It’s no secret. No secret at all. Every second or third blog I read has stuff about it. Film Director Roman Polanksi (Repulsion, The Pianist) did something bad of a rape-like nature to a teenage girl several decades ago, and lived in Europe from then on.
But now they are going to extradite him or not as the case may be, from France or Switzerland (somewhere European), and big cheese lists of Hollywood big cheeses are saying he’s a great artist and therefore regular morals and laws and suchlike don’t apply to him, ease up, forget about it, freedom of artistic expression, it wasn’t really rape (“rape-rape” as Whoopi Goldberg (Ghost, Girl, Interrupted, Rat Race) has famously put it), it was her fault, it was her mother’s fault, it was the judge’s fault, blah blah, and the rest of us are saying: bullshit you evil bastards.
If you care about the details you now know them. I care about the details, a bit, and I too am of the bullshit you evil bastards tendency. Not my point here. No, what interests me about this ruckus is how the internet has so completely changed the rules of such debates, and so completely wrong-footed the big cheese evil bastard team. Twenty years ago, regular people had opinions, but no obvious way to express them, unless they were paid to do it, or were obsessive opinion-mongers the way I was. But even I, an amateur opinion-monger more obsessive than most, had no easy way to say what I thought about the Roman Polanski thing. I had vaguely heard that he had been accused of something sexually bad and was being chased around the world by American cops, but so what? What was I going to do about it? Sit down and write a Legal and/or Cultural Notes piece for the Libertarian Alliance? Well maybe, but frankly, I didn’t care to do that. Spend too long trawling through the details of some rape case on the other side of the world, and you risk being thought a bit too interested in the raping (or whatever it was) of underage (if that’s what she was) girls yourself. Writing for the Libertarian Alliance in those days meant either writing something a bit serious, of some length, digging into all the details and making sure to get them right, or writing nothing at all. So, for practical purposes, I was in the same position as all those people in pubs saying: “How about that Roman Polanski then? What’s that about? No, I don’t know the details either. Hollywood eh? Nice work if you can get it. Well, anyway, who cares what we think, fancy another pint?”
At the time, and for many years since, I too guessed that it may well not have been “rape-rape”. That is, I guessed that maybe this was one of those furores where the legal age limit had definitely been transgressed (hence the fuss being made by all those puritanical US cops and judges), and Polanski was indeed a bit creepily old, but that otherwise, well, whatever turns you on and whatever you agree to. Silly girls in Hollywood will consent to all sorts of stuff to get their careers cranked up, and it should be their choice. But more fundamental to my point here: I didn’t know, and I didn’t care to go to the trouble of finding out. Me and millions of others.
The internet has changed all that. What the internet supplies is a vastly higher class of gossip. Before the internet, finding a piece which listed what you considered to be all the pertinent facts of a complicated, foreign and creepy matter such as this one could take weeks, and the chances were that if you really, really wanted a piece like that, you’d have to write it yourself, and risk being branded a creep yourself. Which would anyway probably never be read by anybody in significant numbers. Too creepy. Now, a few links, and you have all the facts you want.
Facts like: she was thirteen, rather than sixteen or seventeen. Facts like: he drugged her. Facts like: She said no!! Several times!!!! In every respect short of the use of a chair leg or crowbar and there being blood all over the place alongside all the other rape-fluids, this was most definitely rape-rape, and we all now know it.
All over the world, blog postings and think pieces like this one, this one, and this one, and of course this one, are now being penned – in America, by people who have long doubted the accuracy and quality of the Hollywood moral compass, all over Europe, by people who don’t want it thought that all Europeans are as “sophisticated” as their damned Culture Ministers are about child rape, and all over the world by people who think that child rape is wrong, dammit.
Who the hell knows what should have been done about all those damned collapsing banks? Who’s fault was that? What does that all mean? Not even the internet can sort that out for you in half an hour. But it can sure as hell tell you in fifteen minutes what bloody Roman bloody Polanski did to that poor girl, and admitted to doing to that poor girl, and how old she was, and how she said no no no no no, and it can tell you that it was wrong, and that he should be punished, and that how long it takes to catch him and how good or crappy The Pianist was are absolutely not the issues, and that if Martin Scorsese (The Age of Innocence, Shine a Light) thinks otherwise then Martin Scorsese, fine film maker though he may well be, is a piece of shit who deserves to have his moral compass wrapped around his neck.
It took me way less than two hours, in among boiling a couple of eggs, having a couple of coffees, setting the video to record the Japanese Grand Prix, listening with a half an ear to Martinu’s Sixth Symphony, and scanning several other things on the internet that I’ve already forgotten about, to say all that. Having read and thought, a bit, I then wrote and posted it, a bit, in, for all practical purposes, no time at all, and it’s now being read by Americans, maybe even including Instapundit, and maybe even including Martin Scorsese’s press agent. A comment on some other think piece or blog posting would only have taken me a minute or two, as many, many others have been demonstrating. It’s a different world, my friends.
