Polanski's Pardon? Not So Fast
The climactic scene of Roman Polanski's 1962 classic Knife in the Water leaves the characters torn at the crossroad of their lives. It is ironic that the author of that film masterpiece, Polanski, found himself 32 years ago at such an intersection and made a decision to bail.
It was a conscious decision. Polanski ran from the law. From the legal perspective, the director of Rosemary's Baby became a fugitive that day, wanted for -- according to the deal reached with the prosecutors -- sexual molestation of a child. In fact, from the legal perspective, it was a rape committed by a 45-year-old, very talented man, on a 13-year-old girl, lured with a promise of fame and fortune.
I find it incomprehensible (being also a Polish citizen) that Polish authorities can engage the majesty of the state to defend a fugitive, no matter how famous he is. This is, at least, how one can read a letter of the Polish Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, to the American Secretary of State, Hillary R.Clinton, requesting (according to the Polish media) Polanski's pardon. Sikorski's letter constitutes a diplomatic intervention on a ministerial level, involving the state in a case of a fugitive who evaded justice for a court-proven criminal act.
Will Poland, being in the middle of a diplomatic bout with the United States over the scrapped missile defense deal, receive Polanski as a prize for sacrificing its international agreements to Russia? Or perhaps Polanski deserves a pardon because, as the Polish Foreign Minister stated, he is a "recognized film director" whose work the chief of Polish diplomacy "likes"?
One of the Polish filmmakers, Krzysztof Zanussi, calls the then 13-year-old victim "a prostitute" who had been pushed to intercourse by her mother. Can the lifestyle of Hollywood justify the rape of a minor? Film directors know best that as long as there is show business there will be wannabe actresses desiring money and fame. The victims often fall silent because they know that a police report equals the abandonment of that stage in their life.
Anne Applebaum, wife of Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, writes in the Washington Post that Polanski "has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma." Applebaum lists the mitigating factors: He could not return to Los Angeles in 2003 to receive his Oscar for The Pianist, Polanski's father survived the concentration camp at Mauthausen while his mother died in Auschwitz, and his wife was butchered by Charles Manson's gang.
I would not like to see Judge Applebaum in court. Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, does not wear a blindfold in Applebaum's cry of protest. Roman Polanski, his life tragic as it is, thirty-two years ago, stood at the crossroads of his life and consciously chose his fate: avoiding justice and paying the price for his act, which was a prison bunk at Chino penitentiary.
The severity of the act cannot be diminished by the fact that "it was a long time ago" or that the perpetrator lives in exile. A sad childhood like Polanski's should strengthen a man's character, rather than become a pass to ruin the life of another human being.
American law is a precedence law, a history of interpreting the letter of the law in the context of similar cases and reaching a decision through analogy. Polanski's pardon could mean that the American court system may be facing the revision of sentencing of sexual molesters sitting in prison, as well as giving up on those who, thus far, have successfully escaped responsibility for their acts.
The world is full of nice, talented guys who sit in jail for making a wrong turn at the crossroads of their lives. The Polish film director should have his day in court. Until then, the final episode of this unfortunate story will not end.
The author is a New York television producer, author, writer, former U.S. television correspondent for TVP, TVN and Panorama.
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…
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
i couldn't agree with you more.
The Polish authorities should realize he committed a crime in the U.S. and fled the jurisdiction.
i appreciate your blog.
Thanks for adding a bit of common sense to the Huffington Post. The way other columnists have disregarded the rights of children, of women, of victims have been treated as inconsequential--at least, when the violator is a great artist--has been both astounding and shameful. From the tenor of reactions to these columnists around the Net, I don't think it's fair to paint the divide as between liberals and conservatives--but it evidently is a divide between the media elite and the average person.
The greatness of Polanski's films (and "Chinatown" is in my personal top ten) does not weigh against his obligation to answer for his crime. That the victim has made peace with the incident is laudable but irrelevant since this is a case of Polanski vs. the People of California, not a civil suit. That so much time has passed is the most ridiculous argument against extradition of all--since it's his flight from sentencing that delayed justice in the first place.
I think you've been very selective in your reading of the columns on the Huff Post on this issue. Only a very small minority has defended Polanski.
From the four links to other blog postings that I can see from this page, only one, from Bernard-Henri Levy, defends Polanski. Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Seitzman and Eve Ensler all write that he should come back and face justice. There have been more blogs condemning him as well.
