 |
||
Let's get one thing clear from the outset: Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Yes, Whoopi, he even "rape-raped" her, whatever that means. Ignoring her explicit pleas and protests, he fed her champagne and a quaalude, forced her to undress, and then vaginally and anally penetrated her. That's rape, by any definition and with any number of hyphens. And it's all there in the public record.
So if this tempest-in-an-extradition isn't about what really happened 32 years ago, what is it all about? What is it that's inspired public intellectuals such as Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum and Nation editor Katrina vandenHeuvel (who has since, commendably, come to her senses) to write breathless defenses of the man? Why is Debra Winger more concerned with the sanctity of international film festivals than with seeing justice done? Why have France, Poland, and -- for the love of God -- Germany, issued outraged statements on Polanski's behalf? Why has the entirety of Hollywood (save Kirstie Alley, Kevin Smith, Greg Grunberg and Jewel, bless their C-list hearts) lined up not just to defend him, but to take up his cause as though he were the victim in this case, launching a "Free Roman Polanski" campaign so popular among the entertainment elite that if you were to boycott everyone who signed on you could never watch a film again?
By now, we all know at least part of the answer: hero worship. Polanski is a genius director with a tragic past, and if there's anything we like better than a genius with a tragic past, it's a rich and famous genius with a tragic past. In the confused minds of many, Polanski is a real-life Batman, a flawed anti-hero living outside the law because that's the only way he can truly overcome his tortured history.
But Batman uses his past as a moral compass, not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and he certainly never raped a 13 year-old girl (or anyone else for that matter). Besides, surely our obsession with our celebrity heroes is just part of the story. Even Mackenzie Phillips was treated with more consideration last week when she accused her famous father of raping her, and there's nothing remotely like grand jury testimony backing her up, the way there is for Polanski's victim.
Which brings us at last to the heart of the matter: who Roman Polanski hurt, and who has the right to demand he face justice? His literal victim, after suffering a lifetime in an unwelcome media spotlight, has famously requested that the charges against Polanski be dropped. Polanski's defenders have seized on her statements, arguing that if she can "get over it," then those of us who haven't are just humorless harpies who want to see an old man suffer.
But rape isn't just a crime against one person, and we don't prosecute it in order to fulfill any one victim's needs or wishes. Rape is a crime against the social fabric that binds all of us together. The act violates what should be one of our core values as a civilization: that every person of every gender and age has the right to bodily autonomy -- to basic safety in our bodies. When that right is violated and the perpetrator goes unpunished, it makes all of us less safe. Not just because there's one more rapist on the loose, but because that lack of accountability sends a message to other would-be rapists: Go ahead and rape someone. The rest of us don't care that much, as long as it's not us or someone we love. In this case, we might add a caveat: Especially if you're rich and talented and have powerful friends.
This is the reason why the plaintiff in any criminal rape case isn't the victim -- it's the government. Rape cases are pursued by a representative of all of us because all of us are harmed when someone rapes. It's heartbreaking to have to explain this still, after so many decades of activism and education and prevention work on the part of so many countless people, but it's hardly surprising. According to the Department of Justice, there were over 160,000 rapes in the U.S. last year -- and that's just measuring the small fraction that are reported. When you consider that 98% of all rapists are male, and over 85% of rape victims are female, it's no wonder that we've become frighteningly comfortable in a world where half the population lives in fear of profound violation by the other half. Too few of us ever wonder if it has to be this way. Our social fabric has been utterly shredded by sexual violence, so much so that we've come to believe the giant holes are part of the design.
But they don't have to be, and bringing rapists to justice is one of the ways we begin to stitch them closed. That's why this case matters, even though it happened so long ago, even though Polanski's old, even though he's a genius and has a tragic past and his victim's all grown up and and and and and. None of this changes the basic facts: He raped a 13 year-old girl. He violated all of us with that act, and, when he fled, denied all of us the possibility of repairing the rent that he caused. He's had decades more time than was owed him, to do with whatever healing or changing he chose. It's our turn now.
Follow Jaclyn Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jaclynf
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
See Jeff Norman's Profile
In her original post, Jaclyn wrote: “Ignoring her explicit pleas and protests, he fed her champagne and a quaalude, forced her to undress, and then vaginally and anally penetrated her.”
