Thoughts for Polanski apologists, by another woman raped at 13.

Anonymous

As someone who was raped at the age of ten, I think the salient point that can’t be emphasized enough in all this is: the victim doesn’t want this. Who is anyone else (from supporters of Polanski to other rape victims like me) to second-guess that? If justice isn’t about serving the needs of the victims, then what’s it for? The victim herself has very clearly said that she wants it all dropped — so think about this: if you’re advocating prosecution, no matter how good and noble the reasons may be for doing so, you’re still going against what the actual victim wants. You’re saying that you know better than her, you’re saying you have the right to impose another trauma on her that she herself doesn’t want — and, yes, what is that if not another kind of rape in itself? No matter how much you may think you’re doing/advocating the right thing here, you still have to face that.

As much as I might want him to fry and want to be the one to pull the switch, I couldn’t begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be if the worst day of my life were fodder for millions of people to go over with a microscope — most of whom weren’t raped, who have not the SLIGHTEST fucking idea what living with it is like, all talking past the one person whose wishes and needs everyone else should be bending over backwards to protect.

Xopher

I think Polanski is a rapist. But even bad people can be treated unjustly, and it’s still wrong.

He pleaded guilty as part of an agreement that the judge then set aside. But that should have automatically withdrawn the guilty plea as well, instead of just letting the judge sentence him based on it, but not bound by the guilty plea.

I blame him for raping the girl (and who knows how many others) but not for fleeing.

Avram / Moderator

Xopher @132, was Polanski actually offered a particular sentence, or did he and his legal team just assume it?

Ugly Canuck

Oh I did not say that Mr Polanski is noble, or right, or justified, in any of his actions in this matter. IMHO his fears of an excessive sentence under the US Justice system are well-grounded: you Americans lock people up for profit – and far more than any other country on the planet (and what a safe society you now have as a result thereof!). But as he would not be sentenced for his original offense under the existing laws, that’s nether here nor there.

As to comments directed at me personally: this is not about me, you know. I hope y’all have a nice day, too.

And Mr Polanski IS a great film director: his art stands on its own merits, not on his personal merit – or lack thereof. Bad people can do good work, you know.

Justice in this case? IMO, the sentence which Mr. Polanski agreed to, plus a largish fine, or perhaps six to twelve months, for fleeing the jurisdiction.

Some of the above commentators above apparently mistake Mr Polanski’s fame or wealth for “power”.
IMO, to call Mr Polanski “powerful” is just weird.

OTOH, Mr Bush and the Federal “Justice” Officials who instigated a large system of torture camps and who went out of their way to start massive wars in far away countries: now there’s some actually powerful people, getting away with systematic mass murder.

But hey! Let’s talk about thirty-year old non-violent sex crimes, instead! I’m sure the US public will calmly and rationally discuss sex in their public fora.
Won’t they?

yri

Count me as one who is likewise baffled that =anyone= could defend or apologize for Polanski here. It’s an outrage that he’s evaded justice for so long, and I applaud his arrest.

And while I empathize with the victim’s current wishes, what she wants is no longer the point. He pleaded guilty, he should do the time.

stringmonkey

Outraged as I am by Polanski and the individuals supporting him, I believe we need to respect Ms. Geimer’s wishes in the matter as well. A reasonable approach might be to extradite and try Polanski on a felony charge for fleeing the US, while dropping the rape charge so that Ms. Geimer does not have to give additional testimony or endure even greater publicity as the case moves forward.

cmpalmer

@FALIX #112
So NFL football fans were treated unfairly because Michael Vick had to take a break from playing football to serve time for dog fighting?

The mind boggles.

Xopher

I haven’t seen his plea agreement, but a particular sentence is normally part of one.

Rindan

It is pretty hard to have a “show trial” when the trial is over and he is guilty. I think the guy should rot for the normal time you get when you drug and fuck a 13 year old girl who says no. The fact that the heavily sedated girl stopped whimpering “no” after a while doesn’t suddenly mean it isn’t rape. It isn’t like it is a challenge for a guy twice her size and three times her age to shut up a sedated girl while he fucks her.

As far as the length of the sentence, he should get what any other pedophile rapist who drugs and fucks his victims without consent should get. I would hope that that is a couple of decades. On top of that, he should also stand trial for for fleeing the country. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure fleeing the nation and refusing to serve your term in prison is illegal.

Like I said, I am no legal scholar, but between raping a 13 year old girl and fleeing the country, I bet that is enough time to put most 70+ year old men in jail for the rest of their lives. Good riddance.

RedMonkey

+1 Rindan

You said exactly what I was thinking, except far more eloquently, and with less swears.

Ugly Canuck – you make me sad; it’s not about vengeance, it’s about the social contract – justice cannot be denied by the convicts decades long avoidance of his sentence; particularly in view of his social status.

As for the rape apologists, I’m sure Dante would find you the appropriate punishment.

Anonymous

Having sex with a 13 year old is rape.
Having sex with someone who is too intoxicated to stop you is rape.
Having sex with someone who is saying no is rape

So Whoopi was right it wasn’t rape-rape, it was Rape-Rape-Rape!

Anonymous

I had a hard time finding story because apparently there have been a lot of people who have spent 22 years in prison from rapes they didn’t comment. So I went straight to the “Florida Today” web site to copy and paste this current story about Wilton Dedge.

Wilton Dedge hates to think there might be guys languishing in prison waiting for DNA testing to prove their innocence.

He also knows how expensive the testing can be.

That’s the reason for the upcoming Third Annual Bike Blast at Dedge’s Titusville bar, The Southern Room, a fundraiser to benefit the Innocence Project of Florida. The nonprofit group works to free the wrongly incarcerated through DNA testing.

The Innocence Project was responsible for freeing Dedge in 2004 and most recently, William Dillon, who spent 27 years in prison for a murder that DNA evidence proves he could not have committed. Dillon is scheduled to speak three times at the event.

“I’m just going to talk about the Innocence Project and how much they helped me,” Dillon said.

Dedge spent 22 years in prison for rape before DNA evidence taken from the victim was tested and he was cleared. He received compensation from the state and purchased a lawn care business and a bar.

“I started doing this because the Innocence Project of Florida gets no support from the state,” Dedge said. “It’s the least I can do after all they have done for me. There are still guys in prison hoping to get the same testing that I had done.”

DNA testing usually costs the Innocence Project of Florida between $3,000 and $5,000, according to Executive Director Seth Miller. Dillon’s, however, cost $14,000 due to because of the need for more advanced testing.

“We are honored to be a part of the Bike Blast,” Miller said. “Wilton has always been committed to advancing innocence work in Florida since his exoneration in 2004, and this is a great opportunity to raise awareness about wrongful convictions to what will likely be a geographically diverse group of people in attendance.”

The event features live music, vendors, a poker run, bike contest, tattoo contest and auction.

“I’d love to raise $10,000 for them this year if I can,” Dedge said. “But it’s not going to be easy. Everyone’s hurting this year.”

mccrum

I think I’m just going to stop going to the movies. I’m really uncomfortable with such a large part of an industry that thinks he needs defending. Pleaded guilty, case closed. The judge went back on his deal? Welcome to life, things happen. You’ll know better next time. Would Polanski be okay if Manson had retreated to Canada and hid?

Anonymous

The worst part is that his victim wants the sentence repealed because she just wants people to stop talking about it. That’s a sign that someone has been deeply abused folks: they don’t want to talk about what happened because it hurts too much.

Pipenta

So if you force yourself on a child, that is mental illness, but if you force yourself on a preteen, it isn’t?

WTF?

There are all kinds of mental illnesses that might make the sufferer more likely to commit these kinds of crime. If someone was, for example, a cluster B of the ASPD type, one would be incapable of empathy. That’s incapable of any empathy EVER. And one would not care about the sorts of limits that society, that other people would put on you. It would simply be a matter of doing what you could get away with doing. You would be very opportunistic about getting whatever your horrid twisted mind had determined was your need, at that moment, met.

And, of course, you’d be great at convincing people that you were a swell guy. You’d be all about manipulation. You’d have spent your life learning how to con family and friends, coworkers, neighbors and loved ones, so you could get what you’d want. You’d be very slick…

Wouldn’t care to diagnose Polanski. Don’t wish to even think of this for a moment longer. Just saying, there are these sorts of people, and yes, they can fool people. They are very manipulative.

robulus

Homestarrunrun said:

At least some of the time, e.g. victim gets too drunk to say no, doesn’t say no at all, doesn’t resist a bit, doesn’t scream for help, clams up and stays silent after, the victim is kind of at fault for letting the rape continue.

Dude. That totally sounds like you are talking from personal experience.

You’ve creeped me right the fuck out.

Anonymous

I am so totally flabbergasted by the rape apologies I see coming out of the woodwork surrounding this case. Oh no, wait, I’m not flabbergasted at all, because people mouth these same tired victim-blaming strategies every single time the R word comes up in conversation.

Apologies for copypasta, but this seems like a good spot for this internet standby (every source I’ve found for it attributes it to another source; if you know the attribution, please do share):

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION TIPS THAT REALLY WORK

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. F@^&, they shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all. Instead of that bull$#*+, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.
If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her.
If a women is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her.
If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her.
If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don’t rape her.
If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you’re still hung up on, don’t rape her.
If a woman is asleep in her bed, don’t rape her.
If a woman is asleep in your bed, don’t rape her.
If a woman is doing her laundry, don’t rape her.
If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her.
If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape her.
If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape her.
If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her.
If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her.
If your step-daughter is watching TV, don’t rape her.
If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her.
If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend.
If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and it’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and tell the guy he’s a rapist.
Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it’s not okay to rape someone.
Don’t tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done/not done x.
Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault.
Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he “got some” with the drunk girl.
Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

If you agree, re-post it. It’s that important.

Note:
This goes for any gendered rape, male on female or female on male or female on female or FTM on MTF or non gendered to dual gendered and so on and so forth….

