It’s funny. If your average guy were to rape a 13-year-old girl and then flee into exile rather than paying for his crime, pretty much everyone and their twin sister would agree that he was a scumbag who deserved nothing less than the hammer of justice brought down upon him. Turn that average guy into a rich artist with good connections, and suddenly the crime wasn’t that bad, the girl was probably asking for it (or her mother was, whatever), and it’s really close to fascism to put the guy through the indignity of being extradited to face justice.
I’m having trouble picking out just what my favorite instant rape apology is; there are several good ones, so I just thought I’d share a few of the best.
One of the better ones is from novelist Robert Harris, who was collaborating with Polanski on an upcoming film:
Robert Harris, a British novelist who said he had been working with Polanski for much of the past three years writing two screenplays, expressed outrage over the arrest….”I am shocked that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion,” he said in a statement, adding that Polanski had often visited Switzerland and even had a house in Gstaad….”It is hard not to believe that this heavy-handed action must be in some way politically motivated,” he said.
Why, he had a house in Gstaad! And, and, he’s…uh…old! Clearly he shouldn’t be held accountable for actions he took when he was a poor, foolish boy of…(adjusts glasses, reads text)…just 44 years old. The idea!
Of course, some might say that it’s shocking that a girl of 13, whether “consenting” or not, could be drugged and raped by a man almost three times her age. But I bet she doesn’t have a house in Gstaad. So there.
Joan Z. Shore of The Huffington Post argues that the girl was asking for it, or at least her mom was, and besides, she was almost of age, so…yeah:
The 13-year old model “seduced” by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.
Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It’s now 18.
But of course, the age of consent isn’t like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn’t count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn’t 14.
As for whether the girl’s mother “thrust” the girl onto Polanski (which she didn’t; testimony at the time indicated the mother was unaware of the photo shoot), it wouldn’t matter if the mother delivered her daughter naked to Jack Nicholson’s hot tub herself, and helped Polanski get the Quaalude ready. No parent can consent to their under-aged child having sex.
Also, of course, this entire line of argument sort of goes out the window when you remember that Polanski drugged and forcibly raped the victim [warning: link goes to graphic grand jury testimony that may be triggering], which kind of makes the age of consent utterly moot. (Incidentally, the fact that she was underage makes the force utterly moot. You can’t be 44 and legally have sex with a 13-year-old in California. Statutory rape has the word rape in it for a reason.)
Many, many articles cited the fact that the victim, now grown up and 45 years old, has said she wants the case to be let go, because each time it gets dredged up it brings up painful memories of her being raped. I choose the Telegraph because its headline puts the word victim in scare quotes, because…something:
In January, [the victim] ((If you really want her name, click through. I don’t publish the names of victims of sexual assault.)) filed a legal declaration in Los Angeles formally requesting that the outstanding charges against Polanski be withdrawn.
She said Los Angeles prosecutors’ insistence that Polanski must return to the United States before dismissal of the case could be considered as a “cruel joke being played on me”.
She also voiced anger that authorities had detailed her grand jury testimony in related hearings to the case.
“True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother,” she said, adding that it was time for closure.
“I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr Polanski may have caused me as a child,” she said. Polanski had taken flight, she said, “because the judicial system did not work.”
I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice. And while the victim is no doubt hurt by Polanski’s drawing this out for decades, ultimately more women would be hurt by a justice system that allowed convicted rapists to avoid punishment simply because they were rich and could afford to flee jail. Ultimately, the victim’s feelings must be considered, but they can not be the determining factor in whether a prosecution goes forward.
I said at the beginning that I was having trouble picking out a favorite rape apologist. But I must confess, I think I’ve settled on one. That would be The Washington Post‘s Anne Applebaum, declaring that Polanski’s arrest was “outrageous,” because he’s famous:
There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
Yes, it’s true, if Polanski wasn’t famous, he wouldn’t be in this mess, because he wouldn’t have had access to Jack Nicholson’s house while Jack was out of town. And he wouldn’t have been able to flee to France. And he wouldn’t have been able to live comfortably for 30 years. But hey, the poor guy had to forgo his Oscar! The horror!
Ultimately, Applebaum’s argument is pretty foolish. Admittedly, there’s been all sorts of tragedy in Polanski’s life, but that doesn’t justify his committing several felonies. Most Holocaust survivors did not grow up to become rapists.
