Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

Why Nab Roman Polanski Now? Revenge

Sep 28, 09 | 8:55 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
This is what they have been doing in the Los Angeles Country district attorney’s office: they have been Googling “Roman Polanski.”

Polanski, the French movie director who fled the US 31 years ago after pleading guilty in a murky case involving sex with an underage model, was arrested over the weekend in Switzerland on a US warrant issued in Los Angeles. The LA prosecutor’s office described the arrest, according to the New York Times, “as all but inevitable in a game of cat and mouse they had never stopped playing.”

That is, of course, baloney. There is nothing inevitable about catching a famous person who has not been in hiding after 31 years. Indeed, he didn’t just riskily or mistakenly show up in Switzerland, he owned a house there. They didn’t catch him, because they weren’t looking for him. But then, the advantages of finding him changed.

Prosecutors are the scariest people in a democracy because they can have you arrested and put in jail. They can do this essentially at will, if arresting you suits their purposes. Alternatively, they can not arrest you if that suits their purposes. One reason prosecutors can function at such a level of virtually no accountability is because, while almost all other public servants have terrible press, law enforcement agencies have always used their muscle to maintain good press (there is even a further point about, specifically, the LA prosecutor’s office and its relationship to the prosecutor’s image in television and movies).

Arresting Polanski is about the LA prosecutor’s office's public relations.

Prosecutors ignored Polanski for 30 years because it was a terrible case in which the prosecutor's office and the sitting judge, in the interest of getting publicity for themselves, had conducted themselves in all variety of dubious ways. But then, last year, a documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, came out detailing all this dubiousness. So the first motivation for going after Polanski now, as it so often is with prosecutors, is revenge—Polanski and this film makes the DA look bad. The second is that the documentary reminded everybody that the LA prosecutor must be turning a blind eye to Polanski, wandering freely in Europe—hence the arrest now is the prosecutor covering his ass. The third is—and it’s curiously the success of the documentary that made the LA prosecutor’s office realize the brand name significance of the case—press. The headlines now sweeping the world are the prosecutor’s ultimate benefit. Many careers are suddenly advanced.

It could tell us quite a lot about the real motivations and real interest in Roman Polanski in the LA prosecutor’s office, about the sudden enthusiasm for Polanski’s capture and the convenient timing of it, if we just got the date and time—Polanski’s lawyers can certainly get this information through discovery requests—when they began to Google him, and when they set up the first alert.

Among all media whores, there is none so greedy and mendacious as a prosecutor.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NewserColumns.
86 comments
VIEWING:
 
stacysaw
Sep 28, 09 11:07 AM CDT
i'm not sure what i think about this situation, but to be devil's advocate - what if everyone who committed sexual assault on a child left the country and stayed out of sight for 20 years or more or until the victim grew up and hopefully just forgot about it as ms geimer has done; would that mean the crime just went away? if so, that's your game plan. i know mr polanksi served 42 days in jail before fleeing, but that wouldn't be an option for a full sentence. as i said, it seems ridiculous and you want to say just forget it, but on the other hand... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Sep 28, 09 11:28 AM CDT
Missing the point: he didn't stay out of sight. He was in plain view. The L.A. D.A. just let him go, until now. That's fishy, inconsistent, opportunistic, and obviously self-serving.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
stacysaw
Sep 28, 09 11:54 AM CDT
...but he apparently skirted around attending any events at which he could've been served papers, and avoided travelling to countries where he had a higher chance of being nabbed. as i said, it's a complication question.
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 28, 09 3:31 PM CDT
maybe it is fishy, self-serving, opportunistic and inconsistent, but unfortunately, for Mr. Polanski, he - and he alone - put himself into the situation where this is the outcome. stacysaw's follow-on comment is spot on - he wasn't sitting in plain view in America, he stayed buried in France who wouldn't dare extradite him, oh no...not gonna hand him over to the ugly Americans. He testified via video link at his Vanity Fair lawsuit in London rather than travel there and face possible extradition. Lets be honest, who cares how/when he is nabbed...
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
IN RESPONSE:
proud_prude
Sep 28, 09 5:46 PM CDT
Mr. Wolff, this is a courageous editorial and I applaud you for pinpointing the issues that are most important in the grand scheme of things. It is inexcusable that a prosecutor can hold out a sentencing agreement to induce a "guilty plea", and then another officer in the criminal justice system (a judge) can with legal sleight of hand abrogate the agreement with the state. As I have said earlier on newser, I must admit that I'm enjoying this debate. This is the kind of topic that none of us really has a personal stake in, though as a parent I am sickened by the details of Polanski's behavior. I am more sickened by the behavior of a care-giver (mother in this case) who would allow a child to be put in such a position, however. in is reminiscent of those who sent their kids to Neverland to be supervised by Michael Jackson and his entourage. I think my bottom line on the Polanski story is this: How much taxpayer money will be spent on this in the future? Let's assume he is extradited and returned to Los Angeles for further proceedings. What sort of media orgy is likely to ensue? Do we need another circus like the OJ and Michael Jackson trials? In this case-- when the victim has been compensated and forgiven the perpetrator, and is now hoping only to avoid further publicity and exploitation? He admitted wrongdoing. The judge should have gone along with the prosecutor's agreement regarding his sentence. The only things that are certain now are the victim''s suffering, the drain on public funds and the continued enrichment of countless pandering media outlets that will cover this spectacle incessantly (witness the enormous amount of attention already given to this story by newser alone.) And finally, how likely is it that Polanski will ever serve more than a token jail sentence, emerging more famous and rich than ever, and that his next movie will gross even more at the box office than it otherwise would? Imagine the delight he would take in turning out "Rosemary's Baby II" as delicious revenge on the American public and our hypocritical criminal justice system.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
deebles
Sep 28, 09 11:36 PM CDT
Switzerland. Yeah, it's weird but the hand of Sidney could last only so long. The LAPD didn't let him go--a typical fix which shoulda' worked let him go. But, that judge died. Can't make a dead judge happy. So, why Switzerland? Personally, he should have never been arrested, but he was stepping on American Movie toes. Even Jack Nicklson avoided sodomizing people in his own hot tub. Don't care what, but very much want to know why--now?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
kev56
Sep 29, 09 3:39 AM CDT
He drugged raped and sodomized a 13 year old KID. He should be PROPERLY punished for that irregardless of how famous or talented he is and irregardless of how many years have passed.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 7:54 AM CDT
@MichaelWolff , @proud_prude: I think we all get the point of prosecutorial abuses in the legal system - a valid subject no doubt about it. I just don't think this particular case merits that kind of attention. Its ok, really, to let Mr. Polanski twist...he confessed and plead guilty. They f'ed around with his sentencing for sure , but i would hope that even a ding dong judge wouldhave realized that time served, 42 days, would not cut it for a crime of this magnitude and might possibly change the sentence to the stiffer side, even at the last moment, as was his right to do. We never got the opportunity to find out. Now we will...let Mr. Polanski face his music.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Fiskebolle
Sep 28, 09 11:27 AM CDT
I wonder, what are the motivations behind this whitewashing attempt of an admitted child rapist? She was a 13 (THIRTEEN) year old girl terrified of the disgusting and premeditated things did to her, although this article leads you to believe it's a misunderstanding with a 'model' (inc. connotations of the typical floozy) and that there's been some kind of grave miscarriage of justice. I think you took 'protect the tribe' way too literally. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Sep 28, 09 11:32 AM CDT
Again, not exactly my point. Thirty-one years of doing nothing on the part of the L.A. prosecutor and then doing something because there's suddenly an advantage (which has nothing to do with justice) is my point. And I'm curious...you know this much about the victim because...?
