Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[jimmy olsen]

Why aren't woman's group just freaking out over this "Blame the victim" response to rape?

Heh this is what I've been wondering as well.

He's not a Republican, Priest or other member of the Patriarchy(TM).

EDIT: The (TM) thing doesn't work anymore!

EDIT2: Too be fair I've seen scathing inditments from individual women involved in such groups.

[Martinus]

Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.

Unless you know Polanski personally, I don't see why you'd have a particular inclination to believe him or not believe him.... I would think you'd judge the case on the surface based on what facts are verifiable about it.

Yeah. But then again we are talking about putting him on trial here, not necessarily sentencing him. I mean, while this is obviously a highly emotional case, I don't think there are reasons to assume that he won't get a fair trial in the US.

In fact, I wouldn't be very surprised if he is acquitted. First of all, Samantha Geitner (sp?) said she is not going to testify against him, so the only evidence the prosecution will have is a 30 year old affidavit of a testimony. And on top of that, I really wish good luck to anyone trying to find 12 men and women who have no preconceived opinion about the case in California today.

[Caliga]

...wasn't he already tried for this?  Or do you mean put on trial for skipping bail?

[Martinus]

I guess it means the guy couldn't just resist it. Dunno. People are stupid.

Yeah... the "so" was directed at her, not you.

I think the best part was her using her 20 y.o. son alleged "experience" of not being able to resist advances of all these horny 13 y.o. girls.

I really wish the camera was there at his home to see his face when she was saying that. 

[Martinus]

...wasn't he already tried for this?  Or do you mean put on trial for skipping bail?

Well, I am not sure to be honest - there are so many conflicting accounts. My understanding is that he entered a plea bargain that was then rejected by the judge - but he was never found guilty, formally, by the grand jury. Could any US lawyer who actually knows details of the case explain what really happened?

My understanding is that, unless he enters a new plea bargain, he needs to be found guilty in order to be sentenced for the underage sex thing.

[Martinus]

Or is it true that the judge can effectively ignore the plea bargain when it comes to the proposed sentence, but uphold the conviction based on the guilty plea itself?

If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.

[Valmy]

Culture = assraping teenage girls?

I mean he is going to be all kissing ass towards directors and artists and so forth and perhaps couldn't care less about assraping unless it is a particularly artistic assraping.

[Valmy]

He's not a...member of the Patriarchy(TM).

Well...he is a man...

[Valmy]

Latest argument I heard: "If Americans cared so much for his crimes, why did they give him an Oscar for the "Pianist".

The Academy and law enforcement are the same entities eh?

I know somehow the 'OMG AMERIKKKA ARE HYPOCRITES!' thing would get tossed out there eventually.

[jimmy olsen]

He's not a...member of the Patriarchy(TM).

Well...he is a man...

But it's totally true, if he weren't a part of the cultural elite he wouldn't have these defenders. If he was a politician (especially a right wing politician) or some kind of religious authority these same people would be baying for his scalp.

Matt Gurney on Roman Polanski: A rapist, sure, but not a RAPE-rapist
Posted: September 30, 2009, 10:00 AM by Matt Gurney
Full Comment, Matt Gurney

Full Comment brings you a regular dose of international punditry at its finest. Today, talented journalists -- plus Whoopi Goldberg -- chimed in from around the world on whether or not Roman Polanski is guilty of rape-rape, or merely rape. Apparently, being rich and famous protects you from being arrested for rape, singular. Polanski was pushing it, though, when he committed rape-rape-rape.

Before I get a flood of hate mail accusing me of being flippant with so serious a a subject, let me be clear — I'm as aghast as you are. The absurdity of the argument — yes, he's a rapist, but he's not really a rapist — would be laughable were it not so disgusting. But today, on ABC's The View, Whoopi made that exact argument (Link goes directly to video). Ms. Goldberg, before a global audience of millions of viewers, stated, "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."

Whoopi? I loved you as Guinan, but can you please explain to me the difference between rape, and rape-rape? And would rape-rape-rape be worse than rape-rape? Maybe we'd all be better off if we just stuck with the old-fashioned approach, and kept rape as bad from the get-go?

