The Roman Polanski Debate Grows
EmailTwo very strident commentaries today, in two major newspapers, grappling over the question: Was the arrest of acclaimed filmmaker Roman Polanski an appropriate exercise of justice – or a case of prosecutorial overreach?
Steve Lopez of The Los Angeles Times has been studying the case file in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. And he wishes others would do the same.
“I wish the renowned legal scholars Harvey Weinstein and Debra Winger, to name just two of Polanski's defenders, were here with me now. I'd like to invite Martin Scorsese, as well, along with David Lynch, who have put their names on a petition calling for Polanski to be freed immediately. What, because he won an Oscar? Would they speak up for a sex offender who hadn't? To hear these people tell it, you'd think Polanski was the victim rather than the teenager…I'd like to show all these great luminaries the testimony from Polanski's underage victim, as well as Polanski's admission of guilt. Then I'd like to ask whether, if the victim were their daughter, they'd be so cavalier about a crime that was originally charged as sodomy and rape before Polanski agreed to a plea bargain. Would they still support Polanski's wish to remain on the lam living the life of a king, despite the fact that he skipped the U.S. in 1977 before he was sentenced?”
Arguing for the other side in the New York Times is author Robert Harris, an author and Polanski friend who said he felt “physically sick” when he heard the news of the director’s arrest.
“His past did not bother me, any more (presumably) than it did the three French presidents with whom he has had private dinners, or the hundreds of actors and technicians who have worked with him since 1977, or the fans who come up to him in the streets of Paris for his autograph… If Mr. Polanski is such a physical danger and moral affront to civilized society that he must be locked up, even at the age of 76, why was he not picked up earlier, when he was 66, or 56 – or even 46? It would not have been hard to grab him at his home: his name is on the doorbell…(the victim) Ms. Geimer wants it dropped, to shield her family from distress, and Mr. Polanski’s own young children, to whom he is a doting father, want him home. He is no threat to the public. The original judicial procedure was undeniably murky. So cui bono, as the Romans used to say – who benefits?”
Tell us what you think…
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Once again the arrogance of fame is trying to get out from under what it has done. If Polansky thinks that he is above the law and that 32 years has covered his sentance then why not stand in front of his accusers and act like a man not a pedofile.
A lot of the people that are standing up for him are of the same cloth, they have their egos and can’t stand it if they or someone they know is put under the scope to see who they truly are.
If an average man would have done this they would be getting out of jail right about now. Only the so-called famous think that they have the right to do as they please and get away with it.
I think that we should set him on a pedistal and them knock him off. I would say to grind him for fertilizer but I would not want that sick #### being spread in my garden.
He needs to stand up like a man for what he has done and stop hiding behind his friends.
Posted by: James | September 30, 2009, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
Would you expect any other kind of
reaction from those leftie loons in
the entertainment industry?? The create
a bunch of crap and want to call it
entertainment and defend the rapist
(self-admitted) and think its on par
with the Gettysburg Address. They
are clueless elitist. Any person, no
matter their background who would rape
a 13 year old child is a pervert and
should take the punishment like a man
and accept responsibility. No reason
to look the other way because he is
famous. Seems to be the way it is
in Hollywood tho, look at OJ Simpson
and Robert Blake too. They think they
are worthly of different standards.
Debra Winger…would you be so understanding if this were your child?
Too bad for your child if you said yes.
Posted by: wis134 | September 30, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
Wow, this lawyer guy must have no life if he spends his time obsessing over a dead case like this. He’s trying to play the righteous card by saying “what if it was your daughter” bla, bla, bla but you know he’s just doing it for attention. Don’t get me wrong I’m not defending what Polanski did, it was a horrible thing. However, bringing it up again all these years later is just stupid. The issue was at rest and now he’s opening it up again, causing both sides pain, just so he can get famous as “the guy who tried Roman Polanski again”. A year from now, no one will even remember his name and he’ll have to come up with some other bogus way to get famous. You know that it’s bad when the girl who got raped says she doesn’t want this case to be re-opened.
Posted by: Chris | September 30, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
is it true that Polanski also had a “relationship” with Natassja Kinsky when she was also underage (she was 15)?
So even if consentual (no qualude or champagne involved) with Natassja Kinsky it would also be a statutory rape situation. It also shows an inclination towards the young, which in most States is statutory rape.
If the facts of the case as reported are true I could see a modern prosecutor charging a “regular” rape- not just a statutory crime. Polanski was lucky to get away with his original pplea. If anybody else- or consider if it was a homosexual aspect- and they committed this crime and then fled would Hollywood and the elite be so supportive? Where was the support for Gary Glitter?
