Roman Polanski is a tragic man who should not have been left alone with a 13 year-old girl. Yet his victim told People in 1997: "He did something really gross to me, but it was the media that ruined my life."
One cannot blame her for wanting to avoid another media spectacle. A disturbing undertone repeatedly surfaces when the media focuses on the victim's age. The possibility that she could have looked and acted of consensual age intimates that the statutory element practically disappears along with the rape charge. Anne Applebaum wrote "There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age." Does this mean that, had she been the age of consent, that the forced sex and sodomy on the girl would not have been considered rape?
Yes, Polanski pled guilty to the charge of sex with an underage woman. Diverting our attention to her age derails our focus from the rape to the statutory aspect. Articles such as this, this and this say "sex with a 13-year-old girl." None even mention rape. And I sincerely hope this HuffPo blogger was joking when she wrote "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence." This has morphed from a legal spectacle into a bizarre revelation of the media's amnesia of the definition of rape.
The victim's grand jury testimony was recently released that contains the details of the evening. Polanski drugged a girl and then vaginally and anally raped her. Was the sexual conduct unwanted? Yes. Did she say 'no?' Repeatedly. Has she publicly forgiven him? Yes. Repeatedly.
Before the incident, Polanski was a heavily traumatized man. From surviving the Krakow ghetto, his mother dying in the Auschwitz concentration camp, to the Manson family murdering his wife and 8-month unborn child, he had his share of hard knocks that morphed his perception of the world. But it's still rotten of him that he perpetuated the cycle of violence upon a child. To make reparations for sex with a minor, he paid an undisclosed settlement years ago and fled the country, perhaps justifiably fearing an unjust punishment. Perhaps he has weathered the guilt of an attacker and has become a rehabilitated member of (European) society. Perhaps that would be a remarkable transformation to focus on.
The survivor accepted the monetary settlement and has since publicly forgiven Polanski. The psychological toll was only something she could understand and pay. But despite building her life after the injurious incident, she states that she must relive the night whenever the media knocks on her door. "True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she stated. (I admit the hypocrisy in publishing the details, a necessary evil to prove a point.)
It's not about justice -- that happened years ago. It's about not retraumatizing the survivor. The prosecution should respect her wishes to drop the case. From the media's reactions over the past few days and ignorance of the facts, her aversion to the attention is understandable. In addition, Polanski is still a tragic figure. She should be allowed to continue the life she created after that night. She's saying 'no' to the trial. Let the law be the one to listen to her.
UPDATE: Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify the statement regarding 'It's not about justice - that happened years ago,' I meant justice for the victim. Justice for society was avoided when he fled the country, a cowardly cherry on top of a abhorrent sundae. And just about any rapist would think he's above the law by committing the act, not just a megalomaniac, rich and famous director. I understand the lynch mob mentality toward this sad sack of man who won't show repentance. However, I remain compassionate to the victim as she has suffered enough, and question those that say her forgiveness "doesn't matter." This woman is the child that people are fighting for. I stand behind her request to have the case dropped and let her live in peace.
Another debate opens whether Polanski's jail time 30 years after the crime would effectively deter other men who drug and rape children. Punishment has also been shown to be effective when immediate. Would it work 30 years later? I don't know.
Judge H. Lee Sarokin: The Defenses to the Polanski Arrest Are Irrelevant
The argument that Polanski should not be extradited on grounds of delay would mean that the fugitive who is most successful in eluding capture gains an advantage over one who is less successful.
So Polanski won an Oscar, led a horribly difficult life, and managed to evade justice...and so he should get away with raping a 13 year old girl?
And as to the "settlement"...it was done because the girl didn't want to face Polanski in court. For the record, she was asking to go home BEFORE he ever touched her, and then begged him to stop while he raped her anally, orally, and vaginally.
I hate what this man has done, but I think the wishes of the victim should be considered in this case. And I cringe at the thought of the time, effort, and resources that have been expended in pursuit of this man.
when US Justice refuses to prosecute Dick Cheney and Bush for killing hundreds of thousands of people under patently false pretenses, and torturing many others--torturing some to death.
Maybe it goes back to Jayne Mansfield's: "If you're going to do something wrong, do it big, because the punishment is the same either way." Except it isn't the same punishment--big crimes don't get punished.
And Bush and Cheney are not fugitives in LA County.
Another judge had the matter brought before him last year where Polanski's lawyers appeared but the judge wanted Polanski to appear to speak to it. He never did and therefore that case has never been resolved I gather.
This case has been active. It is not just from 30 years ago.
As for the victim -- the family sued and was compensated. I call that as her adult comments now have been bought.
Here is where you go wrong. There was no justice done years ago. He spent less than 50 days in jail. That was insufficient even on the plea bargained statutory rape charge, given that even if there was no forcible rape, the facts are pretty egregious (i.e. he was 43 or 44, he was in a position of authority re: able to offer to make her a star, etc. This was not some 17 year old boy with an underage girlfriend)
Now if, as you appear to accept in your recounting of events, a forcible rape occurred, the time served is a joke. I don't see how you can believe there was a forcible rape and believe that justice was done here.
By the way: for those who argue that Polanski had to flee because of judicial misconduct, you have got to be kidding. Given even the undisputed facts, much less the girls grand jury testimony which the sentencing judge would likely have reviewed and considered, even on the statutory rape conviction, the last think Polanski wanted to face was a new, unbiased judge. He still does not want to face such a judge.
It's not "the media" that has dragged this out - he's the felon who fled the country after conviction. Why exactly should a victim's opinion or feelings change enforcement of the law? That's the ridiculous viewpoint that, for so many years, doomed victims of repeated domestic violence. "Oh, she doesn't want to press assault charges." The charges should be pressed & enforced by the legal system.
Polanski is a convicted felon who escaped the country - the law should not forget that. His fame, wealth or victim's opinion have no place in the equation.