-author unknown

randwolf

I hate this whole story. I hate the crime. I hate the way so many people want it to rewrite the story for their own purposes, to make it mean something in various narratives, and I think that is especially cruel to the victim. I hate the way the victim is probably going to be treated. I hate the way otherwise decent people are stepping up to speak for Polanski. I hate the way people are saying that it’s necessary to hurt the victim more for the sake of justice.

I don’t think that justice will be done in this case. My intuition is that when the dust settles many of us are going to wish that Polanski had been left alone.

Anonymous

I’m pretty sure the Hollywood bashing is an (understandable) extension of anger but way off base. Theirs is a special level of depravity, as if this doesn’t happen on every college campus, in every major and minor city, in every state? That’s the real problem, that it happens everywhere and we’re not doing enough as a society to stop it.

Those directors are defending Polanski because they are his friends. Plain and simple. The fact that they are famous is a symptom of the fact that the rapist in this case is famous. And if they want to make a case in defense of him, it’s not surprising that they point out his artistic achievements because those are more universally recognized and felt than “Hey, he’s really a good guy.” They are wrong to do so, but they are wrong in the same way that friends who come to the defense of any other criminal are wrong. If one of them happens to be a plumber, we don’t condemn the entire profession of plumbing.

Picking on Hollywood for low moral standards is too easy. Those stars live their lives publicly and sometimes they live them as poorly as the rest of us conduct ours.

The calls for justice are right on. Continue. Loudly. The broad demonization is not. Stop it. You lose credibility and weaken the real case.

WA

@Lauren: With all due respect to Geimer, I am a bit more concerned about all the 13-year-old girls who came after her who had to grow up in a world where Polanski got away with that.

That’s true, and that’s one of the reasons why I personally think that Polanski does need to be punished, even though it is unjust to Geimer. I just don’t think it’s right to say that we aren’t actually being unjust to her.

Also, as a rich white man, I can assure you that what is important here is that Polanski is a celebrity, not that he is a rich white man. No matter what they do, celebrities are always going to have some people defend them, by virtue of being celebrities.

@DesiredUsername: I agree that a person can recover fully and that it is important to defend that reality, however the irony is that I don’t think a person can easily recover in a society that doesn’t care, or that blames the victim. One of the major factors post-rape for whether a person will have PTSD is in how long it is before the survivor seeks professional help. That indicates to me that the survivor in a hostile environment is not going to fare well, whereas a survivor in a safe and caring environment will be able to make a lot of progress.

I agree, but I think too that it would be difficult to recover in a society that is safe and caring but negative, and that is the sort of society I feel many here are describing. Optimism is important. Both should be avoided; on the other hand, if attitudes like homestarrunner’s aren’t just trolling, then one side is admittedly much worse than the other.

@36: That “your life is over”, “you will always be terribly affected” attitude is what I dislike, and is the impression I seem to get from many essays, if rather toned down.

@Lauren, AndyHavens: Homestarrunner is either a troll intentionally trying to provoke such reactions in you, or a completely loony misogynist. Keep in mind that he recently had a post here claiming that IVF should be banned because it would lead to all males being killed or used for food. Are these sorts of attitudes actually widespread outside the internet and media? I hear loonies say these things all the time, but I don’t know anyone in the society around me who would support such views, and indeed, would not condemn them.

Ugly Canuck

In the above: sentenced under the Laws existing at the time of his offense. Which I’m guessing were not as harsh then, as they are now.

My point is that Americans display a strange kind of “hysteria” or perhaps “duality” when it comes to sex…and in criminal matters, they seem very very harsh in their sentencing, to boot.

And the “rape is a rape” line in the Article is just wrong. The Law does nothing but draw distinctions: that “rape is a rape” formulation demolishes any distinctions between cases, and with it, I fear, Justice. Just like mandatory minimum sentences do – they are designed to do just that.

And I wonder if this case is about Justice, or the LA DA’s pride? What’s the current clearance rate on LA County homicides ? Or violent rapes? Don’t they have, well, more dangerous fish to catch and fry? That is, people who are a greater risk to the public’s safety? And who is paying for this (at bottom, but for the fame of the felon) prosecution of a minor matter?(No pun intended!)

I mean, the maiden victim here has become a matron with the passage of time, and Mr Polanski has become no threat at all to the American public- if he ever actually was.

This is all about punishment for thumbing his nose at the State (or if you rather, Justice): not about redressing the Victim’s wrongs, nor about the protection of public safety.

That makes the DA’s herculean efforts in this particular case questionable, as a use of limited prosecutorial resources. What’s the point to this particular prosecution, exactly? Is it Justice as protection of the weak, Justice as restitution of wrong, or Justice as simple punishment?

As it appears that Mr Polanski’s flight was itself actuated by “substantial misconduct” (the words of the Judge who heard Mr Polanski’s recent motion to dismiss) by the DA’s Office back then, is it beyond the realm of possibility that the DA’s Office now is simply trying to salvage its corporate reputation and honor? And what type of Justice would that be?

Oh I did enjoy the Bugliosi quote above re: Polanski. Perhaps a quote (or maybe a wholebook) from him on Mr. Bush should carry the same weight?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0904/S00097.htm

Oh right the Prosecutors have other things to do….

Ugly Canuck

Mr Polanski is seventy-six years old and has a family.
Does this matter? As to his punishment?

ackpht

Hi, Roman! Hope you didn’t think we’d forgotten!

buddy66

If Polanski is returned for sentencing, the sentencing judge will have to be as wise as Solomon. There are too many complicating factors at play for simple gavel pounding.

Any of you commenters with such wisdom? If you think it is a simple matter, then you are too simple to decide such matters.

Nelson.C

Failix, there are other film-makers. If we cinephiles lose what few movies this man has left in him, then it’s a small price to pay for the rule of law. But I’d rather live in a world without any movies than one where the law allows men to drug and rape 13-year-olds with impunity.

13tales

@WA

There are, in actuality, way too many guys/people who hold the views that Homestar-whatever is spouting.

Vaguely relevant quote from The Rage in Placid Lake (great movie):

(two Australian high-school seniors talking)
“Is it rape if you hold a girl down with your arm on her throat?”
“Did she say ‘no’?”
“I dunno…she couldn’t really say anything. She looked pretty angry though.”

DylanMorgan

Yes, Whoopi, it was “rape-rape.” As if there were another kind. And it has not been long enough, because he needs to serve his time.

danlalan

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you favor returning Polanski to serve his sentence, Xeni.

I’m definitely with you on this. Do you know of anyplace we might write to help make this a reality?

Ugly Canuck

Yes purly the abuse of power to obtain sex is vile…hence my above link to the David Letterman situation. But I guess sometimes consent can mitigate things, once people are past a certain age.

Anonymous

It really can’t be said enough, it WAS “rape-rape”
NOT “statutory”. She said no/stop, repeatedly, he (having drugged her) forced sex on her anyway, end of story. Her age and his at the time are lesser facts

Felix Mitchell

“if you hope to have a fair justice system you need to ask how it is possible that a judge can relent about a bargain that all the involved parties have agreed to”

What were the details of the plea bargain?

If the judge did not honour an agreement I can sympathise with Polanksi skipping bail. Perhaps even to the extent of not punishing him for leaving, only for the rape.

Though obviously overshadowed by Polanski’s crime, a judge going back on his word is pretty serious.

Anonymous

After hearing much of the French intelligensia come to his defense, all I can say is “If I had a 13 year old daughter, I would not let her go to France.”

mermaid

I was really appalled a with the response Angelica Houston gave about the victim being “one of those” young girls.

Anonymous

@13tales and Lauren O

I’m posting anonymously because I’d rather this not be public record. When I was 15(2 years before I lost my virginity) I was accused of rape by an unstable girl in high school who I made out with once. We never had sex, and I made sure she was in control of the situation as I wanted her to be comfortable. No one told me about how she was slandering my name in a whisper campaign until she threatened to extort me a year later. I had to go to my counselor and tell my mother about this selfish person, and go to another school because an unstable person wanted attention from their boyfriend and I was being threatened. I also had trouble trusting women for years and a nonexistent social life until I started college.

Rape is horrible,yes. And I find Homestar’s views on the drugged brutal rape of a 13 year old girl bordering on that of a non-human, but to downplay the effect of being falsely accused of a vile, aggressive crime for the sake of an argument is grossly irresponsible. It makes it harder for real victims to be taken seriously, and if you’re a part of the minority who was or is falsely accused it’s offensive.

Anonymous

what polanski did was horrible, but there are some gray areas in this story that seems to be reported in black and white. there is an excellent documentary on this story called Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

Excellent documentary to some, vile piece of character assasination made by Polanski apologists to others.

Some things are just black and white.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html

Ugly Canuck

There’s no question of impunity here, Nelson, unlike say the Bush torture case:

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington10012009.html

Mr Polanski’s case is a simple case of a fugitive caught. What role a DA’s lies may have played is another question….lieing then, or is he lieing now? I wonder….

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/10/one-former-prosecutor-writes-about-another-he-lied-about-polanski.html

A lieing DA, however you cut it,eh?

Is Mr Cockburn also an apologist?

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Plus ca change….

rishab ghosh

#4 it’s not the “french” intelligentsia supporting polanski here. it’s loads of others, as noted elsewhere in the comments.

and surveys show french public overwhelmingly support polanski’s arrest. e.g. le figaro’s 30000 person survey, 70% think he should be tried:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/cinema/2009/09/27/03002-20090927QCMWWW00192-roman-polanski-doit-il-etre-juge-.php

Anonymous

#131 / Anonymous:

That Glenn Kenny guy is wacko. See the comments on that article.

Bloodboiler

Fellow commentators, don’t be too quick to judge Polanski defenders. You would be doing the same thing if your fried or someone you idolize did something horrible.

If you were to try to think Polanski as a genius-film-maker-rapist-pedophile you too would rather find loopholes that makes his crimes less bad than admit to yourself you are idolizing a child rapist.