A final point. Not every member of the Sophisticated Class is being as dumb about this as a lot of them are. Luc Besson, it seems, is not on any of those stupid bastards lists:
But support was not universal; Luc Besson, a prominent French film director and producer, was not on the list, though he describes himself as a Polanski friend.
“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.”
Well said.
Right on. I hadn’t ever heard the details before all this too– it was just vaguely on the periphery, he’d been accused of something. Now that I know the facts, I think he’s lucky he got such a generous plea bargain, because “unlawful sex with a minor” doesn’t really cover what he did.
Would I allow a child to go along with a 43 year old man I didn’t really know for photographs? No. But that lapse of judgment doesn’t excuse some seriously evil actions.
The full list of the signatories is here. The very great majority of them are not Hollywood, most are French names at least I never heard of. All of which will make it so much easier to keep my money from going to those I do recognize when faced with one of their current or future films at the box office. An excellent opportunity to take Hollywood a notch down is no small side benefit either.
I have always been sympathetic to the understandably tormented Polanski, but Luc Besson is right, no doubt about it.
This case also brought out the very worst aspects of the highly political American justice system as well. The whole thing is a very unedifying spectacle.
Whoopi Goldberg’s opinion would be very different if Polanski was a truck driver from Alabama and his 13 year old victim black.
On the signature list of the supporters of Polanski, it includes support from someone named “Ian Brady”.
Now I have very little knowledge of the world of cinema so perhaps their is a significant person out there called Ian Brady; nevertheless it is … unfortunate, and somewhat tasteless, that he should choose to make a point of his support for Polanski at this time.
Now that I know the facts, I think he’s lucky he got such a generous plea bargain, because
Ah, this is where a lot of confusion comes from, I think. What actually happened is that Polanski did a deal with the prosecution, in which he agreed to plead guilty to statutory rape in return for the other charges being dropped and his receiving a punishment of a couple of months spent in the psychiatric ward of a prison hospital. This was a deal with the prosecution, not the judge. Polanski became aware that the judge was likely to throw out the plea bargain and insist on a much harsher punishment, and at that point he skipped bail and fled to Europe, which is where he has been ever since. One consequence of this is that whenever his case has been mentioned in the years since, the phrase “statutory rape” is often mentioned with it. This makes it sound like it could be something along the lines of “he had consensual sex with a seventeen year old who lied about her age”, which while not perhaps admirable and perhaps deserving of punishment, is a crime of an entirely different magnitude that what aparently occurred. I was aware that his crime was actually more than that, but had not thought about it that much.
I think the fact that Hollywood kept funding his movies and giving him awards also made people think that the crime wasn’t that serious, as he would surely have been ostracised if his crime was too heinous. However, the actual situation appears to be that the moral depravity appears to be shared by the people who funded his movies and gave him awards.
Yes, I was also sympathetic to Polanski, until now that I understand what really happened.
Indeed.
Alisa, my sympathy for Polanski comes entirely from what happened to Sharon Tate, it has nothing to do with anything else.
Take your point Perry.
On the bright side, a list of celebrities taking the side of Polanski’s victim:
http://chrismm.dreamwidth.org/577422.html?view=1709454
There’s a great video of Polanski on “To Catch A Predator” at the Nose On Your Face.
(Link)
Alisa, my sympathy for Polanski comes entirely from what happened to Sharon Tate, it has nothing to do with anything else.
There is more than that, even. Polanski’s parents were both deported to concentration camps during the Holocaust, and his mother was murdered at Auschwitz, while Polanski spent much of the war being hidden in Krakow. Some truly horrible things happened to the man, and he deserves sympathy for those things. They don’t count as defences against an unrelated crime, though. Neither does “Chinatown is the best American film of the 1970s”, even though I think a pretty solid case can be made for that statement, too.
We all agree — rape is evil; child abuse is evil; child rape is almost UN in its bestiality.
So don’t take what follows as a defence of Polanski. It is not. Nor is it a defence of the elitists who don’t think that one of theirs should have to follow the laws for us “little people”. It is a critique of the internet — a place where everyone has his or her own opinion, and maybe no-one has the facts.
What happened long ago between Polanski & the girl — only 2 people know for sure, and the now-Middle Aged female reportedly wishes this whole thing would go away. Why?
What string of events happened when the aspiring actress’s mother — pimp-like — dropped her off unaccompanied at a movie director’s house? Had the mother never heard of the casting couch?
