Monday, September 28, 2009
The Roman Polanski Case- A Test for Justice
Convicted child-rapist Roman Polanski-Extradict the rat.
"But he's a great artist."
The news of Roman Polanski's recent arrest in Zurich on an LA County arrest warrant is going to put a lot of people to the test when it comes to meting out justice. Polanski, a native of France, has lived in that country, immune from extradition back to the US since 1978 when he fled our country prior to sentencing after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. Finally, after all these years, one country (Switzerland) has lived up to its responsibility to enforce an international arrest warrant. Now the question is whether our own law enforcement and diplomatic officials will demand Polanski's extradition to be sentenced for what he has already pleaded guilty to.
Of course, Hollywood is in a predictable uproar and charging to Polanski's defense. ("Hey! what's the big deal about having sex with a 13-year-old? He's a great director".)
Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has joined a campaign by Cannes Film Festival Director Thierry Fremaux and French film-makers calling on US authorities not to extradite Polanski.
"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation," Weinstein said.
(Polanski pleaded guilty.)
Polanski's allies in Hollywood maintain that there were flaws in the case against the director.
(He pleaded guilty.)
In addition, Samantha Geimer the girl Polanski raped when she was 13, has called on the authorities to dismiss the charges.
With all due respect, assuming she has not been "prevailed upon" by Polanski's friends, this is out of her hands. She has no right to stop this case since he has already pleaded guilty and could repeat the offense against other under-age girls (which possibly he already has in the last three decades in France).
And then there's an article written in the LA Times by film columnist Patrick Goldstein, who questioned the ethics of spending taxpayer's money to extradite Polanski in the face of so many California budget cuts!!??!
"At a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you'd hope that LA County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor [sic] by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski's victim wants to put it behind her," Goldstein wrote. He went on to say this:
"Whether the LA County district attorney's office has its way or not, it is not a story that can have a happy ending. I think Polanski has already paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions. The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn't enough."
(He pleaded guilty. He fled before sentencing.)
Then there is this pearl from Washington Post writer Anne Applebaum: "To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system."
(He pleaded guilty-to having sex with a 13-year-old girl.)
Finally, there are the conspiracy theorists who speculate that "political motives" may be behind the whole thing. According to these voices, the Swiss are trying to score points with US authorities in the face of the Union Bank of Switzerland banking scandal involving US tax evaders, something that has no basis in fact and has already been denied by Swiss authorities.
Now it is up to the LA District Attorney's Office to ignore the voices of Hollywood and the Frenchies and demand that the US Justice Department proceed through diplomatic channels with a formal extradition request. Polanski stands convicted of a heinous crime. The Statute of Limitations is not at issue since it doesn't toll once the defendant becomes a fugitive. It goes without saying that flight is an element of evidence of a guilty mind. Polanski is guilty of this crime under the law and should be sent back to the US for sentencing that has only been delayed 31 years because he fled.
We should all be following this case to see if US authorities do their duty.
"Hey! what's the big deal about having sex with a 13-year-old? He's a great director".
ReplyDeleteHas anybody actually said this? If not, then why the quotes, implying that somebody did indeed say it?
Seems to me that the people defending him are talking more about how the case was handled. I don't know anything about that, so I won't comment. However, if he is guilty, then he definitely should go to jail.
Yes, 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…
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteOK, Lance, it's time for the moment of truth. How do you really feel about this case? I've stated how I feel. You are splitting hairs.
He pleaded guilty.
As for the quote, that is obviously the attitude of Hollywood and France.
Abbee Lee,
ReplyDeleteSo how do you really feel? Yous didn't say. By the way, He pleaded to a reduced charge.
So what if it was long ago? He fled and has been a fugitive for 31years. That is why it was "so long ago". The fact is, he plied a 13 year old girl with alcohol and quaaludes then had sex with her.
In the US that is called statutory rape even if the girl is conscious and consents.
How do you really feel about this case?
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough to comment. If he did what he's accused of doing, then he should get the same treatment as any other pedophile.
As for the quote, that is obviously the attitude of Hollywood and France.
Nobody said those words, Gary. If it's so obvious, then why not just stick with the facts? If it's all so clear-cut, why make things up? Throwing that out there is disingenuous.
Of course, in your mind, pointing out somebody's dishonesty is far worse than actually being dishonest.
Lance they have. Let us start with Whoopie (rape is fun) Goldberg on the View today who said just that.
ReplyDeleteLiberals are all in favor of raping children. Why not? It is the "IN THING". This year's fad.
He needs to be hung out to dry. His victim wa 13 years old, drugged and raped. I do not care if it was 60, 70 years ago. he plead guilty and admitted to the this disgusting crime. Hang him
ReplyDeletefrom the yardarm by his balls if he is found guilty.