Other than Levy, I can really only think of one other blogger on this site that supported him...Some woman from an NGO in Belgium, and she was roundly criticized in the comments sections by regular readers and Huff Post bloggers alike.
It’s despicable what this “man” did and there are no circumstances that make raping a 13 year old girl acceptable. How would all those supporting this “man” feel if that 13 year old were their daughter? It is this type of abuse that needs a voice, the resulting damage this type of criminal behavior has on its victims. If the media would do their job and inform the public of the facts and then do a in depth investigation into the psyche of these horrific men that do these type of crimes and the resulting lifelong pain victims suffer then maybe the world would wake up and fight for a just world for children. It’s nauseating that any woman would support this man. We have child sex trafficking and yet we do nothing to put a stop to it. If the world cannot agree that raping a child is one of the worst crimes one can inflict on someone what kind of world are we? What hope is there if people actually defend this man? How do we look our children in the face?
For anyone who wants to defend Polanski I'll give you the chance to write the new Statutory Rape Law for California. I'll even get you started, see if you can finish: "It will be permissible for a middle aged man to drug, rape and sodomize a 13 year old when..."
43 year old man. 13 year old girl. He gives her alcohol and drugs. He puts his p@nis in her. Then he commits sodomy on her. Look it up if you don't know. She's 13. That's one year older than 12!!
Take the names out and just focus on the facts here. What's the argument here? Some of you are acting like this is ok. Well, it's not. But you all knew that.........deep down. Crimes against children are the worst there are. Tell me, why is it so easy to see the horrifying truth about child rape or child molestation when it involves a priest and a boy, or an abductor and a girl yet so many of you have completely turned off your common sense because of who the man is that did it?
How can anyone argue that the rape of a child is a crime which should be severely punished? What are those of you who defend RP thinking? I don't care if the now-woman says she just wants to put it behind her, the crime of child-rape is a crime against the safety of society, and there is nothing that could have happened to him that would excuse it. He did it, he pays. Unless you have a reason for defending the rape of children that you are not telling us about?
Here's the deal.
When the story broke a bunch of poorly informed 'artists' sided with Polanski from a knee jerk sense of artistic solidary. Since when the underlying truth as dripped out.
a) a 40 year old man who had previously had a relationship with a 15 year old (N. Kinskii) drugged, assaulted raped and sodomized a resisting 13 year old child - not cool. In fact - disgusting, deeply immoral to anyone with any sense of conscience and any education about chodl abuse and rape, and unquestionably illegal.
b) this same man fled from justice. He did not have to do so. He chose to do so.
c) he lived in luxury in Europe as a scofflaw.
d) inconvenienced by this 'incident' in the US he attempted to have it expunged
e) sued by his victim (yes, she really did sue him) he finally reached a settlement but didn't pay her what he agreed
f) finally apprehended his representatives attempt to evade accountability by alleging judicial impropriety and referred tot he fact that the victim (now paid off) would like to forgive and forget
g) to this day to the best of my knowledge Polanski has never acknowledged that what he did what wrong (rather the contrary) or evidenced any shame or contrition
The net effect of this building wave of reality is that those well meaning supporters are looking increasingly isolated and silly. How many will have the guts to confess - 'Sorry. Changed my mind on this
you messing it all up, buddy.
He was 43, not 40.
Relationship with Kinsky occurred AFTER he left USA. They were in love with each other and and they stay good friends until that day today. (Eat it)
HE DOES NOT 'drugged, assaulted raped and sodomized a resisting 13 year old child' .
She l.ied about her age+had experience with s.ex and d.rugs.
He agreed to rape plea as a part of a deal in order to save the girl from the long and painful process.
All the comments I read here are based on the girl's relation- which apparently does not include the description of her own personal positive attitude towards RP and the seductive signals she sent that caused the whole episode. (this is described by RP in his autobiography, which is at least as trustworthy as the girl's rapport).
He paid his dues requested by her, and now she would like to close this case as soon as possible. What makes this case a complete nonsense for the RP's offenders is that she is standing at his side. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, GUYS!
What we face is the American witch-hunt, so well known from e.g. Michael Jackson case, where obviously not-mainstream, but innocent celebrity has been the offer for the national blodthirst.