In the comments forum, Jaclyn wrote: “The grand jury testimony IS the answer, Jeff. Polanski himself agreed it was a true account.”
Jaclyn, when exactly did he say “it was a true account” or words to that effect?
In his pleading, he admitted to the truth of the charges. What is wrong with you that you defend a child rapist?
See Jeff Norman's Profile
What is wrong with you that you interpret my fair and pertinent question as defending a child rapist?
It's obvious why neither you nor Jaclyn can quote Polanski admitting that the girl resisted, that he fed her a Quaalude, that he forced her to undress, and that he forced her to have sex. That's because he never made such a confession.
Why should Jaclyn be taken seriously when she refuses to take responsibility for her glaring inaccuracies?
So I followed jackbutler's link (posted on page two) and read the probation officer's report,
it is well worth reading. Truly freaky. From the psychiatrist's evaluation as quoted on page 24 :
"The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother,
physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by
defendant and his solicitude regarding pregnancy . . . " (p. 24)
Wow. That sentence pretty much sums it up as far as why people are upset about this case.
Jack -- I made an error in my last post. I meant to say even the "prosecution" wanted to secure a plea bargain and avoid a trial as the mother wanted maintain her daughter's anonymity.
So...if you haven't seen Polanski's statement, and we know he admitted guilt to the 'unlawful sex with a minor', then everything you and Jeff have questioned about the truthfulness of the victim's grand jury testimony may, indeed, be off-base.
There are explanations that make both the medical evidence and her testimony consistent -- as far as I can tell from what's been made public.
What are those explanations that would make the medical evidence and her testimony consistent?
I was under the impression both you and Jeff Norman were questioning the veracity of her statements about saying no and wanting to leave, particularly based on the medical evidence that showed no signs of forced entry.
As I said earlier, the use quaaludes could very possible explain that. She could both have said no, felt coerced, and because of the quaaludes in her system, her body be 'willing' requiring little or no physical force from Polanski.
The report also said there was no semen found inside the victim, but we have no way of knowing if she showered and washed, or douched, before the medical examination. There was semen found on her underwear.
That was the extent of the medical examination reported in the probation report.
And all of that can still be consistent with a victim who was not a willing participant.
And my final comment on this matter of consensual sex is that no 13-year-old is able to give consent and have that mitigate anything. It's like saying it's okay for an adult give crack to a 13-year-old because they consented or requested it.
For a glimpse into Polanski's perspective about the events preceding his arrest, consider this quote from an interview he gave with Martin Amis in 1979, a year following his flight from the U.S.
The interview appeared in Tatler magazine, and also appears in Amis's book "Visiting Mrs Nabokov". Read it and consider.
Polanski: "When I was being driven to the police station from the hotel, the car radio was already talking about it ... I couldn't believe ... I thought, you know, I was going to wake up from it. I realize[d], if I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal for the press, you see? But ... f - king, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f - k young girls. Juries want to f - k young girls- - everyone wants to f - k young girls!"
A stupid thing to say, more stupid to believe.
But, for me, this is about our justice system, not about Polanski.
Hey Jack - first you make far-reaching assumptions that what Geimer said Polanski did, he didn't do.
Now you dismiss this quote as 'a stupid thing to say'.
I'm the first to say the quote is hardly any kind of legal evidence, but it certainly indicates that Polanski condoned what he was accused of doing, and capable of doing what Geimer reported in her grand jury testimony.
As for the medical evidence failing to turn up evidence of forced penetration, there's one thing both you and Jeff are overlooking:
Quaaludes are a muscle relaxant.
As someone who has taken quaaludes, and has had sex while under the influence of quaaludes, it doesn't surprise me that Geimer's body could be quite divorced from her cognitive functioning. In other words, her body could have been entirely relaxed and 'accepting' while her brain is telling her no.
And this is why the medical evidence did not return evidence of forced penetration, despite the fact the victim was not a willing participant.
