UPDATE: I posted this quickly and without reading up on the case at all. Commenters provide interesting, though horrifying, links. I think we now have very good evidence that the rape wasn’t “merely” statutory and that drugs and alcohol were given to the girl. Although Anne Applebaum reminds us that Polanski too has suffered mightily, so really, who’s to judge? Original post below.
Not sure what to make of this. Sure, he’s an old man who makes films, and there seemed to be an implicit agreement not to arrest him. Also, alleged procedural weirdness involving the plea deal. Justice: cut it with mercy! On the other hand, sex with a 13 year old involving (allegedly) alcohol and a quaalude. Ick, and the laws against that don’t have an artist exemption. The weird reactions give me the creeps, frankly.
French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said he was “stunned” by the news, adding that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to see the acclaimed director returned swiftly to his family….”(Mitterrand) profoundly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already known so many during his life,” the culture ministry said in a statement….Robert Harris, a British novelist who said he had been working with Polanski for much of the past three years writing two screenplays, expressed outrage over the arrest….”I am shocked that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion,” he said in a statement, adding that Polanski had often visited Switzerland and even had a house in Gstaad….”It is hard not to believe that this heavy-handed action must be in some way politically motivated,” he said.
Even a house in Gstaad! Hard not to see this as the “he’s one of us” defense.
77 comments
September 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Punning Pundit
YAY! We’re going to see justice for a child molester!
I don’t know that I’ve read a defense of him more sophisticated than “he’s famous”– which seems like more reason to bust him than to let him go free…
September 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm
shadowcook
Does anyone remember a fascinating profile of Polanski in the New Yorker about the time that Schindler’s List came out? I haven’t found it anywhere online. It was the first I’d heard of his experiences as a teenager in the Lodz (I think, or Krakow) ghetto and Spielberg’s use of him as principal consultant for the ghetto scenes . As I remember it, without any obvious intention of excusing RP’s preying on pubescent girls, the author placed RP’s predilections in the context of arrested emotional development — arrested, that is, in 1943, when he was about 15. He looks at all women through the eyes of a 15 yr old, the writer suggested. However, that doesn’t explain predatory behavior.
The allegations about RP are a whole lot of creepy. And anyone who has read the Huff Post lately has to have noticed similar creepy stories from the same milieu and period.
Narcissism plus power equals entitlement.
September 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm
oudemia
Ugh. I have officially become boring on this topic, but it wasn’t icky-but-consensual “sex” with a 13yo. He raped her. She was crying and saying no. When he worried about her getting pregnant, he stopped raping her vaginally and started raping her anally. She kept crying and saying no. And I don’t think the champers-n-ludes are merely “alleged” — he just claims she was into it.
September 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Cassie
C’mon oudemia, the ordeal of being raped as what’s likely your first sexual experience is nothing compared to the ordeal of missing your award!
(AUGH this makes me SO FURIOUS.)
September 27, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Kieran
To add to the complications, the victim has said repeatedly that she is against a prosecution as the case brings unwelcome attention to her and her family. I think she reached a financial settlement with Polanski at some point.
Like Neddy, I found the defense from the intelligentsia — minimally that it’s all in the past and, more strongly, that Polanski is in fact the real victim — skin-crawling stuff. It’s not as if there’s any doubt about what he did to the girl. But Chinatown and The Pianist are such wonderful films! “I am shocked that any man of 76 … should have been treated in such a fashion.” Honestly. How about any girl of 13?
September 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm
N. Merrill
Just to be clear, I’m not claiming “icky but consensual.” She was 13, which means there’s no consent. (I hadn’t known about the crying and saying no, which is just stomach-churning; it’s hard to imagine having any sexual inclination around a weeping girl of that age.) In a very different case there might be “quasi-consent” that makes the sex somewhat less horrible, though horrible nonetheless, but that is a very different case.
