Sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl is obviously a serious crime.
And being an artistic genius never constituted, for any crime, an attenuating circumstance.
Having said that, and considering the wave of madness currently sweeping the country, we should also remember the following:
1. The "illegal sexual intercourse" that Roman Polanski acknowledged he was guilty of 32 years ago is not, for all that, the deadly crime, even crime against humanity, that the avengers hot on his heels have been denouncing for the past 10 days. Yes, it is a crime. But there are degrees in the scale of crimes. And it is an insult to good sense, an assault on reason, a door left open to all kinds of confusion, to muddle everything, to try to make everyone believe that a rape is a crime of the same nature as, for example, the one his wife Sharon Tate was a victim of, eviscerated several years earlier, to risk, in other words, because that's what we're really talking about, seeing Polanski join Charles Manson in the penitentiary where, starting January 1, 2010, he will have the possibility of parole.
2. This affair is all the more senseless as the principal complainant has chosen to forgive, to turn the page and, if possible, to forget. Leave me alone, she begs every time the Justice Spectacle, or just simply the Spectacle, shines its spotlights on this part of her past! Leave me alone and, while we're at it, forget this man that I, his victim, think has paid enough! But no. Defenders of victims' rights are there knowing better than the victim what she wants and what she feels. We are dealing with people who would step over the victims rather than let go of their prey and renounce the drunken desire to punish. It is shameful.
3. When the victim withdraws her complaint, isn't it up to society, that is to say the judge, to pursue the matter? Yes, without a doubt. From a strict judicial point of view, it is indeed the right of society. But this will be neither the first nor the last time that the strict judicial perspective misses the demands of compassion as well as those of intelligence. And just as I have never abstained from pointing out, in the Law of this America that I love, customs or punishments, found in every legal system, that distort the pure democratic idea, likewise there is no reason not to say it: arresting a man today about whom it was decided a long time ago, after 42 days in prison, that he wasn't a pedophile, tracking him like a terrorist, and extraditing him like a former Nazi is perhaps right according to the law, but not according to justice.
4. Would it be, like we're hearing everywhere, that his celebrity was giving Mr. Polanski refuge? No, of course not. I have spent my life trying to pull minuscule lives, nameless and faceless victims, from obscurity -- and I would have exactly the same views if Mr. Polanski weren't Mr. Polanski. Except... Except I precisely wouldn't have to maintain them. Because he wouldn't have been arrested. His dossier would have been buried for years. And there wouldn't have been any prosecutor, on the eve of an election (because many American judges are elected by the people like mayors and sheriffs), to arrange this high-profile arrest. Celebrity is not protecting Roman Polanski; it is doing him a disservice. Far from Roman Polanski hiding behind his name, it is his name that is drawing attention to him. And if there is a double standard in this affair, it is making Polanski, not an ordinary defendant, but a symbol -- and his eventual appearance a politico-media "grand bazaar" more than a fair trial.
5. The root of the matter lies in the whiff of popular justice that masks everything and transforms the commentators, the bloggers, the citizens, into so many judges sworn in on the great tribunal of Opinion -- some weighing the crime, others the punishment; we have even seen one of the virtuous, apparently an expert in chemical castration, propose for this new Dutroux (sic) a definitive treatment... Strange sort of outrage in those who don't find fault when it's a truly powerful person who acts like a child predator in front of our faces (ah, Mr. Berlusconi's escapades) but who become implacable when it's a seemingly powerful person who, like Polanski, has no other weapon but his talent... Singular kind of moralists who take an evil pleasure in replaying over and over the details of this sordid affair in order then to throw the first stone...
This lynching is a disturbance of the public order more serious than Roman Polanski remaining free.
This tenacity on the part of the gossips, and this desire to see the head of an artist on a pike, are the very essence of immorality.
Either one of two things, Your Honors. Either Polanski was this monster -- and we shouldn't have given him either an Oscar or a César; we needed to boycott his films; we needed to turn him in to the authorities every time he vacationed with his family at his home in Switzerland. Or you have never found fault, ever, with his announced appearances on the red carpets of every world festival; you feel as I do the formidable hypocrisy of this prosecutor, craving recognition, who woke up one morning to deliver him like a trophy to the public condemnation of the white-hot anger of voters -- and we must, like his victim, plead that he finally be left in peace.
Translated from French by Sara Phenix.
Megan Carpentier: Roman Polanski, And The Making Of A Legend
Polanski, the master story-teller, has been refining his story for 30 years, weaving his little lies one by one into a cloak intended to shield him from both moral judgment and the legal system.
Loading comments… 
If he was not Mr. Polanski, he would not have been able to convince the mother of the 13 year old child to bring her daughter to him.
If he was not Mr. Polanski, I seriously doubt that he could have borrowed Jack Nicholson'
So...by my reasoning, the child would not have been forced to submit to his will and be subjected to being s od o mi zed if he had not been Mr. Polanski.