For those who are interested in signing an opposing petition, here is the link:
http://www
But read this first:
http://www
He is a pedophile who acted on this by raping a child (13 year old girl). On top of that ,he is a fugitive of justice. He has avoid countries with a clear extradition policy with the US. Now, the swiss authorities have decided to extradict him to the US. Clearly, he has to stand trial for his crimes. If he is so innocent of these crimes, he has the right to defend himself in the US justice system.
The irony to this is, in the 70's pedaphilia was not understood nor was violence against women and child. If he stood trial then, he would have gotten a year or less in prison. Now, he will get decades for rape of a child and on top of that he has fugutive of justice crime to serve as well.
Poetic Justice for a Pedaphile!!!!!!!! Maybe there is Karma afer all.
Part 2
Now, you know the girl would have had to take the stand and testify that all the stuff she said he did he really, really did. But the evidence -- or lack of evidence -- says he didn't. The idea behind cross examination is to undermine the credibility of the witness. Once it's established that she lied, the jury has to figure out whether she lied about other things as well.
So, the judge comes along and announces he's not going along with the deal. It rarely happens, but he has a right to disapprove of the deal.
So, now the prosecution has a lousy case and a defendant that is rightly demanding that the DA will have to prove everything from scratch.
The girl is taking Polanski's side because she doesn't want to go on the witness stand and perjure herself.
This case is a mess and the judge is to blame. The prosecutors back then must have jumped for joy when Polanski jumped bail.
Jeff - please see my reply hidden in the thread below.
Jeff, let's agree for the sake of argument that the act between Polanski and 13-year-old Geimer was entirely consensual.
And let's agree that Geimer appeared to others older than she was.
Even if those two things were true, they're irrelevant to the legal and moral issues at hand.
Polanski knew Geimer was 13 before the events took place and confirmed this in written records.
In our society, we accept that someone at age 13 is a child. We also accept that it is wrong, and illegal, for adults to have sex with children.
Where is the gray here? It is still rape. And Jaclyn's assertions still stand.
Read more at: http://www
See Jeff Norman's Profile
The scenario Jaclyn describes would be a crime even if the victim were an adult. But as I keep telling you, Polanski was not convicted of, nor did he confess to Jaclyn's charges (see her first paragraph). He pled guilty to only unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
Jaclyn asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski gave the girl a Quaalude, forced her to undress, and forced her to have sex. In reality, those are merely accusations, and Jaclyn hasn't even tried to explain why we should believe them. Witness statements and medical reports do not support the girl's grand jury testimony.
Jeff - while medical reports did not reveal evidence consistent with forcible entry, the evidence showed that the girl's underwear tested positive for semen. There is no dispute that Polanski had sex with the girl.
As a frightened 13-year-old, perhaps during the Grand Jury examination she did lie about her level of participation. Perhaps she did attempt to depict herself more unwilling than she was.
So what?????
You still don't address the fact that, even if the act was entirely consensual, even if she was totally sober -- both of which are in question -- it is still illegal. It is statutory rape, it is morally repugnant and I am saddened it has the kneejerk support of Hollywood luminaries. And apparently, of you.
oops -- please ignore last lines of my last post. Too quick to post.
For those here, who are interested in learning more about the case from an objective source, you might want to read Polanski's Probation Report. But I must warn you. Those interested in the mere reinforcing of their existing opinion that Polanski sodomized her, etc may want to stick to reading The Grand Jury report.
Here's the link:
http://www
The probation report is hardly an objective source -- it frames Polanski's actions in having vaginal and anal sex with a 13-year-old despite her discomfort as an exercise of poor judgement:
This is directly from the report: "The present offense appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgement by the defendant.
As such, the report appears to be far more a reflection of the times and the subjective viewpoints of the officials involved, including those writing the probation report. It's hard to imagine it getting any less subjective -- not objective.
And why would the actual testimony during the grand jury -- and the testimony of the victim -- be seen as less objective?
It would be difficult, impossible really, to imagine similar events happening today and being excused as "a spontaneous exercise of poor judgement.