Anonymous

Thank you for posting this. With the movie release, I’ve been revisiting this topic. Both Pierce Brosnan and Ewan MacGregor have come out in support of Polanski, and they both have daughters. I would like to imagine that they would be at least indignant if this happened to their own children, so why isn’t the victim in this case worthy of it? I’ve never been a star struck person, but now the veneer of Hollywood has totally dissipated, and I just see a sewer of plastic body parts, vacant consciences, and narcissistic personality disorders. I hope it doesn’t mirror the world outside too closely.

gruben

Seriously. I was saddened to see that so many filmmakers I look up – Woody Allen, Aronofsky, Lynch, Wong Kar-Wai, Scorsese – to are siding with Polanski on this one.

zandar

@#48

“I think I’m just going to stop going to the movies”

mccrum, please, don’t waste that energy on Polanski.

Polanski’s apologists are not exactly the future of cinema. They represent a past or soon to be past period of cinematic history.

What I find dismaying is how so many directors who seemed to have an accurate bead on human nature, and made such deeply affecting movies, are on the list of apologists.

Boycott the movies for a better reason: the CGI gluttony of Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. Unless you like your movies to be roughly equivalent (in effect as well as intellectual depth) to a ride at Disneyland, why give them the box office they need to accelerate their gleeful degradation of the filmmaking arts?

Man, I hope there is a backlash of character-driven cinema after our infantile preoccupation with computer effects matures a little.

Anonymous

justice delayed is justice denied.

Anonymous

@ mermaid..

Angelica said that cus she was dating Jack Nicholson at the time… and the rape happened at his place… all those dudes were into weird crazy stuff and Houston is just circling the wagons

bjacques

Send him back to the US to face the music, however it plays out. The victim may have forgiven him, as many often do, but the people of California have not, and he hasn’t done a lot to inspire their mercy.

Vincent Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” notes that Polanski was called in the 1960s “the original five-foot Pole you wouldn’t touch anyone with” (i.e., a creep).

The judge, Laurence Rittenband, who would have thrown the book at Polanski is being defamed posthumously. The judge’s improper action in discussing the case could have been grounds for appealing his sentence. But nobody really dwells on why Judge Rittenband acted the way he did or how he communicated to Polanski’s lawyer his intent to refuse the plea bargain agreement. I’m guessing it went something like “no way in hell!” As to why, maybe it’s because the sentence for the lesser charge was a joke and the judge had two nieces.

Anonymous

@randwolf :

I would sympathize with the present-day victim more if she hadn’t repeatedly made a point in the last few years of being a public persona. For example, she very publicly attended the screening of the pro-Polanski documentary, and she has written op-eds (under her real name) asking that Polanski be left alone. Regardless of what I think are her poor choices recently in going public, I still respect the fact that it’s best for her to be kept out of the limelight.

However, I have no hesitation whatsoever about the need for the citizens of California to make it very, very clear that we DO NOT allow 44-year-olds to drug and rape 13-year-olds with impunity.

Brainspore

Let’s leave Letterman out of this discussion until someone makes a credible claim that he coerced them into sex. Powerful men often have sex with women who are attracted to power, that doesn’t automatically make them rapists (though it does often indicate that they’re slimeballs).

Antinous / Moderator

It’s appalling to me that terms like ‘child molestation’ and ‘statutory rape’ end up being used to pretend that a rape wasn’t really a rape. Expecting morals from Hollywood folk is a losing proposition.

Ugly Canuck

Desiredusername :my point is (besides expressing my distaste for the simplistic “a rape is a rape” concept and its application to this case) that the US is failing to prosecute crimes of torture and murder ordered and committed by its own powerful Government Officials: while the US Media is using this case to trumpet the reach, power and “Justice” of US Laws, and the “indefatigable” Prosecutors who enforce them.

Americans have much more serious crimes to deal with, committed by much more powerful people.

This entire matter is a “celebrity” distraction.
And an opportunity for the exercise of ritualized public hatred of criminals…and for the promulgation of severe penalties…and new prisons…in all, a “feel-good” hate session. Kinda like in Orwell’s ’1984′.

But no criminal charges against fraudulent bankers?
Curious.

Antinous / Moderator

Canuck,

You’ve gone off mission. Refocus.

william

Thanks for posting this, Xeni. I am dumbfounded that there are any Polanski apologists at all. Hopefully this will reduce their number.

maoinhibitor

I really feel very strongly about this. Polanski must be extradited from Switzerland and sentenced in a US court.

I’ve been trying to rile up a friend of mine who is an adjunct professor of Women’s studies, I figured she might be able to figure out who to write, what to do politically, to support his extradition.

Do we write letters of support to Swiss law enforcement? To the State Department? Counter-petition? What do we do here?

Wim Wenders was on that list too… WTF?!?

melded

what polanski did was horrible, but there are some gray areas in this story that seems to be reported in black and white. there is an excellent documentary on this story called Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1157705/

more thoughts via personal digression: i was in love with my high school english teacher at 17 and wouldn’t feel bad about having had sex with her regardless of age difference. if a 15 year old boy has sex with a 25 year old woman i wouldn’t have a problem with that either. 13 is a little more awkward, but rape is different than consensual sex. i was once with a woman who wanted sex and i didn’t and i went farther with her than i wanted to go because i didn’t want to disappoint her or make her feel like i had led her on. i’m sure that happens with women all the time. i probably said i didn’t want to have sex and she kept on at me. she doesn’t have a penis to penetrate me with and men seem more predatory than women generally so it seems totally different. what polanski did seems more like date rape, which is still awful.

the previously mentioned documentary is available via Netflix streaming:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Roman_Polanski_Wanted_and_Desired/70084138?trkid=222336&strkid=1942123458_0_0&strackid=518c104e8ff04ad9_0_srl

Anonymous

I would just like to say that it would be nice if, when I share a link to your blog on facebook, I could choose an actual thumbnail that pertained to the story instead of just always the “Advertise Here with Federated Media” thing. It looks boring and I am sure you would have more people clicking on the link if it looked interesting.

I don’t know how I feel about the Polanski thing, simply because the woman/girl who was raped has said that she wished people would just let it go because every time it is in the media it reminds her of what happened. Also, I don’t know the whole story. But I have a hard time imagining that someone can think that raping children is okay and shouldn’t be punished.

Antinous / Moderator

Anonymous,

We’re working on the thumbnail issue. Thanks.

cognitive dissonance

Millionaire athlete runs a dog fighting ring, becomes pariah, serves year of jail time.

Millionaire athlete shots self in leg, serves two years of jail time.

Millionaire athlete murders ex wife and aspiring actor, is “vindicated” and serves media with fodder for years to come.

Millionaire R&B singer urinates on, and has underage sex with several girls (on camera), serves up platinum record.

Senaor DUI’s himself off of a bridge, killing passenger, serves 10+ more terms.

Overrated director rapes 13 year old girl, savors it in court, served wine in europe for decades.

the lesson is, go big or go home. the worse the crime, the better chance you have of getting away, in some cases, with MURDER.

bklynchris

If there was anything funny about this (which arguably, there is not) it would be that the apologist Director most oft cited in the news was Woody Allen.

Who’s next Dov Charney?

They are discussing the victim’s desire to drop the charges. I’m sorry, when you are 13 isn’t the crime against the people of the county that the crime was committed in? Which begs further discussion not necessarily necessary here.

One way to attack the ridiculous “support” list is to get registered sex offenders to sign it and then publish their presence (not necessarily their names) on the list. Granted, that’s rife with ethical conundrums

W. James Au

A lot of Polanski’s Hollywood apologists cite his great artistic achievements as a mitigating factor when we judge the man, which is a pathetic to say on its face, and also sort of irrelevant, because his best movies were made *before* the rape. And come to think of it, *Chinatown* is a classic because of the screenplay and Nicholson, not because of Polanski’s directing, which is just serviceable. No idea why he got an Oscar for *The Pianist*, the directing is also just OK.

Actually I do know why he won an Oscar for *The Piano*: because Hollywood is nostalgic for their golden years in the 70s, and wanted to redeem him. Equally pathetic so many are defending him now. But you know why that is? Read *Easy Riders, Raging Bulls*, Hollywood in the 70s was a coke-addled, orgy-coated freakshow, and most of the icons from the era speaking up for Polanski now were part of it. Maybe they didn’t rape a girl like him, but very good chance they got their own weird skeletons in the closet.

gollux

@GRUBEN

Umm, Woody Allen’s reason is pretty obvious.

Xopher

Oh, I think Letterman is definitely a slimeball. But that doesn’t make him a criminal.

randwolf

Anon: no, I’m not. I’m saying that in this particular case, I suspect that the outcome is going to be far more unjust than it would have been had the case had just been let be. I see us as on a path to further injustice–that is one reason I hate the whole mess so much.

I am also saying that I do not believe it is justice to hurt the rape victim more in the service of punishing the rapist unless there is some reason to believe that the rapist is going to commit further offenses. That is to go down the road of abusing the victim further. I will never support that, and it astonishes me that more people do not see it that way. And that is another reason why I hate this mess–it is bringing out some serious ugliness.

That said, if there were substantiated evidence that Polanski had in fact re-offended or that there was a serious risk of his doing so, I would change my view. There have been only rumors after 30 years in the white-hot spotlight of the paparazzi, so it seems unlikely, but I don’t rule out the possibility–I have nothing like the resources required to seriously investigate.

Xenu

I wouldn’t apologize for Mr Polanski, but I will say this — if I had a pregnant wife who was brutally murdered, I’m sure it would have a negative effect on my sexuality as well.

coaxial

Let’s be honest though Antinous. Are we honestly supposed to believe that a person that says “Yes, I want to have sex with you,” at 17 years 364 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds is somehow substantially different one second later? Yet, in the law they are. Is a 17 year old? Probably not. A 16 year old? Maybe, but not in the UK and several other countries.

But seriously, there’s something fundamentally different between consensual sex between someone 18 and older, and a mature person under 18, and the older person forcing themselves on the younger. They’re different crimes, because they’re different things.

That all said, no one is above the law. Gacy made paintings, but that didn’t mean that he wasn’t a killer. Polanski makes movies, but he was convicted of rape, and must serve the time.