So jump to Polanski’s later meeting with his lawyer, after it had become clear to the girl’s mother that her daughter’s acting career was not going to get a boost from Polanski. Sure, Polanski told his lawyer, he broke the law — he gave champagne to an underage female, and they had sex. And sure she murmered no at certain points, but we all know there is no & there is no. And after she said no, she took off her clothes anyway & got into the hot tub …
So the lawyer tells Polanski — it’s a he said/she said situation about how consensual the sexual activities were, but the activities were illegal anyway. You’re on the losing end, Polanski. You’re the adult. You clearly broke the law. She’s a very young pretty aspiring actress who is certainly up to crying on cue on the stand. No jury will find you innocent of the serious charges, so you cop a plea to reduced charges — which the prosecution is offering because they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that they are not also prosecuting the mother for child endangerment. Polanski takes the proferred deal, and then a judge intervenes with righteous (if ill-informed) wrath. Polanski heads to France.
Could that have happened? My spidey-sense is tingling about that “mother’s” involvement, but I don’t know what happened — nor do you, gentle reader.
And that’s the problem with the internet. It let’s a lot of voices be heard, but it does not necessarily make it any easier to get to the facts.
Alice, all good points. But: we do know that the girl was 13, for god’s sakes. No matter what she said or did or did not say or do, the man should have kept his pants zipped up, called a cab and dragged her into it if needed.
Another point to keep in mind is that he is wanted in the US to stand trial. He and the victim (with or without quotes) are each going to have their day in court, as should have happened 30 years ago.
Alice,
The girl’s mother actually consented to BOTH photographic sessions, and never accompanied her daughter to either, despite the girl not wanting to go to the second session (which should have been a giveaway to any parent who was not a star-fucker).
No question about it: the prosecutor should have prosecuted the mother for child endangerment; but he didn’t, because the girl would have refused to testify against her own mom, and Polanski would have gone free. So he went after the real villain of the piece.
And lest we forget: Polanski is a fugitive from justice, not just because of his conviction, but because he fled his sentencing — no statute of limitations for that one, incidentally, not even in liberal California.
Polanski claims he fled because the judge was about to ignore the plea bargain, and “sentence me to 100 years in jail” — which makes the judge about the only one in the whole sordid affair who was thinking straight.
The other thing to remember is that the plea deal hasn’t been accepted yet, either. So, technically, he can be tried for ALL of the crimes. The clock on the statue of limitations stopped when he fled.
This is a spectacular illustration of a great line from an old Steely Dan song called ‘Showbiz Kids’:
“Showbiz kids making movies of themselves,
you know they don’t give a fuck about anybody else”
p deH-
If we are talking about the Criminal Justice System, your views on how (since Criminal Justice is largely by individual states) it is “highly political,” might be illuminating.
Perhaps you are referring to “plea bargains?”
If you mean the U S “Legal System,” at large, your point is taken.
OK – so let me get this straight.
All of you who have supported Roman Polanski and have basically said what he did was not “rape rape” and he did nothing wrong to the 13 year old girl he had sex with and, he should not be prosecuted – right?
OK – now that we have that straight – I guess (according to you) it’s OK to give 13 year old girls alcohol and drugs and have sex with them – right?
Cool – let’s start with your daughters!
It doesn’t matter at all whether the girl’s mother gave a wink and a nod to Polanski. The little girl was 13 years of age, well below what is officially judged the age of consent, when she was dropped off for photo sessions, and Polanski was an adult, and any man in his right mind would have demanded that the mother stay, or that he had a secretary or other assistant in the room at all times.
I don’t care that it’s 30 years later, or that the little girl, long a grown woman, has forgiven him in return for a pay-off. The man apparently, at the time, 30 years ago, committed a crime against a child. Unless controlled, this is how society becomes degraded. An inch at a time, a nebulous, much nuanced, case at a time.
13 year old girls. Dangerous jade! I have seen good families ripped apart by their out-of-control teenage daughters. And the poor girls are just as tormented by their hormones as teenage boys — witness the plague of teenage pregnancies in the UK.
We don’t know whether the 13 year old in this case was a sweet little pre-pubescent thing or a junior femme fatale. We do know she was in the Hollywood orbit, trying to break in to that world.
Who has the primary responsiblity for looking after a child? That’s right — the parent. I have heard nothing about a father in this case, which leaves the mother.
The root cause of this horrible case was the mother, who put her daughter into a situation which was likely to lead to tears. Now, maybe the teenage daughter was a manipulative little vixen who tormented & wheedled her mother. We don’t know.
Whether it was weakness or deliberate, the mother failed her daughter, and created the situation in which Polanski either took advantage of the girl, or was himself set up. If it comes to a trial, the mother needs to be in the dock along side Polanski. They both have a lot to be ashamed of.
Alice writes: “We don’t know whether the 13 year old in this case was a sweet little pre-pubescent thing or a junior femme fatale. We do know she was in the Hollywood orbit, trying to break in to that world.”