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 28, 09 3:32 PM CDT
i understand that there were several attempts made to apprehend him in the past, none worked out, until now.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
deebles
Sep 28, 09 11:47 PM CDT
What is wrong with you? This thirteen year olds mother dropped her off. The only person that didn't know she was thirteen was him--granted he probably thought she was sixteen But hey--his pregnant wife got slaughtered and maybe he developed an issue. You don't want your daughter butt fucked by Roman? Make her a grilled cheese and keep her at home.
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
IN RESPONSE:
deebles
Sep 28, 09 11:56 PM CDT
OMG she was thirteen--five more year and she could turn into goo by a roadside bomb and you wouldn't unfold your paper to read about it. Only in the twentieth century did the idea of children become important. Want to know all the chicks at thirteen who were important? Start with Marie Antoinette. As for protecting the tribe, lame brain--you know neither history nor empathy--fuck you.
Vote up! Vote down!
-4
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 7:28 AM CDT
@whatfreshhell - your logic is a good example of what is wrong with this country.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Gallavant
Sep 29, 09 7:56 AM CDT
Nothing says empathy like working yourself up to an F-bomb with a barrage of bizarre and angry criticism.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
stacysaw
Sep 28, 09 11:56 AM CDT
not sure what fiskebolle is referring to exactly but vanity fair did a long piece on the case a few years ago that gave explicit detail on the victim, how she met polanski, how her mother signed the consent form for the photos, etc. that article gave enough detail you could make fiskebolle's statements. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
mowgo
Sep 28, 09 1:44 PM CDT
You can also read all the court documents at the smoking gun. She wasn't a professional "model" but rather a neighbor's kid whom Polanski convinced she had what it takes to be a model.
Vote up! Vote down!
+7
Bambi
Sep 28, 09 12:02 PM CDT
Michael, your article makes an excellent point. As I blogged on Newser when this story first hit, what needs to be examined in our society is the shamefully primitive reflex (as exhibited by Fiskebolle and Stacysaw above) to call for punishment as expression of rage against perpetrators, to 'avenge', rather than with priority placed on what value exists in deterrent or rehabilitation. Where d & r are surely irrelevant, as here with 76 year old Polanski, state involvement has no purpose, and legal proceedings are just expensive and stupid. Your angle about the DA's office seeking vengeance against Polanski for their own reasons adds a corrupt twist to an already sickly and remedial debate. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-7
IN RESPONSE:
stacysaw
Sep 28, 09 1:32 PM CDT
no, bambi - read my post again. i said "playing devil's advocate" and "not sure what i think yet." by couching of my statement as "on the other hand" i did not, and would not, display a "shamefully primitive reflex" of rage and punishment. wow - you could've saved a lot of venom if you'd read.
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
Bambi
Sep 28, 09 2:01 PM CDT
Stacysaw, upon reexamination, I see that your original post was more thoughtful than I gave it credit for. My 'venom' regarding this problem is not excessive, for the miscasting of the purpose of law enforcement by so many is real, but any of it directed your way was a mistake. Lizouttavegas, for now I'm just guesting here on Newser, but thanks for the very kind words.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
stacysaw
Sep 28, 09 2:37 PM CDT
thanks, bambi.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
lizouttavegas
Sep 28, 09 12:36 PM CDT
BAMBI, YOU ARE SO FREAKIN SMART! DO YOU HAVE A BLOG I CAN GO TO? YOUR COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS ASTOUNDING! OBVIOUSLY YOUR IQ PROBABLY IS TOO.. A FAN IN VEGAS Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
jackyjasper
Sep 28, 09 12:44 PM CDT
Regardless of the motivation, polanski did in fact plead guilty to this very heinous crime against a child. he fled only before being sentenced for said crime. We firmly beleive he should in fact be held accountable for this crime! HSK http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
Concerned
Sep 28, 09 12:51 PM CDT
I see your point, Michael, but the bottom line is that the girl was 13, he gave her illegal drugs and even more important he confessed. The late arrest is not irrelevant if justice finally preveals! Concern Reader Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Sep 28, 09 1:05 PM CDT
As I said, this is about a prosecutor's motivation. A capricious prosecutor is much more dangerous than a depraved movie director.
Vote up! Vote down!
-6
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 8:13 AM CDT
@MichaelWolff you really think this is an example of a prosecutor harassing someone unduly? dude, you are way out on a limb with this kind of thinking ...
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
Gallavant
Sep 29, 09 8:32 AM CDT
Yes, but while this case is a good one to demonstrate that prosecutors can have other motivations to make an arrest besides justice, it's not so good to demonstrate the danger that poses, since I suspect most people consider Polanski's arrest an overdue just dessert. It's not really a shark-in-the-water moment unless the DA invents or inflates the charges.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Reader3181
Sep 28, 09 1:29 PM CDT
Fantastic blog. I'm sure you're absolutely right on this. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-5
mowgo
Sep 28, 09 1:55 PM CDT
Mr. Wolff's, with your "logic" cold case files should never be reopened because they weren't actively seeking the perpetrators every single moment. Polanski pled guilty, and that has no impact on whether or not the judge was going to not abide by the sentencing recommendation, which is why Polanski supposedly fled. Judges don't have to abide by the plea deal, as it is a deal for the prosecutor to recommend to the judge what sentencing should be. If you read the court documents, you will see that when Polanski pled guilty he was asked if he understood that the judge didn't have to follow the sentencing recommendation, and Polanski said yes. Allegations in a documentary 30 years after the fact, don't negate that fact that Polanski pled guilty and then fled before sentencing. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Sep 28, 09 1:59 PM CDT
Hey, that's not my logic. My logic is that if a prosecutor is capricious--not prosecuting when there's nothing in it, prosecuting when he can get something out of it--then justice goes out the window.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Gallavant
Sep 29, 09 8:55 AM CDT
I think people have a problem with the context of your argument, Michael, not the argument itself. If capriciousness is a symptom of opportunism, and opportunism on the part of a prosecutor is dangerous, and Polanski's arrest was capricious... you end up defending Polanski a little by association. The more embraceable, abstract position is that PR shouldn't be the executor of justice.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