Bevatron Repairman

I suppose I was most disappointed by Salman Rushdie signing onto one these awful defenses of this dirt bag. A fellow I thought had a certain moral seriousness.

jeremyhogan

He’s an admitted pederast and an alleged rapist.

If he hadn’t directed “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby” he’d have been given a real sentence in the first place and not offered some ludicrous 42 day plea bargain he could skip town on for “fear of persecution.” (He… was afraid… of being a victim??!?)

And we certainly wouldn’t have anyone debating whether he’d “suffered enough” living as a rich and famous man in Europe all these years.

Anonymous

Would someone please explain what purpose it will serve to put Polanski, or any 76 year old, in jail?

Will it protect the victim, or other potential victims?
Will it serve as a deterrent to other pedophiles?
Will it support the “cause” in any way?

No, no and no.

It will cost tax payer dollars. It will not help the victim or other victims in any way. At worst, it will make Polanski a martyr.

Yes, while he’s in prison he will suffer some form of “justice” as he’s abused by the other inmates. What purpose will this serve?

Yet his crime cannot go unpunished, obviously. He committed a loathsome crime and fled his punishment, which is not behaviour which can be tolerated. It’s just that incarceration simply seems to be the most useless form of punishment available.

Rob Beschizza

“I would just like to say that it would be nice if, when I share a link to your blog on facebook, I could choose an actual thumbnail that pertained to the story instead of just always the “Advertise Here with Federated Media” thing. It looks boring and I am sure you would have more people clicking on the link if it looked interesting.”

On our permalinks, that little ad is often the only JPG on the entire page, so facebook’s scraper picks it up. We’ll hide a JPG of the logo somewhere above it so this doesn’t happen anymore.

buddy66

Fitzgerald said that to Hemingway, and Hemingway replied, “Yes, they have more money than we do.” The boy from Oak Park, Illinois hadn’t yet married the Pfeiffer fortune and he lacked experience with the VERY rich that Fitzgerald had been accruing. The very rich, with notable exceptions, can get away with almost any fucking thing.

But what does this have to do with Polanski, who is neither very rich nor very powerful? It will depend on the level of public blood lust and the reactions of posturing politicians to that rising tide. My bet is he ducks out and beats the deferred punishment. At this point it’s no longer about justice; it’s about politics and the strongest lobby.

Ugly Canuck

Rindan: A plea bargain : thus, no trial of the evidence took place.

There was no trial….asfar as I know, plea bargains are made to avoid trials.

My guess is that sentencing at the time of this offense was lighter than it is now, too: no “mandatory minimum” in this case, perhaps.

Anonymous

Best column i’ve read on this is Glenn Kenny’s over at the Auteurs:

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1103

Nelson.C

It’s in the nature of things that Polanski knows a lot of people in Hollywood, and he has probably been spending a not-inconsiderable amount of energy in the last 30 years bringing all his influence to bear to make sure that his preferred version of events is the one most Hollywoodites believe. The fact that he was only ever charged with sex with a minor and not the sexual assault, and that there’s some question about actions of the judge on the case, only helped confuse matters. So, it’s sad and dispiriting to see so many people in Hollywood saying foolish things about Polanski, but not entirely their fault, I feel. They have been deceived, with relevent information obfuscated and denied by one of their own.

Well, in the end, they are just a bunch of actors, producers, directors and others, who collectively do not have enough influence, I am confident, to allow Polanski to avoid his just deserts for much longer.

m2key

#44 – it’s not really about “liberal” – a misnomer which is smeared ‘liberally’ on anything not conservatively approved of… it is all about elites who think the rules only apply to the little people – the rest of us who are not and never will be members of the elite group who are entitled to privileges like cherry-picking and selectively interpreting the laws the rest of us live with.

TheBlessedBlogger

Rape is rape is rape. A rapist is a rapist and always will be. Celebrity isn’t a magic get out of jail free card. He should be in prison, end of story. If you think otherwise that’s your choice but you aren’t welcome around my kids.

seanfish

Hearking back up the thread – comments about Polanski’s fellow baby boomers speaking out – as a Gen Xer my longstanding impression (wonderful individuals aside) is that one of the central boomer ethics is that they’re who is real, and they’re who matters.

The victim – not being real, not mattering – is interfering with the wellbeing of one of their own.

It would be a happier outcome if they supported their friend by helping to face his wrongdoing.

Ugly Canuck

I trust US Prosecutors will be as dogged pursuing Mr. Bush. Perhaps a Pardon prior to sentence as for Mr. Lewis Libby?
Or would that violate the “social contract” too?

Tzctlp

I have seen nobody defending Mr Polanski, and as you helpfully remark, he is quite a sick case.

But he accepted as much during his trial by pleading guilty. He pleaded guilty, and then the prosecutor agreed, for whatever legal and practical reasons, that the deal was good enough, just as much as he could get.

And then the problem began whit the erratic conduct of the judge. This is well documented and I don’t think I need to expand about that here.

if you hope to have a fair justice system you need to ask how it is possible that a judge can relent about a bargain that all the involved parties have agreed to, how it is possible that a justice system ignores the wishes of the victim in view that the perpetrator is no longer a danger to society, and how it is possible that they could not get an extradition for 30 years given the fact that everybody knew where Polanski was.

My gut feeling is that there are some young guns back in California that want to make a name for themselves, and found this dormant cause celebre to achieve it.

Prosecuting Poalnski no longer serves any purpose, bar pleasing the rabid eye for an eye crowd, which frankly deserve little attention given their medievalism.

unruly katy

I wonder where the line gets drawn, for those who feel that Polanski’s artistry somehow mitigates his crime? If he had stabbed his victim, would his artistry be enough to excuse him of that? If he had raped a child near and dear to one of the apologists, would his artistry be enough to excuse him of that? I

As for the murder of Sharon Tate having a “negative effect” on Polanski’s sexuality … good lord. What does that mean?? I’m sure such a cataclysmically nightmarish event would have a negative effect on those near and dear to one in every sphere of their lives. But does that give victims of tragedy some kind of free pass on behaving like civilised people? I don’t think so. Some acts are clearly wrong. Having sex with a child is wrong. Drugging a child in order to have sex with him or her is wrong. The math is pretty simple. No free passes on this, sorry. Because otherwise, holy Christ, that’s a mighty scary slippery slope.

Anonymous

Thank you for posting this. I’m not only p***ed off about Polanski raping a 13 year-old, but his flight to avoid the consequences of his actions has robbed her of the closure she deserves. He not only stole her innocence, but her opportunity to truly move on as a survivor. Of course she want this whole thing to go away, his avoidance of consequences means that she will continue to be dragged back into the victim role every time her story appears in the press. Who wants to be a victim for 30 years? That’s a monumental burden which the apologists don’t seem consider. Had he served his time 30 years ago, she would have already been able to move on, just as she wants to do now.

Anonymous

Isn’t fleeing to avoid sentencing a crime too? How do his defenders justify that?

hobomike

Did you all smell that?

Ugly Canuck

Actually, The Piano is about sex and consent/bargaining too, is it not?

But consent or the lack thereof is a red herring in this case, that’s for sure.

But Mr. Polanski is not Phil Spector, nor is he OJ Simpson. he did not kill anybody: nor does he need specific deterrence.

Making an example, eh? “Don’t disobey the State, or else….”

And US sentencing laws ARE off the rails, you know.
It is the unjust sentence that Mr Polanski fears: and is IMHO correct to so fear. Americans lock foreign people up and torture them without charge, and Mr Polanski is not a US citizen.

In fact, I understand your prison guards feed these “child rapists” to their pet inmates….

Brainspore

I can still enjoy his movies and feel bad about his pregnant wife getting murdered without condoning the rape, right?

WA

Different people have different effects from traumatic experiences. It is as insulting to a person to assume that they were terribly affected as it is to assume that they were not terribly affected. Lauren seems to be suggesting that because she had certain experiences, Geimer must have had similar experiences, that because her rape still deeply affects her, that Geimer must still be as deeply affected as her, and everyone who was raped must still be as deeply affected. She suggests that people can’t get over rape, which seems almost as prejudiced and insulting as people who insist that people should (I think “get over” is a poor term to use, but this is still a problem). She decries people who say to GET OVER IT ALREADY, when she’s saying YOU CAN’T GET OVER IT. She justifiably condemns people who stereotype victims in one way, while at the same time stereotyping them in another way.

But the level to which someone is traumatized by a rape doesn’t effect whether or not it was rape. One side in this case seems to be arguing that because her writings don’t indicate that she was horribly, life-changingly traumatized, it wasn’t really rape. The other side seems to be arguing that she must have been horribly, life-changingly traumatized, and therefore it is rape. This shouldn’t matter. It was rape. It would have been rape even if Geimer hadn’t suffered any long-lasting effects.

The essay she quotes is even worse. There, the author analyses Geimer’s words by suggesting that Geimer didn’t really mean what she wrote, that Geimer is actually betraying herself, and that charging Polanski is actually good for her.

Personally, think these horrible arguments on all sides are probably a major part of why Geimer doesn’t want the case brought up. She’s either a freak who enjoyed it, or a delusional who is far more affected than she says she is, and needs to be ignored and reinterpreted. Both are unjust portrayals.

But there’s no good solution to this. With our justice system the way it is, Polanski should be charged, but by doing so, we’re unjust to Geimer. What would perhaps be the ideal solution, where Polanski stands trial but it isn’t discussed and publicized, is completely impossible. Every course of action is going to be unjust in some way.

Anonymous

bobbymike: Yours is rather uncharitably narrow view of the scope of the parable,IMO…..confining it to the facts then at hand, so to speak.

Plus it can’t be emphasized enough that the facts were stipulated to, – agreed to by the DA and Defense – not put to strict proof in Court: what actually transpired between the two that night may have been very different than the facts stipulated.

The DA back then had agreed to 45 days and time served!

Do they seriously expect that now, after 30 years, Mr Polanski will be incarcerated for more than that previously-agreed to term, without Mr Polanski having an opportunity to make a full answer and mount a defense, that is, to put the DA to the strict proof of the facts as alleged?