But it’s worse than that. You see, you may not realize it, but Applebaum is married to a guy named Radosław Sikorski. Now, that’s pretty uninteresting, until you realize that Sikorski is the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs. Who just happens to be actively lobbying to have Polish native Polanski’s charges dismissed.
This is something Applebaum somehow forgot to mention in her column.
Time for another blogger ethics panel, I guess.
Manson follower Susan Atkins who had killed Roman Polanski’s wife, Sharon Tate died a couple of days ago and now this announced arrest of Roman Polanski.
What I can’t understand is, how did Polanski manage to evade the law all these years with the so called technology of cameras and GPS, etc. There is just NO way that one can hide from the law with all of technology that is out there.
Something is just screwy here. I think the authorities DID know where he was hiding all these years. And one has to question as to why did they decide to arrest him NOW and not arrest him from years ago? Not to mention that this is going to cost taxpayers money for a trial that will drag on for years.
This is another example of how there is no such thing as “justice” in the justice system in the USA. Criminals go free while the innocent and victims get sent to prison.
And I’m the last one to scream about anything perceived as perverted – I always think that Woody Allen got screwed over by the media storm, for example… but Polanski’s story is so damned depressing.
I never understand this case… apparently Polanski is some kind of blazing imbecile. He got a slap on the wrist for a heinous crime, and decided to hide abroad instead of taking his slap. His sentencing was the perfect example of a wealthy and famous man being handled with kid gloves, and that still wasn’t good enough for him. He was sentenced to 90 days for shit’s sake, and served half of it. The fact that the victim wants him let go just so she can be done with this goddamned case is depressing.
Well said. Nothing justifies his actions at all. Sick to see (what seems like) half of society try to put his crime in a better light.
Polanski’s crime of statutory rape case may have resolved itself as a victimless crime by now with his undisclosed settlement with Samantha Geimer. But his crime of flight to evade justice has not been resolved. And it cannot be resolved until such time as he is remanded into custody of the same court from which he has been a fugitive for three decades.
dura lex, sed lex
It is the height of monstrosity that Polanski’s Holocaust survivor status is being used as a justification for letting him avoid punishment for raping a child. Many Holocaust survivors have serious psychic and emotional scars, and it is a major insult to what they have overcome to lead productive lives to give a free pass to a child rapist. Furthermore, if Polanski gets a free pass because it was so long ago, why not Demjanjuk? Or Manson (remember, he never actually killed anyone)?
As SiF points out, its not like Polanski will be doing hard labor or anything. And being old is certainly not “punishment”–not only is that demeaning to old people, but everyone will get old if all goes well. He has already gotten huge benefits from his privilege, so why is he entitled to more?
If I had found out that someone twice her age or more was sleeping with my 13-year old daughter I’d have quite possibly blown his head off.
Note to the non-American readers here – presuming that proof existed that the rape occurred, the odds are quite good that here in the U.S. someone who did that to the rapist of their daughter would never spend a day in jail.
I’m quite curious as to why France would not want this man to see justice. Now they’re claiming he’s old, etc., but when he first escaped to France he wasn’t. What was the rationale then for helping a rapist go free?
What the fuck Huffington post? Some of the comments here are harrowing too: http://www.avclub.com/articles/roman-polanski-arrested-for-1977-sex-crime,33382/
I liked Rosemary’s baby and Chinatown and even I think he should do time.
Oh, I love the comments on other blogs. People start bleating about lynch mobs, as if Polanski was a Black man chased down, tortured, and hanged by Whites. But he’s a rich White man who raped a 13-year-old girl when he was 44. Jesus H. Christ. I’m four years younger than he was when he did this, and I understand that you do not drug or have sex with (read: RAPE) 13-year-olds. Or even 17-year-olds, for that matter. I don’t care if she was hand-delivered by her parents with a t-shirt that said “Please fuck our daughter.” He was 44 years old. He fucking goddamn well knew better.
And yeah–about the Holocaust. FFS–it’s no excuse. I doubt very much that a Black kid who’s seen gang violence and been the target of police brutality would have these apologists in his corner if he did something like this. For that matter, plenty of women have been the targets of horrific violence, yet no one sees that as an excuse to rape or kill.
Oh, and while I’m at it? Women who have fucked (read: raped) teenage boys have, you know, gone to jail. As they damn well should have. WTF? Why is Polanski above the law? Is it the Y chromosome, the money, the fame, or a mix? (Don’t answer that, it’s a rhetorical question.)