JoeQ
Sep 28, 09 6:28 PM CDT
Set aside guilt or innocence for just a moment, please. If I understand the situation correctly as reported at the time, Roman Polansky fled the country because a plea deal he made with the state was reneged upon, for no other reason than political pressure on the judge in the case, this after the damage to his case was done. Funny. The misconduct here reminds me of the one in the Unabomber case. That one did not get a whole lot of press. It seems the Unabomber's brother went to the investigators and offered up the Unabomber's identity, which they would have otherwise never guessed, on the proviso that the death penalty was off the table. But as soon as they nabbed him and they knew he was the guy, they went for the death penalty. The Unabomber's brother was left in a state of knowing that he may have led to his own brother's death. Guilt aside, a promise is a promise. I guess the moral here is NEVER NEVER take the word of anyone who represents the state in a legal matter. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
ed_faunce
Sep 28, 09 9:39 PM CDT
Joe, having had to wait for a plane from L.A to be searched for a supposed Unibomber bomb before I could board it years ago, I will tell you even if a prosecutor agrees to a deal with a suspect the judge can overrule that agreement. In Kaczynski's case there was a need to get him, and they had a tip from his brother. With your line of thinking, anytime a terrorist is promised a helicopter and instead gets the SWAT team , has a grievance because they broke a promise. Mr. Wolff I find it strange that you would complain not because the present and past prosecutors were inept bumbling idiots in NOT catching the little scumbag (yes, a creative and prolific scumbag, is still a scumbag)but you seem slighted because of the fact the prosecutors office finally did their job. I would say they all shirked their duty until someone woke them up. Maybe it was Polanski boasting himself, who knows? It is a moot point, it should have been done years ago. Your outrage is quite misplaced I believe. To Bambi's argument about revenge motive in government punishment , I believe that the laws that govern what is considered criminal conduct are written supposedly by the representatives of the people that elected them. I don't know too many folks that forget when someone rapes a teenager, (which I believe in this country is generally illegal), and then flees. In arguing about the "priority" of prosecuting such a crime I don't think you would find many taxpayers who would think that extraditing the criminal, even years later, would be a waste of resources. It was a "terrible" case because a little girl was raped, not because of the stupidity in her home or "capricious" adults in government that were elected to protect her. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
aff
Sep 28, 09 10:25 PM CDT
Are you kidding me? Do you know a single prosecutor? "Among all media whores, there is none so greedy and mendacious as a prosecutor." That fine sentence cloaks a foul sentiment. Have you no regard for a prosecutor? Most are talented public servants, part social worker and part law enforcement. What a cheap sentence. Hope you get lots of links and feedback and have a long prosperous career. Hack. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Bambi
Sep 29, 09 12:15 AM CDT
Aff, you gratuitously generalize about 'most (prosecutors)' while lambasting Wolff for same. Do you know MOST prosecutors yourself? I would say that it's the pot calling the kettle black, except that Wolff did not paint a group of prosecutors he hasn't met with a broad brush as you have. Read it again. He limited his descriptiveness to prosecutors that can be counted among the "media whores" (saying they are the worst of the type), he did not say or even imply that all prosecutors are media whores. I hope you are not close to being a prosecutor yourself...your analytical skills are not ready.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 7:20 AM CDT
And what are you trying to be, Bambi? It's hard to tell with that photo of the open mouth and that nym. But speaking of media whores...and sucking up...
Vote up! Vote down!
0
punji
Sep 28, 09 11:37 PM CDT
Dear aff: I know you must be a prosecutor or someone who aspires to be one. Your passion, position and aspirations are very noble indeed, but always remember why Lady Justice is blind and holds scales. Life is a delicate balance. It is not always black and white. You don't get rid of a car just because it has a flat tire. You fix it and move on. Ponder that as you go through your prosecutorial career. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Guava_Jelly
Sep 29, 09 12:27 AM CDT
Couldn't agree more...Michael Wolff is unquestionably a HACK!!! I don't care if the prosecutor was given $1M, a yacht in the Cayman’s, and a contract for a lifetime of free publicity. The arrest of a man who raped a 13 year old…IS JUSTICE!!! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
Bambi
Sep 29, 09 2:57 AM CDT
Very interesting phenomenon that only one side of this debate indulges in name-calling. I believe it's a clue which tells us from which level of sophistication the ideas are emanating. Viscera in the case of the aggressive law-and-order vengeance-seekers, and introspective contemplation on the part of those calmly examining the situation from multiple angles. (Neither side endorses rape, so that hyperbole is off the table.) I have no doubt that those who come to foul mouthing are quite sincere and mostly well-meaning--but it only points up that while some types of issues should be up for popular vote, others can never be--average citizens, perhaps like the ones here inclined to name-calling (scholars know that name-calling constitutes concession in a debate--it's like tipping your own king over to concede mate in chess), are just not evolved enough to appreciate moderated solutions for issues with complex characteristics if all the characteristics don't 'soundbite' equally well. To maintain the high standard for our country established by Jefferson,et al, some things need dispassionate, learned consideration that is something a bit more insightful than a brazen bloodlust for a good witch-burning. What I'm getting from just the LANGUAGE of the pro-vengeance law-and-order seekers is similar to what I get from FOX channel--the sense that their position is unclear and/or indefensible, even to themselves, and so instead of clarifying their position, there is desperation evinced in resorting to tactics of degrading or discrediting opponents and other methods peripheral to substantial argumentation.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 7:23 AM CDT
Why don't you go tell it to your fellow suck-up, whatfreshhell? She was the only one using foul language, but apparently you think blathering on at length means that people will actually waste their time reading your interminable post after you incorrectly characterized the "sides" in this "debate."