It really doesn’t matter what a little thirteen year old girl thinks she wants to do … even at the direction of her mother … she’s a silly little thing that’s been in the world for all of 13 years. A grown man was the engine here. Why should we feel sorry for him?
Would the mother have pimped her 10 year old daughter? Nine years old? Eight? We don’t know.
There is so much discussion about the crime here.
On a plea arrangment, on which the judge had not passed sentence, the perp pled GUILTY.
Awaiting sentencing, he was to have a psych eval.
Instead, AFTER PLEADING GUILTY he FLED.
Now, recently his own lawyers went before the court to have the case closed, arguing, inter alia, that the state’s attorney’s must consider the matter closed since they were doing nothing to bring the perp in.
SO the state of California brought him in – part way so far.
He fled to avoid the eval and sentencing – that’s a further crime beyond the one (specific charges) to which compis mentis he pled guilty.
The perp must have known something about the events the rest of us do not, which he did not want to face in a jury trial.
Lesson: don’t send your lawyers back as pooper-scoopers when it’s yours and not your dog’s.
Yeah man the game has changed, great post BTW.
The truth is that if any injustice has been done it is not to Polanski, the recipient of a sweetheart deal. It has been done to the victim.
No disrespect Alice but you said;
We all agree — rape is evil; child abuse is evil; child rape is almost UN in its bestiality.
So don’t take what follows as a defence of Polanski. It is not. Nor is it a defence of the elitists who don’t think that one of theirs should have to follow the laws for us “little people”. It is a critique of the internet — a place where everyone has his or her own opinion, and maybe no-one has the facts.
What happened long ago between Polanski & the girl — only 2 people know for sure, and the now-Middle Aged female reportedly wishes this whole thing would go away. Why?
What string of events happened when the aspiring actress’s mother — pimp-like — dropped her off unaccompanied at a movie director’s house? Had the mother never heard of the casting couch?
So jump to Polanski’s later meeting with his lawyer, after it had become clear to the girl’s mother that her daughter’s acting career was not going to get a boost from Polanski. Sure, Polanski told his lawyer, he broke the law — he gave champagne to an underage female, and they had sex. And sure she murmered no at certain points, but we all know there is no & there is no. And after she said no, she took off her clothes anyway & got into the hot tub …
So the lawyer tells Polanski — it’s a he said/she said situation about how consensual the sexual activities were, but the activities were illegal anyway. You’re on the losing end, Polanski. You’re the adult. You clearly broke the law. She’s a very young pretty aspiring actress who is certainly up to crying on cue on the stand. No jury will find you innocent of the serious charges, so you cop a plea to reduced charges — which the prosecution is offering because they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that they are not also prosecuting the mother for child endangerment. Polanski takes the proferred deal, and then a judge intervenes with righteous (if ill-informed) wrath. Polanski heads to France.
Could that have happened? My spidey-sense is tingling about that “mother’s” involvement, but I don’t know what happened — nor do you, gentle reader.
And that’s the problem with the internet. It let’s a lot of voices be heard, but it does not necessarily make it any easier to get to the facts.
Posted by Alice at October 4, 2009 09:40 PM
Sadly your scenario is unlikely. An attorney of the caliber available to Mr. Polanski, knowing that the victim was not a Virgin and had accepted alcohol would be licking his chops. In 70’s America it was still common for Rape victims to be destroyed by defense attorneys. Imagine your 8th grade traumatized daughter in the crosshairs of a high powered attack dog attorney. Not a pleasant thought.
Polanski simply didn’t think raping young girls was something anyone should hold him accounable for. His subsequent comments expose this underlying view.
I’m hoping he spends his final days in prison.
Holy crap. I think I need to school Alice on some further points on the Polanski issue.
1. The bastard never repented or reformed. This is the same man who got to fuck Nastassja Kinski. Who was 15 freaking years old at the time.
2. He promised a payout of USD500K to the 13-year old he raped. Apparently, he never paid up.
3. SHE WAS THIRTEEN YEARS OLD! Cripes, no matter what else you want to say about this, the grand jury testimony is more than enough to make you weep and cry for his lynching. Giving her champagne was bad enough, but slipping her some ‘ludes as well? And then assraping her?
And the best you can do is to cast aspersions on both the girl and the mother? Oh, maybe the girl was just a regular slut and she asked for it? Maybe I’m just an ITG, but you know what? Fuck you. The facts of the matter are a search away. All the bloody legal blogs are going on about the matter. Hell, even Wikipedia, that paragon of conservatism has got something on it.
Shit. Maybe next time you’ll defend good old Mo’ – maybe that six year old girl he married and diddled when she was nine was asking for it too.
She may have been indeed, I personally knew girls like that when growing up, even at that tender age. None of us have been there (no one else has either). The important point is that this makes absolutely no difference, because there is one thing all of us know for sure: she did not rape him – that’s all there is to know. The man is scum.