I read the Huffington post and I’ll admit–the responses were pretty appalling. I wonder what the responses would have been if Polanski was gay and he’d done this to a 14 year old BOY (assuming he’s not a Catholic priest). What’s concerning is the mindset here. There seems to be a statute of limitations on rape; if its been a while, its okay–it may not even BE rape (because its harder to prove). Who cares what happened YEARS ago, right? As rape packets pile up in places like California, unsolved for years and years, victims may be able to identify their attackers but what would it matter? It was years ago, so they go free, practice better rape methodology, rape a few more–if they’re well off and get old–MAYBE get caught, what would it matter? The mentality has already given them free reign, and even if they go to prison, he lived a life of his choosing, it didn’t save other victims. And the ‘who cares’ attitude concerning Polanski, so many willing to DEFEND him, just gives potential rapists less to worry about.
I get very angry at the way celebrities’ crimes of violence against women and children are minimized and excused. I don’t care how good their films or art or acting or singing or writing are. It doesn’t excuse it and personally, just as I wouldn’t buy the products made by a company that violates human rights or poisons people or takes mother’s milk out of babies’ mouths or pollutes their wells, I’m not interested in the art or entertainment made by people who commit acts of violence.
@RonF, during the conversation about this over at Shakesville, a couple of folks pointed out that France has a strict policy of not extraditing anyone to countries with the death penalty, even if that particular person would not be up for execution.
People talking like films are more valuable than people make me sick. Yep, The Pianist was good. Yep, it could be seen as an important film as well as a good one. No, it is not more important than a child’s agony.
I never understand this case… apparently Polanski is some kind of blazing imbecile. He got a slap on the wrist for a heinous crime, and decided to hide abroad instead of taking his slap. His sentencing was the perfect example of a wealthy and famous man being handled with kid gloves, and that still wasn’t good enough for him. He was sentenced to 90 days for shit’s sake, and served half of it.
Technically, Polanski pleaded guilty to engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and he was supposed to undergo a 90-day psychiatric testing prior to his sentencing, to determine whether he should be institutionalized as a “mentally disordered sex offender” or deported as an “undesirable alien.” He fled to France after 42 days of psychiatric testing, and never actually received a sentence.
LSG,
I’m not sure the Shakesville commenters are correct. France has extradited other people to the U.S., so long as those folks wouldn’t face the death penalty. Polanski was protected from extradition because he has French citizenship.
Incidentally, on our side the U.S. refuses to allow extraditions unless the country to which we are extraditing promises not to put the extraditee in front of the International Criminal Court.
cb on bonanzle,
As a general rule, the U.S. cannot go into another country and arrest someone there. We don’t have jurisdiction. It’s why you have to lure people to someplace under U.S. jurisdiction if you’re going to arrest them for stuff like antitrust conspiracies (as in the true story behind “The Informant”).
American officials knew where Polanski was, but it would have caused a huge problem if they had stormed into France, handcuffed Polanski, dragged him onto a plane and brought him to the U.S. That’s why it was the Swiss authorities who had to do this arrest.
I think the additional crime that Polanski has committed against the victim IS dragging this on for 30 years. He had 48 days left of a 90 day sentence. Putting aside that the plea deal only gave him 90 days for drugging and raping a child, he could have served his time and been done with the whole thing in 48 days. It probably would have been no more than a shady footnote to his career and the victim would have rarely been harrassed about it ever again (I would hope.)
Instead, he took off and has kept this controversy in the public eye off and on for 30 years. He can’t accept his Oscar, waah! waah! the victim gets a flood of media attention. He travels to country A and not B, and the victim gets a flood of media attention. He has acted like a remorseless, spoilt self-entitled victim, and in doing so, he has revictimized the victim over and over again throughout her life. I don’t blame her for how she feels in the least, but probably the only way this is truly going to go (mostly) away for her is to resolve the case.
This is about the State vs. Polanski and the fact that he fleed. That needs to be settled.
Pingback: links for 2009-09-28 « Embololalia
Lexie,
As I stated @12, the 90-days was for psychiatric evaluation to inform what Polanki’s sentence should be (institutionalization? deportation? regular ol’ prison?). He left the country before he ever was sentenced, supposedly because he fear the judge would impose a heavier sentence than the one he had expected from his plea bargain.
WTF vigilante…. “victimless crime”??
He drugged and raped a 13 year old! How the fuck is that a victimless crime?
Sounds to me like she wants the matter against him dropped because she’s sick of media attention and queries time and time again. I don’t blame her. But it’s not up to her. This was a crime against her, true. But it was a crime against society as well.