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 7:35 AM CDT
Ohhhhhhh, I get it now. Bambi's knocking herself out trying to suck up to and impress the *founder* of Newser. She's angling for a job. Hahahaha. Yeah, those mediawhores and self-serving "prosecutors" are our greatest danger. Why, they should be labeled domestic terrorists! Hahahaha! Can I have a blog spot on newser, too, now???? Too freaking funny. Carry on, girl. Michael Wolff is a genius. We should all be sitting at his feet and worshipping the master. Well, to give him his due, he's clear-eyed and dead on about Sarah Palin, as opposed to most knee-jerk Palin-bashers and/or Palin worshippers. See, I can curry favor, too.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
britneyland
Sep 29, 09 12:36 AM CDT
~ Excelllent analysis, Michael. It's sold me on Newser. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
Noooo
Sep 29, 09 2:07 AM CDT
Michael, I will now add Vanity Fair to the list of publications I am tossing off this week, at least until they ax you. I don't know how many times the LA DA's have tried to extradite Polanski over the years but according to sources it is multiple times. It is also well known that Polanski has gone out of his way to only visit countries that will not extradite him. In other words, your BS defense of this child rapist is disgusting and not really completely truthful. Do I think the DA here in Los Angeles has done more research on Polanski since he tried his end run last year and asked for the charges to be dropped without even bothering to follow procedure and surrender to authorities before he did so - well, yeah. That's the kind of hubris that puts you on the radar with the authorities. As for the amount of money spent on Googling Polanski I take you are some sort of ludite that doesn't know how to use a computer because it only takes a short amount of time to do something like that once or twice a week, I do it with movies, bands and other things I am looking to see when they come out and it really takes no time at all. And one more thing for all you Polanski defenders. Do you also think we should let Pillip Garrido off since the girl he kidnapped wasn't angry with him and she and her daughters were in good physical condition. I mean, they weren't bothering anyone back in the yard there, why should I or anyone else give a damn? You really are a sicko. And you can be sure I'll be calling Vanity Fair tomorrow and let them know I won't be renewing my subscription. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Sep 29, 09 6:19 AM CDT
This is an interesting debate which calls into question the whole notion of justice in this modern world. What Polanski did was wrong, and nobody is denying that. Is justice, however, about punishment or rehabilitation? Here is a man that committed a crime and yet we can almost certainly say he is not an out and out "bad man". He was clearly in a difficult place at the time (though I don't offer that up as an excuse) and has not committed this type of crime nor, to my knowledge, any other criminal offence since. The question now is: is putting him in jail right? There's every chance he'd never come out again. At 76 even a couple of years could be enough to have him die there. What are we, the taxpaying public, really going to gain from having Polanski extradited? Perhaps we'll maintain that belief that our justice system works perfectly; but we will lose a great director, clearly a well-loved man (like it or not), some great films and, perhaps cynically, the economic benefit of having Polanski operate within his industry. I can't justify what he did but I can say, to me, this addresses the whole problem with justice. Those that want Polanski in jail are flat out angry with him. They don't want him in jail because he's a threat or out of civic duty; they hear the words "rape" and instantly know how they feel about the situation. I'm not even saying they're wrong. I'm just saying is justice really serving a public interest at this point? There are plenty of serial rapists, brutes and even murderers who leave jail after perhaps 15, 20, 30 years. We call this fair because they deserve their chance to be rehabilitated and have been properly punished for their crimes. Yet many these people still represent a far greater danger to society than Mr. Polanski, owing to their general personality and outlook on life. I don't have a crystal clear opinion on this. On the one hand I know Polanski did wrong but then, so does he and everybody else. Even his victim has accepted this was not a brutal act by a malicious man, but an act performed by a then troubled and grieving man. Again, this is not justification or even rationalisation, but it is fact. This is not going to sound right but, in some ways, Polanski has paid for his crime. Limited to the countries he can visit; tainted as a person for the rest of his life. Yes, of course Polanski has hardly been "punished" in a traditional sense, but his life has hardly been a playboy rollercoaster from start to finish either. He's been a part of some horrible things and he knows that. So my question is simply to look at the facts and the alternative realities that could have come out of this situation. Is Polanski's arrest really proof of a proud, working and efficient justice system, or does it instead question our notion of what justice gives to society, and whether there aren't flaws and problems in the system itself? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 8:08 AM CDT
@Corda1983 - I'm sorry, but your arguments are really just broken, hypocritical thinking. Why not just come out and say it - you love Mr. Polanski as an artist and because of that you're willing to overlook what should really be common sense. 'alternate realities'???? c'mon, gimme a break, don't be such a stooge.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 8:55 AM CDT
Corda1983, Excellent comment, thank you for that fine flow of thought. Honestly speaking I am absolutely enraged with the possibility of Roman Polanski being extradited for a crime committed 30+ years ago given the victim has already forgiven his perpetrator who only really publicly committed a heinous crime once (I hope I am well informed in respect of my latter assertion)! Obviously the man went on to lead a proper life with a wife and children at such a respectable age. The man himself is highly reputable whatever connotations one may give to that unfortunate episode in his life. Truly what justice is the state in the face of a prosecutor purports to do to a man of the age and status (including his own family with wife and children) of Roman Polanski, to a girl long turned a woman who has forgiven the crime committed against her tens of years ago and to a state (USA) in which the perpetrator does not even live anymore? What deterrence is to be talked of? Similarly rehabilitation comes with long years and hard work, doesn't it? Does the sort of time and labour have to be confined to a prison sentence?Otherwise why have the man tried again at this age by the time when he has already spent years working on film and theater evolving interest and joy in so many people? I know my latter argument will show the appreciation for Roman Polanski as a man of art and high craftsmanship of his particular guild. Not only that, Mr. Polanski is simply my favourite director and it is only just natural that I will find it horrendous that someone would still like to arrest and perhaps convict a man of 76 years of age who is Roman Polanski. I have tried to be objective in my comment though and I honestly do not protect the man simply because he is my favourite director. The bottom line here is - to me justice in a state can not be done to a perpetrator for the sheer pleasure of revenge. I do not see so far any arguments which would speak for deterrence and rehabilitation in relation to Roman. I would like to express my gratitude to Ms. Geimer for her apparent lack of will for revenge and forgiving attitude to Mr. Polanski (if I construe the facts correctly) and I really wish that the LA prosecutor have as much understanding and consideration for Roman as the victim and so many other people have. Please, leave Roman Polanski alone. I trust a 76 year old man who has committed one such crime has learned the lesson and earned himself rehabilitation with his respectable age and marital status. Why he has fled justice at a time when it could possibly have been done is a case for his conscience and he is closer to accounting for it than so many of us. For now I wish him best of health and nerves to tackle this very sad epsiode with his arrest in Switzerland.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 10:27 AM CDT
@Corda1983 ok, so if i get your point, in your world someone of high art and craftsmanship gets a free pass on one single act of child rape? You are really going to defend that position? Again, I will point out, when it comes to prosecuting these types of crimes, what the victim feels - not to be callous - does not come into play, so that wipes out that portion of your argument. You are biased, plain and simple and you are letting that bias cloud your judgment about what boils down to a simple right vs. wrong gut check. He is guilty, he confessed and was tried. He skated on the punishment phase (because of stupid bungleing on the part of the DA and the judge way back when) and now that bill is due...doesn't matter what he has done during his ill gotten time away from final payment.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 10:43 AM CDT
sorry, my previous comment was in response to "Denis.Podnos ", not Corda1983
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 11:02 AM CDT
Exley, Sadly despite the plain clarification of reasons for my comment you have construed it to the contrary and now face me with such interpretation of yours. Please, read my comment again once more, that is all I will say.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 11:14 AM CDT
@Denis.Podnos I did read your comments. You said: "the victim has already forgiven his perpetrator who only really publicly committed a heinous crime once ... Obviously the man went on to lead a proper life ..." That sounds excuses and looking the other way to me...the rest of your comments were long winded platitudes for Mr. Polanski's fine craftmenship and general woth as a talented artist none of which matter a whit when discussing what his final disposition should be with regards to this matter. Sorry to be so insistent but I cannot let your broken thought process and Polanski adoration bias off the hook so easily ...
