I’m so fucking glad.

The people who use the victim’s statements as a flag to wave in Polanski’s defense are exactly the reason why she wants it all to go away. Their kind are the ones who made her life so unbearable that she now feels the way she does. It’s their fucking doing, and they’re too obtuse or too malicious to admit it, and they’re so morally bankrupt they’re not ashamed to capitalize on it.

She doesn’t have to make her life a Polanski Crusade for justice to be done. Her life isn’t about him. But the rest of his life should be about paying for what he did to her.

Polanski’s arrest shows that we are not a society that tolerates the sexual exploitation of children by adults. We are all interconnected here—an injury to one is an injury to all as union members used to say.

The concern remains: will reopening the case hurt the victim? Perhaps her testimony won’t even be necessary.

It shouldn’t be.  Polanski fled the sentencing.  He was initially going to do time served—-42 days—-but his arrogance and sense of entitlement made the judge rethink that.  It’s most likely a sentencing issue.  Polanski already pled guilty.

The other thing is, so this victim wants the matter to just go away. That is her sincere desire.  But some victims want their rapists to be put to death, and other victims want their rapists punished until they understand what they’ve done. They want it every bit as badly. Do the victims’ wishes control, or don’t they? What if Polanski’s victim changes her mind, and decides some vicious beatings are in order, are the same people going to keep pretending they’re on her side, and it should be up to her?

Either we treat all rapists as their victims suggest, or we admit that juries and judges and laws actually have a legitimate function. But we don’t pick and choose eagerly validate the pleas for clemency and ignore the please for vengeance. I mean, not unless we’re hateful rape apologists we don’t.

I agree with the early 2009 court ruling that says that if he wants the charges dismissed, he has to show up. I also agree that the victim’s statements are semi-instructive but shouldn’t be dispositive in how the dismissal hearing goes.

However, I strongly disagree that ratifying previous judicial misconduct (i.e. making decisions based on ex parte communications with a prosecutor not even involved in the case, which was objected to by the prosecutor and probation officer who were actually working the case) is going to be a triumph for civil rights or a flashpoint for taking child rape seriously.

Further, even if Polanski acted “entitled and arrogant” after 45 days in a maximum security prison for a psychological evaluation (assuming this happened), I’m not comfortable with that as a subjective excuse for judicial misconduct.

I think that there is another important lesson here, one that cannot be stressed enough.

Prosecuting criminals is not about proxy retribution on behalf of the victim.  It is about administering justice and creating a safe society.  A society where the rights of the accused are considered to be important, but where the state has a role to play in protecting everybody from harmful criminal behavior by exerting control over those who have demonstrated an inability to live by the laws of society.

Were this about a pot bust, I think the “protecting society” bit would require a hell of a lot of explaining, and he likely would not be extradited.  This particular case sends an important message: it doesn’t matter if your victim forgives you ... if you are a threat to society, border hopping, fame, fortune, status, and time will not protect you from justice.

“He was initially going to do time served—-42 days—-but his arrogance and sense of entitlement made the judge rethink that.  “

It’s being argued that this was the plea agreement and then the judge reneged on the agreement because of political considerations.  I don’t know enough about the details of this case to know.  But that’s what they’re all claiming on the huffpo.

The man pled guilty and then fled.  That’s why he is in extreme trouble.  All the what ifs don’t change that ... they don’t matter.  He left.

Why do people persist in saying that the judge violated the agreement? Polanski confessed, signed the deal and then fled. He violated the deal, and he needs to be punished for that as well. Fleeing to avoid is a crime. He’s also shown no remorse whatsoever.

Huffpo regularly runs features about hotties and shit like that, so it’s not like it’s a bastion of feminism or anything.

fry him! normally, i’m opposed to capital punishment. i make an exception for pedophiles. while i realize this puts me on the wrong side of hypocricy, i can live with that.

Well, if norbizness and others are right about the judicial misconduct, then I think it does matter.  However, I feel that the scandal should be that he was permitted to plead down to statutory rape with a 42 day time served agreement, from those charges.  Drugging, raping and sodomizing a person?  I really don’t give a shit how old she was.  I’m 40 and if someone did that to me, that’s rape, and I want them in prison for a very long time.

Huffpo has some of the most sexist commentors around, and I was definitely not claiming that it was a bastion of feminism.  Huffpo is a great example of how ingrained sexism is.  The male “I smell a racist! looks around for pats on the ass from the other white liberal males, and then makes viciously sexist comments is well-represented at the huffpo.  He’s King in fact. 

I was just kind of curious for more details on that point.  And I don’t like judicial or prosecutorial misconduct or abuse for any reason.

Prosecuting criminals is not about proxy retribution on behalf of the victim.  It is about administering justice and creating a safe society.  A society where the rights of the accused are considered to be important, but where the state has a role to play in protecting everybody from harmful criminal behavior by exerting control over those who have demonstrated an inability to live by the laws of society.

This.

People have a tendency to feel sorry for Polanski because he’s had a shitty life in so many ways. But their empathy is misplaced. This guy needs to learn that he can’t just ignore the law.

What I want to know is, why wouldn’t the French extradict him? Isn’t drugging and raping children a crime over there too?