Hollywood and the media are great for putting together attacks on people who don’t agree with their agenda. But not so much when they’re one of their own.
Pingback: Has the world gone fucko bazoo lately? « Blunt Object
I don’t think he was ever hiding as much as avoiding the U.S. where he would have been taken into custody. He’s benefited from being an assortment of privileges for decades to avoid serving out his sentence whatever it would have been. And despite all this foot stomping and rah rah by the justice system and various pundits (and the people who are against his extradition), I think privilege will win out down the road once again. I mean look at all the actors who kill wives and girlfriends and get acquitted? Or domestic violence winding up in slapped wrists at best? You’d have to change the whole system from the ground up to beat that. This case won’t even make a dent if the idea of “justice” is what’s important here.
There’s probably a D.A.’s election coming up in L.A. b/c it’s not like this guy never went outside of France before and he’s been to Switzerland before too. They should have busted this guy so long ago. It’s really too long for “justice” anyway that’s really going to have any meaning.
The one sure thing is that the victim’s life will be ripped apart again. She’s already been gently nudged to the side because her views don’t line up with what she’s *supposed* to be feeling (but hey, at least her “feelings” are respected and understood by a guy no less). A woman once again pushed aside by larger society over something that’s an issue or “justice” but is a very painful experience that she’s had to deal with her whole life to come to a place where she could live with it and now her life’s a circus again. I mean how often does grand jury testimony on rape cases get blasted on the internet? In my county, that wouldn’t have been allowed to happen.
I’m no fan of Polonski, won’t watch his films because of his background and because they’re creepy but he’ll be wrist slapped anyway, people will have varying reactions on various media outlets to that and the survivor of his abuse will be raped all over again. That’s what will happen.
Justice delayed is very much justice denied, including in cases like this one. Some people will feel good about justice being done, some not but all I can say is that I hope the woman involved has a very good support unit around her because she’s going to need it. The justice system failed her like it does a lot of women. Now it has a second chance to fail her again. I think she knows that, because after all, it is her life and her comments about it indicate that.
I was never able to warm up to Ted Kennedy no matter how great he supposedly is but there’s tons of apologists for his actions years ago that ended a young woman’s life. I don’t think his actions are any more excused by his later behavior than Polonski’s would be.
Not to have the fourth or fifth go-round on this blog about Ted Kennedy’s negligence resulting in Mary Jo Kopechne’s death, but Kennedy didn’t try to run from the law. He entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. The judge sentenced Kennedy to two months’ incarceration, the statutory minimum for the offense, which the judge then suspended. Kennedy also lost his license for several months for his reckless driving resulting in a fatality.
One can say that the justice system worked improperly in Kennedy’s case because his privilege led prosecutors to accept too minor a plea, and led the judge to suspend even the minimal sentence, but there was no delay in justice.
WRT the rape survivor wanting to drop it: I think this may have a lot to do with the bashing she and her family got (and continues to get) at the hands of Polanski and his rape-apologist allies. I mean, FFS–they were slut-baiting a freakin’ 13-year-old. They were lying about/blaming her mother. And they continue to do so. It’s just disgusting.
PG, you can’t be serious.
This is what I was talking about in terms of bringing up Kennedy, was his privilege protected him from accountability under the law (first a minimum sentence, then a suspension of it) and his accomplishments allowing people to serve as apologists for his prior behavior. It had nothing to do with Justice delayed, except actually that happened too. Kennedys don’t have to flee and besides he did his fleeing after he crashed his car. If he hadn’t fled then, she’d probably be alive since she had around a three hour window before she was out of oxygen.
I have yet to see even a “negligent” person responsible for death in my county get that light of a sentence even in a plea bargain. But then again, most don’t have Kennedy privilege. I’ve been to sentencing hearings for people with behavior less than his go to prison.
But thanks for proving my point about the double standard between the two because the point with holding Polonski accountable is that neither his past nor future erase his criminal conduct. That standard should then be applied under that argument to Kennedy and anyone else with this type of circumstances. Although the commonality is that the victims or survivors in these cases get second shrift behind the issues and I’m not saying the issues don’t matter, just don’t forget the victories that you win at some people’s expenses. Remember them too.
That’s probably true but I think I also read that she just didn’t like the exposure of what’s a rape case involving a minor in general, i.e. having everything put on public display by everybody. It’s really difficult to even do that to a young girl with even good or the best intentions and even an adult woman who faced and experienced what she did. And those who champion the prosecution of her rapist (even if she doesn’t at this point) will wind up bringing a great deal of pain as well whether they intend to or not. I’ve seen that happen with people in this situation in some very bad ways. Whether it’s a woman who’s been raped, molested or had an abortion and died from it. Cases where crime prosecutions become movements because they address issues especially those of unequal justice.
