the state--the DA, the probation officer's report, the psychiatrists who had Polanski in the prison psychiatric ward for 42 days--all recommended against imprisonment in favor of probation. EVERYONE CLOSEST TO THE CASE--the victim, her mother, the DA, the probation officers, and the psychiatrists who examined Polanski--felt that Polanski should NOT be imprisoned, but be on probation. The probation officers interviewed everyone involved with the case--Polanski, the victim, her mother, the witnesses at Nicholson's house, the shrinks, the physicians who examined the victim--and wrote a forthright recommenadtion against imprisonment. By what vengeful whim are all these people, who are MOST aware of the circumstances and the events of the case, to be ignored? It's just indefensible.
Quote: "Why, the representatives of the state--the DA, the probation officer's report, the psychiatrists who had Polanski in the prison psychiatric ward for 42 days--all recommended against imprisonment in favor of probation."
To answer your main question Long Tom: they all recommended again imprisonment in favor of probation either because they were all corrupt or "dazzled" by the child rapist's fame and maybe by his hardship studded life.
Personally it makes me sick that they should wave the holocaust survivor + pregnant wife assassination stories in order to excuse what he did. That would mean that all the holocaust survivors/their children have carte blanche to doind whatever they can now, since they have suffered so much ...
Are you really saying that 42 days (!!!!!) in the psychiatric ward should be enough for raping a 13 year old child? ???
As for the girl's mother: she should be in jail too. I wonder if there were any kind of repercussions of her deeds affecting her.
LongTom - you seem confused.
It is not a matter of vengefulness. It is a matter of appropriate retribution for a heinous act. Retribution which seems to accord with both the law and the moral sense of most people. Gracia asks an excellent question - do you really think 42 days psychiatric evaluation is an appropriate sentence for drugging, sexually assaulting and sodomized a 13 year old child? Would you feel ok about that if it was your child? Or anyone near and dear to you? I strongly suspect not. I certainly haven't encountered anyone who feels that is appropriate.
As for your point about people's opinions about what should happen to Polanski you seem to have overlooked the rather important fact that all of these opinions could have been brought into play by him in sentencing (and remember he was never sentenced!!!). But he chose to skip the country. It was his choice. Nobody made him do it.
the truth is simple. He committed a heinous crime. He was going to get off a lot easier than most people feel appropriate but chose to skip even the likely light sentence heading his way. He is a scofflaw.
The conversation about what constitute sexual abuse is long overdue. Anyone who thinks that it is alright for a 43 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl, consensual or not, should ask themselves why they think this way. Are you dazzled by the fact that Roman Polanski fled the country and immediately took up with a fifteen year old? He is famous and rich so he is entitled? What do you think of the fact that Philip Garrido abducted a young girl, fathered two children with her and incorporated her successfully into his life? They seemed like a typical family to all concerned, until he was caught. Will you treat him the same way as you wish Roman Polanski to be treated? And what about Charles Manson who killed no one but who has spent his life behind bars because someone else did his bidding? Was he truly responsible for murder when someone else carried out his wishes? Is Roman Polanski a deviant character or is he doing what others do every day without being caught? Isn't it time to ask why Whoopi Goldberg thinks there are different kinds of rape, some worse than others?
I am curious as to whether or not everyone who expresses outrage that this guy fled prior to sentencing would be satisfied if he served out time as per the original plea bargain agreement and sentencing? From what I am reading I guess Polanski was expecting either time served or 90 days which would exclude the time he was in the psychiatric hospital (which I believe was 42 days). That means he could have potentially served an additional 47 days in jail following sentencing. I know that such a deal was never finalized and he was subject to more time under the judge's final ruling but it seems odd to me that people are outraged that he fled before "justice was served". Would justice have been served under a 42-90 day stint in jail or in a psychiatric hospital? Was justice served when he was able to plea down his charges to the lesser crime? The real outrage is that crimes like rape can treated so lightly by our so called "justice" system. I agree that what this guy did was despicable but by focusing so much outrage on this individual specifically rather than the overall system we take the focus off of an even larger tragedy.
I would be happy if he were returned and charged for fleeing justice. The victim say she wants it to go away. Serving out time under the original agreement would let it go away for her. Then the justice system should charge him with the crime that does not involve her in any way... fleeing the US.
excellent point. totally agree.
Polanski might be a sort of political prisoner. Swiss Ministers are still trying to quieten a ruckus here as to why the Swiss Department of Justice chose to Act just now.