Every story I’ve read dwells on the man bites dog element they think is there: The victim has said she wants to put this to bed.  This is not as surprising as people would seem to think, nor is it a reason to let Polanski go.  [...]  But these kinds of crimes aren’t just about the current victim, but the larger problem.  Polanski committed his crime before rape and the sexual abuse of children were really considered serious crimes.  Punishing him can help as a collective retribution of our society’s former values, and a way to assert new ones.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying, but I think I disagree with you.  Justice isn’t about retribution.

Polanski should be prosecuted despite the victim’s comments because certain crimes (rape, assault, murder) are no longer a matter of private law.  Polanski’s sin violated a woman (girl); Polanski’s crime violated the social order. Her wishes cannot override the basic principle that the law in our societies must uphold the individual’s sovereignty over their own selves.  This isn’t an economic crime or an administrative crime; it’s an abusive crime.

The alternative is private law, which can see violaters pressuring or paying off their victims.  If you’re rich, you can escape and if you’re poor you get prosecuted (*).  The direct translation of “private law” is, of course, “privilege”.

I think the penalties associated with the crime reflect your point. I don’t think his prosecution itself is about asserting a new moral order which stigmitises rape and sexual abuse of children.  I think it’s about asserting one law for all with no-one above it.  Even if it were considered a minor crime, with the penalty being only a couple of years, he should still be hounded - he didn’t steal or drive dangerously; he abused another person’s right to her own self.

Damn, I wish I was more coherent about my point.  I need more sleep. Kate’s comemnt says it better.

norbiz: Fair enough, but I don’t imagine most of the public will realize that the real battle was less over what he did and how he acted about it.  What they will see is that the government takes child rape seriously. 

There will never be a real serious reckoning for this crime.  A tweep reminded me that Jack Nicholson was involved in this whole thing, and he was never held responsible.  (Polanski raped her in Nicholson’s home, and I do believe with his knowledge.)  They simply didn’t see rape as a big deal then, and I think the public will perceive this as a corrective, even if it technically isn’t.

The part Nicholson played also puts lie to the idea that Polanski was an outlier who was acting out after his wife’s murder, in my opinion.  Most of us can understand acting out in grief.  But few of us would assist in the rape of a junior high student, no matter what else is going on with a friend.

You don’t disagree with me, Piator.  I was saying that the victim’s feelings, while important on a human level, shouldn’t influence the sentencing.  I was just trying to say it in a way that wasn’t dismissive of her, so sorry if that was confusing.

Wow, I can’t believe that I’m not at all surprised over what you just wrote about Jack Nicholson.  What a sleazebag.

Amanda, do you know of any book or documentary about this, that you think really tells what happened?  I am really curious about this case now.

Yeah, the Smoking Gun has the victim’s testimony.   Rereading this, I’m seeing that Nicholson probably didn’t even know that Polanski had brought this girl over, but he’s shrugged off the fact that a friend brought a 13-year-old to his house to rape her.  Which is unfuckingbelievable to me.

Yeah, the girl didn’t see Jack Nicholson during the ordeal, but there was a woman hanging out who was aware, at least, of the naked pictures and was indifferent.

Nicholson is even more of a public menace than Polanski.  From nndb.com:

In 1997, Nicholson was sued by prostitute Christine Sheehan, who alleged that Nicholson had refused to pay for services rendered and had instead assaulted her, and repeatedly smashed her head onto the floor of his Hollywood home. The lawsuit was settled with a substantial payment from Nicholson, but Sheehan later alleged that her injuries were worse than she had originally believed. At last report she was seeking an additional $500,000 from Nicholson.

Nicholson did not admit responsibility, but celebrities don’t roll over when they feel they’re being extorted.  It pisses me off that Wikipedia omits this bit of biography from its very long entry on Nicholson.

As for Polanski, I agree with Amanda that this extradition marks the end of an era.  I’m not quite old enough to remember the rape when it happened, but I remember the decades of excuse-mongering.  The French are just sooo sophisticated, ooh la la, in condoning the behavior of this genius auteur.

Forty five days time served is an awfully light sentence for statutory rape.  Maybe the judge thought this was too lenient or was suspicious that there was something shady about the plea bargain with the prosecutor and parole officer involved.  If there was judicial misconduct the defense can raise that issue after Polanski is extradited.

Has the United States actually applied for extradition though?  I was under the impression that the Swiss government was still waiting.

Dunno why the link failed; it worked in preview.  John Travolta went to the Bahamian cops rather than pay a $25 million demand.

Ultimately, I think this is a good thing because it reiterates that we’re a nation governed by law, and it doesn’t matter if you did the crime decades ago, or during the last administration.

If Polanski can persuade the judge that he shouldn’t go to jail, so be it. But I think the country needs to start talking about this tendency to let the wealthy and powerful break the law without consequence.

It’s good that Polanski will finally be facing his punishment, especially after thumbing his nose at (world) society for all these years.

Now, if we are genuine about protecting American Society, and want to demonstrate that laws apply to all, even the powerful and well connected, we will launch a serious effort to investigate and prosecute the crimes of the Cheney/Bush Administration.  And we need to throughly investigate the Wall Street <strike>financial firms</strike> casinos…

If Polanski can persuade the judge that he shouldn’t go to jail, so be it. But I think the country needs to start talking about this tendency to let the wealthy and powerful break the law without consequence.