Guilty as charged, and fleeing the States hardly helped his defence.
The question remains though why a number of people in Hollywood are quick to argue he ought not to be bothered by all this history. It could be that somehow these people think art is above law, or that a director — any director — might offer work if they stay free.
Or was it because Polanksi knows something of what others have done in their past, and him appearing in a California court might mean he would let slip something all too revealing?
It probably is a bit of all of the above, watcher, but mostly it’s just an absolute lack of any moral compass (which really is the same as all of the above, come to think of it). No matter how sure and morally superior any of these people feel about themselves, truth is that many of them, especially the younger generation in Hollywood and its equivalents in Europe, are absolutely morally and philosophically confused. It just never occurs to them to face the logical inconsistencies in their views and opinions. In fact, logic itself often seems to be beyond them. Just another bubble waiting to burst.
Doesn’t matter what the girl did, said or wanted. Is Lolita based on a true story? Of course it is – but it’s still a crime.
Doesn’t matter what her mother did, said or wanted. Even if she’d actively pimped her daughter to Polanski, he’s still a criminal.
Doesn’t matter that this sort of activity was (by all accounts) unremarkable in late-1970’s Hollywood. It’s still a crime.
Doesn’t matter that Polanski had terrible trials in his previous life. West Bloomfield, MI is awash with Holcaust survivors and hardly any of them turned to raping teenagers to wash away the pain. It’s still a crime.
It was statutory rape. He pled to it. A lot of what is being repeated here about the plea deal that he made is – incomplete – and reflects the skill with which Polanski’s supporters and lawyers have spun the story for years.
And when it looked like he wasn’t going to get the standard Hollywood star-f**ker treatment, but might actually have to pay for what he did – he fled the jurisdiction. To France, where they are so-much-more understanding about raping 13-year-old girls. To my mind, that is actually worse than what he did, about which there might, just possibly, be some mitigation. His flight was an admission that he’d done far worse than he’d admitted to, and was scared of the consequences for that, as much as for the consequences of what he had already pled to.
Bring him back and finish the trial – although it should be by the prevailing standards of 1977. Sentence him for that, and then try him for flight to avoid prosecution, and sentence him for that. Should add up to enough that he’ll never eat lunch in Hollywood again.
As said, the more-salutory lesson is in noting who stands up for this piece of human trash. He’s just chum in the water, the benefit is in seeing what he attracts. I wish someone would take the time to put together a really-effective boycott campaign of Weinstein productions – let’s see how Harvey feels when he starts to see it in the pocketbook. Or when Whoopi Goldberg gets hounded off her sinecure TV gig.
llater,
llamas
I think the whole notion of plea bargaining is monstrous and an intrinsic injustice for both the accused and the victim… it is also an open invitation for abuse of power (grotesque thugs like Eliot Spitzer come to mind)… but given that plea bargaining *is* accepted in the USA, when a public image obsessed judge shows every sign of simply deciding not to abide by what was agreed, I find it hard to blame someone for taking to their heels in the face of a capricious system.
I do not condone Polanski’s original crime, far from it, or think he should get a free pass, but the notion there was a ‘fix’ in the offing is hardly unsupportable.
I think the whole notion of plea bargaining is monstrous and an intrinsic injustice for both the accused and the victim.
The issue I have with it is essentially this:
Someone is guilty, knows he is guilty and the evidence is such that he is likely to be convicted. He pleads guilty, and in return gets convicted of a lesser charge or gets a lighter sentence.
Someone is innocent, and for whatever reason the evidence suggests he is guilty. This may be bad luck, or it may be something worse, such as evidence manufactured by the police or prosecution. The accused refuses to plea bargain because he is, well, innocent. He is convicted, and therefore gets a harsher punishment than the first person. Alternately the accused knows this, and then pleads guilty and loses the chance to attempt to prove his innocence because this we he at least gets a lighter sentence.
Either way, the practice favours the guilty in favour of the innocent. The idea that you should receive a lesser sentence in return for a different plea is ridiculous.
The girl claims that she wants this to go away; I can understand this, but…
I have a very good friend who had something similar happen to her- her mother, essentially, pimping her out at a young age for drugs. Looking at the disaster her life became, how this twisted her personal relationships and messed with her head, my gut cries for vengeance. If I ever meet the jerk, I’ll beat the…
I still refuse to be in the same room with her mother, despite the fact that she has “forgiven” her.
I don’t know the relationship between the fact that RP “got away with it” and how my friend was treated, but the publicity of that would have occured around the same time, and the excuses offered then could have influenced that situation.
Now, I feel that he needs to be made an example of, just for the fact that this may make some other low-life think twice.
Five to fifteen sounds about right.