That is, should Mr Polanski not have the right ( and would not the Judge be under a Duty to so order?) to have the stipulated “facts” thrown out, if the Prosecutor seeks to “beef up” the sentence to “more manly ” terms – which request itself is based upon those”facts” as agreed!

Sounds like dirty trix to me. Trying to get around proving the case….

maoinhibitor

Let us not forget that Polanski was charged, plead guilty, then fled the country. We don’t have to charge him again for a crime he already plead guilty to. He goes straight to sentencing.

He might be charged with additional crimes for fleeing justice.

Ugly Canuck

In fact some of the comments above remind me of a story that I once heard about a woman who was to be put to death for a sex crime, when a person came forward and asked that the person without sin ought to strike the first blow…kinda like this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU

Not that I mean to be blasphemous….

DianneS

@ Unruly Katy:
Coble in comments at TinyCatPants developed this handy formula to determine just how much Life Adversity equates with moral or legal transgression:

The official Karmic Relativity Adjustment PointsTM formula is as follows:
(A1+P1)*C-S/V+T=A2+P2

Where A1 equals Adversity; P1 equals Power; C equals Coolness;S equals Shock Value; V equals Victim; T equals Time. The outcome is to yield a figure representing the combined Relative Awfulness (A2) and Public Disapprobation (P2).

http://tinycatpants.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/when-even-feminists-dont-get-it/#comments

Anonymous

I hope his cell mate is Charles Manson.

Anonymous

That’s mature.

PeaceLove

I spent a while in Hollywood in the 80′s, and Polanski’s story was still an occasional topic of discussion. The main theme of the discussion was that the story was far less black and white than the media made it out to be. I’m reminded of this when even BBers who should know better feel perfectly comfortable in condemning all the famous people stepping up to defend Polanski.

I’m not saying they’re right or wrong. Just that I don’t know the whole story, and neither do you. But I guess it’s easier to fall into the “condemn the rich, spoiled Hollywood elite” line (is this BB or Fox News?), than to withhold judgement and recognize that maybe they know something you don’t.

There are sexually active 13 year olds out there, believe it or not. There are also some very young and childish 18 year old virgins. But the law has no place for any distinction other than age. Even distinctions between statutory rape, coercive sex, and violent rape can be blurred. In Polanski’s case, he was convicted of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.”

Maybe Polanski got the hell out of Dodge because he saw he would never be able to get a fair trial. After losing his mother in Auschwitz, after his experiences in the Krakow ghetto, he could be excused for harboring some suspicion of authority. Maybe he had bad experiences with the police after his beautiful, pregnant wife was massacred along with four others in his home.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. I don’t know the truth. And neither, apparently, do any of the commenters here who are so willing to cast judgement. Nuance has never been America’s strong suit, but I like to think it is normally pretty prevalent around BB land.

Antinous / Moderator

She was 13. She was drugged. She was raped in every orifice while she said ‘No’. What exactly is your definition of ‘nuance’?

Ugly Canuck

Bloodboiler: Ah the power of simplistic formulations and pejorative designators!….another demolisher of distinctions between cases. So seductive to the unthinking and ignorant.

And equally tending to injustice when applied in and to particular cases.

Since he was not going after pre-pubescent children, at least the term ‘pedophile’ is not being used here: there’s no mental illness at work in this case. Hence, less chance of recidivism (in contrast to actual pedophiles). Hence, less need of incarceration, as there’s a lesser danger of re-offending.

The Law has always determined the age of childhood, regardless of the person’s actual state of mental or physical maturity: and I have no problems whatsoever with that.

Nevertheless, violating a four-year-old is not like sleeping with 17-year-old….oh… but both offenders are “child rapists”( by definition any sex whatsoever with a minor is “child rape”): and since a “rape is a rape’, the offenders ought to therefore receive the same sentence in both cases, eh?

What stupidity! The Law is not so ignorant of, nor blind to, facts: unless the Legislators make it so, by putting out its “eyes” for the differences.

Each case is unique. That’s the way it is.

And that statement does not make me an “apologist”.

Differences matter. Especially for the Law, and sometimes also for Justice. Of course, Justice and the Law do not always walk together. If only they did!

I said it above: Mr Polanski ought to serve the sentence agreed in the Plea bargain, and a little something extra for running away. And that’s it.

I’m not seeking to defend Mr Polanski on these or any other charges: but rather to moderate the “immoderation” that’s become so very common in American discussions of crime: and the ensuing and continuing dehumanization of criminals.

Rindan

if you hope to have a fair justice system you need to ask how it is possible that a judge can relent about a bargain that all the involved parties have agreed to, how it is possible that a justice system ignores the wishes of the victim in view that the perpetrator is no longer a danger to society, and how it is possible that they could not get an extradition for 30 years given the fact that everybody knew where Polanski was.

The US couldn’t nab the bastard because France wouldn’t give him to us. He never announced when he was going to Sweden, so we couldn’t file the paper work to get them to give the bastard back.

The fact is that a 44 year old man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, admitted as such, and then ran. This bastard deserves to be dragged back and be sentenced without a plea deal. On top of that, he also should be nailed for running (which I am going to go ahead and guess is a crime).

Why? If for no other reason than to let other criminals know that you are never forgiven. Commit this sort of horrible crime and neither time, nor fame, nor anything else is going to change the fact that you drugged and raped a girl three times younger than you. Run, and eventually your ass will be dragged back and you get to serve not only the time you should have served, but even more for trying to escape justice.

This isn’t for the girl that was raped. This is for all the other girls who might be raped by sick assholes who think they might get off because they have wealth and fame. Drag his wrinkled ass back, set him up in a nice prison cell for the remainder of his natural life, and let the people of fame and money see justice being cruelly indifferent to their indignant beliefs that they are above the law.

Let him rot.

Anonymous

A 40+ yo man invites a 13 yo girl to his friend Jack’s house for a photo shoot where he plies her with etoh and drugs, undresses her under protest, rapes and sodomizes her under protest. He pleas, absconds with himself to France where he lives his life touted as a Hoolywood genius. (Oxymoron anyone?) Is it any surprise that Woody Allen supports him? That much of Hollywood supports him? Many Hollywood movers and shakers continue to peddle their thinly veiled pedophilia in movies, advertisements and tv shows, where the ultimate female sexual object is a VERY young appearing girl and women disappear from the lime light as they grow up. How long are we going to put up with Hollywood’s non-sublte degradation of females at every stage of their lives. How long?

randwolf

Anon: that message has already been sent, by many other cases. I see no need to drag Gailey/Geimer through more muck to do it.

BTW, an issue that may deserve more attention is the conduct of France in such cases, at least if this morning’s Michael Kimmelman NYT article is substantially correct.

gandalf23

UglyCanuck: “his fears of an excessive sentence under the US Justice system are well-grounded”

You’re aware that you are talking about 48 days, right? The plea agreement was for 90 days, he served 42 of that and everyone expected the judge to let him off with time already served. The judge indicated that he would not, and that’s when Polanski fled. To avoid the remaining 48 days he’d have to spend in jail if the judge changed his mind.

48 days.

48 days for the rape of a 13 year old is not an excessive sentence.

As for there being no trial to cross examine the evidence, thus somehow making the girl’s testimony worthless in your eyes, well, that was Polanski’s choice, now wasn’t it? He could’ve gone to trial, but chose instead to accept the plea agreement. If he wanted to contest the facts he could have, but chose not to.

UglyC, do you even listen to yourself anymore? You’re on the side of an admitted rapist of a 13 year old girl, who admits to fleeing the country to avoid 48 days in jail. Or is it just “Oh no, America has done < something > , therefore it’s evil and I will rail against it!!!”?

Xopher

I had the impression the judge said he would not abide by the plea agreement. Polanski was facing a lot more than 48 days in jail; the judge was going to give him the maximum.

What he did was wrong, and he probably deserves a longer sentence, but fleeing wasn’t quite as trivially motivated as you’re saying.

Lauren O

With our justice system the way it is, Polanski should be charged, but by doing so, we’re unjust to Geimer.

With all due respect to Geimer, I am a bit more concerned about all the 13-year-old girls who came after her who had to grow up in a world where Polanski got away with that.

I wouldn’t apologize for Mr Polanski, but I will say this — if I had a pregnant wife who was brutally murdered, I’m sure it would have a negative effect on my sexuality as well.

How many criminals have grown up with trauma and abuse and death? Why are we only concerned about it when it affects a rich white man?

Anonymous

White has nothing to do with it, by the way.

Lauren O

And also, no, Mr. Polanski, not everyone wants to fuck young girls. And those of us who had had the misfortune to meet men like you when we were young girls do not appreciate the sentiment.

darthjer

I was under the impression this was a big party and everybody was drunk and she seemed/he believed she was of age. Not something I’d condone, but I could see where Hollywood folk would look past. Everything I knew about this was from reports here and there, especially during the Oscars a few years ago. From the way Hollywood supports him, I have to believe that many of them have done as much research as I had.

I can’t believe that anyone would protest his extradition or applaud him in any way after reading that testimony. Let’s see what Angelica Huston or some of the other supporters say after being confronted with that.

Anonymous

Look at the facts of the case… it’s more complicated than what is being discussed here… Polanski is scum, but everyone (defense, prosecution and the judge) had agreed on his punishment and then the judge changed his tune after Polanski had served his term. It was a failure of the system to deal with a bad crimeâ€”but I’m not sure Polanski should pay the price. The system should have dealt with him better the first time and not given him such a light sentenceâ€”it was a horrible crime that was dealt with very lightly, mostly because they did not want to put the girl on the witness stand and felt they could not get a conviction for the more serious charges with out that testimony. I’m not sure there is a good solution to this problem. Very sad indeed.

homestarrunrun

I think that people accused of rape get a bad deal. 1. Everyone automatically calls them “rapists” for the rest of their life.
2. They have to tell everyone where they live for the rest of their life.
3. Nobody ever wants to defend them, even from totally false allegations (DUKE LACROSSE!)
4. The accused never quite regains their status (Kobe Bryant).
5. The whole idea of “innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” goes right out the window.
6. A woman can not particularly like someone and ruin his life forever just by crying rape.
7. At least some of the time, e.g. victim gets too drunk to say no, doesn’t say no at all, doesn’t resist a bit, doesn’t scream for help, clams up and stays silent after, the victim is kind of at fault for letting the rape continue. Not for it happening, but for letting it go on.
8. If someone over 18 and someone under just under 18 or whatever the age of consent is have sex consensually, why should we care? One may draw comparisons to the former illegality/current persecution of homosexuality or sodomy. (ALAN TURING!)