Yep.  At this point, it’s almost not even about the rape.  It’s about the fact that he fled justice and thumbed his nose at the law for decades.  I don’t see him as any different than Alex Kelly or Ira Einhorn, both of whom had supporters help them flee the country to try and escape justice.

If you want to use the victim to defend the criminal, do it at sentencing.  Grr.

I don’t think the judge reneged on the deal so much as responded when Polanski dropped the fake remorse bullshit after the judge allowed him to go to Europe to make a movie. Where are people getting this bullshit? Polanski admitted the crime and if he can’t even bother to abide by the sentence that he agreed to, exactly why is that unfair?

  And Angelica Huston was the indifferent woman in the house. She said the girl was sullen and could have been 25 years old. I’ve seen pictures of her. Huston’s a lying rapist apologist and, well…Nicholson. Yeah. He’s an asshole.

  And you know, it IS about justice. This is bullshit about letting rich guys off or claiming it’s about being disrespectful to the law. The David here is the victim and the justice system, not the rich guy who was denied re-entry into the US. Polanski is from France, not Poland. He was born there.

Kelly and Einhorn both played the privilege card for ages, and thus evaded their sentences. They would have been out by now if they had stayed and faced it, but they ran. What about ‘serving their sentences’ is so hard to grasp? These are all rich or well-respected guys. If you want to talk about judicial pique, why not pick a demographic less able to hire rich, scumbag defense lawyers? Kelly had a notorious victim-blamer for one of his trials, I believe, and Einhorn’s was Arlen Specter, Anita Hill’s tormentor.  A judge getting angry at any one of these rich white powerful scumbags is entirely appropriate——and given that judges usually are white, male, powerful, and not exactly feminist themselves, this ought to tell you something.

Forty five days time served is an awfully light sentence for statutory rape.

Different times.  He was only convicted of sex with a minor, even though it wasn’t sex, it was rape.  It wasn’t just statutory rape—-he drugged her, fucked her against her protests, scared her into submission and proceeded to anally rape her even though she was crying.

If the victim’s testimony is no longer necessary, because Polanski’s conviction is good, then sentencing can proceed independent of her. Not that her feelings don’t matter, but as many commenters have noted, his crime was against society as well as against her.

I feel terrible for the victim regardless of what happens after this. If Polanski goes to prison, there’s going to be some seriously disgusting things spat at her. Of course, she’s probably heard them all before. But still.

Which is to say by “different times” that our culture has dramatically changed.  I don’t think a lot of people were really cognizant back then that most rape is men who know their victims, or that a lot of what they considered “bad sex” was actually rape.  Men coercing women into sex was considered just life.  In a sense, “Lolita” was an even more radical book then than it seems now, because Nabovok takes a rather strong stance that what’s going on is violence against Dolores, a message that’s obvious to people who actually bother to read what’s on the page.  But the prejudice against understanding rape was so strong in the mid-century that most of the public didn’t get that at all, and sadly, the word “Lolita” has become slang for a girl who willingly tempts and seduces older men.  People just weren’t in a place to get it then.  They are now.

Amanda: You probably know this, but there’s an interview with Nabokov from, I think, the sixties, where the interviewer says something about the current craze for “nymphets” in pop culture and Nabokov just shuts. him. down. He says (I wish I could quote directly) a eighteen year old in a provocative outfit isn’t a nymphet, Humbert was raping a prepubescent child, STFU. In, uh, slightly different words (but only slightly.)

They are now. Boy, are you optomistic. People could look this shit up really easy but they don’t. For example, the stuff about Polanski being in exile. He’s living in his home country! Also, he supposedly was assessed as being no danger to re-offend, but he’s got a long history of grooming young girls and preying on them. Who knows what he’s gotten away with since then? Ah, those Puritanical Americans!

For all the tut-tutting about Americans being puritans, France appears to have its (cultural, collective) head wedged firmly up its ass on issues like sexual harassment and rape. Mary Kay Letourneau was lauded as half of a tragic love story that those priggish Americans just couldn’t fathom, for having sex with her 12-year-old student.

Well, we’re not going to get 100% of people, ginmar.  But it’s also not realistic to say that attitudes about rape haven’t changed dramatically.  Even fucking Tucker Max demonstrates that he’s cognizant of the issues, even as he rejects reality. 

Feminism has had a shocking victory in shifting the public understanding of sexual assault dramatically.  Not enough!  But more than I think feminists at the time could have ever imagined, and we have an 85% drop in the rape rate since the 70s.  That’s a victory.  There’s a reason that the writers on “Mad Men” were able to get a gasp when the men are joking about how they’ll have to use a little force like it’s prom night.  That’s a straight-up cultural shift right there.  People still make those jokes, but in a weak attempt to be “edgy”.  Back then, it was just how it was.  I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest most women expected to be forced at some point in their lives, and that they weren’t even entitled to hold it against a man if he used some coercion to get her in bed, especially if she’d consented before.  Now, I think we can safely say that while rape is still common, it’s not expected, and you’re not expected to take it in stride. 