September 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Tom
Polanski seems to be a classic case where you have to separate the artist from the art. There is an unfortunate tendency to “explain” his statutory rape based on his holocaust experience and the fact that his wife was killed by the Manson Family. I don’t think that’s any sort of excuse, and if Polanski hadn’t directed “Chinatown” people might have a more balanced perspective on this. As it is, many people seem to want to just let him be.
I know that the girl he raped has recently tried to drop the charges. However, I think that says more about her ability to work through trauma than Polanski’s innocence. He should still answer for it.
September 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm
oudemia
Oh, I ought to have been more clear that I didn’t think you were claiming that. I just feel the need to spell out that it wasn’t simply non-consensual because she was 13, but because she was actively saying no. That shouldn’t matter, exactly, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that his only no-no was the girl’s age. If you have the stomach for it, you can take a look here.
September 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm
shadowcook
The recent documentary, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” directed by a woman who builds a case for dropping the charges, has interviews with the girl now grown-up woman he raped. It’s my impression that generally the public is not aware of the details that oudemia provides. As it happens, the only people who recommended the doc to me were women, who found the director’s argument persuasive. I found it repellent.
September 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm
oudemia
Aiaiai. That documentary made my head explode. This review of it makes a lot of its problems clear.
September 27, 2009 at 2:31 pm
shadowcook
oudemia, when I followed the link to Slate, I startled by the author’s name, Bill Wyman. Bill Wyman wrote a critical review of the documentary?!? Then, I realized, ah, different Bill Wyman.
September 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Sybil Vane
The woman he raped wants the charge to be dismissed, as I understand it, because every time something brings the case into the news, the trauma is reintroduced into her family and the details are gone over and over. Besides, her position w/r/t the carrying out of the sentence is sort of not at all the point. As LeBlanc noted in response to a tweet of mine this morning, this arrest is going to bring a shower of rape apologia. Sarkozy and Mitterrand should be ashamed of themselves.
September 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm
dana
Wow, the apologiae are disturbing as hell. There are plenty of reasons the victim might not want him prosecuted but whatever the case, he seems like one of us really shouldn’t be uttered by anyone. Sometimes, people like us are rapist assholes.
September 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm
N. Merrill
These two claims are consistent: (i) the victim has good reason to want this dropped instead of prosecuted; (ii) there are good reasons to prosecute. It’s a pretty bad idea to give victims veto power over these things, though it makes sense to take her reasons into account.
September 27, 2009 at 3:05 pm
oudemia
He’s already been prosecuted. He was indicted on at least 5 different charges, but ended up pleading only to sex with a minor, because the victim’s mother wanted to spare her daughter a trial. And who can blame her when RP’s lawyers were saying things like “The facts indicate that before the alleged acts in this case the girl had engaged in sexual activity. We want to know about it, we want to know who was involved, when, we want to know why these other people were not prosecuted. It’s something we want to fully develop.”
September 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm
N. Merrill
The more I think about this, the weirder it seems. I always found it a little odd that this guy was wandering around Europe doing his thing, but to get actively pissed at his arrest just seems bizarre.
September 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm
jen
shadowcook, the New Yorker profile was by Lawrence Weschler, in the 12/5/94 issue. (I think their archives are largely behind a paywall.) It’s reprinted in Weschler’s Vermeer in Bosnia. And yes, the piece is fascinating and disturbing. (Weschler suggests that Polanski’s predilection for young girls around the time of the rape was partly a reaction to his wife’s murder, for example.)
September 27, 2009 at 3:55 pm
shadowcook
Thanks, jen.
September 27, 2009 at 4:11 pm
URK
““I am shocked that any man of 76 … should have been treated in such a fashion.” Honestly. How about any girl of 13?”
Exactly right. I also didn’t know about the details cited above. the idea that it was consensual with an precocious but underage partner seems to have been pretty well circulated. Or maybe I was just shamefully ignorant.
I understand the victim not wanting to press charges & would myself be fine with him not being prosecuted if there was some other way to guarantee that his life could be made a living hell for an appropriate amount of time. Like the rest of it.
September 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
N Merrill
But what does Anne Applebaum think?
Oy.