Gary: here is a link IPT article on the squabble at Whittier college over letting Nonie Darwish
speak there. Thought you might find it of interest:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1430/whittier-dean-targets-student-after-darwish-visit
This smacks of the islamic troll and bait crap that is happening at UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, ETSU and other septic traps that are our college campuses.
Is it really one of the worlds top problems whether Roman Polanski, the holocaust survivor, the great director, the husband of the slain by the Manson clan Sharon Tate goes to jail as a 70some year old man for a crime he has committed 31years ago? His victim has forgiven him, he has a young wife and children, whatever he did, he got away with, and he has been in Switzerland many times before and was never bothered. There is more to this story, but we won't find out. The mother of the then 13 year old girls should go to jail too if she made it possible for her daughter to be drugged, raped and sodomized by the then very popular man. Revenge is what you want, that's all, it is too late for justice.
ReplyDeleteIngrid,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, he pleaded guilty to a heinous act. How many other girls has he (possibly) victimized in Europe in the last 31years? We would have had him in prison decades ago had the French and other European countries not protected him. How many countries has he traveled to that ignored his international arrest warrant? Now, everybody says "it happened so long ago..."
Patriot,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the tip. I will follow up on it. I saw Nonie Darwish speak at UCI. I admire her.
Stop it, Lance. You seem to find greater fault with me creating a quote inspired by the likes of statements by Harvey Weinstein (and apparently Whoopi Goldberg) than the crime in question. Had I put a cartoon above the quote, it would have been standard journalistic practice. Is that what it would require for you to recognize that it was my ingenious quote and not intended to attribute to others?
ReplyDeleteI suggest you stop counting the trees and look at the forest.
Okay, I just watched the clip. Whoopi does not say "Rape is fun". I don't know where the hell you're even getting that, Findalis. The voices in your head, maybe?
ReplyDeleteAs for what she did say - well, she doesn't really seem to be saying anything. She was just trying to make sure that it was clear exactly what Polanski was being accused of. I didn't really hear any opinion about his guilt one way or the other.
Man, you "conservatives" really can't handle any kind of nuanced thought, can you? Maybe it's not your fault - maybe your thinking is just so binary that it's like trying to get the colorblind to see a rainbow.
Whoopie did say that it is ok to rape a 13 year old girl if her parents give permission. I understand that Warren Jeffs is in prison for that. That what the pervert did was ok, after all he is a famous person.
ReplyDeletePolanski is being ACCUSED of anything. HE PLEAD GUILTY!!!! A BIG DIFFERENCE. THERE WILL BE NO TRAIL!!!!!!!!!!
THROW THE BOOK AT. THE PERVERT
Findalis and Lance,
ReplyDeleteI have to admit than in watching Hannity and his Great American Panel (which included liberal Bob Beckel) that I was yelling at the TV because all 4 were talking about bringing him back for trial.
He has already pled guilty.
Here's how it will probably play out if and when he is brought back.
Polanski will attempt to withdraw his plea because there was some controversy over the judge intending to give him more time than was supposedly agreed upon by the proscutor and defense. I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but judges are not bound to follow an agreed upon plea deal when it comes to sentence. To make it simple, the prosecutor may have agreed to ask for a 5 year sentence, but the judge is free to give a 10 year sentence if it falls within the sentencing guidelines. The judhge also reminds the defendant of that fact prior to sentencing.
The key factor here is if Polanski is allowed to withdraw his plea, in which case, a new trial would take place. Of course, the victim would be a reluctant witness, so the chances of convicting him are in jeopardy.
As I said in my original post, this is going to be an interesting case as it pertains to the people who are responsible for the actual mechanics of having him brought back. This figures to be a case of celebrity justice on steroids.
PS lance,
ReplyDeleteI have not seen Whoopi's comment, so I can't comment on that. So I guess my sense of "nuance" is safe for now. Maybe it's because I don't watch the view unless I happen to walk into the room when my wife is. To me it's a case of Elizabeth and the 4 (mental) dwarfs.
Whoopie did say that it is ok to rape a 13 year old girl if her parents give permission.
ReplyDeleteNo...she...didn't. What you're saying is simply not true. It's not a difference of opinion here - it's you being wrong.
Geez, you guys have me defending Whoopi Goldberg - bad enough that Gary gets me to defend Al Gore.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteNobody can defend Al Gore.
Having watched the whole show & not the clip, she did say it. Even my ultra-Liberal daughter and her finance heard it (and are totally disgusted in with Whoopie for it).
ReplyDeleteLance, you don't ever have to defend Whoopie or anyone else. There were many times in the last 9 years that I was critical of Bush.
Lance and Findalis,
ReplyDeleteOK, I have now seen the View clip. Here is part of what Whoopi said.