A gauge of how far we’ve come, and how far we have to go: The public reaction to the rape on “Mad Men”.  People did get embroiled in an unfortunate debate over whether or not it was rape.  (It obviously was, even if Joan was living in an era that would never admit that.)  But the debate happened, and it wouldn’t have been a question in the early 60s at all.  And even the people afraid to use the word “rape” think the smart reaction is to leave immediately, that the guy is definitely an asshole.  But I don’t think that was so cut and dry in the early 60s, and Joan’s reaction strikes me as typical, from what I understand.

I was under the impression that the Swiss government arranged this beforehand with California.

I’m not so quick to use Polanski’s miserable life as a reason for the rape.  Other people were in the house and cognizant of what was going on, and they were NOT Holocaust survivors with serious issues, but spoiled Hollywood stars who probably never really suffered in their lives.  What’s their excuse? 

Okay, I realize you’re not excusing it, Monkey, but I think it’s too pat to add Holocaust to murder and get rape.  I think the more uncomfortable reality is that Polanski literally lived in a culture that took sexual abuse of minors as seriously as speeding, and he acted accordingly.

Those are two tragedies, either one of which, by themselves would have been enough to drive an ordinary person insane.

Do you think that the majority of holocaust survivors are insane, or merely abnormal? I’m ever so curious.

Horrific trauma changes you. It doesn’t change you into a rapist. You have to be damn sight more than out of the ‘ordinary’ for that to be the result. And there is no evidence, none at all, that Polanski’s traumatic past had an influence on his decision to rape. If you claimed he raped because it was the 70s, even that would be a more respectable argument than what you’re putting out. Your suggestion that he raped a girl to cope with his victim status is based on nothing. 

Look into post-holocaust trauma, look into what happens to men whose wives are murdered. Horrible lingering after-effects are common. Raping people isn’t one of them.

Those are two tragedies, either one of which, by themselves would have been enough to drive an ordinary person insane.

Spare me. Rather a lot of Holocaust survivors managed to get through their lives without anally raping children. Most, probably just about all, people who have suffered terrible personal tragedies deal with their pain without using it as an excuse to beat and sexually attack junior-high age girls.

What Polanski did is well beyond, say, a verbal outburst at a chichi Hollywood party, or a DUI, or having an affair that hurt a deserving spouse. He got a slap on the wrist and he ran out of the country because he simply didn’t want any kind of punishment for something he thought was perfectly within his rights.

I’d like to know the circumstances of his plea bargain.  What kind of prosecutor agrees to a forty five day sentence for sex with a minor, especially considering the details of the crime that Amanda provides? It seems to me that something underhanded had to take place for a plea bargain like that to be accepted. 

The troubles Polanski had in life don’t excuse his actions any more than his art does.  He is a rapist and a child molester.  Nothing excuses that.

It’s kind of funny he tried to exorcise this horrible and uncontrollable trauma in a private setting with a victim he thought he could intimidate and with acts that resulted in his own orgasm. Huh.  How convenient! Wait…wasn’t his trauma OMG supposed to be so horrible?

Oh, and he genuinely loved Sharon Tate? Really? Then how come he was such a shitty husband to her?

Amanda, I can’t get that optomistic. The comments that people are making about this are pretty unhinged. People might be inclined to guard their words, but in some ways I think the culture has taken lots of steps backward since, say, the Seventies. I actually remember this case happening in real time. Some things I’m seeing now are things that were being shouted down then but they came back.

I’m very curious at the Swiss: first they release the names and account information on Americans who are banking in their secretive system and now they arrest Roman Polanski.  What do we know and when did we know it?  That’s not really the subject here, but that’s the thing I find amazing.

As for him: I think justice and ideals have gone out the window, left the barn, that’s bell’s been rung, et cetera, and so forth.  I also think that if he had served his time, justice wouldn’t have been served either.  The legacy of Roman Polanski is likely to remain a bunch of tasteless jokes.

And he went on to have a sexual relationship with a teenaged Natassja Kinski after fleeing to France.  That’s really not the sign of someone who has any recognition that what he did might have been problematic. 

I’ve heard a lot of pretty dismissive comments about his actions but a lot of them have argued “things were different then.”  I find it hard to believe that someone could do the same thing now and continue on with a successful career.  Then again he did get standing ovation at the Oscars so maybe I’m overly optimistic.

Roman Polanski is a very, very screwed up man who did a very, very bad thing.  He’s being returned for punishment at last, and that’s good.

But what he did, as terrible as it is, is in no way comparable to what Ira Einhorn did.  His victim is alive, has a family, and evidently has a good life.  Holly Maddux, the woman Ira Einhorn beat to death because she had the temerity to break up with him, is dead.  She never had a child (Einhorn got her pregnant and all but forced her to have an abortion), she never found a partner who treated her decently, and she never had a chance to explore life away from a serial abuser and world-class prick who regarded sex the same way he regarded a good meal.  The two situations are nothing alike, and to say that Einhorn would be out by now if he hadn’t fled to France is absurd.

But what he did, as terrible as it is, is in no way comparable to what Ira Einhorn did.

The crimes are not the same, but Einhorn had similar support to what Polanski had, on a smaller scale.  He also was able to convince people that no crime had been committed, and he had people shelter and protect him for years.  Einhorn had French politicians defending his innocence and arguing against his extradition.  If the charge hadn’t been as serious as murder, they might have succeeded in blocking his return to the US.