September 27, 2009 at 4:44 pm
oudemia
Although I understand it perfectly well, I continue to be nauseated by how very much rapists benefit from the pain a trial will cause their victims. Read the quote above from RP’s defense attorneys; they made their threat to the victim and the victim’s family accede to a plea bargain to far lesser charges. RP can now walk around with his risible defenders saying, oh, well, it was only stat rape. And to repeat — I absolutely understand the victim’s family. Just the whole thing makes me want to burn shit down.
September 27, 2009 at 4:53 pm
N Merrill
I’m wondering how much of the online defenses come from easy contrarianism (google a little, read about the documentary, cite some facts about “statutory” and “judicial misconduct”) and how much comes from more disturbing attitudes.
September 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm
DOW
Ain’t schadenfreude wonderful? Everything we know about this case we read in the MSM. Which we don’t trust when it comes to politics but do when it comes to the gnarly business of human affairs.
Not an apologia for anybody. Just sayin’.
(That’s why my favorite people are the plucky little bunch who brave public opinion by answering public opinion polls “Don’t know.”)
September 27, 2009 at 5:01 pm
oudemia
Actually, I read the grand jury testimony of the child he drugged and raped.
September 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm
dana
Oh, no, his life isn’t quite as honored as it would have been if he hadn’t raped someone! O the punishment!
And to repeat — I absolutely understand the victim’s family.
Yeah, me too. To paraphrase N said at 2:54pm, it’s completely consistent to think that the victim has good reasons to put it behind her without thinking that this exonerates him.
Just sayin’.
Dude, the grand jury testimony is pretty clear, so unless you’re arguing that she’s lying, there’s no reason to think any of the reaction here is due to media bias.
September 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Sybil Vane
He can’t return to Hollywood to direct a film? Is that for fucking real? I might have to force myself to not read anything about this for a few days.
September 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm
kathy a.
he already pled guilty — that means he is convicted. the warrant was because he skipped out on his sentencing. he refused to come back to the US to pursue his complaints about the judge.
courts really cannot reward people who flee because they don’t want to serve a sentence.
i saw something utterly ridiculous, claiming that secretary of state clinton should grant him clemency! umm, that is not something under her authority, even if there was a reason to do so.
September 27, 2009 at 5:33 pm
jim
This came up at dinner. Fun conversation. We sat for at least half an hour longer than usual. One of the aspects that came up was his movie of Oliver Twist. Apparently he explored teenage (homo-)sexuality in it. The Dickens fans were outraged. This does suggest he has not changed much.
September 27, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Mr. Sidetable
But what “I am shocked that any man of 76 … should have been treated in such a fashion” really means, of course, is that “I am shocked that any man … should have been treated in such a fashion.”
Ugh. I confess that I hadn’t known many of the particulars of the case either, but having read a few of the links above, he’s got it coming.
One thing that really creeps me out about the responses from Sarkozy and Mitterand is that, in much of Europe, a lot of people probably don’t see much wrong with what Polanski did. The age of consent in Spain is 13 (it’s 14 in Germany, 15 in France). In addition to a sense of shared elite privilege, I think a lot of the European defenses of him are rooted in a view of adolescent female sexuality that–at least to my Puritanical American mind–is a bit beyond icky.
September 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm
jimmy123
Can’t they just make Polanski pick up leaves by the roadside or something for a couple hundred hrs?
I pray some reporter asks Berlusconi to comment on this.
September 27, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Corinne
Since our GOP governor did to California what GWB did to the USA, we are having to make the decision of which prisoners to turn out onto the streets because there just isn’t any money left in California to house these folks. You know, “three strikes you out” even if it means someone goes to the Big House for stealing a loaf of bread. ….. So I ask you, do you think we should let Charlie Manson out to make room for Polanski? And besides, why wasn’t that girl’s mother charged along with Polanski? She set the entire thing up. ….. WHY CAN’T AMERICANS GET THEIR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT?
September 27, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Anderson
Applebaum never fails to amaze. Apologists for American Communists are BAD. Apologists for child-rapers are GOOD.
