Polanski, My Daughter and Me: A Very Short Story
In the summer of 1977 I got a magazine assignment to cover the trial of Roman Polanski. My daughter Holly was then thirteen—the same age as the girl Polanski was accused of seducing (I didn't know yet it was actually rape)—and Holly had decided to come to Santa Monica with me, sit in the front row of the courtroom, and just stare at Polanski.
She also planned to write an article about the trial from her point of view. However, Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and fled the country on the day he was supposed to be sentenced.
I told Holly, “I'm gonna write about the trial anyway.”
“How can you do that?”
“I'll just make it up as if it actually occurred. Roman Polanski's defense will be that the statutory rape laws are unconstitutional because they discriminate against kids.”
“How would you feel if the kid was me?”
“Well, I'm a liberal father, but . . . you're right. I'm not gonna write the article.”
Follow Paul Krassner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZenBastard
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
As for the actual 'short story', the law of statutory rape is indeed unconstitutional, since not all children develop at the same physical or mental maturity rate and should have their say in all matters. It also doesn't make any allowance for the fact that they are much more knowledgeable in many areas than adults want them to be, while others are not but suddenly can judge for themselves, yet so called adults could be no more mature than a ten year old. It's all too relative and also vilifies men for having slept with a so called minor who willingly gave their consent. Rape can be proven by more reliable means on a case to case/evidence base other than apply in/discriminating laws and go by dubious words which can become testified lies. Many men were unjustly locked up because of this 'law', and I for one believe that happened to Polanski and will not change my mind about that.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
Your argument is logical, but why don't you explain how you concluded the law is unconstitutional? You haven't even said what part of the Constitution it supposedly violates. Have similar laws been ruled to be unconstitutional?
Ok, let me try. I suppose we know what the word itself means, and applied to this statutory rape law, in addition to my original post, it’s a catch 22 law, where either side is bound to fail no matter what they’ll do. Minor says yes despite the law not allowing her to, and the adult consents to it despite being unable to accept her consent. Once found out, the law itself makes it unconstitutional and all obligations arising from it are unlawful, since no person can be held accountable for having failed to live up to his or her obligations under that statute, nor is the statute enforceable, since the state constitutes them freedom of choice and then creates laws that disallow them to allow the law itself by infringing on their freedom of choice (and to be judged on an individual (case) base) through another law. Hence, no one can be punished for having refused obedience to that law once it is found to be unconstitutional by creating a contradiction in terms. The whole logic is missing in this law created to strip either side of their constitutional rights of freedom of choice to consent and accept consent by nullifying that freedom of choice in the first place. Cont>>
Cont>> That’s why it distinguishes between actual rape and ‘unlawful’ sex not being rape but consensual sex neither of them were in fact allowed to consent or give consent to in the first place, by disabling their constitutional freedom of that choice to give and accept consent when wanted. Where’s the logic to punish them for having failed that law which fails the law of granting them their constitutional freedom of choice itself, when they should have been left to do what they wanted at neither side being harmed – not the law. It’s contradictive and shouldn’t be based on age of either party either. It violates the freedom issue itself. Of course, there must be a cut-off point of when one is too young to understand what they’re consenting to, but if neither party was unharmed, it should be up to them based on their individual maturity. But that’s another question of ‘morality’ and individual perception thereof altogether which is impossible to execute. As for any laws having been ‘ruled’ to be unconstitutional, I’m sure there were/are plenty only to be replaced by others.
Polanski did not give her, offer her or force any drugs on her. She took a piece of Quaaludes herself without his asking her and there was no coercion. That's all recorded fact and it's about time people actually understood that. He neither fed her alcohol since she took the champagne on her free will according to her own words, And, most of all wasn't it forcible rape as per medical evidence. Let alone child rape, since she was a prepubescent by law, which also throws out the paedophile nonsense. Her statement of having said 'no' or that she tried to get away from him was never corroborated by the actual findings, and many didn't, or (still) don't believe her. She herself stated often enough it wasn't rape let alone forceful, and it's amazing that people think they know better just to maintain these unfounded accusations that it was.
Apart from that, Polanski did his time for unlawful sex with a minor and was released early on the recommendation of impartial probation officers. He only fled the US after the judge had unlawfully reneged on that plea bargain, which was struck to avoid a trial, and wanted to sentence him again. The arrest warrant could only be served because he had sentenced Polanski in absentia before he was removed from the case by both parties' attorneys for his illegal conduct. He committed serious abuse of his powers, no wonder Polanski fled even the plaintiff's attorney didn't find surprising.
Just for the sake of argument, something I have always wondered about is this.
IF a 13 year old girl has sex with an adult male irrespective of age, why is she considered unable to make a decision about having sex?............
BUT
IF the same 13 year old kills another human being then the courts say she is an adult and should be tried as an adult because she knew what she was doing.
So what is up with having no ability to have sex consentingly but having the ability to kill is knowing what you are doing????
Why isn't it you are either a minor for everything or you are not?
Excellent point!
Thank you. I have wondered that for years. Just recently there was a 14 year old boy who is incredibly obese and the authorities are going after his mother for neglect/abuse. There has also been the 9 year old they are looking at trying as an adult for rape in Phoenix.
There should be a standard age for all this stuff across the country. The DA shouldn't have the chance to change the rules just because the sensationalism of trying a child for a violent crime might get him more votes in the next election.
First of all this 13 year old did not rape anyone - she was the victim. She did not commit any crime. Being raped is not a crime. Hardly comparable to murdering someone.
You MISS the point of my post completely.
Take off the emotion hat and try again.
Once upon a time long ago -- in the land before Reagan -- there were no such things as "juvenile waiver laws" for Class A and Unclassified felonies such as murder, arson, armed robbery or rape.