The argument is not that the crimes are comparable.  The argument is that the treatment they received is comparable.

The problem is that delayed justice is only kinda justice.

Wow, I can’t believe that I’m not at all surprised over what you just wrote about Jack Nicholson.  What a sleazebag.

One of the great byproducts of this situation is that Nicholson’s name will probably crop up again vis a vis this crime, in the media and blog-abouts and watercoolering, so all the people who never heard of his involvement will have that flagged for them.  The law can’t touch him but the court of public opinion can, however constitutional that is or not. 

As an inveterate film buff, I am probably one of the most fervent admirers of Polanski’s early work walking this ball today, but being able to hold a complex thought in my head (as we love to say around these parts) means my enjoyment of his films can co-exist peaceably with my disgust for his crime, my empathy for his victim and my equal empathy for the outrageous horrors Polanski himself has experienced in life.  His extradition this week isn’t one of them.

CBC is reporting Polanski’s suits are trying to get Sarkozy to intervene on P’s behalf.  So the thought plickens and the bloggers and commentators won’t run out of things to masticate over any time soon.  It’ll be an interesting week for feminists-who-love-Polanski’s-films.

I find Kieran Healy’s post over at Crooked Timber comparing this case to that of Irish priests who raped their young charges interesting—there as here a chorus of apologists simply want to bury the matter and let the evil of now-old men remain unpunished (or, worse, claim that punishment has somehow already been administered).

Er…Nastassja Kinski wasn’t just teenaged when he took up with her. She was underaged, fourteen or fifteen. He evidently has a habit of grooming girls for this kind of them, then dumping them when they age out. Sharon Tate was kind of old for him. His present wife he started ‘seeing’ when she, too, was underaged.

But what he did, as terrible as it is, is in no way comparable to what Ira Einhorn did.  His victim is alive, has a family, and evidently has a good life.

Murder is worse than rape, yes, and not directly comparable. But beyond that, it sounds like you are almost suggesting since this woman got over it, it wasn’t so bad as it might have been, or that if the victim was currently an addict or a fuckup it would mean the crime against her had been worse. It is not fair to use the victim’s inner strength against her, as though her recovery and survival mitigates the offense.

Because Roman Polanski didn’t plan it that way. What he did to her was bad enough it could have ruined her life, no thanks to him that it didn’t. He didn’t take her in for a psych eval before he raped her, to make sure he was hurting a strong and stable child. He didn’t somehow rape her in a special, considerate fashion that allowed her to escape self-hatred or depression or suicide. Every bit of the credit for her successful life goes to her, and none of it to him for somehow failing to hurt her extra. A different victim might not be where she is now. The same victim, a year or two younger or with a different family background, might not be where she is now. That’s part of what’s so despicable about Polanski’s crime; he had no idea how it would turn out, no idea how it would affect her in the long run. Nobody ever does.

I am so just pleased by this. It’s a ray of light in a time when celebrities seem immune to almost everything no matter what the accusation.

As far as the woman’s recovery…. One of the lingering violations of sexual assault is the tremendous nfluence it can have on shaping many parts of your life - your ability to trust, your sexual responses, your views on gender roles, your sleep patterns, all kinds of stuff. No one really knows how multifaceted the long-reaching effects are except the victim and even the victim will never know who she or he would have been if the assault hadn’t happened. It’s great if someone goes on to live an apparently strong and successful life, but chances are that life has been shaped by the assault in multiple ways, and even that can feel like an ongoing intrusion - that your rapist has had a part in shaping your personality and choices.

Just saying that because so many people seem to divide assault victims into two cliches, the damaged for life wreck and the spunky heroine who overcame it. It’s a little more complicated than that and only the woman in this case knows the ins and outs of her experience.

If the victim’s testimony is no longer necessary, because Polanski’s conviction is good, then sentencing can proceed independent of her.

Well, no.  Sentencing is certainly a point where the victim’s testimony should have weight.  Consider the opposite situation - wouldn’t you want a predator given a particularly hard punishment if he greatly traumatised the victim?

Polanski’s excuse was that the girl was “experienced”.  By definition, an “experienced” 13-year-old is a rape victim. How come Polanski’s past traumas are trotted out as mitigating factors but his victim’s past makes her fair game for anything? Yeah, that’s a rhetorical question.

*I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest most women expected to be forced at some point in their lives, and that they weren’t even entitled to hold it against a man if he used some coercion to get her in bed, especially if she’d consented before.  Now, I think we can safely say that while rape is still common, it’s not expected, and you’re not expected to take it in stride.*

I can’t speak for everyone in my generation, but in many ways,  it often *felt* like a safer time then , because you didn’t think about it, didn’t expect it, and if it never happened to you, you could be unaware. It was like a *disappeared* subject, just not there. No one I knew discussed what happened to them, so I was not aware at the time of much of the sexual violence going on around me, and I was ‘lucky.’ I certainly never expected any coercion, and would have violently rejected anyone who tried it, successfully or not. I liked myself, liked sex, and was able to find pretty mutual, respectful guys, too.

