Polanski
A slight furor has arisen in the blogosphere over the detention by Swiss authorities of director Roman Polanski. He was to be honored in Switzerland for his film work. This has led many to wonder if Polanski and the film community would have been treated the same had he been a priest being honored for some work. While this blog has never shied away from evaluating situations for their hypocritical content, I’m going to avoid that in this instance.
Before getting too far, I should be clear that I condemn Polanski’s actions. He admitted to getting a thirteen-year-old girl in his care (he was her photographer) drunk, drugging her, and having sex with her against her protests. Most of these factors in their own right are sufficient to establish felony rape. In a perfect world, these would have been pursued in their own right. For whatever reason – immediate speculation would be the difficulty of prosecuting rape cases – Polanski plead to misdemeanor sexual misconduct. As part of the plea deal, Polanski was to be sentenced to time served. He was released prior to sentencing to finish up his film. Rumor circulated that the sentencing of the plea deal wouldn’t be accepted by the judge, and Polanski fled the country.
Today the debate revolves around what to do with a 30-year fugitive of a misdemeanor conviction. I’m not even a novice in this area, but I’ve never heard of extradition being formally requested for a fugitive with a misdemeanor conviction, particularly after 3 decades. His victim, married with her own life now, has asked the matter not to be pursued at this point. One doesn’t have to be a Polanski sympathizer to see pursuit of this case as not in the interests of justice. If he would have plead guilty to felony sexual assault, my tune may be different, but that is not the case before us.
As for the priestly comparisons, I think we should all take a step back. I have not been sympathetic to the priestly abuse witch hunts over the past two decades. Having said that, there is such a degree of moral difference between knowingly moving a priest through several parishes and enabling him to accrue ever more victims and honoring a man that made a despicable choice three decades ago for his film making. The difference is a few orders of magnitude. The evidence is certainly not exculpatory that systematic abuse of minors was aided and condoned by high levels of some dioceses. While much of the ‘abuse’ was consensual and between late to mid teenage boys, there was also abuse that was clearly felonious. There is also strong evidence for the cover up of that abuse. While Hollywood certainly isn’t a place of virtue, they haven’t done this.
Comments are closed.
I don’t see how justice has been served at all. Polanski drugged and raped a child, pleaded guilty, fled the country before sentencing, and has subsequently led a life of leisure and professional success in Switzerland and the south of France. Questions of law I can leave for the experts; the lack of justice in this story is worth commenting on.
I never thought about comparing this case with those of priests. Since every case is different, it shouldn’t be hard to find discrepancies between crimes and/or punishments. What matters is that, in this case, a man who committed an evil and illegal act may finally be held responsible.
Pinky
I agree with you that justice needs to be done. I am glad he was finally arrested. He did something gravely wrong. He pleaded guilty and yet ran off and, well, had a life of excess. I’ve avoided any movie he has directed, even though some looked interesting, because of this.
Of course, I think a part of the issue is something which goes beyond this, but the effects of the Manson Murders on his life. I don’t think he has fully recovered. This does not mean I think nothing should be done — I think he is sane enough to be guilty, but I think now that he is in custody (and should be) I hope he is also given a psychological evaluation and help while in prison.
The issue with priests is raised many other places. I think it is right to say we should expect more, not less, out of them. But I also think it is interesting how many people who would be the first to attack priests want mercy for Polanski because of “how long ago it was.”
Henry, that’s true. I don’t see how a person could go through that and completely hold onto his sanity.
I think my biggest objection is the idea that bringing him now will serve justice. Yes, an injustice occurred 30 years ago, but this isn’t a remedy. If the remedy was going to occur, it was going to occur then. There are just some things where there is no good remedy. That people want to punish him for what he did rather than what he’s in trouble for is a whole other issue. Even though I have some problems with it, I can understand prosecuting and punishing 80-year-old former concentration camp guards today. I really just don’t see the point on a misdemeanor case.
M.Z.,
Rape is not just a misdemeanor. Even in California rape (even the statutory rape he plead guilty to) is a felony. He should never have been allowed to plea to the lesser offense. However, he was rich and . . . .
Regardless once he jumped bail he had a whole new problem. Jumping bail is a completely separate offense.
I stand corrected. He did plead to a felony. He could have been sentenced as a misdemeanor or felony, and the plea agreement would have sentenced it as a misdemeanor. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
MZ: You are aware that for child victims of rape, it usually takes them 20 years to process that rape? Average age for remembering a childhood trauma as rape is about 38 years old. And that is why it is easier to go to jail for shoplifting than it is for raping a child.
The Polanski case is a no brainer. He did it. He pleaded guilty to raping and drugging a child and he has not served the time.
We aren’t dealing with a repressed memory. The victim has said she doesn’t want it pursued further.
I think we are in agreement on your second paragraph except for a minor quibble. He served 46 days if I remember right. I think our only disagreement is over whether serving time at this point would do any good. I don’t.
You are aware that for child victims of rape, it usually takes them 20 years to process that rape? Average age for remembering a childhood trauma as rape is about 38 years old.
rcm,
What does this mean? Where is this information to be found? Can you cite a source or two?
The natural consequence for raping a child has been delayed for 30 years by the natural consequence of being a weak selfish male who exhibited no compassion or remorse for his victim. There is something deeper here that needs to be investigated. As I write this I do not have a clear idea of what it is but I will try to formulate it in a few sentences.
The violence against innocent women by weak males is the issue. It does not matter when it took place. This violence needs to be addressed publicly in order to show that we are willing to protect women from anyone who is a threat. This is a basic life issue and we must exhibit a willingness to protect those who bring life into the world.
This does connect with the priest sexual abuse in the church in the sense that the authorities in the church were weak males who did not protect the children of the women who brought them into this world.
This is a part of the ‘culture of death’ that contributes to the fear of bringing children into the world.
MZ:”We aren’t dealing with a repressed memory. The victim has said she doesn’t want it pursued further.”
I know. I was targeting your statement about 2 decades of hunting priests. When victims are so young, it takes time to process.
David, it is called “traumatic amnesia.” I was wrong, it looks like the average age is about the late 40s to come to terms with childhood trauma. http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/48/10/1339?ijkey=ciZjJlFifgYIY&keytype=ref&siteid=spabs Usually victims of child sex abuse will have symptoms of the experienced trauma, but because they have blocked out the trauma itself, they don’t treat the cause.
MZ:”I think our only disagreement is over whether serving time at this point would do any good. I don’t.”
I would agree with you that this is where we disagree. I am not sure what you mean by “any good.” Any good for him? Justice? Justice hasn’t been served yet, he hasn’t done his time. Should all rapists not have to do there time because it won’t do any good? I don’t know what “good” is if it means that rapists won’t go to jail when they have actually admitted to the crime. If we cannot even put these guys in jail with clear cut evidence, it leaves so little hope of putting those child rapists away who don’t leave evidence behind, which we should all know, is the vast majority of pedophile cases.