Did you read all of it? It's rather long, but it shows the results of the rape test. I also can't agree with you that a disinterested party would be less objective than the alleged victim. How do you get there? Is it possible that this person -- who interviewed witnesses, examined and evaluated evidence -- might be one of the few people in the country that knows almost all there is to know about the crime at the time? Do you think the alleged victim knows more? Do you know more? I certainly don't know more. It could be that your opinion of the crime is coloring your perceptions of the report to such an extent that you are labeling information that agrees with your preexisting opinions as objective.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
The report's objectivit
1. The doctor who examined the girl said there was no evidence of forced penetration, or of semen in the girl’s body.
2. The housekeeper who was at the house said the girl looked 18, and she and Polanski behaved as if they were lovers.
3. Anjelica Huston, who was also at the house, said the girl could have been 25 and didn’t appear to be distressed.
It appears none of this relevant information interests Jaclyn, who confuses the grand jury testimony with facts. (THAT is subjectivity, Winstir.)
Maybe the girl was instructed by her mother to lie or exaggerate when she testified, so as to bolster her civil lawsuit against Polanski. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but who can say it’s not?
What makes Jaclyn so sure that 100% of the girl’s testimony should be believed?
Try the grand jury testimony instead:
http://www
Polanski admits to the child's testimony.
He did the crime. He must do the time.
If you've already made up your mind, of course you like the Grand Jury transcript. Since it is prosecutorial tool, it has all the stuff you like and none of the stuff you don't like. You apparently are not up to speed on the case. Polansky did not "admit to the child's testimony.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
cluelessJD, it's not true that "Polanski admits to the child's testimony.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
The scenario Jaclyn describes would be a crime even if the victim were an adult. But as I keep telling you, Polanski was not convicted of, nor did he confess to Jaclyn's charges (see her first paragraph). He pled guilty to only unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
Jaclyn asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that Polanski gave the girl a Quaalude, forced her to undress, and forced her to have sex. In reality, those are merely accusations, and Jaclyn hasn't even tried to explain why we should believe them.
In the case of California versus Polanski, Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime less hideous than the vile acts of which he was almost certainly guilty. But why was a plea bargain ever permissible? Polanski broke the law, but did he write it or enforce it? Polanski served a shockingly short sentence and fled the jurisdiction. But maybe the greater crime, the more scandalous evasion of justice, is being perpetrated by the district attorney, by Steve Cooley himself? Cooley is spending our taxpayer dollars to catch one celebrity fugitive, who poses no current threat to the citizens of California. But Cooley is also diverting those funds from prosecuting dangerous criminals here in Los Angeles today. What of the late Michael Jackson? Or the myriad sexual crimes of the Catholic diocese? Maybe Cooley and his henchmen are the cynical lackeys of those who might finance their campaigns? And a broken legal system too busy courting the popular vote to care for the safety of its citizens? Isn't Cooley allowing the majority of dangerous criminals to operate unchecked in our midst? Isn't it time to bring to account the district attorneys and judiciary who choose extravagant gestures of public vengeance over the balanced and measured implementation of law? In their voracious appetite for campaign funding, they do little or nothing to protect the innocent or care for the victims. Now, more than ever, they must be made to focus on their present duties, instead of their past mistakes.
This guy Cooley can't win. You're beating him up for misuse of limited funds. The anti-Polanksi crowd is hitting him for making a plea deal.
There is something illogical here. Now, for me, one of the very important circumstances is not that Polanski is famous and not me, it is that the victim, the real one, wants the all things to be over with. SHE is the victim, not US. SHE decided, knowing what happened better than anyone, and knowing the pain she suffered, that SHE does NOT want it to continue. She DOE NOT want Polanski in jail.
Who should we be to say she is not right. Why can't we respect her wish. She is saying no. And as is often said, a no means no, not a yes. The state or pundits or an angry mob could decide for her what is best for her? On what grounds? Especially if such a long period of time has past, I don't see what would be the State interest. An example? But of what? It wold be a good example if every one could see it would be a good example. Clearly, that's not the case.
The only solution of course is to say well, we are the victim. So we deserve, of course. But that is misappropriation. That is basically "raping" this women's will. Hear me, not saying it is great and good to have sex with a 13 years old. As a principle it's a a bad thing and should be punished. Still, the application of principles depends on circumstances. That is where a principle becomes justice.