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MarshaMarshaMarsha
Sep 29, 09 3:33 PM CDT
Where were her parents?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
methusos
Sep 29, 09 8:29 AM CDT
Prosecutors motivations aside, if the movie was NOT made he'd still be free in Europe. Lesson is that if your "lucky" enough to get away with a serious crime. DON'T MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT IT or write a book for that matter. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Sep 29, 09 9:37 AM CDT
'Exley' : "Common sense" applies both ways. It would have been equally common sense not to have given Polanski a 90-day evaluation, release him after 42 days and get him to plead a lesser charge under the false assumption he would get a lesser sentence with no jail time, only to then go back on this and be told he could get up to 50 years in prison for his crime. I am an admirer of Polanski's work, but for the record this has little to nothing of an effect on my opinion. My argument is simple: if Polanski was going to be convicted he should have been upfront tried and sentenced on a charge of rape. I find it quite frightening that we live in a world where you can make deals with your prosecuting attorney and effectively be lied to. My point is that the justice system Polanski is answerable to seems to me quite corrupt and inconsistent. If you read up on the case you will see that there are numerous problems with the case itself, the unfair tactics used regarding the case, and the dubious nature of some of the people involved in it. Does this make Polanski innocent? No, of course not. But let me ask you this; is what Polanski did worth a potential 50 years? No way in hell. If Polanski had been tried and sentenced fairly and properly at the time of the incident nobody could have cause for complaint. If your re-read my post, you'll see my argument is not really with Polanski's guilt but with the circumstances around the case. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 10:38 AM CDT
@Corda1983 i am in the camp that thinks what Polanski did is punishable by 50+ years and then some - there is no coming back once you cross that line. There is no 'rehabilitation' from that behavior. Sorry, just my opinion. Listen, i think the way his original trial, etc was handled was pathetic, I'm not defending the process that occured in '78. But that doesn't mean this just goes away...something has to happen. I'm just not swayed by the argument that he has paid his price already, lets just leave him alone...sorry...doesn't fly.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
canadrummer
Sep 29, 09 9:45 AM CDT
I can't believe you would defend such a sick, cowardly pervert. Regardless of the motives for asking for his extradition, he should still face the consequences for the heinous crime he committed. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The fact that he makes 'nice ' movies, does not put him above any other child rapist. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
bewilderbeast
Sep 29, 09 10:37 AM CDT
All that is sick about the World in one drama. Some can get away with the well-known rape and sodomy of a thirteen year old child. Others (others, not this Polanski scum) can be thrown in jail and framed for something they didn't do. And it all just depends on who has the power/money. We call it "justice". Surely the ease with which it is abused is a REALLY good reason not have the death penalty? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 10:54 AM CDT
I am sorry but reading a few people here call Roman Polanski what I would not even dare pronounce really enrages me. How dare some of you judge a person you do not know in life? Why does one have to crave for revenge against a person who has not and wont touch one of you as he lives in a different country? Where does this horrible hatred come from? Why so much bias? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 11:08 AM CDT
@Denis.Podnos I have only referred to Roman Polanski by what he is at the end of the day: a convicted adult sex offender who is guilty of child rape. Its not revenge, seriously. Revenge would be punishing the man after he had served his debt to society. He hasn't served that yet. Why are you so worked up about someone who gave up his right to live in society in such an ugly and abhorrent manner? Have you no decency?
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
canadrummer
Sep 29, 09 11:21 AM CDT
Denis, are you living on another planet. I never knew Hitler nor Manson, but I certainly know what they were about. This is not about what he would do, but about what he did do!! The man is a convicted child rapist who walked. This is about justice, not hatred.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 12:36 PM CDT
Exley, Revenge is what I see the Prosecutor seeking and to me your and other participant's view that Roman Polanski should be punished for the crime as any other person would and should be despite the years gone is a sign of wish for revenge as I do not think justice can be done in the situation where a man does not pose threat or danger to the state (USA). Disregarding the victim on the occasion of his current position in my view also shows disregard. I believe I would not have had reason to go for Roman in 1978 (had I been born then). Thanks for the understanding.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 12:49 PM CDT
Canadrummer, I am sorry but I come from the same planet as you and any other person does. I just have a different view on what is being discussed. I believe I have clarified the reasons for such view enough already. I do not see justice in convicting a one time child rapist 32 years after the crime when deterrence or rehabilitation is no more a concern. Unfortunately your example of Hitler and Manson appears to me totally disregarding the context and essence of crimes convicted by such "celebrities". I would not easily question a man's planetary provenance with your argument at hand. Obviously a one time rapist is still a criminal as for that particular occasion even if he has lived on properly but why bring in Hitler and Manson into the discussion? Thanks for the understanding whatever the difference in our views.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
canadrummer
Sep 29, 09 1:27 PM CDT
Denis, the point I was trying to make by using Hitler and Manson as examples, is that you don't have to know someone to pass judgment on the crimes that they have committed.. That was in response to 'How dare some of you judge a person you do not know in life?'. And I do agree, rehabilitation and deterrence are not an issue here. Justice is. Great discussion Denis, and I do respect your views, though I strongly disagree.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 7:51 AM CDT
Denis, the Amish families involved in that school shooting forgave the boy who killed their daughters, and even visited the killers' family in their mercy. Forgiveness and revenge are the flip sides of behaviors and feelings on the part of the victims. Justice is a completely different matter. Polanksi's victim is free to forgiv e him, as that is healthy for her. But people here who think that justice should be served upon the rich and well-connected the same as the poor and unrepresented are not looking for "revenge." How could they? They aren't personally involved. Maybe you're a little too emotionally invested in your "favorite director." Newsflash. We don't really know celebrities personally. Your feeling of rage and your projection of that on others doesn't seem healthy. It seems more like the flip side of "stalkers" who think they "love" the celebrity they are obsessed about. Celebrities don't want strangers that invested in them. Their art and their personal lives are two different things. You're young. Go create your own life and art. Polanski's not worth such venomous investment.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Sep 29, 09 11:26 AM CDT
