I first learned about Roman Polanski when I read Helter Skelter as a senior in high school. I’ve known about what he did for nearly twenty years.
Now that he’s finally in custody, it disgusts me to see women – not just columnists Joan Z. Shore and Anne Applebaum, and Polanski’s former sister-in-law Debra Tate, but ordinary women too – shrugging off Polanski’s conviction (Whoopi Goldberg: “It wasn’t rape-rape”) and suggesting that law enforcement ought to let this one go.
She was not only under the age of consent (which wasn’t 14, as Shore claimed), but she also repeatedly told him to stop.
Which he did not. Which makes it rape regardless of her age and the age of consent and the actual charges filed.
I have never been raped. As a child and young teen I was subjected to some creepy behavior by friends and family members, but it was nothing that had a lasting effect on me. Too many other women aren’t nearly as fortunate.
I am also not a fan of Hollywood as anything more than sheer entertainment (and even then I’m somewhat indifferent). Yes, big names in Hollywood engage in philanthropy, but so do big names in Corporate America. Neither Hollywood liberals nor Corporate America conservatives give the other much credit for the good they do.
While many issues concerning Hollywood tend to break along party lines, this one hasn’t. Both in the media and among most of my liberal friends, there’s been horror expressed – both at Polanski’s actions (which it seems many people weren’t previously aware of) and at the apologists and equivocators. The Catholic church’s practice of reassigning priests who have preyed on children is just as ignoble as the suggestion that poor Roman Polanski ought to be left alone. But those who fawn over Hollywood (or are part of it themselves) don’t see it that way.
Even when the case against pursuing him is couched in terms of scarce law enforcement resources or the victim’s insistence that she wants the matter dropped, the fact remains that Roman Polanski broke the law, was convicted, and fled the country. This isn’t about vengeance; it’s about justice and deterrence.
Roman Polanski may be elderly, talented, and a widower, but he’s also a rapist, a convicted criminal, and a fugitive. Lay down the law; better late than never.
Do you think Polanski’s apologists and equivocators would see this matter differently if the case in question involved a Catholic priest and a teen boy? What if the priest was an artistic genius and the boy wasn’t a virgin?
i refer you to my post… http://www.mybottlesup.com/rape-rape/
I might have to write about this, too. It makes me CRAZY that anyone could defend him or his actions. He raped a child. RAPED A CHILD. It’s indefensible, and he deserves punishment no less than any other criminal.
That anyone has spoken out against his arrest appalls me. To the point of speechlessness.
Maybe I can’t write about it. Am glad that you did.
At this point, he should spend the rest of his life in jail. The whole thing makes me sick. In what culture does anyone believe a 13 year old is capable of having “consensual sex” with anyone? How was that NOT rape? She was 13. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
And she said NO, which makes it a crime no matter what her age. (Though I agree that her young age makes it even more heinous.)
Obviously my feelings on the matter are known to you (thanks for the link!), but as the week drags on, I keep feeling more and more disappointed with the number of people either defending Polanski or calling for the dismissal of the case. Rape is a serious offense, and we don’t take it seriously enough in this country, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Nevertheless, at first I was surprised at the response out of Hollywood particularly because the majority of actors and directors are so bleeding-heart (which I say with affection; I’m a bleeding heart libber, too). Then I remembered, for all of the liberal espousing by a lot of Hollywood elite, the film industry is still a deeply misogynistic one. Men continue to outnumber women in on-screen roles in films almost 3-1, and when women are in films, they are disproportionately placed as objects or scenery, rather than substantial characters. And, in many of those cases, their primary purpose is specifically as a sex object. Is it then any wonder that so many of the most respected directors alive are coming out so say a man’s word and his genius are more important than the word and body of a 13-year-old girl?
I’ve actually been heartened by the number of liberals willing to speak out against Hollywood on this topic, though I’m terribly disappointed in a few. And you’re right on about the film industry – excellent point.
I agree. I don’t get anyone who can defend this guy. If he wasn’t a famous, talented director, we would not even be having this conversation. I can’t believe it took this long to get the guy back here.
Shit. Mary Kay Laterneau was eaten alive (and rightfully so). And spent her fair share of time in jail. I think Mr. Polanski deserves the same treatment if not worse. He’s a coward, among other things.
This is not a women’s rights issue. Who cares about it? Retribution? Deterrence? Are these questions really relevant when it comes to celebrities, let alone sex offenses generally?
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Are you saying that it’s not worthy of media or law enforcement attention?
not really sure what I’m getting at, Julie, and I probably don’t know enough about the case to opine, so I should shut up, but I really don’t understand the overwhelmingly angry response his case draws from most women. It’s not that I defend Polanski, but I don’t understand how pursuing the end of his prosecution is so meaningful to the cause of preventing and punishing sex offenders. It seems our attention and resources could be better directed.
THANK YOU for posting this. I’m also sickened by all of the equivocators. Yes, he’s a talented director, but he pled guilty to a sickening crime and ran away before sentencing.
He needs to come back and face his sentence. I’m sure it will be commuted anyway.
I would like to 2nd Kristen’s statement on Mary Kay Leterneau.
A rapist is a rapist is a RAPIST. Disgusting.
Your observations on the Hollywood set are spot on.
So totally with you. Word for word.
What if the illustrious Mr. Polanski were a dishwasher at a greasy spoon restaurant and took a 13-year old home, gave her alcohol and drugs, and then had oral, vaginal and anal sex with her? Would anyone say that people should get over that?
My only objection to further prosecuting him is that the victim wants it to be over. But even then, I would like to see justice be done.
Exactly. And w/r/t the victim, the Salon.com article makes the point that the judicial system is not about what the victim (or victim’s family) wants, but what is in line with the laws we’ve established. I sympathize with her, but this isn’t about her per se.
I agree. I see some of the comments on Twitter and I wanted to scream. Punditmom (whom I generally adore) twittered:
I was appalled. So does that mean that so long as Osama is at large, all rapists go free? Rape is rape. Not rape-rape. Not quasi-rape. That man is a child rapist, and he belongs in prison.
Polanski disgusts me. I can’t believe anyone would apologize or protect him. Sickening.
Better late than never? Maybe. But the flip side of the coin that makes me just as angry as what Polanski did is what law enforcement didn’t do — to let over three decades go by. Not pursuing a child sex offender in any meaningful way in the months and years after he fled is inexcusable. Polanski didn’t go into hiding and he has traveled many places where we could have brought him back, if someone thought the time and resources were worthwhile.
I just have to keep asking — why now? There has to be more to the story than they happened to know he was going to a film festival. If officials had really thought that pursuing a child sex offender was important, they would have arrested him a long time ago.
Joanne, that is not at all the position you took on Twitter/Facebook, where you minimized Polanski as “dangerous” (quotes your own) and suggested that law enforcement ought to have higher priorities. I’m still mentally wrestling with that exchange we had – the fact that we even had it.
That was my initial gut reaction to the story because in some way I do have to question the decision on a number of levels. But the more I thought about it, the more I wondered why they didn’t pursue him for so long and why they are claiming that justice 30 years later is just as good as justice at the time?
What he did 30 years ago was reprehensible, but I still wonder if there aren’t higher priorities for people who may be victims of similar crimes today? We hear so much about how government enforcement agencies are stretched thin — maybe a little more attention to domestic abuse cases or missing children cases would be more meaningful. If they can do it all, that’s great — but they can’t.
I’m one of those who didn’t really know about Polanski’s history or crimes prior to his arrest. I remember something about some director not being about to come back to the US to accept an Oscar, but didn’t pay attention to the details.
So my shock is FRESH.
While I have great sympathy for a man who grew up during the war, lost his parents at a young age, whose wife and unborn child were brutally murdered, none of that -NONE- justifies what he did. Being a victim does not give you carte blanche to victimize others.
I’m so puzzled by anyone who thinks there’s a legitimate reason for not pursuing him. I understand that there was apparently some deal that had been made between him and prosecutors the the judge — rightfully so, in my opinion — threw out because it essentially meant he went to jail for 42 days. For rape. Of a 13-year-old. Clearly, some rational person saw the slap on the wrist for what it was. Thank God. As to why get him now? Who cares what prompts it now. At least it’s finally happening.
Like all rapists, he deserves to have his balls ripped off. Violently.
The answer to Pundit Mom’s question “Why now?” is realease last year of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. It dredged up the facts of the case and appparently embarrassed several who had been involved. So after 30 years of doing nothing, they arrested him.
And part of the reason they did nothing is that rape simply wasn’t looked at in the same way back in the 70s that it is today. We still used the phrase “crime of passion” to refer to such acts – no matter what the age of the victim. So while you are all judging him on the basis of what we know and how we think now about the nature of rape, back in the 70s he would have been sentenced to a few months in jail at the most.