Frankly, I think we treat murder defendants better than rape defendants. We at least realize how serious an accusation murder is and judge it accordingly. Rape is decided the second the jury sees the defendant and chances are, if you’re even having to argue this case, you’ll probably be found guilty.

TL;DR: There is reasonable doubt in the Polanski case. It’s a “your word against mine” case. We can’t go believing every metaphorical boy who cries wolf with a lawyer who says they were raped. It is terrible when it does happen, but I would rather see 10 guilty rapists go free than have one innocent man go to jail.

rollermonkey

I hope for your sake you’re just trolling. Otherwise you should be investigated yourself.

desiredusername

@WA As someone that experienced rape, I agree that a person can recover fully and that it is important to defend that reality, however the irony is that I don’t think a person can easily recover in a society that doesn’t care, or that blames the victim. One of the major factors post-rape for whether a person will have PTSD is in how long it is before the survivor seeks professional help. That indicates to me that the survivor in a hostile environment is not going to fare well, whereas a survivor in a safe and caring environment will be able to make a lot of progress. Since I am a man (I was a teenage boy at the time) I don’t suffer from experiencing male privilege as a hostile environment, but alternatively I did suffer from the dubiousness that I could have ever been drugged involuntarily and used for gay sex. Now that I have plenty of friends that have full faith in my word on the matter I have worked very fast to recover (after having kept it in the closet for 17 years prior). This does give me some unique perspective on the situation.

I like to play the juror just as much as the next person, though I will always try to get out of actual jury duty, so I suppose I would respond with my policy of judgment on the matter. Since I think the safe environment of the survivor’s version of events is the critical factor to their well being I would lend some seriously heavy weight to the survivor’s wishes on the matter. In this case the survivor wants the matter dropped. The only countervailing force to that policy is that if this is a high profile case, as this one is, then I must consider all of the survivors in the world that are waiting to see what society’s policy is in handling a rape case. In that situation I would make sure that the actual survivor understood the unusual nature of the case, that the victim in this case is in fact all of the survivors in the world whose well being is hinged on the outcome of the high profile trial, that these strangers health is invested in this trial.

Ugly Canuck

I take it Antinous, that those latter facts are based upon an affidavit, untested by cross-examination. And somehow now in the Public Domain.
In the “court of public opinion”…a fair and just venue?

That’s proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” of this offense, is it?

The use of stipulated “facts” to base a greater sentence than that agreed to prior to the stipulation: an end run around the Fifth Amendment?
A misplaced faith by the accused in the word of the District Attorney?
A way to extract a confession by the promise of favor?

Anonymous

Rape is complicated. The closest allegory is a permanent physical injury like, maybe, losing a foot. You don’t ‘get over it’ just as your foot doesn’t grow back, but you accept a certain loss and move on. In a movie, I saw a father, on learning of his daughter’s rape, said “Your life is over!” which infuriated me.

The legal system is not terribly helpful in dealing with it. Two men raped me when I was 14, and the crown prosecutor pled one against the other, and then convinced me to drop the charges on the other the day of trial, I think now (20 years later) because of the he said, she said problem, even though he had a corroborating witness.

Nightmares fade over time, but you can be blindsided at any time. Probably people who directly escaped the 9/11 disaster feel similarly.

Polanski, though, needs to serve his original (mild) sentence plus a few more years for cheating the system. Too bad since the guy does good work. But if his victim doesn’t want to go through it again, who can blame her? The media should stress the selfishness of this chickenshit instead.

Ugly Canuck

Oh and I don’t “idolize” anybody, or anything.

But Polanski is still a great film director. That says nothing at all about him otherwise, good or bad. Unlike “role models” like NFL players, Mr Polanski is not subject to “morals clauses” in his work.

Antinous: Yes, indeed. I’m just tired of hatred (of some group of people or other), and its use as a justification for the use of force against people, being apparently all that Americans seem to offer in any public discussions, about anything at all, anymore.

“Send them to jail forever” – for domestic issues.
“Send in the Army/Bomb them all” – for foreign issues.

Bah.

Anonymous

@PEACELOVE #123

Kate Harding puts it very well:

“Surviving the Holocaust certainly could lead to an “understandable fear of irrational punishment,” but being sentenced for pleading guilty to child rape is basically the definition of rational punishment.”

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html

takeshi

Since no one else has done so, I would like to personally apologize on behalf of Roman Polanski. He’s unapologetically sorry, and he’s working ’round-the-clock to ensure that all concerned parties (and us) can finally get back to their (and our) normal lives.

DSMVWL THS

Ugly Canuck: You are continually outdoing yourself with the irrelevant comparisons.

You seem to think there’s some sort of necessary correlation between prosecuting Polanski and prosecuting Bush. This is just bizarre. If one criminal is not prosecuted, then no criminal should be prosecuted? What does George W. Bush have to do with the price of tea in China?

And: Do you really see an equivalence between the “sex crime” of a woman having 7 husbands (as the woman in the Bible story did) and that of a 43-year-old man drugging and then orally, vaginally, and anally raping a 13-year-old girl?

cmpalmer

@Cognitive Dissonance
Excellent summary

@Ugly Canuck
Great, once again we have the Bush equivalent of Godwin’s Law. “Why are we talking about a child-rapist when Bush was so evil?”

Anonymous

First off, Polanski is an asshat who deserves everything he has coming to him, and I’m embarrassed to admit that I live in France. Thrown to the lions indeed. (What DIDN’T make the news is the amount of rather frantic backpedaling because everyone I know — regardless of nationality — is just as disgusted and repulsed as most of the posters here)

I’m curious, though — how will they make this stick? Didn’t the statute of limitations run out on this a couple of decades ago?

Legal explanations welcome…

redrichie

Urgh. The Hollywood apolgists for Polanski make me sick.

It’s my understanding that, because the victim didn’t want it played out in court (understandably), he was able to get the charge squashed down to statutory rape. When it was nothing of the kind. Rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power (and violence) and fuck you Roman Polanski, you were the powerful one in that room. No. Excuse.

However, I’m still not sure what the right answer is. Now this is going to be plastered all over the media for the public to satisfy their prurient streaks, while the victim has to go over a traumatic experience all over again.

On the other hand should the ratbag be excused because he made a couple of decent films in the 70s? (When I asked that question when discussing this with a friend, he said would the Hollywood creeps be falling over themselves to defend Joel Schumacher so quickly, were it him?)

And, man, I still can’t get over Whoopi Goldbergs enormously crass remark.

Michael Smith

Now that we know what Roman Polanski did to that girl in Jack Nicholson’s hot tub, I wonder if Jack or Angelica made him clean it out afterwards?

I would.

buddy66

Nice comment @108, CANUCK.

Ugly Canuck

Meanwhile…we are still waiting for Bush et al to be charged (or even investigated, eh?) for organizing a network of secret torture camps and for starting wars against Nations which meant America no harm. Wars which yet rumble on.
But the USA remains the exemplar of enlightened sexual morality, eh?

And no, “a rape is NOT a rape” : underage victims are DEEMED BY LAW to be incapable of consent, regardless of whether they actually consented or not. The age varies: as does sentence, from place to place.

Very different IMO from a rape committed with violence or the threat thereof.
But some here would apparently like to see people get LIFE IN JAIL, for “immorality”.

A quick aside: IMHO ‘The Piano’ is the best movie ever about the Holocaust, bar none. It has the ring of truth about it: it is told from his own experience. An experience which does not lead him to trust Authority.

That does not excuse crime: but it does count for something, eh?

PS FWIW I too was victimized as a child: but I ain’t gonna brag about it, nor project my anger at my assailant upon Mr. Polanski nor any other rapist ( for I deny that a victim of a crime has thereby gained any knowledge or wisdom as to the suitable punishment for similar crimes: why should it? More likely they’ll be excessively cruel, particularly if their own assailant has escaped Justice: that projection thing again, eh? I bring it up, because it seems that some people feel their victimization gives them an enhanced standing for their vengeful and harsh views. I say, not all victims agree on that…), and most certainly not in order to assuage my own rage and hurt by publicly calling for a life sentence for other people’s crimes, long forgiven by the victim.

But: “Vengeance is mine!”, counters the LA County DA…. and it seems many other victims of past rapes echo her.

buddy66

One of the Manson gang, Bobby Beausoleil, sneeringly said in a prison interview with Truman Capote that the people “up in that house,” were known for picking up teens, taking them home and sexually degrading them. Now Bobby was a convicted killer, but he alleged some criminal depravity at Benedict Canyon, the site of the Tate murders. I’ve often wondered if the absent Polanski was the intended target.

BobbyMike

Ugly Canuck, unlike most Canadians I know, you appear to be an idiot and emotionally stunted. Your arguments are specious and your ideas that Polanski was right to flee his sentencing because he was afraid of his punishment is risible. So is your laughable attempt to link Polanski’s crime with the US’s questionable practices. Two (or more) unrelated wrongs don’t make right, they remain unrelated wrongs.

He committed a crime, admitted so, agreed to a plea bargain to prevent having to go to trial and then fled the country before his final sentencing.

There is nothing noble about any part of his behavior.

Your reference to Jesus was not blasphemous, merely stupid. Jesus was referring to a woman who had consensual sex outside of marriage, not a child-rapist. The two crimes are not interchangeable nor are the two punishments (death by stoning and time in prison). To top it off, if we were to take your analogy at face value, we would have to conclude you were just as guilty by your continued rationalizations of his actions by referencing the actions of the US government.

Pitiful.