Because of feminist insistence on calling rape what it is, and talking about it directly and honestly, it seems to me that there is much more awareness of rape now, as well as much more about it in the news, despite the lower rate of rape itself. It actually *feels* more fearful now in some ways. But then, that, too is really more honest. This may be part of the beef the “anti-feminists” have; no one can pretend certain ugly truths don’t exist, and it pisses them off. Thus their wish to go back to the “good old days” that weren’t so damned good.

I remember the Polanski trial and shocking escape, then his taking up with Kinski. His continuing arrogance, I think, is also apparent in his willingness to leave France, in the belief that he would never be held accountable.

I was shocked to hear his arrest reported on NPR as an outrage. Yeah, I know NPR sucks, but it was completely a pro pedophile-rapist report. Unbelievable. Lots of stuff like a Swiss woman saying how ashamed she is of her country that they arrested this wonderful guy. And an Australian man talking about what a great filmmaker Polanski is, and how outrageous his arrest is. Etc. WTF?!?

The number of years that have passed have no bearing. What he did has not changed.  So many people who go through tragedy develop empathy and become more caring and kind; Polanski painfully sodomized a child, then fled the country.  Nothing in his background excuses that behavior.

Very glad to find some sanity here!

First - what I was initially responding to was Ginmar’s comment that “Einhorn…would have been out by now if [he] had stayed” and stood trial in the early 1980s.  That’s almost certainly not correct; Einhorn was charged with first-degree murder.  Even if he’d stayed and tried to win an acquittal, the evidence against him was so strong, and his defense so ridiculous, that he almost certainly would have gotten exactly the same sentence he’s serving now:  life in prison without possibility of parole.  That’s a far cry from Alex Kelly, who served eight years and is now on parole, or Roman Polanski, who was facing, at most, a couple of years in jail.

I did not mean to belittle Samantha Geimer’s ordeal in any way.  I was simply stating that unlike Holly Maddux, Geimer is alive and has managed to make a good life for herself.  Holly Maddux never got that chance.  I think we need to keep that in mind before comparing Roman Polanski and his crime to Ira Einhorn and his.

OTOH, when it comes to Alex Kelly - great comparison, and it forced me to look him up.  I hadn’t known he was on parole, and in the state next to mine, too.  *gah*

Well I will probably be blocked at the huffpo again.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html

I honestly don’t know what to do with that, and I kept trying to post somewhat cleanly, but the mods kept holding back my posts, and finally i lost my temper as usual, and said what i really thought which is that allowing this piece of shit to post this crap there was beyond the pale even for Arianna “I’ll do anything for a hit” Huffington.

I guess I don’t understand how women can facilitate this kind of monstrosity.  It balls up inside of me until I feel like I might explode.  Sometimes it makes me cry in frustration.

Ellid, you’re assuming—and here I’m assuming as well, so forgive me—-that Einhorn’s choices were acquittal or conviction. I did read the book written about him, which was fairly devastating in its portrayal of him as a serial abuser who had lots of support. He would have gotten alight sentence or something, based on the support he was getting from his corporate(!) clients. Einhorn is a fairly crushing portrait of the way men from disparate walks of life band together to perpetuate denial about men abusing women. In one very telling scene, one of Einhorn’s friends waxes poetic about his hidden abusive past, and his wife punches him in the arm—-OMG, she abused him!—-and says, “You hypocrite! You hit me all the time!” Furthermore he was a hippie, a group that sneered at the concept of womens’ rights, at least according to just about every account of the feminist movement of the Sixties.

Geimer was able to recover and recuperate only because she was fairly middle class and ironically, probably because Polanski fled. She also sued him and won—duh. But that is being used to impeach her credibility, after Polanski’s attorneys demonstrated conclusively why rape shield laws are both necessary and ineffective to this day: they publicly talked about her hymen status and waxed concern-troll like about whether or not those other people had been arrested. Sure. Yeah. Uh huh.

Alex Kelly, well….He’s a whiny ass and he shows no remorse. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t rape again.

Yeah, nice try PIATOR.  The victim’s testimony is on record; Polanski copped a plea and never served.

And this: Because of feminist insistence on calling rape what it is, and talking about it directly and honestly, it seems to me that there is much more awareness of rape now, as well as much more about it in the news, despite the lower rate of rape itself.

It’s only helpful if women are aware of feminism. Period, end of subject, and so on. The women in my neighborhood don’t know feminism. Zippo. Nothing. If something realistically doesn’t exist, you can’t exercise a right you have. Guys here who beat their wives openly violate their protection orders and threaten other women because the cops don’t arrest them because the cops in turn dismiss women as strident or arrogant, and in turn the libraries around here don’t stock ‘feminazi’ books, or the schools cover it as some ancient subject. So for lots of women feminism and rape awareness doesn’t exist.

Yeah, nice try PIATOR.  The victim’s testimony is on record; Polanski copped a plea and never served.

Sorry, misunderstood the original comment.

Ginmar - in a case like Einhorn’s the choices are indeed between conviction and acquittal.  Einhorn refused to consider a plea bargain or an insanity defense (although his defense, when he finally did use it during the trial, verged on the insane ), and had no real evidence to counter the indisputable fact that Holly Maddux’s body was found in his apartment.  He fled because he didn’t stand a chance at trial, and he knew it.  He’s a coward, and the interviews he’s given since he was tracked down in France show very clearly that he’s an intellectual fraud as well.  I’d like to see an updated and more scholarly book about him than Stephen Levy’s, because he did have quite a bit of influence on the New Age, if only through his network.