Exley: I do appreciate what you're saying. Rape is awful in any way, shape or form and, as I say, if Polanski was tried and sentenced as and when this was happening then I couldn't complain; fan of his work or no. On the other hand, whilst I don't condone rape in any way at all, I just cannot see how 50 years imprisonment would be completely fair. Firstly, whilst I'm not going to argue there are different "types" of rape, clearly this wasn't a violent attack perpetrated by a thug. Yes Polanski took massive advantage of a girl against her wishes but, similarly, there are ambiguities around the case that have never been completely explained. The victim had already visited Polanski previously and, in addition, at 13 years of age (a fact which Polanski never knew, not that it makes a difference), why was she allowed by her Mother to pose for modelling photographs alone at a relative stranger's house? I'm not remotely trying to justify what happened, I'm just saying the truth is Polanski wasn't some nut that jumped out of an alleyway, beat a girl half to death and then had sex with her. Perhaps I'm wrong, I just think these sorts of things should be taken into account somewhat. As regards any sort of rehabilitation, well, in many ways Polanski has answered that question himself. He's never been involved in a sexual crime (before or since) and has lived a normal life. In addition, even his victim has forgiven him; a fact that I believe shows this is more complex than villain and victim. But, as I say, this isn't about trying to make out "hey, Polanski isn't that bad". This is more about asking if 50 years as a possible sentence is fair? Or whether a deceitful plea bargain is right or justified? If Polanski raped an underage girl he should have been tried then and there for that crime. Instead there were underhand dealings, bargains and promises that were subsequently reneged, and to me that undermines the very essence of the legal system. The whole point about the law is there are rules we must all abide by and, if we don't, we get punished. Polanski's case is a classic example of the goalposts being pushed all around the park and, now, when there is a personal and political motivation from the LA Justice Department, they can finally find it in themselves to do what they technically could have done for a decade or more. My argument is simple; it's not that Polanski is right or wrong. It's that justice is every bit as fallible, changeable and ultimately deceitful and this case has demonstrated that, even though Polanski did wrong, it only matters when it suits those with the power to do something about it. Polanski isn't a danger to society and the only thing a trial could bring about are costs, heartbreak and good publicity. I do believe you can't turn a blind eye on these kinds of things but, if that's the case, this should have been dealt with years and years ago when it was a fresh crime. As it happens the Justice is picking and choosing when... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
exley
Sep 29, 09 11:52 AM CDT
@Corda1983 ok, let me respond to a few of your points... 1. having the goal posts moved on you is the risk you take when you decide to drug a 13 year old child and rape her...having the rug pulled out from underneath you is the chance you take when you do something like that...sorry, thats just the way things work sometimes. 2. the victim wants this to all go away...no doubt it would have done so much earlier, if Mr. Polanski had not scurried off to his French safe haven...so again, Mr. Polanski has continued to think selfishly. 3. I'm not impressed by claims that he has led a normal, civil life since then, nary a problem with anyone...the new is full of stories of relapsed offenders well into their 70s and 80s. Don't be so gullible. 3. you keep mentioning irrelevant details that you then claim should make no difference, as a way of clearing Polanski's name...why mention them if they should make no difference. 4. The victims mother, should have been held up as an example of horrid parenting and publicly shamed...but that is another matter that should make no difference I think you and I view the world through different prisms ... you are willing to overlook and excuse, and I am not.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Denis.Podnos
Sep 29, 09 12:25 PM CDT
Corda1983, Again, I completely agree with you on that. Sadly other comments show that people like to pick on some particular participants to this debate and only criticise them for what they disagree with as it appears to me. I am amazed that the trial had that kind of a turn. And yes, how can one talk of justice towards a perpetrator of crime when the legal system purporting to do such justice had been unjust to the convict himself. One thing that to me deserves much consideration is the factor of victim's recovery. I honestly hope that Ms. Geimer did not suffer so badly from Roman's sad and horrible deed, a deed of a man I believe not to be a rapist for life (God, why did he allow himself fall for such an occasion!?). I trust she was able to overcome the trauma caused on that occasion. I greatly thank her for the truly Christian approach to Roman's current status, i.e. her forgiveness.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
MarshaMarshaMarsha
Sep 29, 09 3:26 PM CDT
Thank you for writing this intelligent article. All we have to do to really "get" what you say is remember what the PROSECUTORS did to Michael Jackson. No real evidence, just con-artists accusing someone for $$. About Mr. Polanski, I really believe the victim should have final say here, plus all of his actions over the past 30+ years should be taken into consideration as well. Anyway, what on Earth was a 13-year old girl doing in Jack Nicholson's house while all this partying was going on? Where were her parents? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 8:00 AM CDT
What partying? Why are you making a comment if you haven't even read up on the story? If you want to know about her mother's involvement, go, read up on it. The victim did spend years angry at her mother, and was upset and disoriented over the rape. Her life was shipwrecked and it's past time that the coward Polanksi paid his due. Hey, who wouldn't flee if they had the means? But the big man was courageous enough when it came to raping and sodomizing a young kid he targeted and drugged. He got to plea to a lesser offense and still didn't have the balls to face the consequences of that. By now, his crime could've been paid for and forgotten and he could've been palling around with fellow pedophile Woody Allen.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Sep 29, 09 4:28 PM CDT
Exley: The thing I'm trying to make clear is this; you're putting a tremendous amount of faith and leniency into a problematic and somewhat corrupt legal system. Polanski was only able to flee because of a ridiculous plea bargain, and only did so because he faced the grossly unfair prospect of going to prison for 50 years if he stood trial. Your concept of a criminal paying their debt to society would be completely understandable if Polanski was facing 2 years, maybe even 5 or 7 years, for what he did. But 50? Perhaps if the victim was beaten half to death or Polanski was a serial rapist, but I think it's common sense to see what Polanski did was out of character and not part of it. To have a man at 44 years of age (which Polanski was) facing the prospect of coming out of jail at 94 years of age, I can understand why he fled frankly. At the end of the day Polanski was goaded into confessing under all sorts of false pretenses and when you suddenly realise the justice system is being run by cowboys with a grudge against you, you're going to be frightened. Polanski had, of course, completely complied with the law up until the point it started lying to him and threatening him with unfair prison sentences commensurate to the crime. I feel pretty confident that if Polanski had been treated fairly and dealt with honestly he'd have served his time, and if he'd fled under those circumstances I'd have no sympathy with him now. Polanski is not going to relapse. I think your issue is that the words "rape" and "rapist" have a universal meaning to you, and that there is no shade of grey in the issue. It's quite clear that if it was up to you Polanski would have served 50+ years and you still wouldn't be satisfied his debt had been served. That's simply an unfair view of the situation that doesn't take into account any circumstances or long term view. It's ridiculous I could get drunk, drive home and kill somebody and get away with 5-8 years manslaughter (again on all sorts of dodgy plea bargains and stuff) and yet you feel this crime would warrant more than 5 times that sentence. At the end of the day I am not excusing anybody, you are. You're saying Polanski was a total villain who should have been man enough to allow a corrupt trial to sentence him to 20, 30+ years in jail for a crime that simple doesn't warrant that length of sentence. Polanski wasn't treated honestly from the beginning and I feel if he was he probably would have taken his sentence. You can't demonise Polanski and yet expect him to happily walk into a dubious and inconsistent legal trial. The first rule of justice has to be that it's absolutely fair and absolutely uniform and, of course, absolutely honest. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 8:05 AM CDT
This is as far as I read into your ignorant diatribe: "Perhaps if the victim was beaten half to death or Polanski was a serial rapist..." So, you're in Whoopi's "rape rape" camp, hm? Unless the child struggled enough to be beaten she asked for it? Rape-apologist attitudes like yours are the reason people say, let it happen to some child you love and then get back to us on how you feel. And Polanski, like all child predators DID target other kids. He fled over to Europe and immediately took up with a young teen. He bragged that "everyone wants to f#ck teens."
Vote up! Vote down!