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail. I'm not staying.' So that's why he left."
"We're a different kind of society, we see things differently ... would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no."
"He did not rape her because she was aware and her family was apparently aware."
News flash to Whoopi. The girl was 13 and Polanski was 44. Under the law, it is rape even if he had not plied her with quaaludes and alcohol-even if she was aware-even if she consented-even if her family was aware etc, etc, etc.
You lose, Lance. What Goldberg said was ridiculous and she should be mortified.
Findalis:
ReplyDeleteShe said that exact phrase? "It's okay to rape a 13 year old girl if her parents give permission?"
I'll admit it when somebody proves that I'm wrong, but right now I'm going to call B.S.
Even if I am totally wrong though, it doesn't make your statement about rape being the "in thing" any less absurd. (But maybe you'll deny that, just as you have in the past denied things that you've said in the very same thread where you stated them.)
And Gary - you think that Elizabeth is somehow smarter than the rest of them? Seek help - soon. (I don't watch it either, but from what I've seen, that woman doesn't live in the real world. I suppose she's not as bad ad Sherri "Christians were around before the Greeks" Shepherd.)
You lose, Lance. What Goldberg said was ridiculous and she should be mortified.
ReplyDeleteNot really. That's still not the same thing that Findalis claimed, and when you look at it in context, she's talking about something else.
The thing is, it IS different from what people think of when they think of "rape". That implies force and violence. He didn't do that, and her parents knowing about it does make it a different situation.
Does that mean that he doesn't deserve jail time? I don't think so. Does it make it excusable? Again, I don't think so. And I don't think that was what Whoopi's point was either. She was just trying to clarify what happened. And from what I watched, her point was that the girl's mother might be held accountable for this as well.
That's hardly the same thing as what Findalis was claiming. (And it's not even in the same neighborhood as "rape is fun". Come on, you have to give it to me that that was insane.)
I think that you're confusing trying to understand something with trying to condone something. Those are hardly the same thing.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteWhoopi doesn't consider it rape because she was "aware" and her family was "aware" whatever that means. Statutory rape is rape. Rape using drugs and alcohol is rape.
Do you think that rape using date rape drugs is less than rape because force and violence isn't used?
Whoopi doesn't consider it rape because she was "aware" and her family was "aware" whatever that means. Statutory rape is rape. Rape using drugs and alcohol is rape.
ReplyDeleteShe was trying to distinguish that there's a difference. She's not articulate enough to do a good job of it, but to imply or say that she was calling it "okay" isn't fair.
Do you think that rape using date rape drugs is less than rape because force and violence isn't used?
It's different, is all. It's still a crime, and it's still awful and should be punished. But it involves a different sort of mentality on the part of the perpetrator.
And I do think that Whoopi made a good point when she implied some guilt on the part of the mother. If the mom DID know about it and let it happen, then that certainly does make this more complicated. (Which isn't the same as saying that I think tha tPolanski is somehow less guilty as a result.)
"And I do think that Whoopi made a good point when she implied some guilt on the part of the mother. If the mom DID know about it and let it happen, then that certainly does make this more complicated. (Which isn't the same as saying that I think tha Polanski is somehow less guilty as a result.)"
ReplyDeleteLance, you contradict yourself in the same sentence. Do you really think that the cuplability of the mother mitigates it? I don't care if the mom handed the girl to Polanski on a silver platter, what the hell is he doing drugging and having sex with a 13-year-old girl-even if the girl herself initiated it. She was 13 years old!! Oh but to Whoopi, we are living in a different time now.
Whoopi made no good points. She sounded like an amoral idiot.
Do you really think that the cuplability of the mother mitigates it?
ReplyDeleteWow. You are so totally binary about everything. I said that it "complicates" it - not "mitigates" it. Those are different words that mean different things, you know.
If there is some blame that can be attributed to the mother, that does not make Polanski any less guilty. It does, however, make this more of a complex case than just your average statutory rape. Why is saying that the equivalent of apologizing or excusing it?
Whoopi made no good points. She sounded like an amoral idiot.
I'll stand by the notion that you're just incapable of understanding what she was trying to say. I suppose it's possible that you're simply unwilling, as it's so important to you to be on the "conservative" side of things.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteIt does not complicate anything. If the mother was culpable then she should be prosecuted as well.
You talk as if this were a complicated legal issue. It isn't. Sad that in the issue of rape, there is a conservative side and a liberal side. Both sides should be united on this one. The fact is we have a powerful man who is a big shot director in an industry that basically has few morals. He flees to Europe (who protects him) so now that he has been caught after 31 years....it was so long ago. Remember the plea of the guy who killed his parents that he should be treated leniently because he was an orphan?
I suspect you and Whoopi are thinkly too deeply about what should be a no-brainer.