There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.
Sure. Maybe she didn’t look a day under 14. Sorry. I can see getting confused about some 16 or 17 year olds, but 13? Uh-uh.
September 27, 2009 at 8:49 pm
human
Maybe I will regret asking this. But people keep bringing up “judicial misconduct” only nowhere have I read an actual description of what the judge was supposed to have done that was misconduct. Anyone?
September 27, 2009 at 8:53 pm
ben
I think there was a plea bargain and he wasn’t sticking to his half of it, or something.
September 27, 2009 at 9:02 pm
oudemia
1. We know that Applebaum’s husband is a Polish foreign minister or something who is and has been lobbying for RP’s full pardon, yes?
2. As to judicial misconduct, I think it goes like this. RP took a plea to stat rape, and there was a tentative sentencing agreement. At the hearing where RP delivered his guilty plea, he was asked if he understood that it was in the judge’s discretion to change any sentencing agreement and he said yes. The tentative agreement was that RP undergo 90 days of psych evaluation at Chino State Prison. RP was given a delay on serving that sentence to finish shooting a movie. When he did report to Chino, he stayed 42 days not 90. The judge at this point was less inclined to stick to the original agreement and expressed an intention to add some small amount of jail time to RP’s sentence. RP fled. A documentary was made about RP’s legal troubles that asserted that the judge’s changing the terms of the plea was somehow judicial misconduct. This is now repeated a lot.
September 27, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Mr. Sidetable
It seems like the root of the claim of judicial misconduct is that the judge had conversations with the DA that Polanski’s people claim were improper (e.g., without his counsel present), and that those conversations led the judge to impose a stricter sentence than had been discussed in the tentative agreement.
September 27, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Jeff Fecke
Even if there was judicial misconduct, Polanski chose to flee jurisdiction rather than pursue a legal remedy. From the basic standpoint of the rule of law, allowing Polanski to go free would be tantamount to saying that if you can just avoid jail long enough, then we’ll reward you for doing so.
If there’s a problem with the prosecution, the way to challenge that is to show up in court and argue your case, not to flee to France and argue that because you make good films and had some bad things happen to you, therefore you really shouldn’t be held responsible for that time you raped a kid.
September 27, 2009 at 10:46 pm
cb on bonanzle
Manson follower Susan Atkins who had killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate died a couple of days ago and now this announced arrest of Roman Polanski.
What I can’t understand is, how did Polanski manage to evade the law all these years with the so called technology of cameras and GPS, etc. There is just NO way that one can hide from the law with all of technology that is out there.
Something is just screwy here. I think the authorities DID know where he was hiding all these years. And one has to question as to why did they decide to arrest him NOW and not arrest him from years ago? Not to mention that this is going to cost taxpayers money for a trial that will drag on for years.
This is another example of how there is no such thing as “justice” in the justice system in the USA. Criminals go free while the innocent and victims get sent to prison.
September 27, 2009 at 11:54 pm
herbert browne
Somehow the attitude that “if you just go with the flow, rape’s no big deal” is something we ‘owe’ to the “women as chattel” worldview. I’d suggest that, for his part, RP should be forced to star in a movie that he doesn’t get to direct… and call up Lynndie England to head up co-star as the head of the posse of avengers… art’s gotta be good for Something… ^..^
September 28, 2009 at 4:55 am
Ess
I read the transcript of the victims interview with Larry King….. I think Roman Polanski is guilty. but the mother who let her 13 year old daufgter go off with a man without supervision should also be facing trial…… this is sooo reminiscent of parents selling thier children in the hope of making them stars… or getting money from settlements….. by all means let RP go to jail and then lets get all the would be parents of stars to stop putting thier children in dangerous situations…..
September 28, 2009 at 5:46 am
Kieran
Honestly, you make a bunch of great movies, you win loads of prestigious prizes, you headline dozens of major festivals, it doesn’t matter. But you rape one 13 year old and skip the country …
September 28, 2009 at 6:34 am
lawguy
One of the more interesting things about this, is Polanski and his people’s decision to start pushing against his conviction again. Apparently, they cooperated with the film maker and they have recently filed in California.
