For Roman Polanski
Time is passing. And Roman Polanski is still in prison, goes to bed and wakes up in prison, sees his wife one hour a week in the visiting room of a prison -- all while his 11 and 16-year-old children, when they have the courage to go to school, have to confront the gaze of friends who have heard at home that the dad of the little Polanskis, the man everyone fluttered around vicariously via their children, the parent of a student that they were exhilarated to recognize on TV the night of the Césars, was ultimately a criminal, a rapist, a sodomite, a pedophile.
Since we're at this point, since time is passing and everyone seems to find nothing wrong with the situation, since Roman Polanski's supporters are losing faith and, sometimes, are even starting to doubt, since the pack of gossipers have even succeeded, it seems, in convincing the French minister of culture that he spoke too hastily, and under the influence of emotion, though he only did his duty, I want to say again, once more, why this affair is shameful.
It is shameful to throw a 76-year-old man into prison for unlawful sex committed 32 years ago.
It is shameful that, in countries where, like in Europe, you can bump off an old lady, torture your fellow man, mutilate him, and know that your crime, like all violent crimes, will be commuted after 10 or 15 years, everybody acts as if Polanski's crime should be immune to any possibility of commutation.
It is shameful to see the regulars of the global Café du Commerce, whose Pavlovian anti-Americanism never leaves them at a loss for words when lambasting America on any and everything, are suddenly silent, become gentle as lambs and, when it comes to Polanski, just repeat: "Ah, that's America... better not mess with American law... dura lex sed lex [the law is harsh, but it is the law]..."
It is shameful to hear a militant for human rights who, like the French activist Gisèle Halimi, has spent her life securing the release of people for more serious crimes than that for which we reproach the author of The Pianist, howl with the wolves: "A crime was committed; justice is the same for everyone; Polanski must be judged."
It is shameful to see the intellectuals, whose role should be to calm the frenzy and cool popular anger, ratchet up, like Michel Onfray in Libération, the moment when "the worst are full of passionate intensity" (Yeats) and to indulge, in the name of abused childhood, in the most obnoxious amalgams (why don't we hear these intellectuals denounce with equal ardor, the limitless outrage that is the martyrdom of child soldiers in Africa, or child slaves in Asia, or the hundreds of millions of children dead of hunger, according to the estimates of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for the last...32 years?)
It is shameful to see Luc Besson rush to television, cloaked in ingenuous probity, inveigh against Polanski, like in the worst era of the McCarthyist witch hunts, and denounce his friend.
It is shameful to keep repeating, like some are doing, that justice should be "equal for all" while, if there is indeed an "inequality," if there is a double standard, it is to the detriment, not to the advantage, of Polanski. I've tested it. Last October 2, on the NPR show On the Point, I confronted Geraldine Ferraro's refrain, which she repeated ad nauseum: "Polanski has had a lovely life; now, he has to pay." I sent out a challenge to listeners: "Show me a case, a single one, of an anonymous person, guilty of the same crime, who was tracked down thirty years after the fact." To this day, no one has found a single one. And no one has found one precisely because you had to be Polanski, you had to be an artist renown over the globe for an elected prosecutor, soon to embark on an electoral campaign and starved for publicity, to resurrect the case from oblivion, to which, even in the United States, popular wisdom relegates the very old case files of non-recidivist delinquents.
It is strange -- shameful, and strange -- to see how the same people who, intoxicated by suspicion and seeing conspiracies everywhere, spend their time investigating the secret agendas of the States, but do not seem at all bothered by the timing that is, undoubtedly, extremely bizarre: a man who has a house in Switzerland; who has gone there for years now, every school break with his family; and who, all of a sudden, without any new element, returns to the nightmare that has been his lot in life.
Because it is shameful, finally, that we can't, when we talk about his life, evoke his childhood in the ghetto, the death of his mother in Auschwitz, the murder of his young spouse, eviscerated along with the young child she was carrying, without the prayers of the new popular justice crying, "Blackmail!': even for the most abominable serial killer, the prevailing "culture of excuse" jumps to scrutinize the difficult childhood , the broken family, the traumas -- but Roman Polanski would be the only person in the world under judicial jurisdiction not to have the right to any kind of attenuating circumstance...
It is the entirety of the affair, in truth, that is shameful.
It is the debate that is nauseating and from which we must abstain.
I hardly know Roman Polanski. But I know that all those who, from close and from afar, join in this lynching will soon wake up, horrified by what they have done, ashamed.
Translated from French by Sara Phenix.
Michael Seitzman: Polanski To Offer Cash and Cuddliness For Release
Roman Polanski, the film director currently imprisoned in Switzerland, is planning to offer a new bail for his release this week.
Cathy Whitlock: Rosemary's Baby Revisited
As with most films, often the backstory and subsequent events surrounding the filming of Rosemary's Baby were equally as interesting as the script itself.
William Bradley: Chinatown's 35th Anniversary Edition and the Polanski Scandal
On the surface, it's a period detective picture. Beneath, it's much more. The film creates its own mesmerizing world through evocative music, costuming, and production design.
Ellen Snortland: Roman Polanski, Have I Got a Sentence for You!