Your continued defense of the man shows you to be someone as likely to do something similar (develop “situational morality” and rationalize your own wrong doing later) and someone to be avoided in real life. Especially if one has children. Or small animals.

Anonymous

Everyone is saying, “admitted rapist,” or “he admitted to it,” or “PLEADING GUILTY” that he’s admitted to doing what they say he did.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if he actually meaningfully said, “Yes, I did exactly those things that the girl said,” or if people are extrapolating “he admitted to everything” from the fact that he pled guilty as part of a plea bargain?

acb

If Polanski breathes another breath as a free man, it will be a grievious injustice. He needs to die in prison to send a message that, no, it’s not OK to rape if you have power and status behind you.

Lauren O

At least some of the time, e.g. victim gets too drunk to say no, doesn’t say no at all, doesn’t resist a bit, doesn’t scream for help, clams up and stays silent after, the victim is kind of at fault for letting the rape continue. Not for it happening, but for letting it go on.

Welp. Thanks for making me cry. Actual, literal tears rolling down my cheeks here. There’s a lot of victim-blaming out there, but rarely do you see someone actually say the explicit words “the victim is kind of at fault.”

Attitudes like yours are the reason the vast majority of rape goes unreported. But you’re apparently not concerned about that. Who cares about women’s right not to get raped, right? They’re partially at fault anyway. It’s not like women might be a little scared of being physically harmed by someone bigger and stronger than they are who’s in the process of raping them; if they don’t say no, it’s partially their fault, right? What’s really important here is that we focus on the extremely small amount of men who have been falsely accused of rape. The enormous percentage of women whose lives are affected by rape and who are shamed into silence by people like you? Meh. Whatever. They’re just women. Or 13-year-old girls, as the case may be.

rastronomicals

“Emotional” is right . . . but even though I thought I knew what I was getting into when I dipped into the comments, I’m still surprised at the general level of vehemence.

It’s fine that victims and their friends, families, and supporters might use this forum to remind us of the terrible nature of the crime. They have that right, and that’s what the internet’s for, besides. But justice is not about vengeance, it is about a fair and impartial hearing.

A crime is a crime, but Polanski sure wouldn’t get one here.

As an aside, here’s a thought for those who would send Polanski to the dungeons without a hearing: just pretend he’s deserving of the same treatment you’d have given an accused terrorist at Gitmo . . .

Of course, the desire to separate justice from vengeance is one of the reasons why the opinions of victims should be the last to be solicited. So the desires of the victim in this case–though she is calling for forgiveness rather than vengeance–are still just as irrelevant.

It is about impartial and fair justice like we are all promised, no more and no less. It’s not about any movie Polanski might have made. It’s not about some nutjob trying to tie this to “liberal Hollywood.” It’s not about some vast and theorized prejudicial worldview of “the elites.” It’s not about calling this man a pig. It’s not even about exposing the pathetic views of rape-apologists. It’s about attempting to fashion justice in a complex world.

You know, in trying to figure this justice, given the age of the crime and the perpetrator, I *still* might have appealed to the commonly-held notion of a statute of limitations if it weren’t for the fact that Polanski had in fact fled from that very justice. How do you forgive someone who *knew* they were running from the law?

And lastly, Anonymous # 49: when you say

The worst part is that his victim wants the sentence repealed because she just wants people to stop talking about it. That’s a sign that someone has been deeply abused folks: they don’t want to talk about what happened because it hurts too much.

just who the fuck do you think you are? Who are you that you claim to speak for another human being? it’s one thing to acquaint yourselves with the trial documents and the statements of those concerned, and to thus form an opinion.

It’s quite another to put words in the mouth of another person who has already spoken on the matter quite clearly. It’s quite another to distort their statements so that they might fit a particular template you have fabricated. It is intellectually dishonest, of course, but it is also very offensive to the same individuality we might find you paying lip service to elsewhere.

Antinous / Moderator

homestarrunrun,,

She was 13. She said no. Apparently you’re the elusive rapist apologist.

Anonymous

@randwolf

I’m sorry to disregard your argument at this stage, but for me, it’s quite simple: At age 44, Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. Nobody – not even the scumbag himself – denies this. He has not served his sentence. Fault for this rests entirely with him. It’s long past time he faced justice.

What the present-day victim desires is important, but it’s less important than what the law requires. The law exists for a reason, and in this situation the reason is so that our children are less likely to get raped in the future.

If our society has to go through some highly-public legal wrangling with so that our children are less likely to get raped in the future, fine by me.

Anonymous

To Homest –

I say the rapists get what they deserve, and should rightly be treated as you describe. Too many rapes go unreported that anything that would deter a would-be raper is a good thing.

Also, I think it’s sick that Polanski took up with a 15 year old girl while in exile in France, just two years after this incident. Actress Natassia Kinski was the girl, and she starred in a film directed and co-written by Polanski. One of the taglines for the film was “She was born into a world where they called it seduction, not rape.”

Is that not creepy? Talk about unrepentant. What a coward.

Ugly Canuck

“Send a message”?
So…
A show trial?
It’s admitted to be a political prosecution, then?
This case is not about this case, eh?

Grievous injustice? Causing bodily harm to whom?

Don’t you mean “grave”?

13tales

@HOMESTARRUNRUN

>I think that people accused of rape get a bad deal.

Polanski has lived a life of luxury in Europe for decades… I want that kind of bad deal.

>Nobody ever wants to defend them, even from totally false allegations (DUKE LACROSSE!)

In the case of Polanski, most of Hollywood, the french government, and many others seem quite happy to defend him.

>The accused never quite regains their status (Kobe Bryant).

After PLEADING GUILTY to raping a girl, Polanski has gone on to make acclaimed films, reap millions, and win an Oscar.

>The whole idea of “innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” goes right out the window.

See “PLEADING GUILTY” above.

>A woman can not particularly like someone and ruin his life forever just by crying rape.

Most rape victims don’t come forward, and those who do expose themselves to attack in court, by the media, by friends and family of the accused, and often by their own friends.

>At least some of the time, e.g. victim gets too drunk to say no, doesn’t say no at all, doesn’t resist a bit, doesn’t scream for help, clams up and stays silent after, the victim is kind of at fault for letting the rape continue. Not for it happening, but for letting it go on.

Learn to troll better. At least I *hope* you’re just trolling – if not, what’s your basis for saying that? Is it “everybody knows” ? I’m hoping it’s not based on personal experience, but from your post I wouldn’t be surprised.

>8. If someone over 18 and someone under just under 18 or whatever the age of consent is have sex consensually, why should we care?

Somebody under the age of consent CANNOT have sex consensually – that’s why it’s called the age of CONSENT (check a dictionary!)

>One may draw comparisons to the former illegality/current persecution of homosexuality or sodomy. (ALAN TURING!)

One may do that HOW exactly?? Are you suggesting that in some future, more enlightened society, RAPE is gonna be A-OKAY?

>There is reasonable doubt in the Polanski case.

See “PLEADING GUILTY” above, again.

Hope this has been educational for you! Although I doubt it. In fact, please do the following:

1. Take your laptop, modem, or router.

2. Drop it into a bucket of water.

This will render it hard for you to correspond with us further, but rest happy knowing that you’ll be keeping some of the stupid off the internet. Thanks! :)

Ugly Canuck

Maybe this guy ought to go to prison too, eh? To “send a message”….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8286258.stm

cmpalmer

The Spectator article has a *great* comment that is very appropriate for this crowd if I may requote it (it is from Stephen Fox):

“If you sympathise with Polanski, try imagining that the admitted rapist and paedophile is an American businessman on a drug and booze fuelled junket after wrapping up some lucrative deal in Europe for his multinational.

Still keen to protect his sorry ass? If not, why not??

Anonymous

@randwolf:

Are you saying that we need only prosecute the first, say, 100 cases of child rape, and then call it a day? Or that we should just prosecute the cases in which all parties are in 100% agreement over the proper course of action?

I’m sorry to use sarcasm, but that really is what I think you’re saying. I agree with you that this is an ugly case, but so are all cases of child rape.

moniker42

Woah, look, this is so totally far off my radar I didn’t even into it, but No One should even live under the semblance of anything even remotely looking like getting away with raping a 13 year old girl.

Anonymous

It’s correctly ephebophilia, not pedophilia, that Polanski suffers from. As do most men.

What he did was wrong. Because he drugged the girl and she said no.

But use the correct term.

Nelson.C

Ugly Canuck, the movie Polanski made is The Pianist. The Piano is the one that takes place in 19th century New Zealand.

Also, with drugs and alcohol in the victim a rapist doesn’t need to threaten violence. Plus, you know, a 44-year-old man sodomizing a thirteen-year-old doesn’t need to explicitly threaten, the threat is implicit in the situation, I’d've thought.

weeklyrob

I’m coming late to the party, and I only read the first half of these comments (and the last few), so maybe someone said all this:

1. As far as I understand, he was not convicted of rape, nor did he plead guilty to rape, or ever admit to anything beyond statutory rape. He plead guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse.”

The whole rape/rape thing is based on testimony that was never challenged, because those charges were reduced. Innocent until proven guilty applies.

I know it sounds terrible, but a victim’s testimony isn’t enough to assume that everything she says is true. There was never a trial for rape, so it’s not fair to assume that he’s guilty of rape/rape.

2. A plea bargain is not the judge’s word, but the prosecutor’s. Judges never have to stand by a plea bargain, though they usually do. That’s the risk that the defendant takes. In this case, since he admits that he did do what he pled guilty for, then I don’t see the problem with the judge doing whatever he wants within the law.

I’m not going to cry for him because he pled guilty to a crime he admits to doing.

What’s the alternative? Without the plea bargain, he’d have pled not-guilty to something that he admits he did! That may work within the legal system, but it doesn’t help him with the moral argument.

3. Polanski did not lose the right to say his piece by skipping out. He lost his right by pleading guilty (in this case, to a lesser charge than rape).

