Entering Zurich for the Zurich Film Festival, Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police. The US is expected to make a formal extradition request.
Honestly, I don't quite know how to feel about this. He had pleaded guilty in 1978 to a charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" of thirteen, and then skipped the country. However, he claims the judge in the case had agreed to a plea bargain ("time served") and then reneged.
And the person he molested -- now forty-five years old -- has also asked that the charge be dismissed. She came to a settlement with him in civil court, and now just wants it to be over.
Any thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Polanski arrested.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16232
I'm not sure what to make about this either. The question I have is "Why now?" Who is pushing this arrest and for what reason(s)? A documentary released last year finds reasons that the entire case should be thrown out of court altogether, but that is one side of the argument, of course.
It would be interesting to know the identities and the rationale of those who are only now deciding to make a strong push to put the director in jail.
Since the victim has been asking for a long time for this to just be dropped, I'm of the mindset that it should be dropped. So many decades have passed that there can no longer be any danger of her being coerced into dropping them, and I imagine it must be such an emotional drain to have this dragged out again over the entire course of her life when she's just ready to move on. It seems more than a little cruel.
I've always wondered if the death of Sharon Tate just knocked Polanski off his rocker.
I don't think it should be dropped, regardless of what the victim says. He has already been convicted. It is not a good precedent to allow a convicted sex offender to dodge punishment by fleeing the country just because the victim agrees that he should be allowed to dodge punishment.
This places the onus on the victim to let him off, and encourages the rich and famous to flee the country to dodge convictions. He should be punished MORE HARSHLY because he dodged, not less.
kbz
Word.
Well, however he is treated, there shouldn't be two standards, meaning one standard for rich folk and then one for everybody else.
From what I've read about other people on the lam from the US government, the US is generally not one to simply give up legal proceedings simply because time has passed.
He is the one who has caused this situation to drag out. It was his choice to run. And if he didn't want to be caught he should have stayed his ass in France or at least a Schengen country for crying out loud.
this is a no brainer. built has already been establish, only punishment remains. he should be punished to the fullest extent for plying a 13 year old with alcohol, anally raping her then fleeing his punishment. it hasn't been established whether it was within the rights of the judge to approve his plea bargain, which it generally is. 42 days for such a rape offends my sense of justice, and i imagine the judge's as well. that he was allowed to even plea is another matter as well, but that is done
and no the victim does not get to decide if the charges are dropped. thats too much pressure to place on one that has been damaged. besides, the prosecutors represent the people, not just one person. i want a society where a person found guilty, or who pleads guilty, is properly punished, and not allowed to flee because they belongs to a certain race, gender or economic class.
built should have read "guilt"
again, totally agree.
'Unlawful sexual intercourse'? NO, it is RAPE. RAPE is the proper word. I'm so sick of seeing headlines like 'man has sex with 12 year-old'.
that's just the legal term, i.e. the charge. it isnt a euphemism
Yeah but there are lots of legal terms for things when the actual thing that occurred was rape. What it comes down to is rape needs to be called out for what it is in the courts, I'm sick of this crap.
But I understand why newspapers have to use the legal terms otherwise they can get sued.
rape is a broad term so many places use various terms to describe the various types of rapes. saying rape doesnt really tell the whole story. same goes for different grades of killing. from manslaughter to first degree homicide
But in those situations no one would say the person didn't "kill" the other person. With rape when it's called something else legally that means no one is allowed to say what it actually was: rape.
But this is getting into a derail and is not important to the issue at hand.
It seems to me that some of the issue is nomenclature. "Rape" is both the generic term for the act, and a specific term for a specific crime. If someone committed manslaughter, we would say he "killed" them ... because he did. But we likely wouldn't say he "murdered" them, because murder is a legal term, and, if he is convicted of manslaughter, he technically did not murder anyone (a newspaper certainly wouldn't say "murder" in a manslaughter case).
In this analogy, rape can be analogous to both "kill" and "murder". Thus, it is possible to rape someone under the general definition of the term, and not be guilty of "rape" under the legal definition of the term (instead being guilty of a differently named crime). Morally, what Polanski did was rape. Legally, it likely was not called 'rape'.