My guess is that he wouldn’t have been pursued at this late date had he himself not pushed it. I would guess that he thought he could finally force a dismissal and even if he couldn’t then he would lose nothing.
September 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
bitchphd
A few years ago the victim wrote a piece for the LA Times essentially saying that she was sick of the fucking publicity.
September 28, 2009 at 10:51 am
bitchphd
the mother who let her 13 year old daufgter go off with a man without supervision should also be facing trial
Hear that, mothers? If you let your daughter babysit/go have a sleepover at a friend’s house/have a male teacher/be involved in any extracurricular activity and she is raped, then you should be arrested.
September 28, 2009 at 11:26 am
jack lord
I heard that Roman did admit he had sex with the 13 year old girl; however, he was not charged with rape. … what he did was wrong, even if it was long ago, he still was made responsible for this
September 28, 2009 at 11:42 am
Robert Halford
Look, Polanski should be prosecuted, Appelbaum is a jerk, and the I-am-a-good-filmaker-therefore-I-am-above-morality arguments are ridiculous. But I am getting pissed off by the growing liberal blog consensus– at Unfogged, at Crooked Timber, and at LGM — that we know with certainty that Polanski committed rape (in the non-consensual sex sense) and not just statutory rape (which is not disputed). No, we really don’t know what happened that night.
What we have is the victim’s grand jury testimony which was leaked and made public. That is no more, and no less, than one-sided grand jury testimony. It was not subject to cross examination nor to the production of evidence from the defense. (Even standing on its own, that grand jury testimony raises some doubt about what happened). The public simply does not have access to the other evidence in the case — what we have, essentially, is the victim’s story, and that’s it.
What we do know is that Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, with furnishing drugs to the victim, and a number of other crimes. All of those charges were dropped. Why? We don’t know. I’ve seen some speculation that the victim wouldn’t cooperate because of a fear of intrusion into her prior history, but that’s speculation, and there’s no really compelling reason to think that the reason was anything other than “there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed to a conviction on those charges.” Polanski did plead guilty to sex with a minor, the California version of statutory rape.
I don’t want to excuse Polanski at all. He has admitted that he had sex with a 13 year old girl. It is certainly possible that he did some even worse things. Even if the sex was totally consensual, there are very good reasons why sex with a 13 year old is a crime, even in the presence of so-called consent — we don’t think that children of that age are really capable of “consent” in a meaningful sense to sex with an adult. Polanski is also indisputably a fugitive from justice, and I can’t really figure out why he wasn’t extradited years ago. And I agree that the argument that we should just let bygones be bygones because he was able to (successfully) game the system laughable; he should be punished. But citing to grand jury testimony as if it establishes the “facts” of what happened is completely ridiculous and beneath the standard of the liberal bloggers and commenters making that argument.
September 28, 2009 at 11:55 am
dana
The thing is, to the best of my knowledge, no one’s disputing the grand jury testimony, and quite a lot of people seem to be arguing under the presumption that the agreed facts are that she gave consent but was too young legally for that to count, so it’s important to have the rest of the story out there. Neither Polanski, nor his defenders, are arguing that the facts are otherwise than was presented; charitably, this may just be ignorance on the part of his defenders. If they think there’s good reason to suspect the grand jury testimony is not just the typical one-sided presentation, but seriously wrong about the facts, then they should give their reasons for thinking so.
But all that aside, at a minimum, we have a guy who was convicted of statutory rape who skipped out on serving his sentence, and what’s being mustered in response is that skipping out on the sentence should count as time served, because he makes really important films and it’s really hard to do that when one is running from the cops or some such drivel. Would that this were typical for plea bargains!
September 28, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Robert Halford
Polanski has always disputed her story about what happened, so it’s not like the facts are undisputed. That is, there’s no dispute that they had sex, but whether or not it was more than statutory rape really is a he said/she said. Which isn’t to say that she’s lying, just that we don’t know what really happened.
