There is a movement in Hollywood to urge prosecutors to back off Roman Polanski, who many years ago drugged, raped and sodomized a 13 year-old girl. I don't understand it.
"Don't tell your mother," he said. "This will be our little secret."
This isn't going to be a screed against Hollywood. Most people in Hollywood haven't signed the petition that's going around. But I wonder if those who have, read the girl's testimony.
Her account, which corresponds with the verifiable facts, makes it clear she was intimidated into an encounter she did not wish to have. Polanski admitted it happened.
He fled the country before sentencing because, according to later accounts, he was afraid the judge would fail to honor a plea agreement and lock him up.
Some facts that have been brought up by Polanski's defenders - the fact that the girl had a boyfriend with whom she had sex - the fact that Polanski was arrested in public when theoretically he might have been apprehended more discreetly - strike me as irrelevant.
How can anyone in Hollywood see Polanski as not being the bad guy? I have a theory about that.
In TV shows and movies, the bad guys are nearly always all-bad. Take out those shows and films where the bad guy is portrayed neutrally to create a shock later, and it's hard to recall any dramas where evil is done by an otherwise good person.
If you actually think that's how it is in real life, it becomes easy to presume innocence, or at least to presume extenuating circumstances, when evil is attributed to someone you know and like.
Posts
Your completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the crime, or whether or not he did it - or anything. The fact of the matter is, he was convicted only of having unlawful sex, and sentenced to 42 days in jail for psychiatric evaluation, with a plea deal. But the judge, worried about an election, made a secret deal with the prosecutor to use the plea as proof of guilt, and to keep him confined indefinitely. That is NOT justice, no matter who he is or what he did. He served his sentence, whether you agree with it or not, but justice did not serve him. His fleeing was understandable and warranted. Either be a fugitive or suffer indefinite detention because it helps a judge's political career. Do some basic research.
Posted by: Bob | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
He should be brought back to the US and face the consequences for which he was convicted of and admitted to. What is so difficult for his defenders to understand? And to hear WOMAN defend him, Even more disturbing!
Posted by: Bill | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
Thank you!!! I have been upset since he was given an Oscar. Pedophiles should be jailed not honored and protected. Do all these people that are saying to let him off also molest children?
Posted by: Gal | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
Where would the justice be if he were not extradited back to US? What is the matter with our society that they are now condoning rape? I am sure the young lady doesn't really want to go through any reminders of this case, but please do the right thing and let them take care of justice. This is so bizarre to me that people in our country would actually side with a rapist.
Posted by: ann sutter | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
Not sure what your advocating? What is the solution?
Should he go to trial again or should the original plea agreement be honored by the now DA?
Posted by: Charly Kemp | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
I can not believe people are taking up for this guy and want him to not be punished. he had sex with a 13 year old girl for goodness sake! hello sick world! do your time you sick crowd and hollywood you suck!
Posted by: Rachel | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
That's really sad that we have been so changed by easy drama (100% good/bad characterization) that we can't understand the differences.
Whether you like him or not, there is no changing the basic fact that the man pled guilty to statuatory rape and then decamped when his plea bargain might not work out the way he wanted. And now he has to resolve the situation that he ran away from 30 years ago.
Posted by: Kim Anon | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
I was for years a high profile prosecutor of child sexual assault cases. These are serious crimes. But least we forget, the prosecutor in this case entered into a very liberal plea bargain, and what Polanski stands convicted of is unlawful intercourse, a "wobbler" in California that can be treated as, or reduced to, a misdemeanor, and at the time of the plea, was not necessarily a registerable sex offense. This effects the interests of justice in following through with the extradition. Of course,Polanski is the bad guy here, but he is also the dumb guy, because even if the judge refused to follow the "no time in custody" provisions of the plea, he more than likely would have received "local" i.e., jail vs. prison, time, been out in less than 180, and gone on about his life of making dynamite pictures like The Pianist.
Posted by: linda root | 09/29/2009 at 02:00 PM
I agree. I'm not saying that he's evil, but he did committ a crime. And even though the victim doesn't wish to press charges, the state of California should. I'm sorry, but just because it's 30+ years later, and just because he's an overall good person, it shouldn't justify or excuse a lapse in judgement. I know it sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
Posted by: j. k. | 09/30/2009 at 02:00 PM
The victim does not want this to continue. She was sexually active prior to the rape. This was a long time ago, a different world. Ca. is broke so yeah, lets go through the expense of bringing him back, put him in jail and feed him on taxpayers money. Forget it, its over, he served the time plea bargined. we are so anal. We have a lot of things to worry about these day so lets put it in perspective and disappoint those rabid child protectors that see pedophiles everywhere. I mean, half the population is in jail for child sex or living in camps under freeways because of our attitudes about molesting kids. Enough.
Posted by: BudGraham | 09/30/2009 at 02:00 PM
40 years ago Polanski lost his wife actress Sharon Tate and his unborn child in the brutal Tate-LaBianca murders committed by the Manson Family. He had the sympathy of the world at his beckon call. Less than 10 years later he rapes an underage girl (who by the way today is a Kauai resident). He was supposedly worried that the judge would sentence him to 100 years in prison, so he fled the country. Prominent Hollywood actors and directors from Harrison Ford to Woody Allen have pledged their support because I guess he is own of their own and a talented and accomplished director. Because of the obvious Hollywood influence there is talk of having Governor Arnold Schwarznegger pardon him or be involved in the case somewhat with his input. Some are comparing this to OJ Simpson, years ago he was acquitted and now karma gets him in the end. Time will only tell what happens in this case.
Posted by: AJ McWhorter | 09/30/2009 at 02:00 PM
Some people see a movie on HBO and consider themselves experts, condescendingly telling you to "do your research." Sad.
No, he didn't serve his time, the plea bargain left it up to the judge. The ex parte communication consisted of the prosecutor showing the judge a picture of Polanski partying while awaiting sentencing. Sentencing misconduct is what appellate courts are for.
Polanski acted like a classic predator: he set it up to be alone with the 13 year old, gave her alcohol and drugged her to lower her resistance, then ignored her saying "no" several times.
The reason this has dragged on for 30 years is because he fled the country. He shouldn't be rewarded for it.
Posted by: John | 09/30/2009 at 02:00 PM
I wonder how Mr. Polanski would feel if he were put in a cell and sodomized by his cellmate?
Posted by: Julia | 10/05/2009 at 02:00 PM
a law system that talks about 50 years in jail is a sick system.
a law system that comes back after 30 years is no justice.
Did you ever see the movie TAXI, with Robert de Niro.
About 12 years old hookers in New York???
Since the girl was able to become pregnant Roman is NO pedophile but what he did was BAD.
Acccording an Iran formula, the girl must have 50% of your age + 7 years.
So if Roman was 40 he is entitled for a girl of 27
Which means girls of 13 should meet boys of the same age.
If he had done this to my daughter, my son and I would beat him into hospital.
(In Europe the judge would give me a fine of $ 1000, for this.)
Posted by: richard | 10/05/2009 at 02:00 PM
Roman Polanski is guilty of abusing a minor and he really deserves to be in jail.
Posted by: Karl | 10/22/2009 at 02:00 PM