Why don't you help me and my colleagues in the personal safety community get the word out about a person's human right to protect themselves from emotional and physical harm?
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
One little tidbit that doesn't get mentioned much is the very real prospect of nature's law of cause and effect. Some refer to this law as karma - or even, "what goes around, comes around". Call l it what you will, the law is real, and RP will answer to it. Herein I find my solace.
Please, please throw the book at him. He is a pervert who raped a little girl. It does not matter how many times she had sex, drank or did drugs. He pleaded guilty to rape and then fled the jurisdiction of the court. He has not excuse, no extenuating circumstance. He violated the law and he should be punished for that.
I have lived in South America and Europe. While there I kept myself within the law. I do not believe that fame or notoriety should be an excuse for getting off without paying your debt to society.
Please put this monster away where he can no longer harm children. He is a danger to society.
He is a danger to society....................
you are absolutely right ::-)
'Danger to society'? All of a sudden? Um, have you ever actually heard/read/seen anything to substantiate such accusation that he did 'harm children' over the decades, hm? I haven't, and I'm in my fifties, curious. As for the 'little girl' part, she was an adolescent, a teenager, NOT a 'child' in the eyes of the law. He pleaded guilty to 'statutory rape', and that's something different altogether than actual rape. That's sleeping with a minor, consensual or not since the law disallows consent even if given. BIG difference and NOT rape. And 'pervert', 'monster? That's YOUR very subjective perception, not 'fact'. And 'debt to society'? Let me remind you that he did his time, was released, and only fled because the corrupt judge had illegally reneged on their plea bargain wanting to sentence him again, that's why he actually was removed by BOTH attorneys. Funny that one of them said he'd done the same. I wonder why.
Let me remind you that 1) Polanski fled the night before sentencing; 2) judge was not bound to accept the plea bargain, he could change his mind and there is nothing illegal about that, and Polanski was warned about that possibility at his plea hearing; 3) Judge was not removed by BOTH attorneys.
Polanski’s attorney was too sure his client would get just a slap on his hand. Polanski fled after his attorney told him the night before sentencing that he is not that sure anymore….
So glad that you kept within the law even on foreign lands.
I wish RP were the greatest danger to society, bar none. Get real!
You're words make Albert Camus cry.
>> You're
Damn, that was awful. I know better than thet.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here really know what a non-celebrity in 1977 would receive for a sentence for unlawful sex with an underage girl?
A lot of folks here would say MORE. Do they base it on data?
Or is it everybody knows, common sense -- that kind of stuff?
See Jeff Norman's Profile
The maximum sentence was 50 years. I don't know what the average sentence was.
According to Sandi Gibbons in the DA's office, Polanski is now facing a maximum of two years if he returns. That would be for unlawful sex with a minor. She says it's likely the original charges would be officially dismissed at the time of sentencing, and unlikely that he'd face an additional charge for fleeing.
The reason I ask, of course, is to test the rampant speculation here that he received a light sentence because of his celebrity.
The maximum sentence was 20 years.
From Roman Polanski ‘s Plea transcript:
Mr. Gunson: Mr. Polanski, before you can plead guilty, you must understand the possible direct consequences of your plea. Do you understand you are pleading guilty to a felony?
The Defendant: Yes.
Mr. Gunson: What is the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse?
The Defendant: It’s one to fifteen – twenty years in State Prison.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea7.html
"It means he went down on me, or he placed his mouth on my vagina. . . . I was ready to cry. I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."
Samantha's testimony that day was unequivocal: She had kept trying to get away from him, putting her clothes back on, saying no repeatedly. She had made up a lie about having asthma to get out of a Jacuzzi. He persisted. She was scared. She did not physically fight him off. He began to have sex with her, then, concerned she might get pregnant, switched to anal sex. When he drove her home, he told her not to tell her mom, adding, "You know, when I first met you, I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you."
The above is from here http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story
That's what she said all right.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
Great response, Jack!
What a nauseating and pontificating piece, chock full of silly hyperbole (the “lynching” of Polanski) and tear-jerking treacliness (the poor, suffering Polanski children! – note: lets pray they never run into anyone like their father). And what in the world is the “attenuating circumstance” which would mitigate Polanski’s guilt? Also, is Levy joking when he claims that Roman is “returning to the nightmare?” I seem to remember that Polanski is the writer and producer of this nightmare, one in which the starring role was forced upon an innocent minor with drugs (the words “rape” and “drugs” and "sodomy" never turn up).
Polanski was given special treatment thirty years ago, one totally unwarranted and due to his celebrity status. But despite the lenient treatment Polanski fled. Levy pretends that the delay in justice was somehow not Polanski’s fault! And of course when you have a weak defense, as Levy does, then throw out terms like “conspiracy” and “secret agendas” of the state, with all their dark conservative insinuations, to try and keep the truth at bay, which is that Polanski is a rapist.
And invoking the Holocaust to defend Polanski - what a shameful use of its victims, dragging them up from their graves to defend a criminal pedophile. This is a vacuous commentary, one that gives new meaning to the concept “self absorbed intellectual.” There is not an iota of sympathy for the 13 year old victim or an ounce of condemnation of the depraved crime.
there is no 13 year old victim....but yes there are 45/75 year old people.....u make it sensational...