I agree 100% with your second paragraph — the idea that somehow you should get more clemency just because you’ve been good at being a fugitive for a long time is totally baffling to me.
September 28, 2009 at 12:12 pm
kathy a.
he entered a guilty plea to the least of the charges — having sex with a minor isn’t even contested. then he ran off, mid-way through the psych evaluation that was part of his deal.
no, nobody knows all the facts for sure — but the sex with a minor part has been conceded. it is not in issue. and there is certainly information that what happened was worse; but polanski decided — probably very wisely — to avoid the possibility of being imprisoned for basically ever by taking a plea to something he could not reasonably contest.
so, sticking to the established facts: he raped a young girl, got a deal to avoid serious punishment, and then escaped for 30 years because he didn’t want any punishment. he refused to come back to pursue any complaints he had about the process. i’m not really understanding why anyone should feel sorry for him.
September 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm
dave
“…really important films…” And there you have the basic fuckedupness of the situation, that there are supposedly serious people in the world who do consider the making of films – not even documentary exposure of hideous wrongdoing, but pieces of artistic fiction – as worthy of being put into the balance on a matter of a vile crime. Clearly, they would not have walked away from Omelas.
September 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Robert Halford
I don’t feel sorry for Polanski at all and agree that he should be prosecuted and punished. But a lot of people seem to want to emphasize that he was a real rapist and not just a guy willing to have sex with a 13 year old girl. To be honest, I’m not certain why this distinction is getting so much weight — in my book, sex with a 13 year old girl when you’re in your 40s is contemptible enough, and so is skipping out of town to avoid what looked like not a very long jail sentence. But I do think it’s worth pushing back on the idea that just because someone says something to a Grand Jury means that it’s true.
September 28, 2009 at 12:33 pm
dana
I agree there, Robert, but I’ve heard (in conversation and various other places, Merritt) people arguing that this was essentially a victimless crime (e.g., who can blame the man for a tryst with a willing young partner, so why chase down this poor 76 year old man who has done so much by making good films, etc.), and so I think it’s worth emphasizing that this wasn’t at all what she claimed happened, and I don’t think “he said/she said” does it justice (nor explain the drugs, really, and this isn’t even close to a borderline stat rape case.)
September 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
oudemia
Here is a summary of the facts as they stand by the wonderful Kate Harding.
September 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Anderson
If Mr. Polanski wants to deny that he had vaginal and anal sex with a 13-year-old girl, or that he gave her drugs before having sex with her, then I’m all ears.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, er, girl.”
September 28, 2009 at 12:48 pm
human
Thanks for answering my question, guys.
September 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Robert Halford
The Kate Harding piece linked to above has exactly the problem that I find annoying. No, you can’t just cite to the grand jury testimony as gospel, and no, you can’t just elide between the two kinds of rape in order to make your point. With that said, the just-let-him-go school of Polanski defenders really have insufferably weak arguments.
Incidentally, one of the things I can’t figure out is why the DA dropped the charge of supplying narcotics to a minor. Since there was physical evidence of the quaaludes, that would seem like an absolute slam dunk. Apparently there is some evidence that the girl brought her own quaaludes with her.
September 28, 2009 at 1:25 pm
kathy a.
robert — ok, you have made your point that nobody really knows all the evidence, and the grand jury testimony was one-sided. but then you go on to speculate that “apparently there is some evidence that the girl brought her own quaaludes with her.”
or maybe not; that charge was dropped as part of the deal, so who knows. maybe you are just trying to work this all through, and that’s fine, but if you are going to insist on everyone sticking to the proven facts [oh, no stage mothers], then stick to the proven facts. he raped a 13 year old, admitted that in a legal manner that got him out of shitloads of trouble, and then fled.
September 28, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Robert Halford
Kathy, I’m not sure what you’re asking for? Yes, I agree there’s no dispute that he (stautorily) raped a 13 year old and then fled. As I’ve said, I think it’s very clear that he’s a bad actor who should be prosecuted.
