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.
It doesn't matter, what he did was wrong and He should have been put away by now. JMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
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.
well, he's 76, so I think you are going to get your wish.
here is something a friend sent me this morning.....
"Let's see. Whitey Bulger has been on the lam for 20 years and has not been found. The FBI doesn't want to catch him because he might embarrass them. He is believed to be involved in over 30 murders as well as racketeering.
Osama Bin Laden has not been captured despite The fact that the US has waged war against 2 countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan (That's right Pakistan). He was involved in many acts of terrorism, including the attacks on WTC, Pentagon, several US embassies, etc. Do we really want him?
The US justice system doesn't like being embarrassed. That's why so many innocent people are behind bars, and the courts have resisted DNA testing that would exonerate many. They stall the process for years to avoid embarrassment. And when it is determined that the prosecutors broke the law in order to get a conviction, there is absolutely no consequences. How long did Hurricane Carter rot in jail before he was released. Why? Because someone wanted to avoid embarrassment.
Anyone recall the Duke Lacrosse team rape charges? This is one unique case where the prosecutor actually paid a price for his crimes. He's been disbarred and is facing civil suits. This should happen in more cases, but it doesn't.
Think about how many "diplomats" get away with murder and other crimes because of "diplomatic immunity". Regardless what they do, we cannot touch them. Why, because of "national interests" ie: oil and other resources.
China is assigned "most favored nation" status despite their human rights abuses that are legandary. They kill people and sell their organs, but they are our most favored nation. Why, $$$
I'll sleep much better tonight knowing that Roman Polanski is behind bars.
Prosecutors don't even respect the victim in this case that wants this matter dropped. Nope, it's all about us being embarrassed."
Seriously! This is an event that happened over 30 years ago when both of them were in a drug-induced state. My guess is that even their recollection is a bit fuzzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dianemaddox
I was also thinking about what would be the purpose of spending megabucks to prosecute Polanski at this point? Presumably, it would be to get justice for society and for the victim of his crime. I really doubt that he is a menace to society and the victim has stated that she doesn't want to pursue getting justice. I think her wishes should be honored. Is it justice to drag her though reliving all this crap again, when she says that all she wants to do is put it all behind her, and focus on her future?
I'm trying to understand both sides, but the traditionalist in me says he commited a crime and needs to face the consequences.
I know PM – that is my first instinct as well. But then I think – you know, I really care more about the victim's rights here than I do Polanski's. I truly believe that he will have his Judgment Day. But, when a crime is of such a personal nature, then true justice for the victim is to honor their wishes, IMHO. She does not want to have to relive this ordeal, and I think that’s what may be best in this case. This is more a crime against her than society. When someone perpetrates a crime against society or the victim can’t speak for themselves, then that is a different matter.
I assume you are taking his age into consideration when you say this, because normally pedophilia is a crime against society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ive always been a dreamer
I realize that every crime is technically a crime against society, and that the victim doesn't always have a voice in whether the accused is prosecuted or not. However, whenever the crime is of a personal nature, it is often left up to the victim as to whether or not to press charges. And also, if the accused is prosecuted and convicted, the victim does usually have a voice in the sentencing.
PM, yes, I am taking into consideration Polanski's age and the age of the crime, as well as, all the other factor's that have been raised in this thread. But most of all, as I stated, I am taking into consideration what is best for the victim here. If she were to say I want him prosecuted, then I would be 100% in favor of it. Trust me, I am not defending Roman Polanski here or trying to give him a pass. I am just trying to objectively weigh all the extenuating circumstances surrounding this case, including all of the media frenzy and the costs involved, and try to figure out what is in the best interest of the victim and society here.
The reason I mentioned his age is that normally someone like Polanski is a repeat offender, so no matter what the victim's wishes are they are overshadowed by the necessity to remove him from the possibility of doing it to someone else. In Polanski's case, his age probably prevents this from happening.
I still believe people should have to pay for their crimes not only at Judgement Day, but here and now.
I feel strongly about this - and it's not because I've been misled by the media, or I've swallowed spin, or I've been "led by the nose." I didn't take what I heard at face value. In fact, I refused to make a judgment until I'd read the unvarnished grand jury testimony myself.
I read it. I read the facts of the case, as they were reported by the court, not the media. I read it and I was appalled.
Of course, you could argue that the girl was being dishonest or "exaggerating." Certainly sometimes people get falsely accused. If that were the case, Polanski would have done well to defend himself rather than accept a plea bargain, then flee the country when it appeared the plea bargain would be rescinded and he would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I read the piece Geimer wrote where she said that she thought what he did shouldn't affect whether or not he gets an award. Here's the original op/ed article that the LA Times quoted. I'll just post a different quote here from the same article - it's not the same bit the recent LA Times op/ed used... for obvious reasons.
So, you see, depending on what part of the article you quote, it makes a big difference as to how it comes across, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Samantha Geimer
I keep hearing about how this is a waste of resources, but do we actually have a figure of how much it is costing? Or do we just assume it must be costing a vaguely stated "millions of dollars" because we were told that by biased media sources like the LA Times?