Well, no.. There is not currently a 13 year old victim, because time is linear, and advances regardless of crimes committed.
However, at the time of the rape, the victim was indeed 13.
well said
Great Post and fanned.
The more he uses the term 'lynch mob', the more this issue gets polarized.
It is quite outrageous to say that it's shameless to repeat "Justice for all" while saying that Polanski should be spared from the very justice that he has evaded for over 30 years.
What a stretch. There is no lynch mob. Gone are the days of Robespierre and Jacobins. In fact, none of our comments count in court. It's precisely why an extradition is in order so that one judge does the work.
And BHL should listen to Polanski. A few weeks ago, he thanked his supporters but acknowledged that some of it harmed his case.
The only thing that is shameful is that Roman Polanski didn't face justice, he ran away from it.
Once again - agree and thank you!
you're thanking this man for comparing rich people having to serve their sentences just like the rest of us to Emmett Till getting murdered for whistling at a white woman?
The shamefulness or lack thereof of his crimes I'll leave to those who know the facts.
However I'll never be ashamed of wanting to see those, who through power, wealth or fame believe in tiered system of justice, face what everyone else faces.
When it comes to shame and justice, if THIS story is the one that makes you upset, then you're the one who should be ashamed.
Polanski was IN THE SYSTEM when he cut and ran. He knew the score.
He had found safe haven in France. He could wander that entire country with impunity, footloose and fancy free.
But he was reckless, and arrogant, and pressed his luck. And so he got busted.
End of story.
wow.. you're sure misinformed! lol./..
Actually, that was pretty accurate.
Please list how it was incorrect. I would love to see your version of the facts.
seconded
what a stand up.... :-)
I'm not defending Polanski. When I first read about this I assumed that he was guilty. That's contrary to the American justice system which says that a person is innocent unless PROVEN guilty beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
Many believe that he was "proven" guilty because he was willing to admit to a lesser charge. But I have heard of cases where an innocent person has been convinced to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the chance of being convicted on a greater charge even though he or she is really innocent.
Some believe because he ran proves his guilt. But there are other possibilities. Perhaps he felt betrayed when he heard the judge might refuse the plea bargain. Perhaps he felt he could not get a fair trial and that's why he ran.
I'm not saying that this is true; I'm saying that we really don't know for sure what the truth is/was. There are facts that indicate that the girl MIGHT have been lying and that she and her mother MIGHT have set up Polanski in order to benefit financially. Until there is a trial before a regular jury (not Grand Jury) where both Polanski and the girl/woman testify and the jury reaches a decision, I'm going to suspend any judgment as to Polanski's guilt or innocence. I think our judicial philosophy requires us all to do that.
Romulus....you make some real valid points and im glad u not wearin any blinkers whilst dloin so
Really? "There are facts that indicate that the girl MIGHT have been lying and that she and her mother MIGHT have set up Polanski in order to benefit financially."
Can you shed more light into these FACTS?
it was mentioned st t he time-- why on the most part-- hardly anyone took this whole case seriously. mostly people went.. Poor Roman..etc..
by the way-- I lived in LA at that time.
I've got a fact: it was/is ILLEGAL for an adult to have any kind of sex with a 13 year old in California.
Please refute that, Romulus.
Rape is rape. Flaunt elusion of justice and you can expect they won't forget.
"I sent out a challenge to listeners: "Show me a case, a single one, of an anonymous person, guilty of the same crime, who was tracked down thirty years after the fact." To this day, no one has found a single one."
More likely is the fact that no one cared enough about your ridiculous demand to have bothered with a response.
More likely is the fact that no one cared enough about your ridiculous demand to have bothered with a response
=====================
Hey JaneQueCitizen....maybe the author is right ? maybe ? seems like you talk for everyone else on this board ??
Or that there are few anon people who could flea to Europe for decades...
Being on the run for a long time is REALLY pricey.
Also, the Catholic Priests were hardly given a pass because of the time that had passed...
have you honestly not heard of the Catholic priest scandal? It was only one of the biggest news stories of the new century.
No, I was obviously making an observation based solely on my own opinion. If I'd meant to respond on behalf of everyone on this board I would have said "I speak for everyone on this board when I say that it's more likely is the fact that no one cared enough about your ridiculous demand to have bothered with a response." A bit on edge are you?
Doesn't sound like you'd be interested in knowing the answer to that question. May I also suggest that if there are no equivalent instances like that, it wouldn't matter to you? You have finished all the thinking you're going to do on the matter. All that's left is ad hominems.
Stay classy, Bernie. Obviously, the exercising of legal process through the system as a direct result of someone who fled justice is exactly the same as the illegal murder of people due to the color of their skin. But, I'm sure you have black friends so it's ok for you to be so callous, right?
fanned
From things I have read recently, if he had only stuck around for his original sentencing, he might have indeed gotten off relatively easy. But he only compounded his problems by fleeing the US. It's unknown what he will face if he is sent back. Let this be a lesson to us all that karma or justice does catch up with you, so you are better off facing the music sooner than later.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