This is likely the source of your frustration with the terminology.
kbz
This case really makes me sick. The only reason this is even being questioned is because he's a famous, Oscar winning, WHITE movie director. I'm sorry, but if this was some nobody (and yes, if he was black I'm sure this would be tons different, no question) who fled the country to avoid prison for raping a minor this would be open and shut. But since it's Roman Polanski apparently it's not?
You mean if he was R. Kelly or Michael Jackson he would have had no chance of getting away with it?
Common denominator is cash/money.
You think R. Kelly and Michael Jackson haven't faced much much much more public scrutiny then Roman Polanksi? Really? Michael Jackson was acquited and many still assume he's guilty anyway (I'm not saying he is or isn't, but still). And R. Kelly was lambasted in the media. Roman Polanksi? He won a freaking Oscar while he was in France? Actors do nothing but sing his praises. Yes, I agree fame and fortune has a lot to do with it (which is why I said "if it was some nobody), but let's not pretend race plays absolutely no part here.
Polanski needs to do his time.
Maybe its because I am a little cynical, but after Polanski and his victim settle out of court she decides that she would also liked the case dropped...
I'm a little annoyed at how everyone's focusing on their opinion of what needs to happen to Polanski.
The victim has said, taken from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/12/polanski.case/index.html
"I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."
She chided the district attorney's office for not dismissing the case earlier and for "yet once again (giving) great publicity to the lurid details of those events, for all to read again. True as they may be, the continued publication of those details cause harm to me ... I have become a victim of the actions of the District Attorney."
But instead, all the comments about Polanski are so focused on the man, and on suspicions about the victim's motivations. Typical.
Those middle three paragraphs should all be italicized, they're all excerpts from the link. Bad HTML.
But the thing is, he has already been found guilty. He has already fled justice. I understand concern for what the victim wants, but as others have said above, he's the one that caused this case to drag out over several decades. And it's not up to the victim to decide what his exact punishment in a court of law should be. That's true for most criminal proceedings. The victims get to speak their mind at sentencing but in the end it is up to the courts to hand down the punishments, not the victims.
Typically people on this board are irritated that rape cases are over-focused on the victim rather than the perpetrator. It is curious that you believe we should be less focused on the criminal.
The wishes of the victim are not always in the best interest of justice or the state. This appears to be such a case. The state simply cannot allow a convicted criminal to escape punishment by fleeing -- it would create a horrible precedent, and could contribute to further cases of flight from justice.
kbz
I am frustrated by all of the famous people who stand up for him and try to sweep what he did under the rug because he's supposedly a brillant director, saying things like "he already atoned for the SINS of his younger years." The man raped a child! That's not just a sin that we can chalk up to being young and stupid. Worse yet, he fled the country to evade punishment. He needs to face the consequences. I hope that the Swiss will send him back here so he can finally pay.
I like (some of) Polanski's movies.
It's a terrible thing that happened to his wife.
It's very likely the judge reneged in an inappropriate way on the plea bargain.
I think some age of consent laws are questionably structured, and in practice often used to perpetuate the patriarchy's agenda of "protecting" (i.e. controlling) female sexuality.
That said,
Polanski raped someone and fled the jurisdiction.
End of story.
He raped her when she was 13. She was drugged and sodomized after her protests.
Regardless of whether she or her parents want to sentence Polanski, the state will. They have to, he is a convicted rapist who fled the country before sentencing.
Why is there so much confusion, here of all places?
As for his film making, let him make films from within prison.
He is not a national treasure, not here, not in Europe. The world wont end because Polanski, the rapist film maker, is in jail.
So the victim is requesting that the charges be dropped? What about those domestic abuse victims who believe its their husband's divine right to beat them- should this illegal assault be allowed to continue just because the victim is misinformed? No. With all due respect to the victim, it does not really matter if she wanted the charges dropped; Polanski has committed a crime and must be held accountable for it.
So the victim is requesting that the charges be dropped? What about those domestic abuse victims who believe its their husband's divine right to beat them- should this illegal assault be allowed to continue just because the victim is misinformed? No. With all due respect to the victim, it does not really matter if she wanted the charges dropped; Polanski has committed a crime and must be held accountable for it.