Even without national publicity and circus makers, I again hope that she’s around people who support her and don’t patronize her because her feelings about it don’t go along with what they want. To me, in this case that’s the most important thing. If Polonski gets to finish out his prior sentence after two years of court battles fighting extradiction, it would be a miracle but some of us are still going to get phone calls of women who can’t even get police reports on their cases or can’t get DAs to be aggressive with prosecuting and filing charges. Like I said, the system has to be rebuilt so that everyone has justice.
She’s pretty much a private figure anyway. I think she had to spend her whole life dealing with it in a way that enabled her to live her life, and trying to get to that place in a private way (as most of us would prefer) in a public arena.
Don’t get me wrong. I think he should be accountable for his crimes but with 30 years passed, that’s still less than likely because the justice system is so messed up. But even after this prosecution (if it takes place) it will still be that way for most women. I think that Kennedy should have been treated like a regular person when he was prosecuted years ago and so should have Polonski but the system didn’t treat either that way and there’s no way to really fix that unless there’s a rehaul of it.
I don’t quite follow how Kennedy is comparable to Polanski. Look, the reason we’re still talking about Polanski is that he fled accountability; he literally left the United States and has avoided any country that is likely to extradite him back here, so he could avoid serving whatever sentence he was going to get. Maybe it would have been a heavy sentence; maybe it would have been the minimum, suspended. We don’t know what it would have been because he didn’t stick around long enough to find out, much less fulfill it. His apologists say that Polanski should not have to deal with what the U.S. justice system metes out to him.
In contrast, Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge, was sentenced to the minimum and had that sentence suspended. Which part of that constitutes an absence of the justice system? Kennedy’s apologists are not trying to help him avoid any punishment; they’re arguing that on balance, his life had more good than bad. That’s a moral argument, not a legal one.
How many people have you seen sentenced after a plea of guilty to “leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury” (or the equivalent in your jurisdiction, which I believe is CA)? How large of an n are we talking about? Your county has only 2 million people total, and I assume you haven’t watched the sentencing of every person who has been criminally prosecuted there.
Sometimes judges give light sentences if the defendant has no prior criminal record and is unlikely to re-offend. This will inherently correlate with economic privilege (the economically privileged are less likely to have been arrested or prosecuted before, because they’re less targeted by law enforcement and also have little motive to commit property crimes like theft), but it’s not an instance of “justice delayed.”
If your argument is that there should be no discretion in sentencing — that we need to go back to the mandatory minimums with no room for prosecutors or judges to determine what’s appropriate — then please make that argument.
No I don’t think you would follow it. Let’s see, two famous White men with extreme privilege. Both faced tragedies in their earlier lives having loved ones murdered either by genocide (during Nazi Germany’s regime) or homicide (Sharon Tate, John and Robert Kennedy). Both were very successful in their respective fields of politics and policy making and movie making and were awarded with such in different ways. Both were afforded privilege due to their professional status among other things. Both victims in these cases were young women or teenaged women. Both have people in those fields or ideologies defending their behavior even years later. Both used their tragic pasts and triumphant accomplishments after the criminal incidents as the basis of this defense.
Both got wrist slapped because of who they are or were. Kennedy didn’t flee but then why should he? He got a suspended minimum sentence and he didn’t have citizenship in another country. Polonski’s duel citizenship in France and Poland help him in this area of fleeing.
Both fled in one way or another. Kennedy’s fled the crash and if he hadn’t, the woman with him would still be alive. Polanski fled the sentencing b/c it was being altered and he didn’t want more jail time. I think if Kennedy had faced an unsuspended sentence, he probably would have left Dodge too but that’s speculation mostly.
Well, we have to factor in that it wasn’t just leaving an accident where someone was injured. It was leaving an accident where someone was injured, unconscious or trapped inside a vehicle under water which means that there’s a reasonable expectation that this person could die without intervention. It’s not hitting someone on a highway and then fleeing. It’s crashing your car into water and then leaving someone there to suffocate or drown in a situation which is alway life threatening and one where people have died in this situation.
That’s what makes comparing and contrasting stats tricky. His situation is more serious than just most of the hit and runs that are reported in my county or anywhere else. Most of them still get six months, even if they’ve got no prior record. Well, except one case involving a cop.