And I also think it’s fine to publicize the victim’s side of the story (since Dana is right, some people assume that she admits she consented, which is really far from the truth), so long as we’re clear that’s what that is.
September 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Mike
But a lot of people seem to want to emphasize that he was a real rapist and not just a guy willing to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
Perhaps I’m a little obtuse, but just what the hell is a “real” rapist? Is this something different from a plain-old-everyday-fun-loving-rapist?
and no, you can’t just elide between the two kinds of rape in order to make your point.
Talk about elision! I realize that you are far from defending Polanski here Robert, but these two statements taken together carry some pretty disturbing implications–implications that, it seems to me, begin to fall apart the moment one offers to spell out the specific circumstances under which Polanski might not be a “real rapist” but rather “just a guy willing to have sex with a 13 year old girl.”
September 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm
lawguy
Actually, there are several reasons everybody might have agreed to a deal that dismissed the most serious charges. If he was guilty of the most serious charges, perhaps it would have been very difficult to prove them, perhaps the victim was not sympathetic or could have been made to appear unsympathetic. Perhaps it was because the victim and her mother didn’t want to put themselves through the trial.
Polanski could have agreed even if he thought himself not guilty because of the possibility of a very long prison term if things didn’t go his way.
Such is American justice. You can see it every day in every criminal court in this country.
September 28, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Robert Halford
Hey, Mike, maybe I’m being unclear, but if it matters, I think (a) “statutory” rape, certainly of a 13 year old girl, IS rape, and (b) Polanski’s actions are indefensible and (c) he should be prosecuted.
What sparked my commenting here is the following argument, which I’ve seen a lot on liberal blogs in the past 2 days: “Polanski’s not just an ordinary guy who had sex with a 13 year old; the fact is that he viciously anally raped a girl over her protests.” Followed by a cite to the grand jury testimony. As I said before, I’m not really sure why this emphasis is necessary — 13 year olds can’t “consent” to sex with 40 year old men in any meaningful sense, and there’s no dispute that illegal sex happened here. Nonetheless, whether or not the sex was formally “consensual” seems to matter to a lot of people. Many of them are taking it as a matter of fact that there was no formal consent this because of the the grand jury testimony — even though the grand jury testimony doesn’t establish much of anything other than the victim’s version of events, which Polanski denies. For example, the Salon article linked to above treated the grand jury testimony as established fact, described the testimony in detail, and then calls Polanski an admitted rapist. Of course, Polanski is an admitted rapist, in the sense of “statutory” rape, but there’s a kind of deliberate confusion in the Salon article (and elsewhere) over what exactly he admitted, what’s established and what’s not, etc.
So, that’s all I’m trying to say. Frankly, I’m not happy about writing anymore about this, I’m not at all invested in expending my brain cells on even a partial defense of a guy who has admitted to doing something very wrong, and who may well have done something even worse. Nor do I want to in any way ally myself with the Polanski “defenders,” whose arguments for not seeing him deported are really inane. I don’t have any better idea — one way or another — than anyone else as to what happened that night or why the LA DA’s office decided to cut a deal on only one relatively minor charge. But I do think it’s a big mistake in any legal context to take one side’s story as gospel, and that’s always a point worth keeping in mind, perhaps especially in emotionally charged cases.
September 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm
shadowcook
For what it’s worth, Robert, I take your point. I’d even go so far as to say that if we don’t take into account the one-sidedness of this grand jury testimony, we are bound to be disillusioned and disappointed with the probable outcome of RP’s extradition and subsequent sentencing. By recognizing the nature of the testimony, we are not expressing a belief about what did or did not happen or necessarily casting doubt on the victim’s testimony. That testimony, in effect, is the constraint under which the legal system is working. Or at least that is the meaning I take from your caution.
Certainly is hot in here, isn’t it?