When it comes to criminal behavior, I do believe the same standard should indeed apply. In the case of Henley, he didn't flee the country. It was "worked out" because he accepted the judgment of the courts. If Polanski had done the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I respect that not everyone feels the same way I do, but I came to my opinion based on one thing: the way the victim said that it went down. If other people want to take into account other various factors, that's understandable. For me, a man raped a child and should be punished. Yes, I do believe that right is right and wrong is wrong. I would make the same judgment if the rapist were Mr. Glenn Frey.
And as long as we're bringing in other cases as examples... there was a case on America's Most Wanted where a man was found two decades after he committed his crime. He killed his wife, mother, and three children in 1971. As far as anyone knows, he never committed another crime. He settled down, married again, got a job as an accountant, and minded his own business. Still, he was pursued and eventually caught and prosecuted almost 20 years later. No one said "It's been a long time" - "it was a one-time thing" - "he's an old man now." They said that he needed to pay.
Now, Polanski isn't a murderer. However, if one is going to compare the pursuit of his case to the hunt for Osama bin Laden and liken it to some alleged government cover-up, one has pretty much opened the door for my comparison.
I respect everyone's opinion here - we're all intelligent, reasonable people. One group isn't more savvy than the other, and one group isn't more moral than the other. We just have different perspectives - and I, for one, enjoy the debate.
And so do I in a perfect world. But, unfortunately, we ain’t there yet. :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by PrettyMaid
However, after I wrote this I realized in a perfect world, there would be no crime. :confused:
I agree with Soda that this is an interesting debate, and I also respect everyone’s opinion about this. As a matter of fact, I am really on the fence about it. I noticed in Soda’s earlier post, she listed all of the arguments being given for why Roman Polanski should be freed. Honestly, I couldn’t care less about any of the arguments his supporters are using to defend him. To me this isn’t about Roman Polanski, it’s about his victim. She is the one that we should be considering here. Despite this horrible incident in her past, she filed a motion with the court earlier this year asking that this case be dismissed. This is basically what it boils down for me.
Did Roman Polanski owe a debt to society for his crime in 1977? Of course, he did. And he did actually serve a small amount of time in jail before leaving the U.S. But more importantly, I believe he owed a significantly larger debt to his victim. The personal nature of his crime had much more impact on his victim than it did on our society. Therefore, I believe that her voice should be much more important than mine or any other member of society in determining his fate. So if she says, leave him alone because I just want to put this horrible incident behind me, then that is good enough for me. I maintain that my voice, society’s voice, or Roman Polanski’s voice really aren’t the most important thing to consider here, so let the victim’s wishes be done, I say! I think the rest of us should try to ‘get over it’ like she apparently is attempting to do.
Still, 30, 40 years whatever, It doesn't excuse his behavior or his crime.
Soda,
You're perspective is probably correct. I was driving today and thinking about this and I realized that my perspective is clouded by my background. As a person who grew up in So Cal and was around that scene as a very young person (my sisters worked in LA studios and I was around all the time) I saw lots of things that tend to jade ones perspective on what folks are about.
I saw lots of girls and women who were complicit in a lot of things that they would twist and spin in ways that made you realize how 'created' everything can be. I knew people who used to do whatever they thought they had to to be 'close' to stars and I knew of people who tried to use their experience to further themselves.....
As a parent of a teenage girl, the odds that I would allow my daughter to be alone in any capacity with a film director is less than nil (if that is possible)... I don't have any friends who would have allowed the situation the young girl was in to even occur... so, that part of the account has always caused me to question whether or not a setup was taking place.
I'd grant that no matter what, Polanski was wrong and should have been punished for his crime. However, any of us, if we had agreed upon a deal with the court and then discovered that despite the fact that we'd followed our part of the deal.... the judge (arguably front and center in the justice system) was reneging on his part of the deal... I might think I was getting a raw deal and I might run.
The powerful irony of injustice by the very person who personifies justice might be powerful enough to make a person doubt the whole system to the degree that they would forego 'playing along' and take off....
Asking for accounting from a public entity is asking to be lied to.... kind of like a wife asking if a pair of pants make her ass look fat...
I'm by no means a Polanski 'fan' but if it wasn't a setup and if her parents innocently let their daughter go hang out with a 40 year old hollywood director never suspecting that his 'taking pictures of her' might lead elsewhere.... well, they weren't from my neighborhood....
Of course, I remember asking my dad if I could join the boy scouts (back in the sixties) and he laughed and said, 'hell no, if I want you molested, I'll do it myself." (my dad could have a pretty coarse sense of humor... but he could see what the future held.... he also visited our priest when there was interest in my brother becoming an altar boy.... interestingly, the priest decided that my brother wasn't a very good candidate.)
So, I'll demur and defer on this one..... I tend to think that if you tempt the devil, he'll usually pay you a visit.
Here is an article by one of the folks who was working for the prosecution and shown categorically to be a liar... My niece is an attorney and she has a mantra "better to let 10 guilty people go than incarcerate 1 innocent person."
I don't think Polanski was innocent, but I think the actual circumstances suggest that he was a fool.