Bud, luckily for me not having had a personal experience like your friend’s, I am not for anyone being made an example of anything other than justice being made where and when it is due, wherever and whenever possible. Like I said, his very significant personal hardships notwithstanding, and the US criminal justice system’s very serious flaws notwithstanding either, the guy is scum. It is up to the court to determine to what extent and to punish him accordingly.
I’m a big fan of the Godfather movies. Well, certainly the first two.
In the original movie, it is explicitly made clear that Hollywood movie director/producer Jack Woltz is an active paedophile, taking advantage of his female child actors. The Don comments upon it when Tom Hagen returns from California with the news that Woltz will not grant the Don’s requested favour – it’s an infamia.
Now isn’t it odd that just that tiny little snippet is never seen anymore when this film is shown? The movie is awash in blood and gore, and not a few strange perversions, and yet that one little thing – a Hollywood tycoon who likes little girls – suddenly hit the cutting-room floor? Some time in the mid/late 1970’s?
Maybe – just maybe – the reason that all these movie-tycoon types (here and abroad) are flocking to defend Polanski . . . well, you connect the dots.
llater,
llamas
No trial-he pleaded guilty.
That’s interesting Llamas: I just googled ‘godfather director’s cut’, and only GodfatherIII turned up (a VHS at that), while there is The Godfather: Coppola Restoration DVD gift box for sale. Oh well.
If creative talent justifies a Get Out of Jail Free card, what level of misdeed should other directors’ talent let them get away with? Directors’ Get Out of Jail Free survey (Link)
Had the young lady been my daughter – Polanski’s remains would have been found in a dumpster, with his genitals removed and sewn into his mouth.
To all Anarcho-Capitalists; What should be the punishment for this type of crime? They often favour fines, but could any fine make up for being raped? Or for being deflowered whilst too drunk to say ‘NO!’?
Alice,
Oh, for Christ’s sake. We don’t know if she was wearing a trashy-looking miniskirt on the night in question, either. For someone who is supposedly not defending Polanski, you’re spending a lot of time making wildly speculative insinuations about the character and honesty of his victim.
Nuke: I think that krm’s comment above quite answers your question.
“Had the young lady been my daughter – Polanski’s remains would have been found in a dumpster, with his genitals removed and sewn into his mouth.”
krm — had the young lady been your daughter, you would never have delivered her to Polanski’s lair and left her there unaccompanied.
This has been an interesting thread. First, I was grabbed with the internet-related issue of the preponderance of opinion over fact. Then, as I read more about the background, the highly questionable role of the mother became more glaringly obvious. But now I wonder about my fellow posters’ reactions. What goes on in the human mind?
It is easy for all of us to be righteously indignant about criminal behavior towards a 13 year old girl. But why are so many people prepared to turn a blind eye to the despicable behavior of the mother? — the one who undeniably let her daughter down; the one who had the duty (and the ability) to make sure that her 13 year old daughter was not put in harm’s way in the first place.
Is it because, male or female, we know that we would never have behaved like Polanski; but we are afraid that we too might have failed our children in some way? More comforting to rail at Polanski than to look in the mirror?
No Alice, it is because the mother’s guilt goes without saying. Which, IMO, should have been the case re Polanski as well, but as the above-linked petition shows, it is not. Hence the discussion of Polanski and those defending him, and not of the mother and those defending her – if any.
Alisa, does that mean private justice? If we’re all armed, and Polanski killed Kim in a duel, would that be justice?
It is factual that Polanski is an unrepentant serial pedophile, who is a fugitive from American justice. Jonathan described the situation perfectly when he wrote that it was a ‘very unedifying spectacle,’ though I think of it as that for different reasons than he does.
It will be just only if Polanski serves time in jail for his admitted crime, and also time for fleeing the country; perhaps, the rest of his life.
I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised that Polanski is getting such an easy ride from his peers – they do it all the time. As long as your films (or TV programmes) can turn a dime you stand a decent chance of being defended by your peers. Here in the UK ITV took little action against senior employees (the presenters Ant & Dec) when their production company was discovered to have conned thousands upon of thousands into paying for useless phone calls to enter competitions they had no hope of winning. Hasn’t had any effect on their public profile either.
I’ve seen this first hand too. Working in the industry I’ve seen people even get away with sexual harrassment simply because they were good at their jobs.
Still, I suppose anybody who is prominent in any industry can expect some kind of convoluted ‘for the better good’ argument in their defence when they’re accused of something serious. We all look after our own – plenty of media people just make the mistake of frequently presenting themselves as guardians of truth even though they suffer from an inability to recognise their own double standards or to discern when their posterior ends have hijacked the speaking duties.
“But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone.”