Strangely that’s what Polanski apologists are doing as well, including those in Hollywood rallying around his “unjust” arrest. They probably feel as justified to do that as those like you feel like doing with Kennedy.
I’m not trying to rehash the Kennedy threads. It’s just amazing how if you’re a White rich, powerful man especially if you come from a political or motion picture dynasty, you can attract people to defend your behavior. Whether it’s Polanski or Kennedy or anyone else. Especially if their victims are women.
Kennedy’s case was closed so the wrist slapping there couldn’t be undone but in Polanski’s case, he’ll probably get time served if they do ever bring him to the U.S. The D.A. is pressured to go for higher with all the belated efforts made to bring him in, waiting until he was an older man and not when he had decades of life left but I don’t think much will happen to him anyway.
Both have people in those fields or ideologies defending their behavior even years later.
Really? Who defended Kennedy as Polanski’s apologists are doing, by saying “she asked for it” or “she was almost old enough for it anyway” or any of the other stuff that Jeff pointed out in his post above? Who has said it’s OK to drive a car off a bridge, or to fail to call the police when you have an accident like that? Certainly I’ve never seen anyone say that Kennedy was not at least guilty of the charge to which he pleaded guilty. In contrast, Polanski’s defenders are trying to get even the charge to which he pleaded guilty wiped off the record.
Both got wrist slapped because of who they are or were. Kennedy didn’t flee but then why should he? He got a suspended minimum sentence and he didn’t have citizenship in another country. Polonski’s duel citizenship in France and Poland help him in this area of fleeing.
Kennedy didn’t know that his sentence would be suspended, and he could have gone to a country that didn’t have extradition treaties with the U.S. (At the time, several South American countries and Switzerland didn’t.)
Both fled in one way or another. Kennedy’s fled the crash and if he hadn’t, the woman with him would still be alive. Polanski fled the sentencing b/c it was being altered and he didn’t want more jail time.
There’s a pretty big difference between leaving the scene of an accident and leaving the country. The comparison’s also getting increasingly factually inaccurate and speculative. First, Kennedy did attempt to rescue Kopechne, both on his own and then again when he went back with friends. None of them could get her out, perhaps because none were professional divers capable of reaching the bottom of the channel, opening the door of an upside-down car and pulling a full-grown woman out. The problem was that Kennedy eventually left the scene without reporting what had happened to the authorities who could have obtained a professional diver’s services. (Note that as the person who caused the accident, he’s the only one who could be held legally responsible for reporting what had happened; the friends who were helping him did not have any legal obligation to Kopechne.) Second, Polanski hadn’t served any jail time at all, and hadn’t even been sentenced yet. We don’t know what his sentence would have been.
I think if Kennedy had faced an unsuspended sentence, he probably would have left Dodge too but that’s speculation mostly.
Mostly? Which part of your belief (that a man with a wife, children of his own, children of his dead brothers, family fortune and Senate seat who received support from his constituents wouldn’t have served a two-month jail sentence, rather than leave all of that for Belize) isn’t speculation?
Strangely that’s what Polanski apologists are doing as well, including those in Hollywood rallying around his “unjust” arrest.
No, it’s not. The argument by the Polanski folks who are trying to help him avoid the justice system is that his crime wasn’t so bad, or even not a crime at all. The dude’s still alive. It’s not a matter of writing eulogies, which is how the discussion about Kopechne’s death came up (i.e. in evaluating Kennedy’s life as a whole). It’s a matter of getting Polanski extradited to the U.S. and sentenced for his crime.
Polanski didn’t come from a “motion picture dynasty,” unless there was some sort of Nazi concentration camp movie industry of which I am unaware.
he’ll probably get time served if they do ever bring him to the U.S.
That would be difficult, considering that he hasn’t served any time. Psychiatric evaluation is not considered penal and therefore the time required for it to be performed isn’t “time served.”
It’s just amazing how if you’re a White rich, powerful man especially if you come from a political or motion picture dynasty, you can attract people to defend your behavior.
In all honesty, I think this is where a lot of the resentment and anger comes from. If Roman Polanski was, say, DeShawn Washington, a poor Black man, you can bet your ass he’d get the book thrown at him, and he wouldn’t have all of these powerful people going to bat for him. I find all of the whining on other blogs about how he’s being lynched! lynched! to be disingenuous at best, incredibly racist and entitled at worst.