0
exley
Sep 29, 09 5:58 PM CDT
@Corda1983, let me be more clear as well... 1. My opinion is that someone convicted of a clear-cut sex crime of this nature is not eligible to live in society anymore. They are fundementally broken inside and there is no hope of fixing them. That is my opinion. 2. I am annoyed with members of the public, who willingly refuse to stand up for what is right because of selfish reasons ... "he is a great man" "his films are wonderful" "he is master craftsman" "he only did it that one time" ... etc 3. I am not blind to the idea that abuses exist in the prosecutorial and judicial arenas. I totally agree with you. I am annoyed that this was not handled appropriatly at the outset - but...i see this as an opportunity to right past wrongs (to polanski's disadvantage however) - and I don't care how we got to this juncture point ... 4. I actually do believe that someone who gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone needs to face a longer sentance that 5-7 years. Society needs to crush this irresponsible behaviour. These people (like mr. polanski - are highly immature, irresponsible people who only think of themselves...you don't make these kind of mistakes - the messages are loud and clear throughout society, these kinds of behaviour are not acceptable...if you can't pick up on them, i have no sympathy for you. Harsh I know, but hey, I am trying to be clear. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
wapanap
Oct 1, 09 5:10 AM CDT
I doubt that you've seen Polanski's film 'The Pianist', or, given your view of Mr Polanski, that you could bring yourself to, but if you did, it would be clear to you that the person who made it is of profound understanding and compassion, and it was clearly right that he got an Oscar for it. Polanski has moved on from the person he was when he committed his offence. He is not 'fundamentally broken inside'. People do sometimes do bad things, repent and then grow in stature. His victim has forgiven him and in fact said she thought the 42 days he has served was excessive. Nothing can be served now by jailing a 76 year old man.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
danny_dee
Sep 30, 09 6:49 PM CDT
He raped a kid and some people wish to defend him! He should have been in jail since the day he was arrested and kept there till he died and then this wouldn't even be a story. I hope he gets everything he deserves, scum like that deserve to suffer, if there is any justice he will be the victim of rape himself once he is behind bars. I will be boycotting any films, music ect by "stars" who come out in "support" of him. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Corda1983
Oct 1, 09 6:04 AM CDT
But danny_dee, you've instantly proven yourself to be a more aggressive, angry and cruel person that Polanski has ever been. Your problem is without knowing the facts, the reasons, the full story, you've made the most damning statement about Polanski and tried to justify yourself taking immense pleasure in imagining him getting what you believe is his just desserts. There are no circumstances in which rape is justifiable but rape does come in different forms, whatever you may think. There are women night after night who are talked into sex and, afterwards, realise that deep down they didn't want it. There are women who are drugged or plied with alcohol. Women that are seduced but then feel the mark has been overstepped with regards to what they were comfortable doing. Then there are women who are beaten to a pulp and brutally raped. I don't care what anybody says, these crimes are different, and it takes a different type of person to be able to do each one of them. There isn't any one of those crimes that's justifiable, but not every one of those crimes is committed by a crazed villain who 'fundamentally broken inside'. Polanski served 42 days in jail and has never been able to return to America, but I think many people can see that this crime isn't as cut and dry as "rape" sounds and, in addition, Polanski has received punishment of sorts of what he's done. I'm not even going to say Polanski served enough time; I think a couple of years in prison back in the 70's would have been more than just. But now, a 76 year old man with no other violent or criminal convictions against him, who has proven himself to have rehabilitated and provided worth to society again, shouldn't have been arrested on his way to Switzerland by underhand actions and people who bear grudges regarding his book. Being fundamentally broken inside is, in my opinion, not about doing bad things, but about not having the ability to see you've done bad things or to be able to appreciate the differences of opinion or that the world works in far more subtle ways than black and white.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 8:08 AM CDT
Again, not reading your diatribe. Anyone who thinks rape isn't rape unless the victim also gets beaten to a pulp and who makes up crap about Polanski *not* being a serial stalker of teens has no business lecturing others about "facts."
Vote up! Vote down!
0
lizouttavegas
Oct 1, 09 9:36 AM CDT
seriously?all this debate? he's a pedophile, he broke our laws, he fled like a yellow coward, & now Hollywood idiots are rallying for him? Im sorry, where is your moral compass..underwater? where do you stand on rape laws of children? ON TOP TO SHOVE IT DOWN? shame of Polanski lovers..hope you dont live long enough to have your daughter, or granddaughter caught in a trap, with a polish RAT. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
danny_dee
Oct 1, 09 6:11 PM CDT
@cordia there is only one fact that counts and that is a 13 year old girl got raped, I feel you must be mentally unstable to compare my words with the crime of raping a child. There is no story, mitigating circumstances ect, he raped a child admitted it and fled like the coward he is. It is perfectly normal to wish ill feeling towards a person who has done despicable acts, your defence of him is sickening. He gave up what rights he had the day he put his perverted hands on that poor child. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Corda1983
Oct 2, 09 6:30 AM CDT
At what point did I defend him? What he has done is not ok and I've said numerous times he should have done jail time and been punished for it. But that should have been done properly, at the time, and with no underhandedness. My problem is the attitude that he doesn't deserve a fair trial or a fair sentence under some people's assumptions that he's just some rapist paedophile who deserves to rot in hell etc etc. There isn't only one fact in this. Yes he did a bad thing, yes he should have been punished. No, it's not perfectly normal to wish he'd been locked up and the key thrown away. That's hatred, based on facts you don't know and circumstances you don't understand. For a start he pleaded guilty to a plea bargain. That's effectively as good as saying "this is what we think you did, but if you definitely say you did this there's a chance you'll be ok". Polanski pleaded guilty largely based on the fact that he was told there would probably be a fair amount of leniency if he did so. That statement was the reneged. I'm not saying that made him innocent, I'm just saying that's a thinly veiled form of duress. In addition to that, even his victim has been remarkably forgiving about what she says happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen and I don't know what the evidence says but I do know this; there are lots of elements in this case which are suspicious and every human being on this earth deserves a fair and honest trial. Polanski wouldn't have got that and certainly won't get that now. You can jump on me like I'm defending him and to some extent I am; but not against what he did, just against the underhandedness, deception and ambiguity surrounding the whole legal proceedings associated with this case. Yes everybody should be treated the same but, similarly, everybody deserves a fair and honest trial and sentence; something Polanski realised he was never going to get and likely isn't going to get now. All I'm saying is don't jump to conclusions. You hate Polanski and frankly want him rotting in a cell on the basis of simply hearing he's a convicted rapist. I don't know the details of the case but neither do you really. All I'm saying is Polanski deserves a fair trial whatever his crimes and surely his lifestyle before and after the incident should go a long way towards assessing the man he is overall. My concern is that so many people have jumped to so many conclusions after likely doing nothing more than skimming through wikipedia, and that sort of intolerance, vindictiveness and miscommunication is why so many things go so badly wrong in this world. I'm not saying your attitude is a "crime" and I'm certainly not comparing it to what Polanski was found guilty of. I'm just saying there is more than "one fact" in any story, and it's precisely that sort of thinking that can cause so much damage.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
justyou
Oct 1, 09 7:31 PM CDT
Until American justice has become equal justice and about punishing the rich and influential just as we would punish average citizens, we don't have a democratic country. Roman Polanski is a rapist pedophile and needs held accountable just as every DA would hold accountable Joe Average. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
danny_dee
Oct 2, 09 6:54 AM CDT