Nope. Ignoring most of your nonsense and logical fallacies, Michael Jackson protested his innocence the whole time and stood trial where he came out victorious. That's a huge difference between him and Polanski.
No you are wrong. He DID drug her. Read the grand jury testimony. Even if she had previous sexual encounters, this is not a he said she said situation. She was 13 and in California a 13 year old cannot give consent. She also said no several times and did not consent anyway. Using your logic any woman who has had sex before cannot be raped. Also there was a civil trial, were the victim was awarded a settlement that to this day
Polanski has NOT paid. You are either uninformed or deliberately spewing misinformation.
I don't know why they are asking the U.S. government to pardon RP. As far as I know, RP has not broken any U.S. laws. Obama has no power to pardon RP for violating California law. They need to send their pardon request to Ahhnold.
The president's power of pardon is national, not just in reguards to federal law.
Really? What is your authority for that statement? Read Article II, Section 2 "and he shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" Polanski is guilty of no offense against the United States that I am aware of, though perhaps he better keep a lid on those pictures he took of the girl with her clothes off.
RP was 43 not 45.
'A sad childhood like Polanski's should strengthen a man's character, rather than become a pass to ruin the life of another human being.' - truly the biggest bs. I have ever read!
Roman Polanski hasn't had any SAD childhood. He survived the EXTREME ATROCITIES of the WW2. That is why, of course, the mitigating factors should be taken into consideration as the extreme brutality of his life must have had influence on his mind, especially in that time for 30 years ago. The most of us would probably gone completely crazy.
Samantha G. treats her short affair with RP like an episode of her past. And she says that the judge's treatment, the harmful detailed investigation, people's extreme curiosity about the details of the case and the non-functioning US law system made the whole harm to her.
I wonder how your tune would change, if we learned that Adolf Hitler had been raped as a 13 year old.
The fact that he survived extreme atrocities, in no excuses the rape and sodomy of a 13 year old child.
It’s a mitigating factor and can be applied to most child molesters. You’ll seldom find one who wasn’t at some point abused often to an extreme extent (I’ll avoid the overuse of caps, it doesn’t really add anything) and this having occurred in WW 2 really makes no difference to a child’s mind, this doesn’t normally mean that they can swan off to France and expect everyone just to forget about it and forgive them.
I’d also point out that the vast majority of those who did survive those circumstances did not go crazy so you’re ‘most of us would have gone crazy’ doesn’t really stand up to any kind of examination.
Polanski was never in a death camp or concentration camp. He escaped from the Warsaw ghetto and spent the rest of WWII holed up in the countryside with various families.
Of course the capture of the rest of his family and his fugitive status must have been very stressful -- I don't want to diminish that.
However if you read about some of the abuse and neglect that people who grow up to rape and murder endure as children, I think much of that is actually worse: Unlike Polanski, some of those people never knew love in their whole childhoods, and experienced fear, neglect and abuse the entire time. Polanski, in contrast, lived in a loving family environment where he had a chance to develop into a sturdy, resilient child prior to his misfortunes in Poland.
Moreover, the Holocaust is by and large an acknowledged terror and misfortune. Individual child abuse is usually ignored, even in cases in which children are beaten to death, so there is no recognition and support in most cases. The sense of isolation and helplessness that can cause is very destructive.
Beyond that, Polanski also had the advantage of great intelligence, creative genius, and eventually wealth. Terrible backgrounds are much harder on those are not so bright or capable, who don't have any natural advantage to elevate themselves with.
"Affair"?! In what world is forcing sexual acts on a minor who is pleading to be taken home an "affair"? The fact that Polanski suffered doesn't give him the right to make someone else suffer. Or has concern about the rights of children and of women now become a thing of the past?
The French government had the same reaction. However, 2 to three days ago, the French government changed its mind. I believe the reason is French popular opinion expressed was not in line with elite opinion, very much the opposite, as here in the United States.
to their defense, those who reacted initially likely had only a long ago made idea what happened. Today, with the internet, everyone in the world can read the transcript of the girl's testimony, previously hidden to protect her. It is ugly stuff.
Strange that 70% of France would support Polanski's deportation, considering all the lecturing we've been getting about how "everywhere" else in the world what Polanski did was seen as a perfectly normal, healthy thing and that it's only our backwards provincial puritanism that makes Americans so unhip as to prosecute someone for raping an eighth grader.