September 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm
kathy a.
read, there is no question of “innocence.” he entered a guilty plea to sex with a minor [which is rape], and there is no question of that — he admitted those facts, there is no evidence that the victim was not 13. he made the choice to flee before sentencing.
it is quite true that child rapists are unpopular in the prison population. the prison has the obligation to keep them safe, anyway. many end up in protective custody, away from dangers on the yard.
and no, polanski has not “punished himself already and more severely than the judge could have ruled.” deciding to abscond to a life of luxury abroad is not actually the equivalent of doing time.
September 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Super Channel Blog
Polanski’s victim, Samantha Geimer, is now 45 years old and among those calling for mercy. She settled a lawsuit with Polanski and publicly forgave him over ten years ago.
I understand why, barring any legal argument, he must be returned to the United States to stand before the court. But I also understand that the Roman Polanski of 1977 was still in the midst of trauma and horror, and that for the last thirty years he became a different man who remarried, fathered children and never reoffended.
Bring Roman Polanski back to the United States. Let him stand before the court and plead guilty to a crime he committed 32 years ago. Then open the door and let him walk free for the first time since that night on August 9, 1969 when in many ways, Roman Polanski’s life ended with that of his wife and his unborn son.
I have detailed a few more of my thoughts in a new post:
http://superchannel.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/roman-polanski-victim-or-criminal/
September 28, 2009 at 5:35 pm
silbey
There were several comments caught in the spam filter, which I went ahead and approved. So things may be a little different in the thread now.
September 28, 2009 at 5:36 pm
dana
deciding to abscond to a life of luxury abroad is not actually the equivalent of doing time.
Seconded. By those standards, I’m being punished horribly, since I don’t have a nice villa in Gstaad or whatever. Time spent on the run does not count as time served.
September 28, 2009 at 6:06 pm
kathy a.
gene robinson: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802403.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
September 28, 2009 at 6:13 pm
jvhillegas
The tone of NPR’s coverage of the Polanski issue this evening is decidedly on the side of “stop picking on the poor guy.” The interviewer and interviewee in this piece both refer to the documentary unquestioningly.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=113284060&m=113284467
September 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm
kathy a.
it was only just over a year ago that the US supreme court confirmed, in kennedy v. louisiana, that the death penalty is a disproportionate and unconstitutional penalty for child rape. at that time, six states had passed laws permitting execution for child rape.
that was never a possible penalty for polanski; his punishment for the crime is governed by state law at the time, and death was never an option in california for this kind of offense. nor should it be.
i mention this case to note again that polanski had a sweetheart deal, and he walked out on it.
September 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Ahistoricality
“…really important films…”
Polanski?
OK, I’m no film buff, but are you telling me that “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” were world-turning works of cinema? That “The Pianist” wasn’t grounds for extradition by itself?
September 28, 2009 at 7:38 pm
URK
Josh Marshall is over at TPM offering an unquestioning recommendation of the documentary. I like Marshall alot & am in the middle of a note to him asking him to take a second looka t the case itself.
September 29, 2009 at 4:13 am
dana
are you telling me that “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” were world-turning works of cinema?
Hey, I’m not the one defending the guy, but that’s what they tell me.
September 29, 2009 at 6:00 am
Anderson
But I also understand that the Roman Polanski of 1977 was still in the midst of trauma and horror, so he quite understandably fucked little girls
There, fixed that for you. Took me a while though, because I had to clean the barf off my keyboard first.
September 29, 2009 at 5:51 pm
K-sky
L.A. Confidential is a better movie than Chinatown. If you don’t believe me, ask Manohla Dargis.
September 29, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Vance
While she’s wrong, that seems neither here nor there when considering the matter Anderson has boldfaced for us.
September 29, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Absinthe
Anderson, you are my new commenting hero.
October 2, 2009 at 11:32 am
Shiverrus
First, the victim was thirteen years old. I don’t know about where you live, but the average 13 year old here is in 7th or 8th grade. By some measures, this is not an issue of consent or statutory rape. It is arguably a lot closer to pedophilia. To put things into a bit of perspective, many of the victims of sexual abuse by catholic priests were 13 or 14 years old. The perpetrators have been followed into other countries and far into their retirements to submit to justice.