Quite so, and very succinctly put. Talent, value, contribution to society, these should be secondary concerns. We should not allow the production of even the most worthwhile art to give anyone a pass for committing such horrible transgressions. From there it is a mere hop, skip, and a jump to full-blown aristocracy. It takes only the slightest maneuvering to transform “but, he produces such great art, and he has suffered ever so much in his life already” to “but, he is such a tremendous value to the state, and he has worked ever so hard and selflessly already”, etc.
There is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone.
Nuke, all justice is always private by definition, as justice is not to be confused with law. They sometimes go hand in hand (often enough, one hopes), but are by no means synonymous.
If both of them agreed to a duel then it’s a contract – has nothing to do with justice in its moral sense. If, OTOH, krm just shot the bastard, he is morally in the right, at least according to my moral code. The legality of such an outcome would depend on the system. I assume that in a anarcho-capitalist system a person who bailed (whatever it is he had bailed under that particular system’s terminology) would be considered an ‘outlaw’ or whatever the terminology would be, and therefore effectively fair game. What’s not to like?
I’ve come late to this discussion, and unprepared, as I’ve not been interested in revisiting the history of this evil buffoon and am relying mostly on memory.
Polanski, as I recall, entered a plea of guilty. Under California law, that amounted both to a conviction and an admission of all of the elements of the offense to which he pleaded. At the time (and so far as I know, now) there was no California statute of limitations on the time during which a convicted fugitive could be taken into custody and incarcerated. Had there been, the law also was that the running of statutes of limitation was tolled while the offender was out of the state. His attorney knew that, or was incompetent to practice criminal law.
Any surmise that in California it was customary that similar offenders were treated leniently is the product of an absurd pipe dream. I know that in the county
adjacent to Los Angeles where I was a prosecutor a couple of years before then, we would have seen to it that Polanski was locked up and would have given the key to a jackrabbit. In the slang of the time, he would have had a jacket, and would have been, how to say it?, socially unaccepted in prison, although he might have been comitted to Atascadero, the institution for mentally disordered sex offenders. The commenter from SD CA had it right as did renmimbi. [sp?]
In other words, what is all the fuss about now. What is there to discuss? I do, however, admire the courtesy with which Alice’s comments have been received. A British thing?
I’ve come late to this discussion, and unprepared, as I’ve not been interested in revisiting the history of this evil buffoon and am relying mostly on memory.
Polanski, as I recall, entered a plea of guilty. Under California law, that amounted both to a conviction and an admission of all of the elements of the offense to which he pleaded. At the time (and so far as I know, now) there was no California statute of limitations on the time during which a convicted fugitive could be taken into custody and incarcerated. Had there been, the law also was that the running of statutes of limitation was tolled while the offender was out of the state. His attorney knew that, or was incompetent to practice criminal law.
Any surmise that in California it was customary that similar offenders were treated leniently is the product of an absurd pipe dream. I know that in the county
adjacent to Los Angeles where I was a prosecutor a couple of years before then, we would have seen to it that Polanski, regardless of his celebrity, was locked up and would have given the key to a jackrabbit. In the slang of the time, he would have had a jacket, and would have been, how to say it?, socially unaccepted in prison, although he might have been committed to Atascadero, the institution for mentally disordered sex offenders. The commenter from SD CA had it right as did renmimbi. [sp?]
In other words, what is all the fuss about now? What is there to discuss? I do, however, admire the courtesy with which Alice’s comments have been received. A British thing?
“I do, however, admire the courtesy with which Alice’s comments have been received.”
Maybe I should apologize for thinking for myself, Mr. Hill — and on a libertarian blog, too! I have definitely failed the GroupThink on this one.
My growing interest, Mr. Hill, is in the constructive issue of how incidents like this could have been prevented in the first place. And that clearly revolves around the despicable, irresponsible, dangerous — and to me, incomprehensible — behavior of the mother. If she had behaved as any mother should, the rape would never have happened.
You tell us you were a prosecutor, Mr. Hill. As a prosecutor, how would you have treated this mother whose deliberate actions created the situation in which her daughter was raped?
Nuke Gray:
In a libertarian society, an admitted pedo-rapist would not get a chance to duel anyone.
If the rapist was killed, no one would prosecute the killer.
The parents of the victim would offer a $1 dollar reward for his head, and would probably pay it off the next day.
Libertarians have no problem with killing people who do things that no amount of restitution would fix. But this also cuts both ways; no libertarian will kill such a person without absolute proof of guilt, as he would become a murderer himself if he did this to an innocent person.
Polanski admitted his crime.
Kristopher- Polanski plea-bargained his crime, and then fled when he believed that the judge wouldn’t go with the bargain. But none of this provides redress to the child. Where is the justice?
I have definitely failed the GroupThink on this one.
Of course the condemnation of Polanski is group think. There is no way that someone could have, idepenent of group influence, determined that the drugging, raping ans sodomizing of a 13 year old is wrong. Curse that mob mentality.
