I hadn't planned to say anything at all about the Polanski mess. Kate Harding did such a great job at Salon that I figured it was pointless.
But there is some true stupidity floating around out there in the blogosphere, and it annoys the crap out of me.
Quick summary, Roman Polanski raped a child. It wasn't "sex with a minor;" it wasn't even remotely consensual, it was a brutal, unabashed rape. He drugged her, he ignored her protests, and then he engaged in multiple sex acts, including both vaginal and anal intercourse. Sodomy. He was 44; the victim was 13. And then he admitted it all. His attorneys managed to work out a plea bargain, and he pled guilty to the one remaining charge to avoid a trial (had there been a trial, he'd have been wearing prison orange long ago). Then, while awaiting sentencing, he skipped the country. He didn't run to avoid a trial; he ran to avoid jail.
I don't care how long it's been since the crime occurred, or how much the poor man has suffered being forced to live in hellholes like Paris, France, subsisting on meals from 4-star restaurants, I want the state of California to drag his sorry ass back to L.A., hand him an orange jumpsuit, and let him rot. Because the bottom line is Roman Polanski raped a child.
If the victim, now an adult says she does not want him prosecuted, then I agree with her.
ReplyDeleteIn cases of child rape, the victim doesn't get to chose whether the rapist is prosecuted - that's up to the authorities.
ReplyDeleteThere sure seems to be a lot of that going around, what a sick planet.
ReplyDeleteDr., he's already been prosecuted for and pled guilty to raping a child. The "victim" in this case is now the people of California because Polanski evaded sentencing for something he admitted doing. Invoking the wishes of the original rape victim is an irrelevancy -- she no longer has a say in whether or not Polanski is prosecuted for whatever the legal term is for escaping from jail, or the equivalent.
ReplyDeleteYou know, if Polanski was just an ordinary joe from down the street, people would have tried to lynch him at the time. He'd be getting talked about with the same contempt we use when discussing the other perverts on the convicted sex offenders lists. Why does being a celebrity give him a pass from societal condemnation?
I think the outrage has much to do with the system which took over 30 years to seize Polanski when there have been opportunites prior to this time. It is not the charge, but the long delay which has created this disconnect.
ReplyDeleteOr the perception of a long delay. From what I've read, Polanski did a pretty good job of staying one step ahead of extradition. When he'd been to Switzerland before he always managed to skip out before he could be arrested. He got old, he got careless, he got nabbed. He'll look good in orange.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Nan. He should be hauled into jail to serve the time on the original conviction, and then he shoudl be prosecuted for the crime of escape and have to serve that time, too.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there is an awful lot of hyperbole about this crime. Yes, it was awful. But on CNN yesterday, one of the commenters compared his crime to Hitler. Now come on. I don't care how awful the rape was, it was one victim. It doesn't even begin to compare to the brutal and sadistic treatment and eventual murder of millions that Hitler committed.
I agree one thousand percent, Nan, and I will add that after I read the Kate Harding column, I found myself thinking, "This is the single best piece I've ever read in Salon."
ReplyDelete