Personally, I’m glad he’s in jail.  I only wish Alex Kelly still were, because frankly, the idea of that one anywhere but behind bars really, really makes me nervous.

I think we need to keep that in mind before comparing Roman Polanski and his crime to Ira Einhorn and his.

Again, the reason I brought up Einhorn in relation to Polanski was their similar strategy of fleeing the country and getting the government of France to support their resistance to extradition, not comparing their crimes.

I’m way more cynical than you, I’ll agree to that. At the time, I think he would have gotten off or gotten a fairly light sentence. Depends on how long the trial went.

And it’s pretty bad when I can read a book like Levy’s and see how much his shit smells—so to speak.

I did like his insistence that the KGB put the body there in his closet. Or the CIA. Yeah, sure—-talk about a huge sense of his self-importance.

It’s Chinatown.

Jake Gittes: He’s rich! Do you understand? He thinks he can get away with anything.

Noah Cross: See, Mr. Gitts, most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of… anything!

Great movie.

Einhorn *might* have had a chance if he’d shut up and let his attorney do the talking.  Of course he couldn’t and didn’t shut up.  I’m just glad he doesn’t have a web site in jail.  Can you imagine?

It’s a good idea to avoid the hp then denelian.  I don’t know who this John Farr guy is, but he’s some sort of writer and lecturer.  It’s been eye-opening to see that the argument comes down to what it always has come down to; oh she’s not as innocent as you might like to believe. 

Very disturbing, but also illimunating.  More evidence that we do not live in some fantasy post-feminist society.  The problem is, these guys can type whatever they want and you can’t get your hands on them.  You can’t even spit in their faces which is what I would do in any other setting. 

But the biggest problem is that a “liberal website” run by a woman, gave him and another rape apologist a forum to inflict their trash on everyone.  And the “liberal website” run by the “fearless woman” gave not one feminist, or anyone with an opposing view a platform.

Oh, and she’s got two daughters.  But you know they actually made their debutante coming outs.  So when you’ve got that kind of money behind you you don’t have to worry about any rich sleazebag ramming his dick up your ass and then buying his way out of it right? 

So you know, it’s all relative.  This is about other people.  Little people. 

Class plays such a role in everything, sometimes I think even more than race does.  I don’t know.

My take on the HP was that it was a forum to let just about anyone (famous) write about just about anything. Arianna isn’t providing quality control here but is rather giving a window into opinions of “elite” media personalities.

Also pretty offensive: Anne Applebaum, who’s made a career out of expressing constant moral indignation at Putin’s presidency in Russia, condemns the Polanski arrest.

Here we go:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6852265.ece

Fun fact:  Anne Applebaum is married to the foreign minister of Poland.  Poland has been campaigning for years to get Polanski admitted back into the United States.

If you want to see a story where the commenters are getting it right check out the CBC coverage (though I don’t fully agree with the article as written, sort the comments below by “agreed” and you will see a very strong anti-rape stance)

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/28/polanski-bail-request.html

If I hear one more asshole call what’s happening to Polanski a crime, I’m gonna punch someone in the face.

The LATimes even compared Polanski to Jean Valjean, who, 1. is a FICTIONAL character and 2. was guilty of stealing a loaf a bread in order to feed his sister’s starving child.  His second crime is breaking parole, b/c with his parole card he can’t get a job or can’t get paid for a job.  He spends the rest of his life trying to help others and making fortunes for others.

Polanski drugged and raped a child.  He excused it b/c she’d been raped previously and was therefore open game.  His sense of entitlement and utter lack of remorse led to a judge wanting to set aside the plea bargain.  Rather than serve ANY time for his “crime”, he thought it best to run away.

Where he continued to have sex with children.

I really don’t care how much I enjoy his movies.  If he drugged and raped a child today, he’d not only go to jail for decades, he’d be on a sexual predator list for life.  He’s STILL getting off easy.

The fact that his victim forgives him is a point in HER favor: she’s a better human being than he is.  The fact that she’d like to go on with her life and not have this dragged up again DOES NOT MEAN THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED. 

Fuck.  Just b/c you’re rich and entitled doesn’t mean you can do anything you want.  This is supposed to be America, not Chinatown.

Oh, and just to make this absolutely clear: a plea bargain is an agreement reached between the defense and prosecution about what crime the defendant will plead guilty to—and admit guilt for in open court—and what sentence the prosecution will recommend to the judge. Judges can (within the guidelines for a crime) hand down whatever sentence they damn please.

Oh, and just to make this absolutely clear: a plea bargain is an agreement reached between the defense and prosecution about what crime the defendant will plead guilty to—and admit guilt for in open court—and what sentence the prosecution will recommend to the judge. Judges can (within the guidelines for a crime) hand down whatever sentence they damn please.

Most don’t, of course, and accept the deal because otherwise you’ve removed the rationale for anyone making a deal (note that this works both ways: the judge could either be more lenient or more strict).  I would think most judges would be think carefully before changing the agreed deal.

Huffpo is a great example of how ingrained sexism is.

I agree.  Why Arianna has crap like this on her website is beyond me.