Fortunately, other pundits around the world seem to have a better grip on reality. Writing in The Guardian, Joan Smith utterly destroys-destroys Whoopi Goldberg. (See what I did there? Destroying-destroying is way worse than merely destroying.) The column is so brilliant I must quote it at length. Smith says:

"...plenty of people are willing to excuse a sex attacker because what he did wasn't 'really' rape. According to this line of thinking, it doesn't count if any of the following circumstances apply: the victim knew her attacker, had been drinking or taking drugs, was wearing nice clothes or agreed to go into a house or flat with him. Thanks to Goldberg, we now need a new vocabulary to deal with such cases; they're not 'rape-rape' so we might decide instead to call them something less pejorative, such as 'rape-lite'."

She continues: "...Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn't want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn't remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn't, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home. Would that be rape? Or would it be 'rape-rape'?"

Bravo, Ms. Smith!

Similar in tone is a piece by Kate Harding at Salon.com. She takes on exactly the same points as Ms. Smith, but with far more anger: "Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile' (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention."

Somehow I get the feeling that Ms. Smith and Ms. Harding won't be appearing on The View anytime soon.

Writing in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Reese, S.J., makes an excellent comparison. In an article titled Father Polanski Would Go to Jail, Reese writes, "Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse. And they would all be correct. And I would join them.

"But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?"

Fr. Reese nails it. Our celebrity worship has finally reached its logical conclusion. For years, celebrities could beat their partners, go on drug-fueled rampages,  drive drunk, and escape serious consequences. We considered that acceptable, so long as they stayed rich, famous, and available for public display. We've watched human beings destroy themselves in real time before our very eyes, and took no action other than driving up network ratings and tabloid sales. In this world of celebrity, everyone now gets one rape for free. Just not rape-rapes.

Michael Cross-Barnet, writing for the Baltimore Sun, would seem to agree, offering these powerful words: "Like a Roman Polanski movie, this is a tale in which there are few good guys. The crime itself was monstrous and can in no way be excused as a byproduct of the tragedies in Polanski's personal life (his mother was killed by the Nazis, and his wife, Sharon Tate, was a victim of the Charles Manson cult)...By all means, enjoy Roman Polanski's movies. But don't for a minute imagine he's some persecuted hero."

National Post
[email protected]

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/30/matt-gurney-on-roman-polanski-a-rapist-sure-but-not-a-rape-rapist.aspx#ixzz0SbG7JBBj

[Darth Wagtaros]

Well, for people who *want* to believe Polanski, it is a matter of consensual sex with a 13 year old. Europeans tend to be less outraged than North Americans over that.

I agree.  Not only do Euros think of 13-year-olds as more mature than Americans do, they probably ARE more mature in some Euro cultures.  That doesn't diminish the extent of the crime, though, since AFAIK only Spain of all the Euro countries has an age of consent as low as 13, and Polanski testified that he knew her age.

There is also the booze and hard drugs he slipped her.

[Martinus]

Latest argument I heard: "If Americans cared so much for his crimes, why did they give him an Oscar for the "Pianist".

The Academy and law enforcement are the same entities eh?

I know somehow the 'OMG AMERIKKKA ARE HYPOCRITES!' thing would get tossed out there eventually.

It's especially funny because if someone suggested that he should NOT be getting an Oscar for his films because he assraped a girl, many of the same people (and myself, as well) would be outraged.

[alfred russel]

Or is it true that the judge can effectively ignore the plea bargain when it comes to the proposed sentence, but uphold the conviction based on the guilty plea itself?

If that is true, that is pretty unfair. I mean, especially in sexual cases people may often enter plea bargain even if they are not guilty, just to spare themselves public shame and humiliation (especially when they are accused of stuff like using a prostitute or public indecency, or soliciting sex in an airport bathroom), even if the case against them is dubious. If the judge can then essentially entrap them like this, this is hardly fair.

I thought that was the case?

My understanding was that plea was worked out with the prosecution, which agreed to drop most of the charges and request a light charge for the one he was convicted of. A guilty plea was entered, and the judge started acting as though he might not go along with the sentence in the plea agreement. There may have been reason to believe that the judge had a lawyer from California lobbying him for a tougher sentence, which could have biased the judge. So Polanski decided to split town.

[Valmy]

But it's totally true, if he weren't a part of the cultural elite he wouldn't have these defenders. If he was a politician (especially a right wing politician) or some kind of religious authority these same people would be baying for his scalp.

So..wait...you are saying people tend to defend people they like and attack people they do not like?

[jimmy olsen]

HuffPo is a hoot right now.

A bunch of people wrote defenses of Polanski there and were befuddled by the appalled response of their audience.

I especially liked the film critic whose deconstruction of Polanski's film proves that Polanski understands, humanizes and values women.

Following that of course, was a backlash by the sane writers who put up their opinion.