As with most things you should take anything people in the U.S. say about other nations with a pinch of salt.
We're not keen on baby rapers, we like our heath services and are not dying in the streets and the Iranians on the whole are rather likeable and pleasant people.
Just get out a bit more and you’ll find all this out for yourselves.
Famous people often get away with more because many people don't like seeing them brought down. Of course having the best lawyers doesn't hurt either.
Famous people also often get away with less because prosecutors see bringing them down, and the resulting publicity, as valuable examples to the rest of us. A recent example is Jerry Koosman, who pitched for the Mets in '60s and 70s and retired from baseball in 1985. He was recently convicted of willful failure to report income and pay Federal taxes and will begin serving a six-month prison sentence in November. There are 9 million Americans who owe back taxes and, in FY 2008, less than 500 of them, who did not have illegal sources of income or were involved in narcotics or money laundering, were incarcerated.
A sad childhood like Polanski's should strengthen a man's character, rather than become a pass to ruin the life of another human being.
~ nice line
One of the finest and kindest woman I have ever met was very badly teased and ostricized as a.
child.
Polanski already had his day in Court -- he admitted guilt. What he hasn't had is his days in the slammer in accordance to a proper sentence. I mean -- what was he thinking. Polanski wanted to rape and sodomize a 13 year-old under the influence of alcohol and all he wanted to have as his sentence was a mental evaluation. I bet a lot of child molesters would love to receive that treatment. The man needs to do the time -- clearly he is not crazy -- he is, in fact, very talented in his industry and profession -- he clearly knew what he was doing and sodomized the girl. 5-10 years doesn't sound unreasonable to me -- specially taking into account his status as fugitive, which should add more time and the fact that he's managed (because of his cowardice) to live the better years of his life in the lap of luxury. I don't see what the problem is here? He has had an ample good life -- but now the long arm of the law has got him and he needs to pay for his ill deeds.
Please do remember the permissivity of the 70's before seeking vengeance against one man who nows for a lot of readers represent the horrible act of Pedophilia.
is Roman Polanski responsible for all of that ?( Sexual Tourisme in South East Asia etc)
For those who believe he should be given a fair trial ,you may also look at the petition for his defense.
Do you really think that all the people who signed would defend a monster who raped a baby girl?
http://www.sacd.fr/Tous-les-signataires-de-la-petition-All-signing-parties.1341.0.html
The permissiveness of the 70s is a bogus argument. In many ways, present-day values have become even more permissive: witness the mainstreaming of porn, adolescent lipstick parties, and uber-sexualized music videos that encourage 9-year-olds to pole dance. Yes, the 70s were a time of experimentation, but in no way did they sanction or glorify sex between middle-age men and pubescent girls.
As for the petition asking for his release: yes, I do think all those people are defending someone who raped a girl. Their reasons and motivation have been written about well by others in various media outlets.
It's a gross over-simplification to presume that because "all those people signed", therefore, his defense is defendable.
not really we were much more permissive about this in the 70's Watch Brooke Sheilds first movie- Pretty Baby.
Your post in nothing more than another list of excuses to try and explain away the illegal acts and cowardly actions of RP.
The time for asking that mitigating factors be considered was at trial. The time to complain about not getting a fair trial was then, not now, unless now is when some new evidence showing he was not given a fair trial has come up. Well, has it????? No. In fact, because he won't just do the time as required this matter keeps coming up in a very public way and hurts, one more time, the privacy of the woman he injured. So she gets to be a victim all over again.
What the Anne Applebaum's of the world, (people who have not been raised with the concept of what it means to live and function in a democratic society,) don't get is that society functions best when it decides what the rules are, then everyone learns those rules, abides by them, and pays the agreed upon price when they break them. The lesson here is that we must continue making an effort to education children about this concept, and there is still a lot of resistance in the world to taking seriously protection of children from sexual predators.
Saying "no" is the opposite of permissive.
Well, they are.
Thank you----good to hear from a male involved in the entertainment industry--- the latter of which seems to want to write this off--------tho no one wants to write off Phillip Garrido or the Elisabeth Smart kidnappers; this is why this is largely a class matter, about money, celebrity, fame, and the "special treats" the entertainment industry has grown accustomed to believing it deserves----
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