4. The things that he HAS admitted to are bad enough and he should head to jail. Least of all, but still important, thumbing his nose at justice for 30 years.

rhys

how are people defending this guy?

david lynch?

terry gilliam? WHAT?

someone needs to get over to wikipedia and do some important updating..

so thirty years have gone by. so the girl doesn’t want to be reminded. how do we know he hasn’t been sponsoring and funding covert pedo-rings all these years? he admits he thought (at least back then) that “everyone wants to fuck young girls”. and so maybe he is still doing it. maybe he is still funding it. who knows. he has to be locked DOWN.

i have this idea that this is a sort of class thing:
“she was just a little peasant girl. they aren’t REAL people, you know. they are like animals, just look at them…”

so yes, please can someone tell me how these people are justifying defending this guy?

how can i enjoy the upcoming ‘..Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’ after this???

how do the actors who have been in these peoples films feel about this? tom waits is in the imaginarium. if he is cool with terry after this i will give up on humanity completely.

Antinous / Moderator

IMDb Daily Poll

buddy66

A few years ago an acquaintance of mine was arrested and tried on a 35-year-old charge of seduction (with drugs) and rape of a 15-year-old girl. Prosecution for rape, as with murder, apparently knows no statutory limit in California. He was 70 years old when convicted, after pleading nolo contendre, and died a few weeks later in jail. He had no prior criminal record and did not contest the charge or the corroborating testimony, but resignedly went off to do the time for doing the crime.

DSMVWL THS

Rastronomicals:

“But justice is not about vengeance, it is about a fair and impartial hearing.

A crime is a crime, but Polanski sure wouldn’t get one here.”

AFAIK, the prosecutor is not proposing that Polanski be tried by a panel of BB commenters.

People here are free to express their thoughts and opinions without conforming to the requirements of admissibility as courtroom testimony.

Polanski will, it appears, get his day in court. He could have had it 30 years ago, in fact, had he not fled the country.

Anonymous

On a side note, it’s irritating to hear people say things like “the amorality of liberal Hollywood” who are defending Polanski.

Yes, I agree they seem to exhibit a total lack of morality or else total ignorance to the case, but what does being liberal have to do with it?

…Leave the “liberal” out of the equation. I consider myself liberal, I live in Los Angeles, and I am totally disgusted by the Hollywood Polanski apologists.

I always believed “liberal” to relate to seeking social justice and equality, and progressive measures toward achieving the greater good. It’s unfortunate that scummy Hollywood cronies have managed to sully the image of liberalism.

randwolf

Anon, something that requires hurting a victim more for only its own satisfaction is not justice.

& that’s it! I will not pursue this further here & am very relieved to put this discussion down.

Anonymous

–bip-bip–
–bip-bip–
MARS WELCOME POLANSKI
–bip-bip–
–bip-bip–
VENUS SAYS HELLO TO POLANSKI
–bip-bip–
–bip-bip–
POLANSKI GETS GREETINGS FROM PLUTO
–bip-bip–
–bip-bip–
CLOSE POLANSKI CASE SAYS SATURN GOVERNMENT
–bip-bip–
–bip-bip–

desiredusername

@WA I agree, but I think too that it would be difficult to recover in a society that is safe and caring but negative, and that is the sort of society I feel many here are describing. Optimism is important. Both should be avoided; on the other hand, if attitudes like homestarrunner’s aren’t just trolling, then one side is admittedly much worse than the other.

I don’t disagree. In fact I whole-heartedly agree. The factor of optimism is largely absent from discourse about rape. I suspect it is due the fact that the optimism must acknowledge the possibility of a misogynist environment. I wouldn’t think to tell a woman survivor, being myself from a position of unacknowledged male privilege, when that topic has been cleared from the agenda and that she would only require optimism at a certain juncture; I wouldn’t think to select the particular context to say that in. The care with which the message of optimism must be applied then is probably why it is an uncommon message. Perhaps misogyny is THAT bad that the message of optimism has not come up in feminism (the primary agency for survivors). Or that it is just largely unheard by me since I am a member of the audience for criticism. In any case the fact that I am male makes me largely blind to the appropriate context in most cases. I could only recommend optimism to someone that I trust is intimately sharing the totality of her experiences with me. I accept that practical difficulty but I have no problem trumpeting optimism in the abstract.

@UGLY CANUCK I appreciate your critical voice but I am finding that is difficult to discern your message. Is your point that American culture is violent and by bringing that point up in the context of this blog post, that this is the cause for rape, and or injustice? You keep tossing in arguments but I’m afraid I can figure out what point they are supporting.

nina

Hey Xeni- thank you so much for posting this!

The Polanski apologists also inspired me to document my own experience. So marvelous to read other stories of women coming to terms with years of confusion, PTSD, and being confronted with having to over and over again apologize for having “gotten ourselves into” situations that then scarred us for years.

The image above of the court-transcript describing what a young girl is thinking in the moment of an assault, is incredibly powerful. One I’m sure most of us who’ve been through it, can uniquely relate to. Thanks again!

My own story:
http://www.kickingpebbles.net/?p=126

xo! n

WA

@62: There are some limited instances where statutory rape laws end up describing as rape situations that are either not rape or are questionable, but that is completely irrelevant to the cases being discussed here.

@60,@63: Are you sure you’re not unjustly going after Polanski because of some dislike of wealth, power, and status? Your “justice” hardly seems “indifferent,” and instead seems to reduce justice to some sort of farcical publicity stunt meant to send messages based on ignorant stereotypes and prejudice. Mr Polanski has a right to be sentenced fairly, and such sentencing does not include making him “die in prison” to “send a message.” Being equal in the eyes of the law means not giving lighter sentences to the rich, but also not giving heavier sentences.

BobbyMike

Thanks for bringing this up Xeni. It seems to me that many people excuse Polanski’s behavior because he’s a good director, an artist. That’s sad.

The girl was 13. Even if she had consented, she was 13, and it’s still rape. It wasn’t sex. It wasn’t sexy. It wasn’t a mistake, a misunderstanding, seduction, or a momentary lapse of judgment.

It was a premeditated act of sexual violence on a minor.

A crime.

That he admitted to and plead guilty to.

That he doesn’t want to “do time” for.

Artist, or not, the man is a pig, and should go to jail.

desiredusername

@UGLY CANUCK…Im glad that I can appreciate your point of view a little better. Because of your thick rhetorical style of staccato sentence fragments it wasn’t easy to parse. I can understand that by taking the minority viewpoint in this thread a higher level of defensiveness is required from you. To make your points while anticipating a retort is doing double duty.

I am not interested in deciding the guilt or innocence of Roman Polanski so I cannot comment either way what facts support my position on that. I am withheld on the matter. However I would like to point out one fallacy expressed by yourself which is integrated with the reason that I haven’t taken my role as theoretical juror seriously.

You have stated:

I take it Antinous, that those latter facts are based upon an affidavit, untested by cross-examination. And somehow now in the Public Domain.
In the “court of public opinion”…a fair and just venue?

However your arguments are equally weakened by the lack of information afforded by the “untested state” of the affidavit. And while you mock the “court of public opinion”, you are, as of today on this thread, one the most prolific opiners within it.

None of that fallacy indicates that your opinion is incorrect. It only indicates that you need to refine your arguments if you wish to activate awareness to these other issues you’ve mentioned (bankers, torturers, and other criminals of neo-conservative political power) when placing them in contrast to this one. Its important that you do make sound arguments since this is one of the primary issues of grassroots political platforms. It hinders long-lasting self-organization when you have muddled arguments.

Anonymous

I think part of the problem is that kids are not taught how to fight & loose without getting damaged… rendering the assault that much more traumatic…

failix

I’ve never been raped. I can’t know for sure if the victim really thinks that it’s going to make her feel better if Polanski stays the rest of his life in jail or not. And I’d never try to defend or justify what Polanski did. It’s definitely not acceptable. He should pay for what he did (rape).

But the problem is, if he pays by serving a life-sentence, movie geeks are basically paying for something they didn’t do and don’t agree with, because they lose great art. Isn’t there a way to make it fair for everybody?

Purly

Sick. That testimony made me feel sick. My stomach, my whole chest, my head is spinny. I can’t understand how they could let him get away with this for as long as he did. How many other girls did he do this to “in casting”… sick.

andyhavens

@homestarrunrun: Your attitude is appalling.

Many thanks to 13tales for doing the heavy lifting here, and of fisking your post into tiny bits of ignorant gnur.

My whole life, I’ve been one of those guys that women feel comfortable talking to. That can be a blessing, as it has meant some very great, very deep friendships. But it has also meant that I’m the guy they tell stuff to that they can’t or won’t tell others.

The first time I heard from a good friend that she’d been raped as a young girl (11 years old), I assumed it was a rarity. A grotesque anomaly. Yes, we all know crimes happen to someone. But, at 16-years old, I thought, “My god… how weird is it that I know a victim of such an awful crime.” I’d never known anyone who had been brutally, truly, criminally hurt like that.

I heard my second story of rape less than a year later from another friend. In this case, it was the girl’s step-father; she was 15 at the time.

Then I got to college. In four years I heard more than 10 stories from women who had been raped by strangers, bosses, boyfriends, teachers. In the 20 years or so since I’ve graduated I’ve heard even more.

You hear it said that rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power. That may be so; I can’t say because it hasn’t happened to me. But what I do know is that for many of these friends of mine, they lost — some for years, some for life — the ability to engage in anything like a happy, healthy relationship. Yes, that includes sex. More importantly, it includes trust, love and comfort.

Some of them have become very strong and have overcome everything done to them. One I know killed herself, years later, never having been able to find someone she could feel comfortable with. She went into college as a straight A student, singer and athlete. One night with a moron who couldn’t take no for an answer, and she was ruined. Is it her fault she couldn’t recover from a violent crime that affected every aspect of her psychology? Was she supposed to suck it up and get on with her life? I know she would have loved to. But you don’t get to choose how a nightmare affects you.

I have zero sympathy for your attitude, homestarrunrun. Until you’ve heard the stories and witnessed the terrible guilt and shame that people feel — through no fault of their own — you’ve got no dice in this game.

Thoughts for Polanski apologists, by another woman raped at 13.

More at Boing Boing