Thank you for your intererst. I don’t mind answering. I would have prosecuted Polanski. The girl’s mother’s culpability would have had in my mind nothing to do with that decision. The whole time I would have considered prosecuting the mother, probably on about three counts, but only if after Polanski’s conviction I could obtain credible testimony against her. Remember, we have rules forbidding testimonial compulsion, the daughter could be an extremely difficult witness in the second case and the mother herself might have been an indispensible witness in the Polanski case. Consider how one might have had to deal with her.
May I ask, would you have been willing to sacrifice a conviction in the Polanski case in order to prosecute the mother? Do you believe the mother’s conduct should be an ameliorative factor with regard to Polanski’s conduct? Do you honestly believe that the mother’s conduct has anything to do with the, how shall I say, nutty “poor fellow” hype that seems to be the subject of this post?
(Parenthetically, please forgive my triple post and any typos. I’m not very good at this.)
Nuke, from the victim’s perspective justice can almost never be done in full, it is only a matter of extent.
One consequence of the long time-span between the events that led to the plea bargain and today is that attitudes have changed.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that pleading guilty to underage sex was a significantly less shameful act in about 1970 than it is today, one only has to compare the number of films casually involving underage sex then and now. Even today there is a significant difference in the sentences passed against men and women paedophiles, with the latter often receiving suspended sentences or relatively short prison time.
It is therefore entirely possible, and I think this touches on Perry’s points, that a plea bargain NOW would have involved refusing to plead guilty on statutory rape, but pleading guilty to another (then worse, now less bad) charge.
I don’t particularly like Polanski films and I tend to agree with Luc Besson’s comment.
But faced with the appalling US criminal justice system (Congressmen and Senators who are above the law if they’re from the right political party, decisions to prosecute or not based on when the next election will be, the condoned homosexual rape of prisoners, Bill Clinton’s execution of a mentally-retarded man to help win election in 1992, etc), I might be persuaded to plead guilty to ANYTHING that didn’t get me jail time, from being both Bigfoot and Typhoid Mary, to not correctly filling in an IRS form. As a foreigner, I would have exactly ZERO expectation of getting justice in a US court, admirable as they might be for US citizens.
How can anyone, regardless of what justice system you use?
Like I said, some crimes cannot be properly restituted. Part the perp out, sell his organs, liquidate his estate, and give all of the money to the victim.
The best anyone could do would be to give the victim everything, and shoot this admitted rapist out behind the courthouse, regardless of what flavor legal system you favor.
It is easy for all of us to be righteously indignant about criminal behavior towards a 13 year old girl. But why are so many people prepared to turn a blind eye to the despicable behavior of the mother? — the one who undeniably let her daughter down;
Certainly, the mother didn’t take every precaution that could have been done to protect her daughter.
What string of events happened when the aspiring actress’s mother — pimp-like — dropped her off unaccompanied at a movie director’s house? Had the mother never heard of the casting couch?
That’s an interesting accusation there. Perhaps that was exactly what she was doing. Perhaps she knew exactly what a casting couch was. The interesting thing is the notion of a “casting couch” (I’m aware of that term now because of the Internet, but can’t say I was aware of it the 80’s or earlier). The concept there is that any woman interviewing for a job in Hollywood by default has accepted the notion that she had to give it up sexually on the casting couch. Why do you gloss over that aspect?
Do you think the mother was the reason casting couches existed? If the mother was held into account, then the practice of casting couches would have ended?
Late to this, but some of the comments are are really terrifying.
Yes, the mother was irresponsible and potentially criminal by not accompanying her daughter, but HER MOTHER DID NOT RAPE HER. The mother did not give her champagne, ludes, and sodomize her. Polanski did that, and he bears the entire burden for that crime.
What kind of moral relativism is required to put greater blame on a mother (irresponsible as she may have been) for putting her daughter in POTENTIAL danger, and the adult who actually made the danger a reality? That requires Herculean leaps of displacement.
My mother used to drop me off for piano and singing lessons, acting classes, photography sessions, and acting interviews too, but it would have been the adult’s fault if they decided to drug and rape me.
I thought our society had evolved beyond the point where we blame the victim for the crime. There is no defense for “yes, she was 13, but she wanted it.” A 13 year old has not reached the age of consent, so it doesn’t matter if she wanted it or not, nor how seductively she may have dressed or behaved, or if Polanski had the idea that he had her mother’s permission. The mother cannot give that permission.
The CHILD was drugged, raped, and then sodomized BY POLANSKI. Those facts are not in dispute. He should be in jail for those crimes AND fleeing. End of story.
I wonder what the arty types (artypes?) would have said, if Polanski had been a priest? You can bet they’d all have condemned him, with all Cannons blazing! But because he’s one of them, they look for excuses!
Good point Nick.