In a 24-7 media world, one would have expected the story of Roman Polanski to last, oh, about 9 1/2 minutes. He raped a girl, admitted it, fled the country before sentencing, was caught again and now faces justice.
On what planet is this controversial?
We might shrug and say, “Only in France,” where the culture minister called the arrest evidence of “a scary America that has just shown its face.” Or, perhaps, we say, “Only in Hollywood,” where more than 100 filmmakers and actors have petitioned for Polanski’s release.
What’s more likely is that we have reached the point, identified by the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, at which deviancy has been defined down to such an extent that we no longer recognize it. If it isn’t deviant for a 43-year-old man to stalk, drug, rape and sodomize a 13-year-old girl, what is?
Yet, during the past several days, Polanski has become a true cause celebre, point man in an international incident that has individuals and nations weighing in and staking out positions.
Just imagine if this has been a priest or a traditionalist layman. The same folks who are defending Polanski would hound him to the grave, and beyond.
No, it depends on who you are: were Polanski a Catholic priest, he would be permanently barred from his work, even after serving his sentence. It’s about celebrity and belonging to a preferred group.
Where’s the statement from the Peace and Justice folks? Where’s the outrage from feminists? Where are the child advocates? That the victim has forgiven is excellent for the victim’s spiritual health. The perp needs justice that he may repent, if he chooses to do so. Polanski is the perp by his own admission. JUSTICE! before the law. Then he may cry out for mercy.
This joker is finally having to face the music, but his friends are claiming that he shouldn’t do a stretch in the slammer because he’s a celebrity…..someone “special.” Hollywood’s rotten to the core.
Hello #3. You mention that “Polanski is the perp by his own admission”. It all depends on what is meant by “the perp” — i.e. what Polanski is alleged to have done.
I may be mistaken, though frankly it is difficult to find out what is factual in the case against what is implied (due to language calculated to mislead on both sides)…. but that all I know for sure that Polanski admitted to is having sex with a minor. (Again, I’d be happy if anyone here can direct us to a clear factual record that shows exactly what P admitted to and exactly what he was convicted of.)
All the other language being used by his critics sounds calculated to mislead. (I won’t discuss all the wildly misleading rhetoric of his Hollywood supporters, since presumably we are all agreed about that.) For example, language like “polanski raped and sodomized a child” (a pretty common assertion I have seen). Well, if by rape one means “had sex with someone under the age of 16, whether or not she was willing” — i.e. statutory rape — then yes he “raped” her. But of course in ordinary language that’s not how the word rape is used — it conjures images of force, struggle, etc. Feminists use the word “rape” in a similarly misleading fashion.
Likewise “sodomize” (another common word I see used by P’s critics). If anytime a female gives a man oral sex then the man is “sodomizing” here, well it’s likely that Polanski is guilty; though so are millions of husbands across the country. The way the word was used conjured an image of anal penetration of an unwilling female — which it’s unclear to me that this actually happened or that P says that this happened.
Similarly “child” — again another word I see used a fair amount. If it means anyone under the age of 16 then again I suppose it is right, though again it conjures an image of P having sex with a nine year old rather than a teenager.
Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I think a grown man having sex with a 13 year old female should be illegal — period — regardless of whether or not there might have been any interest on her part, etc. (And there may have been absolutely none in this case.)
But I am also a sharp critic of using language in a fashion to conjure images that may have never happened. “P raped a child!” sells much better than “P had possibly consexual sex with a 13-year old!”
I just wish I knew better exactly what P admitted to and exactly what was convicted of. Let me know if you have a good fact source… be very glad to know more.
Best… J
RE: #5 –
“Perp” is short for “perpetrator”. Having sex with a minor, which Polanski has admitted, makes one “a perp”, with or without the other allegations.
All the other language being used by his critics sounds calculated to mislead.
To what end? Who benefits from making Polanski look bad (worse, really).
You need to link these two posts in your blog: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/25681/
#6…. Right. Perp is short for “perpetrator.” That’s why I said:
It all depends on what is meant by “the perpâ€â€”i.e. what Polanski is alleged to have done.
In other words:
It all depends on what is meant by “the perpâ€â€”i.e. what exactly were the acts Polanski which perpetrated?
Hope that clarifies what I was saying.
He was found guilty, and skipped the country before he could be sentenced. That takes the ‘alleged’ out of the equation.
Jim Elliott
Florida
PS. it wasn’t just ‘having sex with a minor’ (13 years old!), it was giving the minor alcohol and Quaaludes and then raping her. Court testimony shows that she told him to stop several times. That’s rape. No question. In many states (Florida among them), even consensual, where the female partner is drunk is legally considered rape.
Jon, at 13 it’s statutory rape. And in this case its also rape, which is sex without consent.
Jon:
Her testimony is available to read at thesmokingun.com
Let’s see: 13 years old; alcohol; Quaaludes; vaginal rape; oral rape; and anal rape.
Those are the acts that Polanski perpetrated.