"Either one of two things, Your Honors. Polanski was this monster -- and we shouldn't have given him either an Oscar or a César; we needed to boycott his films; we needed to turn him in to the authoritie
You claim above is that what occurs in the political sphere, e.g. laws, justice systems, and political leaders, should dictate what happens in the cultural sphere, art re: presenting
Do you believe that that condition should apply to other endeavors, including intellectu
You also construct a universal "we" with agency to make these decisions "we shouldn't have...." How should that "we" be created, decide, act; who’s included/e
Were Polanski a not-famous "John Smith," would France have refused to extradite him? France has the ability, though not the obligation in law, to extradite persons who've plead guilty to the crime Polanski did 30 years ago. Yet, France did not.
Do you think Polanski's fame and stature as a highly talented and regarded artist was part of the reason they did not turn him over to the US? I do, and that turns the table on M. Levy on his own terms re: the role of fame in the matter.
AND I STILL THINK SHE LOOKS OLDER THAN 13
http://sta
I guess Monsieur Levy's ethical judgment allows leniency for an adult who seduces a child with alcohol and drugs. That, I guess, is not what he perceives to be "rape rape," as Whoopi Goldberg has called it/
I read somewhere that Polanski was supposed to have paid restitutio
Polanski is not a man of honor. He's made some good films. But I wouldn't enshrine him in the panoply of theatrical genius. And I certainly wouldn't argue that his merit as a creative force should exempt him from spending time in jail.
The literati of France once made a passionate case for the release of Jean Genet, based on his talent, but being free to create did not redeem his rotten soul. He turned out to be a creative genius who was a devious, violent human being.
I can still watch his films. They are their own thing, separate from him from the moment of release.
But it doesn't change or excuse anything he did in this matter, and his behavior the entire time has been of an entitled upper-clas
So why does Polanski get what Orwell once condemned as the "benefit of clergy" that artists seem to be thought to be covered under? If Polanski had killed her as well, would his films mitigate that? At what point does this principle break? How good do your films have to be? Seriously, someone should devise a scale. Like, if it won an Oscar, that should take at least ten years off your sentence. If the Oscar was just technical, then it's only one off. And so forth.
While Polanski’s supporters also argue that bringing him to trial would be against the wishes of the victim who states that she wants this in the past, we don’t know if she’s been threatened to remain silent. This is a possibilit
In addition, we don’t know if there are additional victims of Polanski that have not come forward due to fear. Neglecting to bring him to justice would prove to be a disservice to other victims that he may have.
This strikes me as something akin to Bush's infamous "You're either with us or against us".
All Cubans are human. Not all humans are Cuban.
Her photograph at the premiere of "Roman Polanski : Wanted and Desired"
certainly doesn't make me think so.
More women ARE being hurt by the indecent interest of the mob of Voyeurs
who rally everywhere
know that above all, Fear is to be feared?
If there was a Judge of the Internet court, he'd have to make a Point of Order.
How can there be Justice without serenity?
Serenity? Perhaps this is best directed to the powerful 'elite' and hollywood types that used their media connection to SCREAM their support and protestati
http://www
If he pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor isn't he by definition a pedophile?
“tracking him like a terrorist”
Didn’t he get tracked by winning and award and the cops read the announceme
“and extraditin
Is there a special un-Nazi extraditio
For the best refutation of the Polanski defense see here:
http://joh
==========
No.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to non-develo
The detective on the case, Sgt. Phil Vannater (of OJ Simpson case fame) said she looked like she could be between 16 and 18.
In the pre-senten
Roman Polanski is not a pedophile. That fact does not diminish what he did, and doesn't mean that those of us who say it are defending rape. If I had to guess, and I do, from the pattern of his relationsh
What I want to know is how in the world this is even a debate. Are there any Polanski supporters that are denying that at the very barest of bare minimums that he was going to take a plea admitting guilt to sexual misconduct with a minor (of course that plea is despicable in and of itself when compared to Polanski's actions)? So at the barest of bare minimums, if the judge had accepted his plea, he would have been punished for that crime. Are any of those 100+ Hollywood'
So at the barest of bare minimums, how can it be denied that he still owes time for the crime he admitted to?
The unfortunat
And since Polanski clearly does not pose any threat whatsoever to California society, I believe such wishes should be given considerab
His dossier probably would have been buried for years. Know why? Because if he had not been a famous, well respected director, he would not have been given the freedom to leave the country - chances are he would not have been given the freedom to leave his jail cell. His dossier would be rotting in a file cabinet because he would have been rotting in a jail cell.
i live in france at the moment where there is outrage of polanski's arrest for his "illegal sexual assault". i find myself defending american puritanism
but then again, this coming from a man who once stated that a woman wearing a veil is inviting rape....
Everything is about displaced "desire" for them. And the more "transgres
Check out my take here:
http://www