At the risk of sounding like Polyanna, I think there’s something positive to come out of this.

When you’re meeting someone new, it used to be difficult to get an accurate read on their politics and whether or not they have responsible, adult opinions. You might waste a lot of time getting to know someone before they would break out some batshit opinion about immigrants or women’s rights or nasty liberals. Now, all you have to do is ask them what they think of Ron Paul and you’ll get more or less all you need to know about their politics in one fell swoop.

Polanski has given us a similar gift. If you’re getting to know someone and you’re not sure if they’re a complete misogynist victim-blaming douchewipe, just ask them what they think of the Polanski case. Save time.

If you really want to feel outrage, check out some of the comments on this case in Salon’s Broadsheet. Some of the commenters are calling the victim a gold-digging slut who got what she deserved. I hope to God none of them have 13-year-old daughters.

Jesus, I really can’t fathom the people who are arguing that she “seduced” him.  Either they have never met 13-year-olds (which is not to say they’re not sexual, they’re very sexual, they’re just not exactly sophisticated seductresses) or they have severely immature understandings of sex.  Sadly, I think I know which it is.

Ginmar—you’re correct about Kinski.  I had described her as teenaged based on stories I’d read about Polanski and others, all of whom said they heard she was/thought she was 18 or over.  But, you are correct that rapists are not reliable witnesses and Kinski herself said she was 15 when she had sex with Polanski.

France doesn’t allow conviction and sentencing in absentia, and doesn’t extradite to jurisdictions that do. France wouldn’t extradite unless California set aside the conviction and retried, and California insisted that the original conviction must hold. That’s been the impasse for the last many years.
Comment #21: Llelldorin

Pennsylvania had to enact a whole new law that allowed a new trial for Einhorn in order to get France to extradite him.  I suppose California would have to do the same.

I’m very curious at the Swiss: first they release the names and account information on Americans who are banking in their secretive system and now they arrest Roman Polanski.  What do we know and when did we know it?  That’s not really the subject here, but that’s the thing I find amazing.

Comment #46: 3letterjon on 09/27 at 07:58 PM

G20 is the reason the Swiss changed their tune.  They must comply with taxation evasion laws or they will get put into a tax haven “gray list”:

Switzerland, whose banks manage about 27 percent of the world’s offshore wealth, was placed on the “gray list” after leaders of the Group of 20 met in London in April, increasing pressure on countries to root out tax dodgers.

....

Switzerland in March responded to international pressure and said it will soften rules on banking secrecy. The government started renegotiating its agreements with other countries and began cooperating on cases of tax evasion as well as fraud.

Since then, Switzerland has renegotiated existing tax agreements with about 15 states, but not yet signed all of them.

“The banking secrecy still exists, but it can’t be misused for tax evasion any more,” said Franco Taisch, professor at the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, in a telephone interview.

And a meeting of the G20 was taking place in Pittsburgh just last week.  Coincidence?  I’m surprised I haven’t seen any black helicopterists make the connection yet.

The problem is that delayed justice is only kinda justice.
Comment #50: Punditus Maximus on 09/27 at 08:58 PM

You seem to be searching for “justice delayed is justice denied.”  William Gladstone, British politician, 1809 - 1898

Haha, didn’t realize he had other good quotes in him.  “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”

The AV club, a website for geeks like me who like to talk about Dexter and Madman among other shows, actually had really good comments on this story.  I hadn’t read it I was too busy fighting over at the “liberal” huffpo.  When I finally went over there to read the write up of the season premiere of Dexter, there was a story about this, and I read the comments expecting the little geeks who run the gamut politically to be posting the usual misogynistic bs I had been reading all day.  They actually didn’t.  It was kind of a nice way to end this whole debacle of a day.

Reading the transcript of his guilty plea (from thesmokinggun) makes me feel a little sympathy for Polanski, mostly because his confession to having intercourse with a 13 year old spared his victim the ordeal of a “Hollywood” trial. Further, the consequences of his guilty plea could have been 20 years in the state penitentiary, lifelong commitment as a “mentally disordered sex offender,” and/or permanent deportation. So I see where booking it would be very tempting.

I agree.  Why Arianna has crap like this on her website is beyond me.

HuffPo is a bastion of crap. Anti-vaxxers, homeopathic fools, and Deepak Chopra being merely starting places.

That being said, it’s good Polanski was arrested. Convicted rapist who didn’t serve his time. Past time to serve the time.

Brilliant artist? Sure. Serve his sentence, then he can get back to the art. No sooner.

Turns out that Polanski’s lawyers did some filings this summer and said that the charges should be dropped because the prosecution wasn’t actively trying to have Polanski extradited.

You’d think that defense attorneys would know better than to piss off the prosecutors, but apparently not.

*Counterfactual alert*
I’m sure I’m not the first to think of this, and I haven’t followed the Roman Polanski story closely, but it occurs to me that if Polanski had raped a 13-year-old boy, he would likely have been an international pariah over the last few decades who would have had trouble getting a movie made, let alone getting anyone to watch it.

So I see where booking it would be very tempting.

Yes, it would be very tempting if you were the kind of person who thinks little girls need to STFU and give up whatever you dick demands of them, and thinks that being An Artist excuses you from the consequences of your actions. Why would you feel sympathy for such a person, Hector?