There is no trial, the clue is in his guilty plea. It is obvious to anyone reading these boards that you are defending him. If you check your first reply to me you say; "But danny_dee, you've instantly proven yourself to be a more aggressive, angry and cruel person that Polanski has ever been". I assure you I have never commited a violent sexual crime which is what the perverted dirty old man your defending has done. You can moan all you like about the judicial system but as you have found you are in the minority and sane people realise he hasn't been punished by the laws of the land which everybody else has to adere to. If your going to reply to me try not to contradict yourself eh as you just look even more stupid Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Corda1983
Oct 2, 09 8:13 AM CDT
How many people have pleaded guilty when they're in fact innocent? Furthermore how many people have been offered a plea bargain to do just that? I'm only defending Polanski's right to a fair and open trial that he should have had. I'm also defending Polanski on the basis that he's lived a meaningful and peaceful life since the incident and that even his own victim, who knows far more about the truth of the facts than you can ever hope to, doesn't wish for the man to go to jail. To me that all adds up to this being a more complex case than what's made out to be. At the end of the day it's you that would gladly see somebody locked in a cell for decades and decades without a single thought to the entire set of circumstances surrounding the case. It's also interesting how you're happy to brush over the entire judicial system Polanski was tried by just because you're quite happy to think of him as nothing more than a child molesting demon, without really knowing anything about the circumstances or events yourself. In case you haven't noticed I'm not contradicting myself but have said the same thing clearly time and time again. If Polanski was convicted of a crime, tried for it, sentenced fairly for it and served his time for it and as when the situation was ongoing I couldn't complain about any of it. What I can complain about are plea bargains, the threat of 50 year sentences, the fact that the legal system allowed Polanski to continue working on his films and even leave the country without being checked. If Polanski is a child rapist who could face up to 50 years in prison, why was he allowed to do that? That's inconsistency right there, and whilst it may be cowardice that Polanski fled, the pick-and-choose nature of that sort of legal system can make villains or martyrs out of whomever it chooses. As for being in a "minority" over my opinion, let's not forget that Polanski has worked as a film director for the last 30+ years with literally thousands of people who respect him. His films have continued to be popular. He's never been attacked or pestered on account of his conviction and he's even made a children's film in that period of time, all without incident. He's got a wife and children and a lot of people who it seems would support him, not to mention a lot of people more closely associated with him who feel the purported facts of the whole situation aren't entirely what they seem. All I'm saying is that the law can be wrong and can be unfair and, regardless of what it says, to me this isn't a closed and dealt with situation. I feel Polanski's lifestyle around this event speak volumes about the sort of person he must be, and the ambiguities surrounding the whole thing combine to make me feel this isn't as simple as some pervert luring a kid to a house for sex, and that's that. Also, insulting me about contradicting myself and calling me stupid isn't really the best way to present yourself. I notice you make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things...
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
prowlerzee
Oct 2, 09 8:15 AM CDT
Sheesh, that Corda can spew on and on without knowing a single fact, huh? And then to accuse someone posting here of being more "violent" than a rapist. Unreal. Oh, that's right. Polanksi didn't beat the crap out of the little girl, he only drugged her into submission. So it's not really "rape rape." Talk about clueless people. Making up crap about a trial and 50 years. He pled guilty. The point of allowing him to plead to a lesser crime was to avoid a trial. We have no idea if he'd have gotten "50 years" (that seems to have been pulled out of the clear blue) because....Polanksi fled.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Oct 2, 09 10:10 AM CDT
Firstly, prowlerzee, I never accused anybody of being more "violent", I said aggressive. It's an entirely different thing. Secondly, I'm assuming the comments section of this post is all about debate and, therefore, my "spewing" on is just me trying to clarify certain aspects of my argument. I am not defending Polanski. I am instead suggesting the original trial itself was somewhat corrupt, that Polanski has led an otherwise peaceful and productive lifestyle, and that even the victim of the crime doesn't wish for the situation to go on. Yes, I know in the eyes of the law none of that makes a jot of difference. What I'm trying to say is that it should do. I don't think I've even said Polanski's arrest is necessarily a bad thing. I've merely been trying to say that not everything is clockwork and those who outright demonise Polanski without so much as a shred of knowledge about the purported event, or the rest of his life, have in my opinion the wrong attitude towards things. I'm not suggesting everybody forgive Polanski for what has happened, I just think that there is a lot of narrowmindedness around (and yes, before anybody shouts back that "rape is rape", I am aware of that) and that I don't see how sentencing Polanski now really benefits anyone, least of all the woman at the centre of this. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
danny_dee
Oct 2, 09 10:26 AM CDT
Ok Corda simple question what sort of sentence should somebody get for raping a 13 year old child, orally raping a 13 year old child and anally raping a 13 year old child? Is 42 days enough? Your comments about assumptions are a bit rich considering your assumption about me which was "you've instantly proven yourself to be a more aggressive, angry and cruel person that Polanski has ever been. Your problem is without knowing the facts, the reasons, the full story, you've made the most damning statement about Polanski" bit of a assumption there considering we have never met and that you havent had countless media reports to read about my life!! As for contradictions in a previous reply you stated "At what point did I defend him? followed further down by " You can jump on me like I'm defending him and to some extent I am" Try sticking to the facts eh without rambling, thanks Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Corda1983
Oct 2, 09 10:49 AM CDT
Well firstly I do apologise for the "aggressive/cruel" comment. I do still stand by the belief you have an angry desire to see Polanski punished for his crime (as opposed to a rational one) but the comment did come out a bit harsh and, you're right, I don't know you. As for the defense of Polanski my point is not that I am defending his crime or his conviction; I'm merely saying there is more to this than screaming "PEDO RAPIST" and wanting blood. It so often turns out that the mob is bloodier, angrier and more intolerant than the criminal they despise (and I'm not accusing you or any one person of that, I'm just saying it's true). There's every right for people to be angry at the concept of the rape of a 13 year old but that sort of en masse hatred and desire for blood usually leads to more crime and that's a spiral in which nothing is obtained and nobody learns. So, I don't support or defend Polanski because I think he's right or his actions were just, it's more a case of my belief that you must always be rational about every situation, no matter how awful or despicable. As for his sentence, I'm not sure. That should be decided by a fair and reputable Judge and once it is, that's that. What I do feel though is that 50 years, even 15 years given all the circumstances, is too harsh. In addition to that I still don't believe that the case is as closed and sealed as it appears to be. Yes Polanski did wrong and I wouldn't try to make out the crime never happened, but if you look at the case as a whole there are things that don't completely add up, and the same is true of the subsequent trial, bargain and anticipated sentencing. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
ConspiratorBlago
Oct 5, 09 2:36 AM CDT
Without defending Polanski's actions toward the 13 year old girl, they are indefensible, it's also obvious that Polanski was suffering from & probably is still suffering from a double dose of post traumatic stress disorder! He was a nine year old Jewish boy when the Nazis invaded Poland & he was hidden with a Catholic family for the next five years. He then finds out that his mother & most of his family was murdered at Auschwitz. He is reunited with his father, who did survive the war & somehow makes a life for himself. He comes to the US, marries Sharon Tate, she becomes pregnant with their child & she is then murdered by Manson & his followers along with the almost full term fetus. If that isn't PTSD, then nothing is! That is certainly one of the reasons that the LA DA's office took the deal. Plus the judge was forced to resign from office when it was discovered he was having ex parte talks with a different deputy DA, who was not involved in the case. That DA, David Wells was telling the judge. Lawrence Rittenband that his political future was in extreme jeopardy if he allowed the deal to proceed. It was when the ex parte talks were revealed that the judge was removed from the case. Rittenband has been described as a publicity seeking judge, who wanted to go on to higher office in California. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS