Anyone else hear about this? I say its about time
Printable View
Anyone else hear about this? I say its about time
I'm glad of it. I don't care if he directed Chinatown - he can't drug and rape a 13-year-old and get away with it. He's spent over 30 years living the high life abroad and it's past time he paid for his crime.
I agree! Anyone else would have already served their time!
The details of that story are pretty complicated. Interestingly, Polanski settled with the aggrieved many years ago. She thinks that the whole thing is a tremendous waste of resources and time and is being done for the benefit of the DA who wants to build a reputation.
In these economic times to spend the millions on this case seems pretty irresponsible. Angelica Huston's testimony (she was there that night) is pretty interesting and the documentary about the case sure suggests that it isn't a simple case of 'flight'.
The victim is now a 45 year old happily married mommy and doing fine. She claims that the only ill will she feels about the incident is that people get so upset 'on her behalf' and that the media whips everyone into a frenzy.
I guess if I were in charge of spending the people's money, I wouldn't have spent it on this. He has not been an habitual offender and hasn't ever had a charge against him since... but, I guess we all have our priorities.
You're not the only one that feels that way, Bender. Your opinion is shared by a number of Polanski's Hollywood pals and authors of op-ed pieces in the LA Times and New York Post. Their arguments can usually be summed up with:
1. What he did was just a one-time thing (presumably).
2. He had good reasons for fleeing the country.
3. He's already endured a great deal of mental anguish, and his career has been hurt as well - hasn't he suffered enough?
4. He's had a hard life.
5. He's very talented.
6. His victim has forgiven him, so what right do we have to prosecute him?
7. It's a waste of the state's money.
8. It's possible the Swiss are extraditing Polanski for the wrong reasons, like kissing up to the US.
9. He was in Switzerland to accept an award. It's unfair to arrest him on his way to get a lifetime achievement award.
10. What he did wasn't really that bad. ("It wasn't rape-rape" - Whoopi Goldberg)
So, considering all of the above extenuating circumstances (some of which are highly suspect in themselves, especially no. 10), why should the US Government extradite and prosecute Roman Polanski? I can only think of one reason...
He broke the law.
For those unfamiliar with the case, here's a summary of what happened:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...roman-polanskiQuote:
Originally Posted by The UK Guardian
Oh, and I meant to ask... do you have a quote for this? I'd heard that the rape victim had forgiven him and wanted to put it behind her, but I hadn't heard that she'd characterized the case as an attempt for a DA to build a reputation. She hasn't recounted, as far as I know, so it would surprise me that she would characterize it that way, considering what she said here:
Grand Jury Testimony Transcript
the la times story I think you'll find her thoughts her are reasonably well covered. She even supported him in his oscar nomination.
I didn't imply nor would I state that she ever recanted. I don't think anyone questions that he had sex with her nor that it is inappropriate and wrong to have sex with a 13 year old.
I wouldn't lump my thoughts about the case in with Polanski's friends. If you read my post, it differs substantively from what was written in the Times by those folks. Talent isn't a defense and I wouldn't 'defend' Polanski anyway. My only comment is that in a world of very limited resources it is foolish and wasteful to pursue this.
There are many people who walk free who are guilty of awful things... we are interested in Polanski because we've been told to be interested in him and because he is part of the Manson story it makes for great copy.
I accept and respect that there are widely differing opinions. I'd like to say that it will be interesting to see what happens.... but, it really won't be very interesting at all...
There are many Henley fans here... his fetish for taking photos of his 'conquests' is pretty widely known... and the case where he had to call the paramedics when an underaged prostitute OD'd at his house certainly made the news but was 'worked out'.... He absolutely had sex with underage women while he himself was in his 30's (that we know of)... would the same standard apply?
The almost amazing thing to me is how easy the story and circumstances become contextualized in a manner that the general public (and their itinerant opinions/fears/morality) are effectively led by the nose to a staunch conclusion about a situation which we rarely know the facts, do not know the people beyond the persona that has been fed to us and yet we are very sure of the 'right' outcome.
While as the father of a daughter, I'd categorically contend that a 13 year old cannot give consent.... nor should any man pursue it.... the facts of the case were not of a child being brutally raped by a scheming pedophile.... as much as it would be easy to see it that way.... and, if a person could only see it that way, well, there just isn't much to discuss.....
If you google Angelica Huston's testimony and read the articles linked above... it may make the case more interesting or more distressing....
The example I think of too frequently in these instances is the case of the McMartin Preschool in the LA area. When that story broke it effectively created tremendous fear that all kinds of strange people were in the world just dying to prey on little children. People were convicted and sent to prison but eventually were released and exonerated....
but their lives were destroyed and no amount of 'whoops' would have fixed it.... and, as it was, the DA involved was successful in furthering their career by implying that they weren't wrong even though there was no doubt as to their malfeasance... the fact was, and continues to be, that when a large enough group of people make a completely wrong judgement.... they will deny reality rather than accept responsibility.
The victim in the polanski case thought that polanski got a raw deal... but we hold to our opinion that right is right and wrong is wrong.... even when we don't actually know much about the case....
I tend toward the 'please treat others as I'd like to be treated' so, I tend toward trying to really understand prior to damning someone.
There are still people who believe Jackson Browne beat up Darryl Hannah when the 'truth' to that episode is hilariously counter to that notion... no matter how many times it has been clarified it will always be brought up as a 'dark moment' for the singer and it casts aspersions on his character when if you read the police reports or listen to those involved... what we read in the paper is not a reflection of actual events...
On this I would totally agree with you, bender. I know from personal experience how wrong the press can get things sometimes, and I absolutely believe that the press can sway public opinion even when they don't have the facts right. Therefore, I am always reluctant to take what I hear from them at face value. The press hypes these kinds of stories because they strike an emotional chord with a public that is eager to see justice done.Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
I think this is one of those events that falls into the category of "there's three sides to every story; there's your, and there's mine, and the cold, hard truth" (thank you for those lyrics, Don). I can only say this, only the victim and Roman Polanski know exactly what went on that night, even though there doesn't seem to be much doubt that Roman Polanski broke the law. Since I only know what I have read in the unreliable press, I am going to reserve judgment. However, from a practical rather than emotional level, it does seem to me that it may be a huge waste of taxpayer money to prosecute a 30+ year old case that even the victim does not wish to pursue. If he is convicted, her opinion will be taken into account when it comes to sentencing. So he would probably get a slap on the wrist.
Hmmm, I still say he should be prosecuted and put away for life.