I do see what you’re saying WRT the survivor, Radfem. My ire is focused squarely on the nuclear stupid of the rape apology of Polanski and his fuckwit supporters. And the fact that this powerful, wealthy, White man gets away with this shit while supposedly progressive people pucker up and kiss his entitled ass.
PC, there’s no need for me to continue my argument because you’re doing all my work for me. Keep defending Kennedy and pointing the finger at Polanski but at the end of the day, they both benefited from their privilege for years or their entire life and they both have their apologists even if they don’t share apologists. Even if one group points the finger at one person and apologizes for the other.
Radfem,
I’m not an apologist for Kennedy; I’m a person who’s actually sticking to the facts of what occurred instead of engaging in speculation. I’m also a person who understands that receiving a suspended sentence =/= fleeing the country in order to avoid sentencing.
Suspended sentences are part of our justice system. If you are categorically opposed to them, or to any other discretion in sentencing, then make the argument instead of assuming that “wealthy White males!” makes the argument for you.
Kennedy vs. Polanski is a bit off topic here, but it does help explore the nuances of what “privilege” means in the context of class and race differences. I had never encountered the concept of “privilege” in that context until I started hanging around here. So I’m finding this useful.
What I do see as a similarity between the two is that in both cases the defenders of the two indentify strongly with the protagonist but seem to have no {commonality, empathy, identity} with the victim. She’s not quite real to them – dare I say, somewhat stripped of her humanity. The victim’s role, and the minimization of it, is more important than who the victim is (or was), her dreams, etc.
I would expect that of politicians. Somehow it’s more unexpected in the case of a community whose whole profession and reason for being is their ability to analyze, empathize and communicate such things to other people. They are supposed to be able to get you and I to get outside ourselves and put themselves in the place of others. Why can’t – or won’t – they do it themselves here?
Article by Kate Harding at Salon, which quotes this piece several times – http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html
Truly enjoyed your blog post on this subject. I’m in L.A. and it’s already THE talk of morning, noon and night. I agree that there’s nothing swank or chic about raping a minor. Polanski has had a subsequent life and career, since 1977, that his victim will never have; his actions toward her have assured that she never will. Sex should be between consenting adults and making apologies for such base behavior on a grown man’s impulse, as so many other blogs have, boggles the mind. I think you struck the perfect tone on this.
all I have to say to those who think Polanski couldn’t really have done anything wrong – cause he’s such a talented, nice guy – is, have you seen Chinatown?
I don’t think it is necessary to claim that being raped at 13 means you have no subsequent life or career in order to claim that it is an abhorrent crime for which Polanski should be punished. The girl Polanski raped in ’77 is a 45 year old now. She didn’t cease to exist.
When the victim herself has gone public, this is absurd.
Maybe you ought to make your own decisions regarding this and allow others to make theirs.
—Myca
From Charles S: “I don’t think it is necessary to claim that being raped at 13 means you have no subsequent life or career in order to claim that it is an abhorrent crime for which Polanski should be punished. The girl Polanski raped in ‘77 is a 45 year old now. She didn’t cease to exist.”
To Charles S. : With respect to your post, my comment wasn’t inferring that the victim has no life or ceased to exist. I made a brief comment but I will flesh it out this way: my point was that in the time since she was a victim of this crime, I have seen many pro-Polanski posts in various media that extol what a great career Polanski has had since the crime and the many freedoms he has enjoyed while in exile. The victim of this rape, who has made mention of the disruption and trauma the attention has caused her and her family, has not had the same considerable advantages as Polanski as a result of his statutory rape of her. Of course she hasn’t ceased to exist and that certainly wouldn’t be my only basis of why the crime was as abhorrent as we agree it was. I appreciate your nudge to me but the last thing I’d do is make the victim of this crime ‘less’ than her perpetrator. I’m glad that she has been able to make as much progress as she has, based on her interviews and her own accounts.
groggette , I say the original rape is moot. The victim settled $$$ with Polecat. But the Polecat has yet to settle with the L.A. District Attorney. The warrant for arrest was rightfully served.
But Whoopie Goldberg said on the view that it was not “rape, rape” so I guess it was just a misunderstanding.
I found the discourse on Kennedy very interesting.
Yeah. There’s often definitely a common thread, maybe not with everybody but with some for sure and it’s worrisome. The media for sure too.
And it’s not necessarily politicians or movie makers, it can be issues too that surround tragic cases involving crimes and tend to dominate discourse. A woman who died from a botched abortion ceasing to be human in the interests of the abortionists are murderers (and the woman might die too at their hands vs If we hold this incompetent doctor (with a history of malpractice) responsible we’re helping the anti-abortion movement win one. The woman’s grieving family caught in the middle and people weren’t interested in what they had to say. She was Black too so there was the obligatory racism by both sides.
I was reading legal analysis and talking with legal people here (and yes, it’s huge news in So. Cal, alas) and time served is any time spent in custody that’s pre-sentencing or pre-conviction/plea bargain. It’s 1-1 for county jail and either 1.5 -1 or 2-1 in prison. Most cases of psychological evaluations take place after sentencing, when it’s clear the defendant is going to prison time and they spend the first 30 days of their sentence going to a special wing of a prison separate from the general population and being evaluated for where they will serve out their sentence. There’s psych. evaluation, medical and often housing interviews (which are quite interesting particularly for gang members, asking things like which racial groups you can’t coexist with for example). There’s been cases of people who have been evaluated after conviction but before sentencing, i.e. some cop defendants on rape cases, which is interesting b/c they usually wind up in solitary confinement anyway.
But the sense was that he’ll get his case dismissed with or without time served. He almost certainly won’t get prison. His victim will get her life dragged out in public again, which is what she feared in legal papers she filed last January in court. And people will scratch their heads and then start focusing on incarcerating the poor and/or men and women of color again just like they always do. And the rich will get off and in the defense of that, this case will be used as proof that’s not what is happening.
Of course I’m allowing him to make his own decision – to the point of refaining from making my own decision on his thread. The idea that criticising something is equivalent to not allowing a person to do the thing is silly.
I interpreted your comment the same way that Charles did, and would have made the same reply had he not got there first.
OK, I see now that your comment could be interpreted as meaning that the victim did not have a privileged life and high-flying career like Polanski. It would have been a lot clearer if you’d said that the first time round.
Daran, I thought it had been clear the first time around that I wasn’t saying a rape victim ceased to exist.. Assumed that it was common knowledge that the victim was an aspiring child actress at the time of her assault and what happened to her killed a lot of her future opportunity.
I tried to make my point clearer the second time around and will leave it at that. No need for the reprimanding tone of your last sentence, by the way. I’m not Roman Polanski, just added my voice to the discussion.
@38,
When the victim herself has gone public, this is absurd.
Given that the victim’s entire reason for wanting to refrain from further criminal justice pursuit of Polanski is that she wants to get her privacy back as much as that’s humanly possible, I think minimizing mentions of her name is a polite way to honor that goal without necessarily agreeing with her that the justice system shouldn’t sentence and imprison Polanski for his crime.
Agreed,
Thanks for elaborating.
Charles
It isn’t true that privacy is the entire reason. She also believes that continuing the case would be to perpetrate injutice against Polanski:
You are not, of course, obliged to agree with her on this matter, but it is a misrepresentation of her position to say that privacy is her only reason.
On the subject of privacy, there is no indication that it is the use of her name per se which concerns her, but the periodic public reopening of the case. Fecke’ five (so far) posts on the subject hasn’t “honoured” her wishes, but flagrently disregarded them.
Again, he’s entitled to do that – free speech and all that. But let’s not pretend that we’re respecting her wishes by not mentioning her already-widely-publicised name.
I don’t believe that ‘the wishes of the victim’ is our best guide in what we ought to do in pursuing justice.
Most of the time, this means that pro-death penalty arguments like, “if someone tortured your children to death, wouldn’t you want to see them executed” have no effect on me. I mean, yeah, of course I’d want to see them executed. I’d want to do it myself, with a penknife, over the course of several months. That’s why we don’t let the victim ‘pick’ what happens.
In this case, though, the argument is a little different. If the victim hadn’t reported the crime or pressed charges in the first place, obviously, Polanski wouldn’t be prosecuted … but she did. Since she did, his flight from punishment is not an offense against her, it’s an offense against us.
Even if you grant all of the arguments of the ‘the victim doesn’t want us to prosecute, so we shouldn’t prosecute’ crew (which I do not), that still doesn’t affect our need for an effective judicial system that you can’t avoid by skipping town.
—Myca
Gore Vidal offers his take on this issue in an interview in the Atlantic (the interviewer is bolded):
To complete the above:
How did I know that the new comment on this thread would be the Gore Vidal quote?
The contempt dripping from Vidal’s comment shocks but does not surprise me, given that it is identical to the contempt for women displayed by a certain segment of white uppper-class gay men.
Absolutely vomitous.