For these, as #9 said, he was found guilty, and skipped the country.
Dick ( a father of 2 girls)
When I was young, in the 40’s, this would have been a capital crime, and I do not believe Polanski would have been released between his conviction and his execution. That would have been carried out in a matter of months, not years. At least he may spend a little time in lockup to consider his transgressions.
All the testimony available is to a Grand Jury, which ruled there was sufficient evidence to charge him with numerous felony counts and go to trial. The case never went to trial, in a plea bargain all the other felony charges were dropped and in return he plead guilty to the one charge of sex with a minor.
The judge sent him to a local CA prison for something like 96 days for a psychological evaluation and sentencing a recommendation. The recommendation was for no further jail time, just time served. The determination came back early, in half the time allotted. The judge supposedly felt that he should complete the 96 days since he was only there half the time. Polanski refusing to return for the other half of his evaluation time jumped bail, went to LAX, bought a ticket with his bank card, and was in the air and out of the jurisdiction in barely 15 minutes. He has lived his life since in jurisdictions where he could not be extradited to the USA, until in his arrogance he made the widely advertised mistake of traveling to Switzerland for a Polanski fest and where the authorities were waiting.
The situation of now more complicated. The judge is being accused of judicial misconduct because he wanted Polanski to serve the full evaluation instead of setting him free immediately. He has since died.
Two years ago or so there was a documentary on this case and a retired deputy prosecutor from the case claimed that he committed prosecutorial misconduct. He has since recanted, stating that he was building the excitement up for the documentarian, but that he lied about his conduct for the documentary.
Yes, I know she accused him of many things (you list many of them) in the court testimony. What I was curious is (a) what he agreed he did and (b) which of those many things he was convicted of. He agreed that he had sex with a 13-year old. I am almost sure he was convicted of that as well. What I don’t know is whether he’s ever agreed that any of the other things happened.
Naturally he may have done them. I was simply observing that the repeated claim that “he admits he did it” is misleading since what he agrees he did may be very different from what his critics’ rhetoric implies.
Jon – no one, including Polanski, has ever disputed the girl’s testimony. No one, including Polanski, has ever said she was not telling the truth. You seem to be saying that unless Polanski explicitly said he did those things, they did not happen. Why believe Polanski over the girl’s court testimony? When I read through the testimony, I hear the fear of a young girl in a situation completely out of her control, not knowing what to do and very, very, scared. Polanski has never denied this – he has also publicly admitted to sexual relationships with other young girls.
#3 Dmstroud… Hm. I don’t think [url=http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/479379/roman_polanski_has_a_lot_of_friends]you’ve been looking very hard.[/url] And some important liberal priests as well.
It’s not exactly a “peace and justice” issue. It is a criminal case. Polanski had his day in court and was found guilty. He should be in jail and serve time. It’s enough to demand he had due process, as was his right. As he was guilty, the case is closed. I’m glad he is being brought to justice. Even though it will most likely be a slap on the hand.
Jon, this is an archive of news reports covering key developments in the case, all the way from 1977 to now.
He wasn’t “convicted” of anything; he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor to avoid going to trial on more serious charges.
So far as I am aware, the only aspect of the victim’s grand jury testimony (which can be found here, if you can bear to read it) which Polanski has disputed is that he claims it was consensual… but his claim is based on the assertion that “she was a Lolita who knew all about sex and drugs.” That’s a defense on the same level as claiming that a woman was “asking for it” by wearing a miniskirt.
He also claimed, in a 1979 interview, “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f***ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f*** young girls. Juries want to f*** young girls. Everyone wants to f*** young girls!”
He has never denied that he gave her alcohol, that he gave her drugs, or that he had sex with her. And she was thirteen.
There is no possible doubt that he raped her — because she was too young to give consent, because he had gotten her too drunk and drugged to give consent, and because she flat-out did not consent — she was begging him to stop while he was doing it. Yes, we only have her word on that last part… but under the circumstances I have no doubt that her word is far more reliable than his. And nobody, including Polanski, has ever disputed the first two points; so no matter how you cut it, he raped her.
John, how hard did you have to look to find your one link? When salon thinks he needs justice, I’d say that was pretty indicative of the reality.
I said “JUSTICE” before the law. The perp has had entirely too much peace, IMHO.
As to the question regarding what happened as formulated above, Polanski has never disputed what he did. The questioner should perhaps have him over to tea with assorted victim aged persons to see if Polanski remains Polanski. First degree relatives of the questioner would perhaps provide the clearest and most reliable answers to what transpires should any declasse allegations be made. Preference being given to Polanski’s version as demanded in the questions.
#1: I agree with you (if I may so myself).
Heh DWstroudmd, you clearly need to [url=http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/]look harder.[/url]
I didn’t have to look very hard at all. I just think we look in different places. I suspect you have a stereotype of the left, but there are lots of different schools. Not everyone is a “hollywood” leftist. Lots of socialists see Hollywood as quite conservative, sentimental and imperialistic. Those are the people defending him.