I am not an attorney but let me explain one thing about "crime". It is the state that prosecutes Crimes on behalf of the "victim" AND the law, which is written to protect individuals, but also the society.
If the fabric of society is only one person who makes a deal with one other person then we have no society of any measure.
To be "CIVIL" we enact laws, to keep a general order and a peace. Without them there is mayhem.
If you think any crime can and should be handled by the affected parties then we may as well oepen up the jails right this minute. The rich will coerce and bride any victim they choose. This is what happened for centuries. When they didn't do that the intimidated and removed by death as well as other means their victims and thus the "crime".
In the largest sense the CRIME is against us all. Let's just let Mr. Garrido free, and hey why not let Manson go.....he never killed anyone that we know of, and there are people who forgive him for his sordid childhood.
There is only anarchy and more crime to be condoned and enabled by allowing a criminal to escape the rightful justice of their actions. That is plain and simple and it is essential.
I wonder, are you in favor of allowing ALL rapists repreive? I'm sure they can work it out with their victims if they just try.
There is a lot of theories about what the law is really about. Some people would say the law main goal is to protect the higher classes of society against the plebum. Others will say that the law just protect the state and its monopoly on violence. Other people that the law creates crime and that if there was no law, there would be no crime. Others that the law is the human application of some divine law. Lots of writing on that subject, some convincing, some not. Still, you don't get my point. The law in abstract is nothing but a recipe for disaster and in fact, tyranny. It is all about applying the law, in practice, in view of the circumstances, that's where justice lies. "Child rapist" is very general. Do you see any differences between the guy that rapes 5 years old girls during his whole life and say Roman Polansky? Forget that Polansky is famous, just judging on the facts. I do see a lot of differences. And so does the victim. And if SHE does, so should society and so should reasonable human being, those who understand that nobody is safe from a fall (that old throw the first stone story). So, it is not saying that rape is ok Steph55, it is saying that saying that justice is in the details. But we like to hate vilains, especially if they are famous.
Oh yes, and I don't think you need to be an attorney to talk about crime, or the law. So it's great you shared your view on it. And as for the questions to know whether all rapists should be allowed to repreive, well, it depends on the circumstances. I just don't trust people saying/writing they are more hurt than a victim who is suppose to be just a witness. That doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, in all legal systems a crime is, in the first place, against the law that defines it.
But then, if the local law defines, that such offense as rape, say, can be settled privately between the victim and offender , then this is the way it should be done. In the US, it seems, this can be done; but it must be done, then, before and instead of bringing the case to the police.
Then, in some legal systems the victim can stop the case by taking back his/her "statement". But can the victim "reverse" the ready court decision by "taking back her complains" 30 year later? This must be defined in the given law code.
... But if somebody wants to defend Polanski because of his being "victim of life tragedy", then Manson and any other criminal could be defended for the same reason. Obviously, it is "the tragedy of one's life" which molds some into criminals. The same things, however, mold others into loving humans, responsive to human suffering. And it seems, only God can judge it all right between them...
Only, if we rely on our legal systems with regard to "some" criminals, why should "somebody else" be excluded? It is not fair.
"But then, if the local law defines, that such offense as rape, say, can be settled privately between the victim and offender , then this is the way it should be done"
No local law so defines any private scheme for settling a criminal complaint of rape. And the victim is not the named plaintiff in the criminal case. The People are (in this case, the People of Los Angeles.)
In a civil trial, the victim is the plaintiff and she may dismiss or not all she wants. But once criminal charges are filed, the People are who the DA represents, not the victim.
Yes, you must be absolutely right: rape must have a clearly defined punishment in all existing laws -- that's very logical, seeing the seriousness of the offense.
...I cannot help but think of one example: in my neighboring country it is a known custom among kurdish population to rape a girl on a back seat of one's car, after which she's taken as wife. And I mean rape; yet it is how kurdish girls get married, you know; so the police doesn't meddle. The girls who don't like this "marriage scheme" have to be very careful.
And the local law, as one may expect, "defines" as it does in most of other counties! But People, it seems, don't bother much about the situation.
Maybe while he sits there...
Whoopi will explain what rape-rape is and isn't.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
