Oh, Poor Polanski, Child Rapist
He pleaded guilty and fled. How can anyone rationalize that?
By Harry Kimball,  Newser Staff
Posted Sep 28, 2009 1:31 PM CDT
Roman Polanski at court in 1977.   (AP Photo)
camera-icon View 2 more images

(Newser) – Kate Harding would like to remind everyone crowing about the injustice of arresting a 76-year-old man who’s put in 31 years of exile that Roman Polanski is a fugitive and, coincidentally, a child rapist. The director “gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne,” according to her testimony and his admission. He also “put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, ‘No,’ then went ahead and did it anyway.”

So, uhh, what’s the issue? Harding asks on Salon. One blogger complains that Polanski’s victim was almost 14, the age of consent in California at the time—except no, it was 16. And “almost” doesn’t cut it—she didn’t consent. Joan Z. Shore at HuffPo notes that “Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.” Well, mercy me, Harding responds. “Polanski was ‘demonized by the press’ because he raped a child, and was convicted because he (pleaded) guilty. He ‘feared heavy sentencing’ because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon.”