Polanski was allowed by the Swiss Government to buy an Apartment almost within sight of the Swiss Parliament in Berne, He visited regularily and was known to the Police. In fact he was in Police hands only a few months ago. He had had a car accident and the Police attended, investigated and checked up on the drivers. They must have noted that one of the drivers was subject to an international warrant.
I frankly do not care what will happen to this old man, once the Americans get him. I just want this be over with.
Polanski certainly took advantage of her youth, it was rape, and he should face the consequences made during the plea bargain at the time, and punishment for running away.
But the court records also showed the girl had a 17 yr old boyfriend with whom she'd had sex before the rape, and had previously taken quaaludes and other drugs. That does not excuse him in the least, but be clear about the facts. He did not grab a child off the street, drug her into oblivion and rape her.
If you cite her previous sexual experience, you are in essence giving the child rapist an excuse. At 12 years old, it is not her actions that are in question it is his. The violence is the illegal administration of drugs which acted as chemical restraints in addition to the physical penetration. All rape is violent because it violates a person's body. If the child had been a comatose patient the ability to consent would be the same. A 12 year old CANNOT give consent. The child rapist must pay for his crimes.
In America, we don't consider non virgins more acceptable rape victims.
No, he lured her into the home of a friend with promise of lucrative work and advancement in her career. He then drugged her and in spite of her obvious distress and an asthma attack he raped her. Her past sexual habits do not make up for the truly evil acts of a 40+ year old man.
Actually, if you read the transcript, she was so terrified she faked the asthma attack in an attempt to get him to let her go. Which makes it all the sadder.
This is "the people of California vs. Polanski" not a civil matter. The victim does not get to decide who is tried and who isn't. Everyone who is repeating that the victim wants to drop the charge, it doesn't matter. What if her feelings went the other way? What if she was demanding he was chemically castrated or given a life sentence? The victim does not have the final say.
I have been thinking about this situation. How would you feel if you were a 13 year old girl today, recently raped by a 43 year old man and you read an hear about all the people who think Polanski should be free and not do any time for his crime? Plus it was not rape rape?
Walk a mile in her shoes because she is NOT FICTIONAL
Let's be clear here. This was not an adult and a teenager cuddling on a couch that then turned into more than it should have. As repulsive as that may be. This is a man who used drugs and alcohol to rednder a 13 year old insensible and then brutally sodomized her. These are stipulated facts in the case. This is a brutal sadistic predator. The fact it was plea bargained down, no doubt due to hesitancy or of the child to testify, does not mean it was not rape. It was sexual assualt of the most brutal and predatory kind.
Walk ten seconds in her shoes and you'll find she wants Polanski left alone.
Did you know last January, she filed court papers asking a judge to dimiss all charges?
Of course that's not how they decide whether or not to prosecute cases, but you're the one telling me to get in the victim's shoes.
The victim says, she really wishes everyone would do that, and leave this thing in the past.
But we're not going to listen to the victim, so I hope it's fast.
No and we shouldn't be listening to her, her opinion is obviously subjective. He broke the law...more than once. To let him have a "get out of jail free" card is to say to every rape victim out there "don't bother going after the person who attacked you, chances are he will not serve any time." It sets a terrible precedent. The law needs to be followed to protect all girls and women.
she sued polanski
she subsequently reached a settlement
nuff said
As I understand it, Whoopi's comments were a feeble attempt to distinguish "illegal sexual intercourse" (called statutory rape in some states, that is, "consensual" sexual relations with an adolescent minor) from sexual assault (generally called rape).
Polanski admitted guilt to the former and the DA dropped charges for the latter.
Those who say they are defending America's justice system should be willing to accept the same system's distinctions.
Part I
Not quite. She started her comment by saying "he went to jail, he pled (sic) guilty to having sex with this young lady;so, it's not like he allegedly had sex...he DID have sex with her; what I'm saying is that he did not rape her because she was aware, her family was aware.." at this point, someone else asks "Was it consensual?"; to which Goldberg reply "well, I don't know if it were consensual." (!!!). Then we have the "rape rape" comment, followed later by “He went to jail and when they let him out he was like, ‘This guy’s going to give me 100 years. I’m not staying." “We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently. Would I want my 14 year old having sex? Not necessarily, no.” Those are not the comments of someone who is particular about getting the legal language right; these are the comments of an apologist.
http://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape+rape
(continue...)
As I understand it "illegal sexual intercourse" means (as I mentioned above) consensual sex between a adolescent minor and an adult.
Well, I hate to tell you, but if the DA and the victim both agreed to call it this and to drop the rape charge then they were willing to present the crime as consensual (insofar as that term can be applied to sexual relations with a minor).
So again, Whoopi's comments about not knowing were actually correct: in the Grand Jury deposition, the victim clearly said it was not consensual, but then she accepted an agreement which suggested that it was. In other words, we don't know to what degree it was consensual.
Frankly, I think Polanski coerced her, but the DA didn't think he could (or should) prove that.
Part II
Now, Polanski was indicted by a grand-jury on 6 charges, Including rape and sodomy, that had the penalty of life. The prosecution in the case let him plead guilty to a lesser charge, dropping 5 of the 6 charges. However, the Judge in the case informed them that although he would allow him to plead guilty to the lesser charge, he wasn't going along with "time served", for the 42 days he was in psychiatric observation, setting then a date for sentencing. Polanski then ran to France. If I'm not mistaken, his escape renders the plea bargain null and void. All six charges are back on the table, plus one for absconding.
"If I'm not mistaken, his escape renders the plea bargain null and void."
Doubtlessly (and correctly) he will face consequences for having fled sentencing. But I think it is extremely improbably that the DA will try to charge him for rape now, 30+ years after the crime, with almost no physical evidence and only one eye-witness (the victim) who would be hostile to this.
The DA didn't think he could (or should) get the rape charge 30+ years ago; and today the prosecution's situation has hardly improved.
Murder is the same way.
You get drunk and run over someone with your car, and you're guilty of manslaughter. You killed someone. It's murder, but it's not murder murder. You might think of first degree murder as murder murder.
I think it's weird how people think that rape shouldn't be categorized like any other crime. There are degrees to it - that's a fact of our legal system.
Some murder is worse than other murder in our system. Some theft is worse than other theft. And even though all rape is rape, some rape - again, as far as our legal system is concerned - is worse than other rape.
Legal issues need approached clinically. Objectively. Referring to the man as a child rapist is awesome, sure. Everybody's anti-child rape. What a bold stance.
What I am is pro-child rape VICTIM. And that's why I really want to listen to this particular victim. I think it's what we owe her.
BS. If you were REALLY "pro-victim" you would be supportive of ALL girls and women who have been and will be raped. Again, it sets a precedent to let Polanski or any rapist walk. Women and girls NEED to know that if they are going to report the rape, that there is a very good chance the rapist will be procecuted for the crime and the horrible fall out to reporting the rape in the first place isn't in vain.
Manslaughter in the case you describe would be an accident—you didn’t set out to kill someone, but your irresponsible use of alcohol caused someone’s accidental death. This is awful, but it is not the same thing as killing someone on purpose.
Rape on the other hand is rather difficult to do accidentally, did he drink so much that he passed out on top of her and accidentally had sex with her? All rape is “Rape-Rape”
Yes, without a doubt, the victim's wishes should be given great weight in this discussion.
A victim of such a crime should feel supported by the law, not manipulated and abandoned. She correctly called that a "cruel joke".
Bring home the child rapist to face American justice. Boycott artists who protect the child rapist. Ignore bloggers who rationalize his actions and suggest light sentences.
I'm an agnostic (not quite an atheist), and I strongly support seeing Polanski brought to justice. Religion or lack of it has nothing to do with any of it, as far as I am concerned.
Have you been boycotting artists who have supported Polanski for the last thirty years, or did you just start last week when your television told you to?
Cause, you shouldn't have been seeing an Harrison Ford movies, or watching the Academy Awards, or buying any French products.
What's weird about all of this to me is - aside from everyone's insistence that their outrage is more important than the victim's peace - is that the outrage was all but invisible this whole time he's been kicking it in France.
Pretty tough to sustain outrange for 30 years. He is now back in our consciousness and justice for his crime is a possiblity, so we can express our outrage again. I remember his skipping town 30 years ago. I was angry then that he got away with it. Thought he was a horrible little creep, but I must admit I did see the Pianist, and it was a great movie. He is a gifted artist, no doubt about it. But I do hope he goes to prison like any other adult who has sex with a 13-year-old and evades justice for 30 years.
To tell the truth very few people would have noticed Polanski’s arrest (despite his apparent icon status in Hollywood) because, as Chris Rock said, he was just a guy that made a good movie 30 years ago. What has brought so much attention and anger to this case is Polanski defenders EXCUSING his horrible crime, and trying to use their fame, money, and influence to let him go free.
See this for the best refutation of Hollywood’s defense of Polanski
http://johnshore.com/2009/10/05/hollywood-go-polanski-yourself/
Roman Polanski is a child rapist. Anyone who argues that is a fool.
That being said, the rapist was tried in an american court, struck a plea deal, served out the terms of the plea deal, was released early by the prison psychiatrist for not being a "sexual deviant", and upon his release the public called for his head and the deal was rescinded. This is not acceptable in a court of law. The rapist left the country like any individual would that has no faith in the american legal system.
He will walk. There will be a big hubbub, and that poor woman will have to relive this all over again for our entertainment- but a deal is a deal, and when they broke the deal without legal justification... he gets to go home.
@rasada -- one important correction: the rapist did not serve out the terms of the plea deal, nor was he released early. In fact, he had yet to be sentenced.
The rapist left the country like any (rich, well-connected) coward who cannot accept responsibility for his actions.
actually, "a deal" is not a deal: a judge is not legally bound by a plea bargain that a prosecutor makes. You have a misunderstanding of how the American legal system works.
You obviously don't even know the most superficial elements of the case. Polanski NEVER served his time. THAT'S THE POINT. He was held for clinical evaluation, and was released pending sentencing. Please refrain from discussion until you get a clue.
At the end of the day, nothing he's gone through in life, no amount of accomplishments, no circumstances , nothing whatsoever at all makes it ok for a 40 something year old man to drug and have sex with a 13 year old girl. I'm so embarrassed all these people that I too have admired are sticking up for this guy. If it was anyone else they'd be in jail.
The victim is sticking up for the child rapist, too.
Are you embarassed for her? She says that she doesn't want to go through this again. Here's a quote:
"What happened that night, it’s hard to believe, but it paled in comparison to what happened to me in the next year of my life. He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life.”
Guess what, the media is doing it again.
If we can drop this child rapist off in jail, great. If it's going to drag out for years - and this is a country where OJ walks free - then we are doing the victim a monstrous disservice with our attitude.
NO PEACE FOR YOU SAMANTHA! YOU'LL GET JUSTICE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
And then everyone congratulates themselve for being so against child rape. Suddenly. Thirty years later when our televisions told us to.
I'd say, if we can't get this over quickly, then drop all charges with the stipulation that he can still never return to the US. Then he can sit there in France where they've made it clear child rapists are cool, and the victim can get back to her life in peace.
I wouldn't think that if it weren't for the vicitm's statements. If she was calling for blood, I would be too.
People ask how I'd feel if it were one of my three daughters. If it were, I would listen to her.
Actually our legal system doesn't leave it up to the victim to decide whether to prosecute a crime.
i'm not congratulating myself or anyone else here. what are you saying? that because someone made some nice movies their crimes should be ignored? he should be happy it took this long.. and i'm against all child rapists, my whole point is polanski is not a special case in anyway and should be treated the same as anyone else would be in his situation.
as far as the girl, well, only a few years ago (2003) she said in an interview 'it's never too late' to get polanski . She might've been paid since to shut up, but it doesn't change the crime.
Interesting that Ms. Portman would sign that petition. Maybe she should go back and watch 'The Professional' (she was 13 when she made that movie). Perhaps she should remind herself of what she looked like when she was the same age as Polanski's victim. I can't help but wonder if she'd think it would be okay for him to do to her 13 year old self what he did to his victim. I doubt it.
I don't care how you slice it, a 13 year old with some secondary sexual characteristics is still a kid.
And I still don't see why so many people look at this as a one time thing or that it makes a difference. No one can say for sure...given the fact he indulged in a romantic relationship with a 15 year old Nastassja Kinski shows he had a disturbing desire to be sexually involved with underage girls. I don't care if Kinski or her bohemian mother thought it as okay. It's stomach churning, frankly.
Do you find homosexual relations "stomach churning"? Do you find a relationship between a fifty year old woman and a twenty two year old man "stomach churning"? Do you care if the people in those relationships find it "okay"?
Should we hang someone whenever your stomach starts churning?
Would that be "okay" with you?
But the 13 year old a-didn't find it ok, and b-cannot legally consent to sex
I trust my gut. Polanski's behavior is totally "stomach churning."
Do you find it stomach churning for a man to have sex with a 6 year old? Do you find anything stomach churning?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