In 1977 a juvenile could only be tried for felony or capital murder as an adult in a handful of states (read Southern here). California was definitely one of the majority of states that DID NOT allow juveniles to be tried as adults.
You can thank Presidents Reagan and Clinton, respectively, for liberalizing the doctrine of juvenile waiver in this country.
Thanks to the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Americans can vote at the age of eighteen, but it wasn't so long ago that they couldn't. Also, why can young men be drafted into the military at the age of eighteen, but aren't allowed to drink until the age of twenty-one?
I think the answer to all of these questions is that we have a mixture of outdated and incompatible notions about the meaning of childhood. After all, child labor was an unquestioned fact of life in America until relatively recently. The concept of "childhood," isn't universal - add in factors like gender, class, "race," & our Puritan heritage, and it stands to reason that various cultures & regions in America would have different ideas about who is and is not a child.
Point # 1. No child has the true ability to make a choice in the face of the authority a grown-up represents.
Point # 2. Sex with an underaged child is statutory rape.
Point # 3. ..... Well, actually, there is no #3 because there is nothing more to discuss.
In many countries 13 is an adult. And since like LiberalBuzz stated they can be tried as an adult for killing seems to wash away you assumption that they can't think for themselves.
http://www.wisegeek.com/at-what-age-is-someone-considered-an-adult-in-the-world.htm
In some countries they give children real automatic firearms for Christmas.
Exactly. No means no. She could have been forty and "no" still would have meant "no". Rape is rape at any age.
See Jeff Norman's Profile
But we don't know the girl said no to Polanski, and he pled guilty only to statutory rape, not rape.
When Polanski returns and faces a trial, many folks here may be disappointed. The prosecutor failed to prep the alleged victim. As a result, only public pressure would force the DA to go to trial.
He knew or should have known that the doctors who examined the girl came up with results which undermine her story. There was no sign of force, no indication of anal sex, nor vaginal sex. Had she been properly prepped for the Grand Jury testimony, she would have avoided references to any accusation that couldn't be backed up by the medical examination.
Now, all that is on the record, subject to her cross examination.
The only option I see for the prosecution is for her to admit on the witness stand she made some of this up. Will she go for it? She's currently a reluctant witness who realizes her story doesn't hang well right now.
We now have a he-said, she-wished-she-hadn't-said situation.
three words : thirteen years old
Three words: Deal with facts.
There is not going to be a trial. He pled guilty to a lesser charge and fled sentencing. No trial, no witnesses. He just needs to stand before a judge and be sentenced for the crime that he pled to, and be sentenced for fleeing the country like the coward he proved himself to be.
Funny how so many people say he should be allowed back in the US to make movies. Does anyone think he will not be permanently deported after his sentencing? Why would someone of his moral depravity, who is not a us citizen, be allowed to stay in the US? Polanski, stay out and good riddance.
Good point MN He should serve time for his guilty plea plus time for fleeing the country then DEPORT his ass and never let him back in. That works for me.
There's not going to be a trial eh? Why do you say that? He was offered the option if the judge decided to change the plea agreement. Do you believe that that option is no longer available? Why do you say that? Was it something you read? If so, please let me know where you got that from.
Perhaps it's just that I think even if a l3 year old girl is not a virgin but any adult male should know that there are some lines that you just don't cross unless you are willling to suffer the consequences. If her mother gave her sexual freedom it doesn't give anyone the right to take advantage to partake of this freedom. We have laws in this country and if you break them you need to pay the price, no matter how good your movies are , or if you are a brilliant person.
Instead of a 6-month sentence he'll get the book thrown at him now. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Not a chance...
not a chance he'll walk. he'll get the original sentence for statutory rape and time for fleeing the country.
The girl said "no" to Polanski. It didn't matter what her age was. She said "no".
But, what if she had said "yes"? What if there were no alcohol or drugs involved and she said "yes"? What if she wanted to have sex with Polanski? Here's a girl who stated that she had intercourse prior to being involved with Polanski (presumably with her boy friend).
Someone please explain to me how a 13 year old girl is mature enough to decide to have sex with a boy her own age but not mature enough to have sex with a 45 year old man. How is sex with a 14 or 15 year old boy different than sex with a 45 year old man?
See Jeff Norman's Profile
Romulus, you don't know the girl said no. If I'm wrong about that, why don't you reveal how you know?
You have repeatedly challenged people on numerous Polanski-related stories on this site to prove that this wasn't a consensual act. It is in the testimony of the victim, and her version of the events of that night have not changed despite whatever feelings she may have on whether or not Polanski deserves to go to prison for this now. By interpreting your comments one can only assume that you have evidence that the victim was and is lying about what happened that night. Outside of the possibility that any given person may be lying at any given time, what gives you the right to essentially accuse her of perjury. There is no logic to your constant defense of Polanski and your rush to blame the victim and imply she is a liar.
You can't be a parent and write that. Obviously the fact that her Mother allowed her to have sex with a boyfriend, and to be with Roman un-supervised, implies the girl never had structure or loving guidance to begin with. It does not excuse Roman, who so many feel is a brilliant film-maker and very intelligent. He had all of the power, he gave her the drugs, and he was stupid enough to say in an interview after he fled the country that "all men want to f--- young girls...." He shows no remorse for his abuse of power and the way he completely manipulated the girl to his advantage.
Speaking of parenting, if your son were accused of rape, drugging etc, would you believe he's guilty because the alleged victim said he was guilty?
but what if, but what if, It's not what happened. Period.
and as to "please explain to me, blah blah blah...
I suspect you just want to hear those words for your own reasons.
Huh? Hear what words for my own reasons?
A short and succincy story, Paul. Well told.
WTF?!?!?!?!
Paul Krassner always has ways of making us laugh, even with complex subjects. Holly sounds like she inherited his wit and calling to write. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