Posted by: Ed | September 30, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
It truly saddens me; then sickens me; then angers me to know that children even in this great country of ours, can be so openly violated. If Polansky is released, as Americans we would have to admit to the world that with all of our laws and constitutions and judicial system, the most innocent of Americans remain unprotected. Is justice in this country based on the ‘have & have nots”? To those who are outraged with Polansky’s arrest and are signing petitions to have him released, I ask you, would it be okay if a so called “brilliant director” raped your daughter? I guess your action speaks for itself.
Posted by: Nin | September 30, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Now let’s see..Michael Jackson was accused of this and found innocent but everyone still thinks he was guilty.
Roman Polansky ADMITTED he had sex with a 13 year old and Hollywood thinks he is
innocent. These people are nuts.
Posted by: Jane | September 30, 2009, 11:59 pm 11:59 pm
Dear Deletionmiester,
Let’s see, somehow my post about Mr. Polanski finding some aggressive love in prison is too offensive to let stand here even though we are talking about a man who raped a 13 year old girl!?!?
I don’t get it.
btw; I did an analysis and it’s quite possible that Polanski’s problem is that he suffers from a underdeveloped phallus.
What do you think?
Posted by: Noz | October 1, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am
The collective Hollywood opinion is obviously extreme and only lends credence to the view they’re a bunch of out-of-touch elitists but I’m not hardcore in the other direction either. Right-wingers on the other hand would Bobbitize him if they had their way. The usual sides in these debates are so utterly predictable. I say let’s get some sort of plea deal rocking and put this issue behind us.
Posted by: Z-man | October 1, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
I better “read” can be found on the Huffington Post by Michael Seitzman–’The Good Kind of Rape’. It has actual court documents quoted which gives a much better understanding of this case. It is about rape pure and simple. Doesn’t matter how the victim feels now nor that so much time has passed. These Hollywood types -Whoopi Goldberg should be added to the list as well-should be ashamed.
Posted by: Lara Restland | October 1, 2009, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm
Defend rape of a 13 year old… Whoopie, Woody Allen, Scorsese are true idiots. Is ANYONE surprised?
Posted by: Bart | October 1, 2009, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm
I would hope that my daughter hadn’t started having sexual intercourse at EIGHT, started using drugs and drinking alcohol at 11. While it may seem that I am blaming the victim for Polanski’s abuse of her, I’m not, I’m merely pointing out that the culpability rests not soley on Polanski but on a family and social structure that would ALLOW a child to be abused. Polanski was no doubt the first of her abusers, nor, I am sure, was he the last. And while Polanski did plead guilty based upon a plea bargain that the prosecutor never intended to honour, there are a large amount of extenuating circumstances in this case, the least of which is Polanski’s 32 years of good behavior. Does it REALLY justify the millions of dollars its taking to extradite a 76 year old man back to a country he’s not even a citizen of? I could think of a lot better uses for that money, one of which would be setting up some sort of assistance where kids who are abused get help and taken out of the atmosphere that promotes it!
Posted by: Jim | October 1, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
I wonder if Polanski was homeless, dirty, and unemployed — would those who support him now and want his release still demand him released and say he is such a great guy. The arrogance that some have is amazing. If we would stop going to movies of those that are most vocal — maybe they would appreciate the opportunity they have to act.
Posted by: steve | October 1, 2009, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
Please!!! He admitted to this crime and then fled the country! Bring his ass back and make him serve his time! I know the victim has said she wants to put this all behind her- and possiblly she has due to the time he has been at large- but he admitted to this and we shouldn’t care what he has done with his life since then- oscars or not- he needs to serve his time- Cudos go out to the police who finally caught him!
Posted by: Jane | October 1, 2009, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
I am very much liberal in most of my views, but I do agree in this one instance that Polanski ought to face a new trial and sentencing. This is not just about what he did, but about what our laws mean. Giving Polanski a free pass sends the message that as long you wait it out, you can be forgiven for any crime or specifically rape (has anyone read the transcripts of the trial that were included in Lopez original opinion piece where Geimer described the oral, vaginal, and anal penetration done to her at 13?) and we cannot do that. Now here is where I lean liberally and many disagree, that I think his punishment should be somewhat more lenient, even if his crime was criminal(against state/society) as opposed to civil, given the fact that Geimer has forgiven him and Polanski has done something productive with his life. Still he has to “man up” and turn himself in. In reality this should have happened a long time ago.
Posted by: Danny | October 1, 2009, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
How can ‘anyone’ defend a 44 year old man who has sex with a 13 year old. It’s just that simple. Consensual? Come on – she’s 13!
And Whoppie – she said on the View that “it’s not rape rape – it’s something else”. That’s right it is something else – it’s sex with a 13 year old. And you and your ‘wise’ celebrity friends are defending him. Wake up people!
Posted by: Joe | October 1, 2009, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
I lost all respect for Whoopi- the next day she ‘clarified’ what she meant to say but still defended R.P.
Posted by: Lara Restland | October 1, 2009, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm