September 27, 2009

Roman Polanski is now in custody for having sex with a 45-year-old woman.

He did that that 32 years ago, when she was 13. You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant. He's avoided capture for so long as he's lolled about in Europe, collecting kudos, and he's gotten so old — 76 — that it seems as though the reprehensible crime only exists in the sealed-away past.

And now that another woman — a 61-year-old woman, who, when she was 21 (not as young as 13), murdered his long-ago wife and his never-born child — has died, that other world seems impossibly distant and deceased. His victimizer Susan Atkins is dead, and the woman he victimized, Samantha Geimer, has settled with him. It might be part of the secret settlement, but Geimer does not want the old criminal charges pursued.

Nonetheless, the Swiss police arrested Roman Polanski when he touched down in Zurich to pick up another prize. Why did that happen?
"There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming," ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. "That's why he was taken into custody."
Oh! There is memory, and there is law, and you cannot rise above it, not by extreme suffering or extreme old age, not by great fame or great accomplishment, and not by profuse reconciliation with the victim.

Roman Polanski has been called to account at long last.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
Florida said...

You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant.

Wow, you clearly do not have a daughter, and have never been raped.

Really, Ann? If someone raped your kid, you wouldn't go to the end of the world, the end of time itself, to see justice come to that person?

I'm glad you're not my mom.

chickenlittle said...

What is it with film makers and underage girls?

Skyler said...

Sympathy for a child molester? Since when?

And someone who fled the country to avoid prosecution?

I agree with Florida. If someone did that to my child and then fled the country, I don't think he would have lived to be 76 years old -- but if he did, I would be ever grateful that the Swiss upheld the law.

Lem said...

You would think he would have sought a pardon from the Clintons.. He should get arrested if only for his undo diligence.

..or can a pardon only be had after a court proceeding?

peter hoh said...

I don't get the Duke case tag.

Chicken little, I suspect that the number of teachers and clergy convicted of child rape far exceed the number of filmmakers similarly convicted.

I don't much care what the victim has to say about this case now. The facts are clear, aren't they? I have no problem with the long arm of justice finally getting this bastard.

Fred4Pres said...

The underlying crime was significant. And fleeing the jurisdiction and sentancing was signficiant too. Okay, so his victim worked out a civil sentance and forgives him. That is a factor, but not the only factor. Polanski should have faced sentancing back when this happened, served some time and been done with this in the seventies. But he didn't, so there are issues to be faced now.

Polanski is no victim here. I am sorry he was a survivor of the Holocaust and his wife was killed by the Manson family, but this mess is totally of his own making. It is time for him to resolve it.

AllenS said...

You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant

They're still hunting down Nazi's, who are also very old.

Florida said...

I'm reminded of Jaycee Dugard, raped 18 years ago.

Would you think, Ann, that by now it would be forgotten, forgiven or at least irrelevant?

After all, she had many chances to "escape" if that's what she really wanted ... wouldn't you agree?

Do you have reserves of sympathy for Phillip Garrido?

Or are Roman Polanski and Phillip Gariddo the same type of criminal? (Except that Polanski had the dollars to escape justice for a longer period of time.)

I'm baffled by this post and turning off your ads for a while to punish you for having this opinion.

chickenlittle said...

Isn't the problem with the "it's been so long and he was victimized and can't we just forgive and forget approach" is the legal precedent it sets.
I mean, were you OK with it 32 years ago?
Do think middle aged guys should be boffing 13 year-olds? And finally, why should artists get a pass?

AllenS said...

And you, an artist!

Florida said...

Boffing?

I'm unfamiliar with this term.

I am familiar with the term "anal rape" which is what Polanski did to the innocent 13-year-old child.

What does it mean ... boffing?

Sheepman said...

Ethics aside, I'm curious to know why he went to a jurisdiction where he'd be subject to extradition.

Had he gone to Switzerland before without problems, did he assume he was safe now with a new administration, or did he get bad legal advice?

MadisonMan said...

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they do grind. I don't have much sympathy for Polanski here. I'm glad, though, that the rape victim has been able to forgive.

rhhardin said...

The 70s was when child sexual abuse was discovered as a profitable public news event.

So he didn't get in under the wire, quite.

Child abuse itself was discovered in the 60s, but only as battered child, not sexual.

Discovered meaning entered public consciousness as a public problem.

Ian Hacking.

AllenS said...

IIRC, Polanski used butter as a lubricant when he anally penetrated the 13 year old. So, boffing could mean using butter.

Tom Watson said...

"Having sex"?

Is that what you call it when you ply a 13-year-old with drugs and alcohol and then assault her?

The Smoking Gun published papers from the case that are chilling. This was an assault.

You should be more careful with langauge.

ricpic said...

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Rofer Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."


But let's forgive and forget.

Ann Althouse said...

Man, I thought this post was all enigmatic and fence-straddly.

Please reread.

Meade said...

"...but this mess is totally of [Polanski's] own making."

The 13 year-old girl's parents also bear some culpability... for child neglect and endangering.

AJ Lynch said...

Would that all of our our laws were prosecuted without political interference!

I.e. leaving a car passenger to drown, tax compliance, illegal immigration, drug use, etc.

Robert Cook said...

"Boffing?

I'm unfamiliar with this term."


It's simply another euphemism for sexual intercourse...like screwing, humping, balling, fucking.

Ralph L said...

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.

Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence

Who was the prosecutor?
How many child-buggerers now rot in prison?

Kevin said...

It might be part of the secret settlement, but Geimer does not want the old criminal charges pursued.

It would indeed be interesting to know how much Geimer was paid, and whether Geimer's supporting dismissal of the charges against Polanski was part of the deal.

But he got away with it for so long - obviously he shouldn't be charged. /sarc

Florida said...

"Please reread."

No.

You should rewrite this post.

We are not responsible for your lack of clarity in writing what you wrote.

As written, you are condoning the anal rape of a 13-year-old child as long as the rapist is famous enough and gets away with it for a long period of time by evading law enforcement.

So ...

Please rewrite.

miller said...

I will confess my first thought was, "Althouse is positing this to see if we can apply this to other cases where the bleeding hearts try to engender sympathy for the aggressors."

If we don't think Polanksi should get away with this, she implies, why do we let other outrages fade because "it was in the past"?

I am sorry that Susan Atkins died from cancer because it's a terrible way to die & suffering is terrible -- but she was justly convicted & put away & did not deserve a hardship exemption. She was extremely fortunate to live as long as she did. Polanski's wife and child were not around to speak on her behalf, if I might channel Taranto's "Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment" tagline.

Ann Althouse said...

"We are not responsible for your lack of clarity in writing what you wrote."

My posts are challenging and not intended to hit you over the head with an obvious point. If you like this blog, you like that about it. I write this blog, and I have no interest in writing in a style you like better. There are millions of blogs. Read whatever you like. Accept my challenge or don't.

Leland said...

I get that Geimer wants the case to be dismissed. She's had to deal with this for sometime now, and going through it again, now that see is 45, is not worth the public humiliation. I've never heard of her before today, and I'm sure she rather I've never knew of her for this.

Still, I have no issue with the law doing its duty. This could have all been over a long time ago with what really would have been a virtual slap on the wrist. He's likely still to get away with far less time than others, with less popularity, would.

wv: thoun The lexical category for biblical subjects.

Florida said...

Meade: "The 13 year-old girl's parents also bear some culpability ..."

OMG! Both of you? This entire post is repulsive.

The only person who bears any culpability is the rapist. The girl was a professional model being photographed for the world's largest fashion magazine - Vogue (ostensibly).

By today's standards would a parent leave their child unattended with an adult? Miley Cyrus' parents did, so maybe so. And we got soft-kiddie-porn out of that photo shoot, so it's not too farfetched.

But we now know that some rapists, if they are famous enough (Michael Jackson, et al) will get away with anally raping their kid.

We know that now.

EDH said...

The 13 year-old girl's parents also bear some culpability... for child neglect and endangering.

I thought the same thing, but while the parents' negligence was a contributory factor, it's not a mitigating one for Polanski.

wv - "stroke" = how Polanski could have avoided this whole mess

Florida said...

"My posts are challenging ..."

No, they're not. This post reads exactly as I think you meant it - as an apologia for Roman Polanski.

It's sickening.

But if I, and many others, have misinterpreted what you meant to convey, please, educate us who are unable to complete your "challenge."

G Joubert said...

Polanski did not flee to avoid prosecution. He fled to avoid sentencing. Guilt had already been established because he had already pled guilty as part of a plea bargain. When he comes back he'll face sentencing, plus face new charges for absconding. Think he'll likely try to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea? That one can be seen coming.

I don't see how a justice system can reward someone for fleeing by now giving them a slap on the wrists because it has now been so long. What message does that send?

rhhardin said...

I wonder when outrage thought it got the right-of-way over everything.

It's certainly true today.

AllenS said...

He did that that 32 years ago, when she was 13. You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but this ain't fence-straddly.

Lem said...

Somebody call 911.. there is an alligator roaming loose in Althousia.

Skyler said...

Fence straddling and enigmas don't seem to be properly applied to the instance of a man in his forties drugging a girl and then sodomizing, raping, and asking her if she's on the pill when she's only 13 years old.

Some things call for moral clarity. When you aren't seeing something like this clearly, you are rightly taken to be sympathetic to the pervert.

c3 said...

The crime was repugnant and it WAS A CRIME. When someone breaks the law then it is the obligation of authorities to enforce that law. That has now happened.

Separate but related will be the trial. I would hope that information regarding Mr. Polanski's life since the alleged rape and sentiments from the victim would NOT have great importance during the trial since IMHO the crime should stand alone.

Finally, if convicted, a sentence should be meted out. During that phase I'd expect a lot of discussion regarding Mr. Polanski's behavior since the crime and his victim's present sentiment regarding punishment.

So I would plead that we follow the "standard procedure".

(this time really) Finally, just as in accusations of spousal abuse, I would hope that in such a crime the victim's desire to pursue, while important, don't drive law enforcement. (I know, naive.)

PS: I'm not a lawyer; does it show?

Robin said...

Did the outraged commentors let their outrage prevent them from reading to the unambiguous end? Where they would have found this:

"Oh! There is memory, and there is law, and you cannot rise above it, not by extreme suffering or extreme old age, not by great fame or great accomplishment, and not by profuse reconciliation with the victim."

To which I would say, Yes, thankfully, unless you're an Islamic mass murderer in Scotland.

Oligonicella said...

Empathy needs to be applied to those deserving thereof. Polanski is not.

rcocean said...

The Key point is Polanski was found guilty of child rape and was about to sentenced when he fled the country.

So, no forgiveness.

As for Althouse's post - I think it was deliberately ambiguous- in order to raise questions.

Oligonicella said...

Robin --

Since Althouse applies no <snark> or such, there is no way to know if that comment is a snyde conclusion, is there?

PoNyman said...

Yes, come on peeps. The second half of the post is quite clear. Read the whole thing.

wv: hubbl - maybe a few of you need it on this post.

Florida said...

"It might be part of the secret settlement, but Geimer does not want the old criminal charges pursued."

This post is also severely fact-challenged.

The charges aren't an issue - nor is Polanski's guilt. Those issues were settled

The charges have already been pursued - and completed. As part of his plea bargain, a stipulation of facts was made. You should go read it. Polanski fled after pleading guilty to his crime.

Here's the normally secret grand jury testimony the 13-year-old gave:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

There are no charges. No question about his guilt.

There is only the prison time he still owes for his brutal rape of a 13-year-old innocent child.

John Lynch said...

What gets me is that if he'd faced the music he would have been out of jail 30 years ago. The crime was treated that seriously back then.

Now he may die in prison.

Dumb, but I can't say I feel sorry for him.

John Lynch said...

NOT treated that seriously, my bad.

bearbee said...

re: post, the last paragraph and final sentence clearly obviate the seemingly casual opening paragraph.

Beth said...

His case is a good argument for the legal system. Those who would say he's being persecuted have to account for why he ran. He ran to escape consequences. He could have faced the consequences, done his time, and assuming he stopped raping young teens, this would all be a near-the-bottom paragraph in stories about his subsequent career.

But he ran and the event is frozen in time until he is held accountable.

dbp said...

Polanski fled jurisdiction when it became apparent that the judge was going to go back on the plea agreement.

It seems to me that is plenty of cause to withdraw the plea. California will end-up having to try the case. Polanski is clearly guilty so he should be convicted.

We can extradite him from Switzerland, but why should we? He would never otherwise come to the United States and endanger our children and the victim is not demanding justice. That is to say: What tangible benefit do we gain from the cost associated with such a project? Will this detour others from absconding? Doubtful. Who wouldn't trade 32 years of freedom followed by prison for prison now?

Beth said...

Wow, you clearly do not have a daughter, and have never been raped.

Althouse is using rhetorical strategy - when she writes
"you think that by now it would be -- if not forgotten or even forgiven -- at least irrelevant" that's the voice of the opposition, the voice Polankski has heard in his head all these years. She concludes that "there is memory, there is law" and that "Polankski has been called to account at long last."

Meade said...

Beth said...
Althouse is using rhetorical strategy...

Have you remembered to hug your English teacher today?

rhhardin said...

I'd say the post is felt as showing insufficient outrage, and that's not overcome in fevered minds by favoring the majesty of the law.

Where showing no outrage would be the point.

My own sidetrack is taking the outrage as a symptom of something more interesting than either.

Guggenbuhl-Craig ties it to the change of society from patriarchal to matriarchal, and the availabilty not only of a general cause of this or that problem (men), but a villain, the particular man, as well.


That and stray dogs, the two chief things that changed in social consciousness after I had grown up.

Florida said...

As for Althouse's post - I think it was deliberately ambiguous - in order to raise questions.

The "Duke Rape Case" tag removed all ambiguity. (It should be noted that Ann Althouse has altered this post without admitting it to remove that tag, which was there on the original post.)

The Duke Rape Case was about someone claiming to have been raped, and about three men who were innocent of that rape.

That removed the ambiguity.

Ann was clearly signaling that she thinks the rape allegation is bogus ... thus, her use of the now-removed Duke Rape Case tag.

I found that an especially sickening touch, since Polanski has already admitted his guilt.

The Polanski case is not about his innocence - as there is no question about he is guilty, since he admitted the crime.

The Polanski case is about famous people who are allowed to anally rape children and escape our justice system while doing it.

And about those who would excuse such acts.

Beth said...

Since Althouse applies no [snark] or such, there is no way to know if that comment is a snyde conclusion, is there?

Yes, there is language and thought. We communicated very well in writing before the advent of emoticons and playful additives in brackets.

Oligonicella said...

Beth --

Problem is, that 'strategy' relies on the readership being familiar that it's being used. I often use the 'strategy' of pretending to be a first time reader. *Then* it completely fails to be obvious, the first POV written shading all subsequent.

Zappa - Facetiae does not translate to print.

rhhardin said...

You could add the Duke rape case, it fits the outrage very well.

The outrage is the point of the public exercise.

Oligonicella said...

Beth -

"We communicated very well in writing before the advent of emoticons and playful additives in brackets."

Yes we did Beth, and it was done by writing with clarity, leaving ambiguity and rhetorical devices to stories and so forth. When used in conversation, those devices are accompanied with facial and body gestures, eh?

Robin said...

Oh, good Beth. I was just thinking that common sense, context, and familiarity with the author's work might also help the 'no way to tell what she means without an emoticon' commenter.

John Lynch said...

Check out this old Althouse post.

It doesn't seem very sympathetic about the rape.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am not so sure that he will get a retrial. Whether or not the judge at the time would or would not have gone back on the deal they had is really pretty irrelevant as to the underlying charge, since he was never given the chance. Where it might be relevant is in the flight charge.

There are plenty of reasons for him not to get another trial, including the fact that he missed his chance to appeal (by fleeing, but that isn't the state's fault). And, it is going to be quite hard to get a conviction 40 years down the road. That is one reason that they have statutes of limitations (though it is likely tolled for flight from justice, or whatever they would try him on for fleeing the country).

viaggo said...

When I was 12 I was raped.

That was 24 years ago - and I think my rapist should be held responsible for his actions.

I was convinced by my rapist (a teacher) that nobody would believe me, and so I didn't go to authorities. The greatest regret of my life.

Maybe I would have been believed, and maybe I would have stopped him from attacking other girls.

DO I think Polanski is a real danger to 12 year old girls today? I don't know. But I think the consistency of the law being applied even to the rich and famous is a important. I also hope that there is a deterrent effect and next time a man thinks to take advantage of an underaged girl he might think that this is a crime that he WILL be held accountable for.

I am sorry if this comment doesn't make a lot of sense... but this is an issue that is very important to me. The thought that anyone would excuse the actions of a child rapist or want them to walk away from their punishment is horrifying to me.

AllenS said...

Let me use rhetorical strategy, language and thought, with some fence-straddly thrown in.

I hate niggers.

...
...

Some of my bests friends at work are black.

Make sure you read my whole post, especially the unambiguous end.

dbp said...

Bruce,

I thought the statute of limitations only applied between the act and being accused. Once you have been charged--or in this case convicted then it shouldn't apply.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am completely open to the possibility of being wrong here.

John Lynch said...

It seems strange to me that people would take this post in isolation when it is posted on a blog updated daily by a feminist law prof.

Um, come on, do you REALLY think Althouse believes Polanski is in the right? Really?

Come on folks, if something seems weird do a double take and reread it. I did, because I read this blog regularly and that interpretation didn't fit.

It's like death of the author in here. Geez.

Cedarford said...

Florida said...
You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant.
Wow, you clearly do not have a daughter, and have never been raped.
Really, Ann? If someone raped your kid, you wouldn't go to the end of the world, the end of time itself, to see justice come to that person?


The ever self-righteous Florida opines.
I join Althouse in fence straddling on this. For the following reasons:

1. The teen, a model-actress, was dropped of by her stage mom so she could pose for "test photos" and stuff for Polanski, who the stage mom told her daughter "could really help her career". Stagemom left her.

2. The teen, (not child - what Polanski did was pederasty, not child molestation)..was sexually active. By her own admission, she was an early bloomer, lost her virginity by age 12, had been with at least one "older" man and had had sex with several boyfriends between the age of 14 and 21.

3. In her later interviews, she said she didn't really want Polanski's attentions, but during and after the tryst, didn't think it was any big deal. And wasn't bothered by it after. What she said WAS enormously emotionally traumatic and stressful to the point where she thought of killing herself was the Prosecutors and threats from the prosecutors against her and her family that "tore her life apart for almost two years."

4. Polanski served hard jail time while awaiting sentencing. He plead according to a plea bargain for time served, probation, a large fine, and restitution to Geimer (perhaps for the trauma the prosecutor and various court-order psychologists inflicted on her".

He fled when his lawyer announced the judge in the case, fearing adverse publicity to himself - reneged on the plea deal but was keeping the "guilty plea" intact so he could impose a far harsher sentence.

5. Florida and other self-righteous sould may wish to remember that this was a time of drugs and pre-AIDs, pre-sex crime puritans - when half of Hollywood and most rock bands were freely tapping 15-18 year old Groupie jailbait.
If Polanski is a monster, so are half the rockstars of the era, half the moneyed Jews of Hollywood offering Princess Treatment to hot stuff walking by their Malibu beachfronts or Bev Hills parties, half the male talent in TV and movies - all offering trinkets, jobs, status - in return for sex, and just filling their social scene full of adoring groupies.

6. And Polanski himself was a mess after the murder of his wife and young son...perhaps his brutal childhood also coming home - but by all accounts, after the Tate-Labianca murders, his behavior went from energetically driven, teperate, and in monogomous relationships to energetically self-destructive, drug abuse, drinking, and screwing anything in sight.

7. There is also a cadre of people, in today's society it seems..that credit no passage of time, forgiveness of others, including "the victims" for their own boiling hot, self-righteous fury at other's misdeeds.

You have to wonder who is more screwed in the head.
Polanski or the "furious avengers" who are foaming at the mouth 40 years afterwards.

Its those like Florida who find such comfort in hating..."Every night I cry myself to sleep raging at what Teddy Kennedy did to Mary JO Kopechne!" "How can anyone THINK of having Japanese friends after what they did 70 years ago!" "Martha Stewart...until my last breath...I revile her and think she didn't suffer enough!!"

Chill, you haters...

PoNyman said...

Let me use rhetorical strategy, language and thought, with some fence-straddly thrown in.

I hate niggers.


Change the 'I' to 'you' and you might have something there.

Florida said...

As for Althouse's post - I think it was deliberately ambiguous - in order to raise questions.

The title of the post is unambiguous: "Roman polanski is now in custody for having sex with a 45-year-old woman."

Of course, he's not in custody for having sex.

He's in custody for rape.

The title claims that what Polanski did was mere sex.

It also states flatly that the "sex" was with a 45-year-old woman.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The rape was of a 13-year-old child ... not a 45-year-old woman.

The title is quite unambiguous.

Althouse says what Polanski had was "sex." All of her readers believe that it was a rape; that he admitted it was a rape; and that he pled guilty to the charges.

Everything about the post: the opening, the title, the incorrect facts, the Duke Rape Case tag ... is about as unambiguous as it gets.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Florida said...

"Roman Polanski has been called to account at long last."

Not yet he hasn't.

The Swiss are merely holding him in custody at the request of the United States.

The Swiss may release him.

The United States is now required to formally extradite him; and it remains to be seen whether our Justice Department will carry out justice in this case.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

The 13 year old was sexually active? Well, then it's ok to have anal sex with her. What was I thinking?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Lynch said...

I understand the argument made by defenders of Polanski that "everyone was doing it." That makes his prosecution seem arbitrary.

However, how do you change a culture where teenage girls are routinely used for sex? Well, by prosecuting some of the celebrities who are breaking the law. It had to be someone, didn't it?

I have little sympathy for someone who could easily have had someone 5 years older. Just because the law wasn't enforced well back then doesn't mean it shouldn't have been in his case.

Dionne said...

He drugged and anally raped her, orally raped her, and vaginally raped this young woman when she was 13 years old. I don't think she's forgotten that. Would you have forgotten this if it had happened to you or your daughter, sister, friend, etc? Most ethical people do not think the rape of children is irrelevant. Think before you write.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Balfegor said...

Re: Florida:

Look how the post ends:

Oh! There is memory, and there is law, and you cannot rise above it, not by extreme suffering or extreme old age, not by great fame or great accomplishment, and not by profuse reconciliation with the victim.

Roman Polanski has been called to account at long last
.

Sure, she's not exulting in Polanski's capture, but that doesn't sound like an argument that Polanski shouldn't have been clapped in irons. On the contrary, the recitation of things that do not permit you to escape justice (and which almost every reader would agree should not permit you to escape justice), combined with the closing language: "called to account," -- does this not suggest that Althouse thinks this is the correct outcome?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Balfegor said...

I understand the argument made by defenders of Polanski that "everyone was doing it."

Wait, they were? Goodness but I am glad I did not have to live through the horrors of 60s and 70s culture.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedarford said...

Florida - Althouse says what Polanski had was "sex." All of her readers believe that it was a rape; that he admitted it was a rape; and that he pled guilty to the charges.

Althouse is correct. It is sex. You properly ADD that in the eyes of the law, it is rape. But only statutory rape - which is a crime only rarely prosecuted. Have to be a celebrity, a boyfriend the girl's parents wish to screw in a
different way with a vindictive prosecutor in their pocket - for anything to really happen,

I remember reading that estimates are that 55-60% of men in California committed "statutory rape" in the legal sense of the word at some point in their lives, mostly when they were between 15 and 24 - And that 60% of the black females in Jacksonville Florida between age 12 and 15 are not virgins.
===========================
Alex said...
Always beware of the people who are "trying to protect the childrun". They are more dangerous then any so-called pedophiles could ever be. They are the modern-day Inquisitors ready to burn anyone at the stake.


It seems they crave power and control...and think their Shock! and Outrage! will bend others to their will as "Champions of a victim/victim family".

When it generally doesn't, these people end up being permanently stuck in the shock! outrage! gear.

EKatz said...

The fact that she was sexually active doesn't make it rape? So 'rape' applies only to chaste virgins, but to people who sleep around more, or for whatever other reason are perceived as unchaste, it suddenly doesn't apply? Their bodies are fair game for anyone? That's the sort of reasoning you see in, say, Saudi Arabia.

Oh, and apparently he was so certain of the girl's acquiescence that he "plied her with champagne" and gave her a quaalude too.

This is just another example of a wealthy, powerful, well-connected individual thinking he/she can operate outside the law. This isn't about "burning him at the stake" or whatnot - it's about him serving a sentence commensurate with what he did.

And the fact that the 13 year old's parents might've known what was going on, or neglected and exploited their daughter, doesn't somehow make it more acceptable. It makes it even more sad.

John Lynch said...

Rape is obviously the same regardless of age.

However, below the age of consent it isn't he-said, she said, it's just illegal either way. Even assuming the victim is a slutty teenager (or whatever) it's still illegal for men in their 40s to have sex with 13 year olds. I'm OK with that law.

William said...

Think of some doddering concentration camp guard who, instead of a nursing home, is sent to spend his last days in prison. Our justice is as imperfect and clumsy as everything else about us. I did not read the Althouse post as being pro-child rapist but rather as a reminder of the contradictions and ambiguities involved in our pursuit of justice.

Florida said...

" ... does this not suggest that Althouse thinks this is the correct outcome?"

Not sure. Ann's posts are challenging. That part is ambiguous. Especially since Roman Polanski hasn't spent 1 day in jail yet for his crime, so it's not clear how his detention represents his being called to account for anything yet.

LA Times: "Asked if prosecutors would ask that Polanski be sentenced to time behind bars if he was returned to the U.S., Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said, 'We’ve always maintained this is a matter between Polanski and the court. We initially recommended prison time for him, but I can’t see into the future.'"

So, he may never be called to account, according to the spokesman for the district attorney's office. Especially if those in the media say that his crimes "should be forgotten or even forgiven," as Althouse wrote. Or suggest that since he's evaded the law for 32 years, his crimes are "at least irrelevant."

The title of the post reveals that Ann believes Polanski was just having sex with the girl; and that his arrest was as unjust as the arrest of the three men in the Duke Rape Case.

(It should be noted that Ann quietly removed the Duke Rape Case tag after it was pointed out.)

I don't know how this post can be read as anything other than an apologia for Polanski - when read in its complete context.

I think it's quite unambigously supportive of a child rapist.

The Crack Emcee said...

No way to "move on" with this one: I've warned you, Ann, too many times, about appearing "flip" on important ethical subjects. I've even grown a little paranoid that the "and you, a law professor!" joke was about me, for defending the "there is memory, there is law" position so strenuously here. As someone living with a case of delayed justice, while I watch others go on with (what, to me, is) this sometimes-disgusting new "snarky" view of life, I can attest to the fact there's really no such thing as "moving on", and the duality-obsessed NewAger's insistence we even attempt to do so is just a passive-aggressive way of attacking whistle-blowers - putting out the fire, that's enveloping the victims, with gasoline.

So go on - claim you're being challenging and fence-straddely - but you're not fooling anyone who lives with this stuff: you're just playing with wrong. Like all the songs this wrongly-divorced fostercare-reared feminist-despised guy hears at work or in supermarkets - about the enduring power of love, love, love - you're toying with our lives.

I know: No big deal. Nothing important - really important - ever is these days. Life is like the last episode of Seinfeld, except we're trapped in the cell with you. And don't make out like there's a simple escape - read Instapundit and there's Ann, read Pajamas Media and there's Glenn, being fence straddly - because enigmatic, challenging, and fence straddley are so much more important (in these times of mind-blowing ACORN-exposed ethical lapses) than taking one of those oh so ugly-to-liberals-and-boomers positions that will "hit you over the head with an obvious point." Laugh, Clown, laugh. It's all you've got. That and "Rosemary's Baby", which is quite appropriate, if you ask me.

Everything gets found out eventually.

The Macho Response

P.S.

How's that for enigmatic and challengjng?

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Florida said...

Think of some doddering concentration camp guard who, instead of a nursing home, is sent to spend his last days in prison.

I had a different image in mind: A rapist spending his last days, not receiving awards in Zurich or spending his waning years at home on the French Rivera receiving the accolades of his Big Hollywood bretheren; but rather as Big Jim's girly bitch down in Cellblock C, getting up the keister that which he gave little girls for the rest of his life.

Ahhhhh, the vagaries and ambiguities of justice.

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

Sorry - Blogger was sending me tons of error messages, so I had no idea I was posting.

daubiere said...

bloggers getting worse and worse. i had the same problem today c.e.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Balfegor said...

A rapist spending his last days, not receiving awards in Zurich or spending his waning years at home on the French Rivera receiving the accolades of his Big Hollywood bretheren; but rather as Big Jim's girly bitch down in Cellblock C, getting up the keister that which he gave little girls for the rest of his life.

Eh, yes . . . Prison rape != justice. I know that Americans -- Californian politicians at least -- are comfortable with that kind of brutality and "rough justice," but most of us are a touch more civilised than out in barbarous California. Rape is well outside of the bounds of officially sanctioned punishments for a reason.

Cedarford said...

Say you worship The Law as much as you want, wrap yourself in it, fondle its sweet words in your dreams...but there is law and there is law that is only selectively enforced because it would be impossible to apply fairly and equally.

And law, like "no victim" statutory rape - that imposes a major felony on the male and lifelong sex offender registry but no consequence whatsover on the generally willing female who suffered no harm from it.

And in those cases where "harm" is demonstrated...you have a pregnant 13-year old who doesn't know who the Daddy is because she was 'ho to about 11 guys in a drug gang..or some emotionallt weaker girl who was manipulated by an older guy and just used...the penalty is too harsh for the damage done...so proseutors are loathe to compound the damage to society.

=================
" Dionne said...
He drugged and anally raped her, orally raped her, and vaginally raped this young woman when she was 13 years old. I don't think she's forgotten that. Would you have forgotten this if it had happened to you or your daughter, sister, friend, etc? Most ethical people do not think the rape of children is irrelevant. Think before you write."

1. She was was not a child, she was a sexually active teenager.
2. She said she had forgotten the tryst and had not thought it (nor did her stagemom) as a big deal. But that publicity hungry prosecutors and court psychologists inflicted tremendous emotional harm and stress on her and her family while they purportedly had to turn her life upside down to avenge what she didn't want avenged.
3. He didn't drug her with anything she wasn't already using in her peer group partying. He did not orally rape her against her will, nor did she find her 1st-time anal sex a problem.
4. Precisely because I and my wife were once teens and had two kids and their friends who no doubt all did things as well that some prosecutor could nail them for...is why I am inclined to want to minimize "nailing anyone to the wall" for various substance abuse, sexual peccadillos.
A 45 year-old and a hot 13 year old model left alone by her Mom to "please him" - is one thing..he should pay..but lets not pretend it is a crime on the order of a real felony he would have gotten a lesser jail sentence for - 1st armed robbery, assault and battery, real rape, felony gun possession, or being a street drug dealer on his 1st bust..

===================
Florida - Especially since Roman Polanski hasn't spent 1 day in jail yet for his crime, so it's not clear how his detention represents his being called to account for anything yet.

Polanski served 60 days in Lompoc - he agreed to psychological evaluation and the judge heeded media and changed it from outpatient to being evaluated in a maximum security correctional facility to get the media off his back.
One of several deals Polanskis lawyers claimed the judge was duplicitous in his official capacity and agreements entered with counsel & prosecutors.

Balfegor said...

Sorry, when I said "Americans," meant "some Americans." I.e. the loathsome Bill Lockyer and his ilk.

Robert said...

The AP reporting of this case is terrible. Polanski had no guarantee of any particular sentence. What he imagined the judge might do or not is of no import. He pled guilty and then fled the country. Whether anyone (Alex?) thinks that adults should be able to have sex with 13 year old children or not is irrelevant. Whether or not the victim now forgives him is irrelevant. A criminal system that allows a defendant off the hook for fleeing while the charge is pending is no criminal justice system at all. Bring him back and lock him up. Lock him up for the length of time a comparable defendant would have received at the time- no more, no less.

Robert said...

I am sorry. One more point. He should receive an additional penalty for failing to appear for his sentencing.

Bender said...

I'm just glad that the Obama-Holder-Clinton Justice and State Departments really know their priorities in pursuing this ancient arrest warrant and seeking extradition.

This is much more important than going after terrorists like Al Quada and Iran.

Florida said...

"Polanski served 60 days in Lompoc ..."

No, he didn't serve 60 days.

He was there for 42 days, by his own agreement, undergoing a psychiatric examination prior to his sentencing.

He was not sentenced there, and was not serving a sentence yet. He fled to London before his sentencing.

He's been a fugitive with lots of Big Hollywood and Big Blogger friends ever since.

Robin said...

Florida:

A rapist spending his last days... as Big Jim's girly bitch

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind.

Paco Wové said...

"Big Blogger friends"...?

Florida said...

The French and the Polish have joined in anger and protest over Polanski's detention by the Swiss:

Nicolas Sarkozi, friend of child anal-rapists everywhere, speaks up for his friend:

"French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said he was "stunned" by the news, adding that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to see the acclaimed director returned swiftly to his family."

The Poles join in and announce they will seek the guidance of Teh One, Barak Obama:

"I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency which would settle the matter once and for all," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski was quoted as saying by the PAP news agency.

So now we await with baited breath to learn whether Barack Obama will grant clemency to the rapist of a 13-year-old child.

Given his grants of clemency and the release of the terrorists that he has freed so far, my guess is that freeing one more kiddie raper won't even be hardly noticed.

rcocean said...

"No way to "move on" with this one: I've warned you, Ann, too many times, about appearing "flip" on important ethical subjects. I've even grown a little paranoid that the "and you, a law professor!" joke was about me, for defending the "there is memory, there is law" position so strenuously here."

Gad, Pompous much? I guess Althouse has lost you... I hope she survives.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura(southernxyl) said...

I read the Smoking Gun thing.

She told him "no" and "I want to go home." When asked why she didn't fight him she said there was nowhere to go and no one there to help her.

If that was my daughter he would not have been walking around for the last 32 years.

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't get the Duke case tag."

Blogger autocompletes in the tag window and I don't always see it. In this case, I was going for "rape," and it was nothing but a mistake, just like the way every time I type "law," it tries to make it "arthropods and the law." And every time I try to make it Gore, it tries to turn it into "Bush v. Gore." I try to catch these things and fix them. Any time a tag doesn't fit, your first guess should be an autocomplete that I missed.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

She said she had forgotten the tryst and had not thought it (nor did her stagemom) as a big deal
Then who brought in the police? Were they trying to fleece Polanski for a big settlement?

Jackson's career was pretty much ruined for the suspicion he wanked off 14 yo boys, yet Polanski got financing and major awards.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason said...

It's better with butter.

Fred4Pres said...

Meade said...
"...but this mess is totally of [Polanski's] own making."

The 13 year-old girl's parents also bear some culpability... for child neglect and endangering.

9/27/09 11:28 AM


My wife said the same thing this morning when I told her. Of course the parents should never have left a 13 year old in that position (to me that is endangerment). But that in no way excuses Roman Polanski getting her drunk and high, sexually abusing a 13 year old, and then (when he was facing reltively light criminal accountablity) fleeing before sentancing.

Wesley Snipes got three years for not paying his taxes. Roman Polanski should be facing at least that much time, if not more.

And Chinatown is overrated.

P.S.--Ann, your style is fine. This story's initial post does not require you turning it up all eleven-eleventry. Some of your commentators need to take a qualude (don't worry, none of us will absue them like Roman did).

Steven said...

For the rape, only sentence him in accordance with the old plea agreement.

Then put him in prison for fleeing from justice; his notoriety and the length of his flight being aggravating factors that justify the maximum possible sentence. If and when he is eligible for parole, deny it based on his behavior-established flight risk.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

I am unclear why Samantha's mother's actions have any bearing at all.

She did not have the legal or moral right to offer her daughter to anyone for sex.

And she was not the one who was assaulted - Samantha was.

TRO said...

"For the rape, only sentence him in accordance with the old plea agreement."

Can't . . . or at least shouldn't. He threw that agreement in the government's face when he fled and he should get the maximum punishment for his original crime.

Tom Watson said...

Now that you know more about the facts, Althouse, I wonder how you would change this post if everything in case was the same except Polanski had drugged and raped one of your sons when he was 13-years-old.

elHombre said...

The 13 year-old girl's parents also bear some culpability... for child neglect and endangering.

Meaning what? That assault and buggery were predictable?

FSXploration said...

"Some of your commentators need to take a qualuude."

Althouse was due a thorough fisking. Sauce for the goose, you see.

"Roman Polanski is now in custody for having sex with a 45-year-old woman. He did that that 32 years ago, when she was 13. You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant."

Like it or not, Althouse is influential in blog circles, so what she writes has added weight. To write unambiguously that a rapists crimes should be forgiven, forgotten or seen as irrelevant, is irresponsible at the least.

It's intellectually indefensible for her to write that Roman Polanski is in custody for merely "having sex with a 45-year-old adult.

A) It's not true
B) It's undeserved succor

It's ghastly to characterize Samantha Gaily as the "woman he victimized," instead of properly characterizing her as the "child he anally raped."

Polanski didn't victimize a woman. He raped a kid.

There's a huge difference there unworthy of fence-straddling. And her readers rightly saw through that little bit of legerdemain.

/fisk

amba said...

the availabilty not only of a general cause of this or that problem (men), but a villain, the particular man, as well.

OT, but I watched the Lifetime biopic of Georgia O'Keeffe. The performances were excellent. But, it was all about "noble woman/boorish man." At the end it was suggested that if not for O'Keeffe's devotion in spite of his abuse of her affections, Stieglitz would now be forgotten.

Of course TV can't help oversimplifying (with rare exceptions). And of course it's impossible to show the REAL action in an artist's life. So this TV movie was all about their relationship and what a jerk Stieglitz was. I'm not saying he wasn't, but is any story quite that one-sided? Was O'Keeffe a suffering saint whose worst sin was insisting on her autonomy?

vw: hamba !!! Ain't it the truth? I'm using that as my handle from now on!

amba said...

The vws are irresistible. This one deserves to be preserved: idism. If that isn't a word it should be.

amba said...

Idism: the belief that desire justifies all (Polanski's creed, back in the day).

buster said...

@ Cedarford and Alex:

If I understand your argument correctly, it goes something like this.

Polanski did something morally corrupt and criminal (i.e., give drugs to and have sex with a 13 year old). But he shouldn't be punished for it because he was operating in a morally corrupt Hollywood culture where such criminal conduct was not unusual. Besides, the girl's morally corrupt mother implicitly consented to Polanski doing it, in the hope it might advance the girl's career. And the girl herself, whose admitted behavior suggests she was also morally corrupt, may have consented as well.

This doesn't impress me as a defense of Polanski.

Alex seems to have an alternative argument based on what can only be called empty-headed libertarianism: it's really nobody's business what Polanski and the girl did, and any appeal to public morality is equivalent to the Spanish Inquisition.

Wow.

EDH said...

Papa John Phillips was unavailable for comment.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J said...

"You would think that by now it would be — if not forgotten or even forgiven — at least irrelevant"

I'm curious what could cause you to make such an unbelievably reprehensible remark. Do people you socialize or work with think this way?

elHombre said...

Cedarford wrote: A 45 year-old and a hot 13 year old model left alone by her Mom to "please him" - is one thing..he should pay..but lets not pretend it is a crime on the order of a real felony....

It is 'child molesting' in virtually every state. If her mother was complicit, she should have, and I expect would have, been prosecuted.

If it is your position that child molesting should be decriminalized, it would be more forthright to say so. The concept of justice is not served by advocating after the fact for societal forgiveness, or partial forgiveness, based on the character of the child, your own relaxed moral standard and/or the mere passage of time brought about by the molester's flight.

Joe said...

As much as I enjoy this blog, I've long been disturbed at how Ann is very cavalier about holding people accountable for crimes they did long ago--though she's always very mushy about how long is long enough to forgive and forget and inconsistent about the crime itself.

In this case, if she thinks she was fence straddling, she needs to take remedial essay writing.

William said...

I think some of the complaints against Althouse are, in fact, complaints against God. As Florida points out, Polanski has had a remarkably comfortable and luxurious life. What happens to him now will happen to him in old age. He has skated. The punishment will not be commensurate with the crime. Think Bernie Madoff. Madoff traded a lifetime of luxury and ease for a few years of jail. Say what you want, Madoff was a successful trader.....I think that's what troubling about these cases: not that an injustice was performed but that no human agency or gesture can restore balance.....In addition to Althouse's support of child rapists, I wish to draw your attention to yesterday's uncritical reporting of an incidence of bestiality. I understand she has a large rural readership and did not wish to alienate them by being too critical on this sensitive topic. Nonetheless, many of us need clear, bright lines for moral guidance on these issues, and I fear that with bestiality as with child raping she has let us down.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elHombre said...

buster - pretty much got me spot on. I'm a libertarian, and I say live and let live!

Cool, Alex. Post your address. I prosecuted four of five guys who would love to congratulate you on your open mind just before they bend you over.

Jason said...

Alex,

Not a clear-cut case of child rape? She was 13 years old. The statutory consent laws should pretty much spell it out for you even if nothing else does.

Duscany said...

Lem wrote: "You would think he would have sought a pardon from the Clintons."

Well, he tried something of the sort. He had pardon in the back of his mind when he made "The Pianist."

Skyler said...

Someone said, As much as I enjoy this blog, I've long been disturbed at how Ann is very cavalier about holding people accountable for crimes they did long ago--though she's always very mushy about how long is long enough to forgive and forget and inconsistent about the crime itself.

I'm not so aware of any trend, but this post alone begs the question, what crimes did Ann once commit that she feels should be "irrelevent" by now?

I always wonder at people who are so quick to be "forgiving" or lenient towards criminals. I'm not a thief, and I have no patience or forgiveness for thieves. I'm not a rapist and I have no feeling of fence straddling about the need to punish rapists. I don't understand those that do, unless they either don't understand the crime or somehow think the crime is something they'd like to do.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

This is not a clear-cut case of child-rape.

Also, if you ever have given a dollar to a panhandler, you can never be robbed, even at gunpoint.

miller said...

Do you really think that Althouse is arguing that if a crime is committed on a minor but the prosecution doesn't happen until the victim is an adult that the crime either is less or even should be dismissed?

I think what she is doing is pointing out the velleity for a dismissal based upon lessened memory and distance in time is not, in actuality, possible, else why do we still hunt for the Eichmans in our midst?

(Note: I am not calling Polanksi an Eichman. He's had some qualified success in his field. But he also, as a 40-yr-old man, had sex with a 13 year old. What he did was wrong; he was convicted of that, and fled before he could be incarcerated. He simply needs to man up to his crime and serve his time.)

[posted on wrong thread. oops.]

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miller said...

Well, take your toys and run away. Obviously merely discussing alternate points of view is too much for you.

I can listen to what you say, but you can't listen to what I say?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miller said...

You can't be prosecuted for holding an opinion, so calm down on your hyperventilating.

You seem to hold the belief that what people (including children) do with themselves is nothing to be upset about.

Perhaps that true.

But still, Polanski was convicted of having sex (various methods) with a minor child. Convicted. Not accused.

Polanski fled before he could be incarcerated. Now he's caught, years later.

Should he serve out his sentence or be forgiven because it was a long time ago?

With that logic, we should let that Yugoslavian guy keep his US citizenship because his Jew-killing was so long ago.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
miller said...

How is saying "you need to complete the sentence you were assigned" equate to "you should be drawn & quartered"?

Unless he *was* sentenced to be drawn and quartered. Which I don't believe to be true.

Maybe you could tone down the hyperbole. This really seems to be hitting a nerve with you.

MeJerry said...

I'm struggling to understand why the difference in attitudes towards statutory rape then and now has any relevance.

What time period should be allowed before we accept supposed prevailing behavior (in Hollywood) as relevant?

Shouldn't we also forgive the guy who buggered Lolita as a child?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura(southernxyl) said...

That's fine, Alex. What you were saying earlier was that Samantha was a little slut whose mother had pimped her out, and therefore Polanski was justified in doing whatever he wanted to do with her.

Libertarianism = I can get whatever I want, do whatever I want, as long as I'm bigger and stronger. To hell with the person or thing on the other end.

If you want to back away from that now, I think that would be a very good idea.

miller said...

I fail to see the connection between making a man serve out his time for child rape and putting people in jail for smoking pot.

A 13 year old girl can't give her consent for rape, because she is a minor.

Polanski may have been ignorant of this law, but irrespective of that, he was duly convicted of this crime.

So he simply needs to serve out his time. Drawing & quartering is optional.

elHombre said...

I was discussing my point of view until an Inquistor threatened to prosecute me for it.

Surely you can't mean me!

I did have a typo at 4:14 when I wrote: I prosecuted four [or] five guys who would love to congratulate you [Alex] on your open mind just before they bend you over.

This is hardly a suggestion that you should be prosecuted for your opinion. Buggered maybe, but not prosecuted.

Alex said...

Laura - should Althouse back away from her initial comment about "forgetting and forgiven"? You are the one on thin ice impugned all sorts of dastardly motives on the rest of us.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Also, it's really precious of you to object to elHombre's post. It's totally different when it's you on the receiving end.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura(southernxyl) said...

I don't have to impugn anything on you, Alex. Your comments speak for themselves.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura(southernxyl) said...

Alex, do you think the mother could have given consent for her daughter to be raped?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura(southernxyl) said...

Alex said...

Once again a he-said, she-said type of case. Unless you have video-taped evidence of this so-called rape, I'd dismiss all charges immediately considering the fact the girl was already a slut by 13.


This is decent?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Alex said...

In fact the only person I would have charged with any crime is the mother for letting her daughter become sexually active at 12. Parental neglect is the only crime here.


Decent?

miller said...

Her mother may have been responsible, too. I don't know that that's relevant.

How does that absolve Polanski of making the choice (and doing the action) of having sex with a 13 year old girl?

It's against the law. Heck, I knew that when I was in my teens. I certainly knew it in my 20s and 30s.

And even if I didn't know it, it still doesn't excuse me, because ignorance isn't a good excuse.

Polanski simply needs to serve out his time.

Cedarford said...

Buster - @ Cedarford and Alex:

If I understand your argument correctly, it goes something like this.

Polanski did something morally corrupt and criminal (i.e., give drugs to and have sex with a 13 year old). But he shouldn't be punished for it because he was operating in a morally corrupt Hollywood culture where such criminal conduct was not unusual. Besides, the girl's morally corrupt mother implicitly consented to Polanski doing it, in the hope it might advance the girl's career. And the girl herself, whose admitted behavior suggests she was also morally corrupt, may have consented as well.

This doesn't impress me as a defense of Polanski.


You may not like an "everybody does it defense", and a few self-righteous vindictive women who are frothing at the mouth of this one of perhaps 75-90 million instances of "statutory rape" in the USA in the last 40 years may not like it...
But if you have laws that are not able to be enforced fairly and equally..so instead are selecticely enforced on people of the wrong race, prominent status now and then....you have bad law and a corroding of the respect for law.

For the vindictive harpies..who claim they have cried themselves to sleep the last 40 years over "Mary Jo" or go around with the claim of clenched teeth over what Polanski did to "Samantha"...you basically have women that love to hate, likely watch court TV to learn who else they can hate...and are driven by a warped empathy to be unable to call any long-ago celebrity victim by anthing other than their 1st name...unable to let go of their professed Shock! Outrage!


Meanwhile society has bigger things to deal with than female twits and sensitive men obsessing over the long, long ago...

We, this year - have 100s of thousands of young women aged 11 to 16 showing up at abortion clinics or with spawn of their cumslut behavior they expect to keep and for the taxpayer to pay every expense of, plus themselves - for the next 18 years.

With NOBODY, least of all those hating female twits, angry feminists...asking those 12, 13, up to 17 year olds to turn over lists of who happened to be boinking them.
And no State wants it criminally investigated because they have a hard enough time doing murders, robberies, major drug cases, cons, and wives beaten into the hospital to suddenly have to deal with 15,000 statutory rape cases in their city or county each year. That require, each case, the same major felony resources as a violent felony.

Better our society revisit the whole statutory rape thing and make it scalable from a misdemeanor fine up to major jail time depending on aggravating factors. And when it comes to the underage cumsluts and boyfriends who spawn - make them financially responsible for their misbehavior. Make the slut give up her "potential Daddy List"...and put her on public service work hours...and make the biodaddy found by paternity tests off the list under child support obligations for 18 years. If the slut won't ID the Daddy...she gets 70% of the Welfare and WIC other sluts rearing kids get.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Alex said...

Heaven help me in these current puritanical times, I wish I could have been an adult in that period. What fun I might have had!


Doing what? Raping little girls?

I wonder if this comment actually explains Alex's viewpoint.

miller said...

I'm sorry, but what part of "fled after conviction" is hard to understand?

He wasn't accused of anything: he was convicted of something, and fled.

It's entirely irrelevant what others may have been doing. He was the one convicted. He lacked the integrity to serve his time, for whatever reason, and now he's caught.

I'm sure the "Well, others were embezzling money so why pick on Bernie Madoff" defense won't fly here, but go ahead and try.

miller said...

I'm shocked you've discovered the dirty secret of American justice: not everyone who's committed a crime is found out, prosecuted, and convicted.

Therefore, anyone who is convicted should be released on the grounds that not everyone is convicted.

You have won the argument.

montana urban legend said...

I always wonder at people who are so quick to be "forgiving" or lenient towards criminals. I'm not a thief, and I have no patience or forgiveness for thieves. I'm not a rapist and I have no feeling of fence straddling about the need to punish rapists. I don't understand those that do, unless they either don't understand the crime or somehow think the crime is something they'd like to do.

Probably because, as hard as it is to put oneself in another's shoes, it's notoriously even more difficult to do so when their mind is clouded by vengeance.

Further, as any sane libertarian would note (you remember the libertarians, don't you? They're the group you guys pretend to conveniently ally yourselves with whenever it comes to economic issues - just not when it comes to actual matters of personal liberty), the most (and ideally, the only) legitimate component of sentencing is restitution. In matters of theft of physical objects, restitution may be easily defined. In matters involving violations of a more emotional or ambiguous nature (i.e. violations of one's body and one's right to their own sense of sexual integration), restitution is much more difficult to define. The damages are not as easily quantified, the reparations take longer and are not as easily achieved. Plus, the very nature of the situation does not lend itself to a process whereby the offender could foreseeably and conspicuously participate in facilitating the restitution. In fact, due to severe breaches of trust, the offender's mere presence is often likely to simply exacerbate the injury.

In order to cope with the following facts: 1. Some (many?) crimes are not easily compensated, 2. Society wants the costs of crime to incorporate a "deterrent" effect that exceeds the cost of compensation alone, and 3. The fabric of the social contract assumes externalities that result from not displaying appropriate moral opprobrium toward those deemed "criminal", we lump all these intangibles into a category of sentencing that's known as "punishment". We move beyond the strictly legitimate component of sentencing, i.e. "restitution", and allow ourselves to channel displeasure at the thought of crime onto the idea of inflicting harm onto the offender. We believe that this accomplishes several goals, the possibility of some, often arbitrary, sense of "redemption" on the part of the offender typically included among them.

So being forgiving is a countermeasure against the impulse for vengeance that so sloppily believes it can quantify the corrective measures required of an offender beyond mere compensation.

It also complements the Founders' willingness to err on the side of the accused, which we can extend to the convicted, against the side of the accuser, the state, the penal system or any other individual or body similarly afforded the authority to infringe one's liberty.

Of course, all this is easy to forget when someone is willing to so deplorably conflate a defense of the rights of the accused, or even of the convicted, with a willingness to condone the crime or even the criminal impulse.

elHombre said...

Wow, Professor. If you can get this much action on Polanski on a Sunday, just think what will happen when Obama through Holder declines to extradite on a weekday.

There doesn't seem to be any reason for you to equivocate on the separate crime of Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. Surely you don't think he should be rewarded because his flight was successful for 30+ years?

WV "aystess" = Best to take a gentlemanly pass on this one.

Ah Pooh said...

Good gracious, is Cedarford a misogynist, as well as an anti-semite? And Alex, just silly.

montana urban legend said...

Cedarford is wacky and seems to have an almost congenital sense of burning hatred for a variety of groups of people, not least of which would be "Them Jews". But for some reason I actually find him almost interesting to read every now and then. Maybe it's the way his ravings skirt an incredibly fine line between what is conceivably philosophical and potentially insightful and what is chiefly clinical.

And, oh yeah. His ideas on what constitutes an adequate defense of a minor and her rights (or even a grown-up) in the situation in question are just about the biggest stretch you will find anywhere on the internets. And that's saying a lot. I certainly don't find them practical, let alone agreeable. And yet, it is fascinating to see someone go to such bizarre lengths.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

MUL, interesting thoughts, but this:

"the Founders' willingness to err on the side of the accused, which we can extend to the convicted"

I don't think holds water.

Cedarford said...

elHombre said...
Cedarford wrote: A 45 year-old and a hot 13 year old model left alone by her Mom to "please him" - is one thing..he should pay..but lets not pretend it is a crime on the order of a real felony....

It is 'child molesting' in virtually every state. If her mother was complicit, she should have, and I expect would have, been prosecuted.

If it is your position that child molesting should be decriminalized, it would be more forthright to say so.


Cute. You claim to be a prosecutor. Yet I'd bet you didn't troll a single abortion clinic, hospital, or any school administration staff to find a single one of the hundreds, possibly thousands of "child molestations" that happened in your jurisdiction.

Why?

Well, because after puberty, it's not child molestation - which if you actually had a law degree you'd know. Its pederasty. And statutory rape for jurisdictions that don't have a separate pederasty charge tend to vary wildly in who they will or won't prosecute.

And why California prosecutors did not ask the other sex contacts the girl had in the Polanski case? Because they never do.

And why are dedicated zealot, even man-hating feminists never asking the pregnant 12-year old who impregnated her when they show up at the abortion clinic the feminists co-own? They are no more interested in mass sexual witch hunts than prosecutors are.

And we know that mothers who contribute to the delinquency of a child are almost never prosecuted..because "that would be punishing the child even further".
Perhaps if she had literally been pimping her kid out and took cash up front from Polanski, prosecutors might have gone after that.

Freeman Hunt said...

I am so pleased. I may actually purchase some of his (overrated) movies if he does time. I certainly wasn't going to buy any while he was evading capture for this.

About time he was caught.

Ah Pooh said...

Thirty some years ago our 12 year old daughter (pre-puberty) was raped by an adult male who was a stranger. Altho we attended a number of line-ups, and our daughter looked through the police suspect books, he was never caught. I think we handled it as well as could be expected. We, as well as the police, always referred to the act as an assault, not sex. Rape is not the worse crime that can happen to someone - you do live to tell about it. But I never dismiss its impact, and never treat it lightly.

montana urban legend said...

Why not extend the rights of the accused to the rights of the convicted? You think the founders lacked the capacity for understanding the concept of wrongful conviction? And what about the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment"? That didn't apply to the convicted? To whom did it apply, then?

traditionalguy said...

There are a lot of outraged people about sexual immorality in the comments here. I wonder whether all the anger over people freely breaking the Sexual Morality Rules Of God have distilled into anger at the rules broken with a 13 year old. Is it because we have repealed all if the other rules? My memory of the Polanski story when it happened was that in France what he did was not considered a crime. In the last 30 years in the USA it has become a constructive Rape because of a legal fiction that 13 year old women have no mind of their own. That's fine with me. But I remember when we had Two 14 year old French exchange students from Paris living in our home in the summer of 1990, our teenagers quickly learned that Parisian girls presume everyone at age 14 must be sexually active with strangers at the Bars/clubs downtown...why not??? So use Polanski as a scapegoat for our anger at sexual liberation, if it helps you feel better, but also think less of yourself as Righteous, and realize that you are experiencing a serious anger problem.

montana urban legend said...

I notice your recollection conspicuously lacks a sense of outrage over what those French teens were doing, Traditional Guy. You seem to accept that since in their culture it was ok, then you didn't have a bigger problem accepting it than you do accepting legal acts of what you apparently consider sexual depravity in American society.

Which is interesting.

I don't see what's so challenging about accepting the construction that an inability to meaningfully consent to an otherwise potentially consensual act makes that act wrong, whatever other acts of licentiousness our society sees no use in prosecuting.

And this all obscures the fact that in the case in question, the testimony given shows that an actual consent was violated, and not just that a technical violation occurred based on our presumption of the inability to consent.

G Joubert said...

My memory of the Polanski story when it happened was that in France what he did was not considered a crime. In the last 30 years in the USA it has become a constructive Rape because of a legal fiction that 13 year old women have no mind of their own.

I can't speak about your particular parallel universe, but in the one in which I live for time immemorial it has been a crime --a very serious crime-- in all 57 states for a 44-year old man to drug a 13-year old girl and then have sex with her. It just has. In fact, I believe in some places at some times it would've been a capital crime.

buster said...

@ Cedarford:

Calm down. I agree with some of what you say, including that statutory rape laws are subject to abuse and manipulation because they are selectively enforced. (There are good reasons for selective enforcement.) But I don't think you disagree that what Polanski did deserves punishment. It's a long way from a teen age boy having sex with his teen age girlfriend, or a twenty-one year old man with a seventeen year old.

It's also true that in individual cases the punishment for statutory rape is excessive. There is a difference between the teen age boy and his girlfriend and a forty year old man giving drugs to a thirteen year old and then having anal sex. Just as there's a difference between two college kids getting drunk at a party then having sex in a dorm room ("date rape") and breaking into a woman's apartment in the middle of the night and raping her at gunpoint. These distinctions have been weakened somewhat in recent years, I suppose. It's easy to blame this on obsessive feminists and religious zealots, but I think there are larger social changes at work. E.g., the sex offender registries that don't distinguish between the teenager who had sex with a classmate and an actual rapist.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Blogger montana urban legend said...

Why not extend the rights of the accused to the rights of the convicted? You think the founders lacked the capacity for understanding the concept of wrongful conviction? And what about the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment"? That didn't apply to the convicted? To whom did it apply, then?


MUL, the accused has rights so that innocent people aren't convicted, that once convicted, he or she doesn't have anymore.

The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is on the convicted, not the accused, because we don't punish the accused.

The thing is, the justice system is necessary so that people don't prey on each other and so that we don't have to have vigilante justice, with its inherent problems, to be secure and to secure our families. So once convicted of things we've decided to make illegal, the person is going to have to be punished. Yes, he still has civil rights, but once he's crossed that line from accused to convicted, he's lost some stuff. Presumption of innocence, for instance.

elHombre said...

@Pompous Montanus: I readily admit that I find it difficult to read your preachy, patronizing comments objectively, but I believe you have outdone yourself this time.

Somewhere within your endless unresponsive "reply" to Skyler's 4:19 comment, you state what appears to be its central theme: ...the most (and ideally, the only) legitimate component of sentencing is restitution.

This is legally, morally, and practically nonsense. It remains unmitigatedly so despite the bloviating you offer in support.

Sentencing obviously has several components as legitimate, if not more legitimate, than restitution. You have no idea what you are talking about.

buster said...

montana urban legend said:

"We move beyond the strictly legitimate component of sentencing, i.e. "restitution", and allow ourselves to channel displeasure at the thought of crime onto the idea of inflicting harm onto the offender."

There is nothing about libertarianism in general that entails that restitution is the only "legitimate" function of criminal punishment, or that retributive punishment is merely a matter of "channeling displeasure at the thought of crime onto the idea of inflicting harm onto the offender."

If any particular theory of libertarianism includes those propositions, that's pretty good evidence that the theory is wrong.

Guilt and punishment are a bit more complicated than rectifying boundary crossings.

The Crack Emcee said...

rcocean,

"Gad, Pompous much?"

Yep. Practically megalomaniacal. Where have you been?

The Macho Response

montana urban legend said...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

One thing I do know, el Hombraneus Honumculus, is the difference between an opinion and a fact. I also know the difference between an argument and a diatribe. And the difference between a dialogue and an endless series of self-congratulatory dismissals.

Which puts me a few steps ahead of you, no matter what personal sense of authority you rely upon for your dismissive, single-sentence sound-bites.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. I guess that's why everything you write boils down to your assumptions and how they are superior to anyone else's conclusions. Which probably makes you someone prone to circuitous reasoning - something that wouldn't surprise me.

traditionalguy said...

M U L..By training, my first reaction to a criminal prosecution is to see the defenses available. Who did what to whom in the real situation matters. Polanski needed a serious re-education, and he apparently got one. But law has not gotten its pound of flesh as yet. The Merchant of Venice is a wonderful play (down,Cedarford) and the law will have its famous pound of flesh. But why the anger when many people commenting here were not even born back then? Get angry at the pimping of 13 yearold girls in every major urban area TODAY, usually by organized crime. Preach about that on the street corner, and see who cares and who turns their head and ignores it. Hating Polanski will not be a substitute to show that you care so much.

montana urban legend said...

I see you cover yourself, buster, by saying not only that something isn't the case, but that if it is the case, it's wrong.

Which sounds like an even bigger cop-out than anything Hombraneus Homunculus can muster.

Do either of you actually have any arguments or ideas to offer on this matter? Or is it enough to just bleat out "You're wrong! I said so! Nah nah nah!"

What an inane way of attempting to prove your point. Only someone incapable of making an argument thinks that they are above actually making arguments. And hence, the utility with which I can simply note the psychological observations at play here: Homunculus' projection of the label "Pompous", for instance.

elHombre said...

Cedarford wrote: You claim to be a prosecutor. Yet I'd bet you didn't troll a single abortion clinic, hospital, or any school administration staff to find a single one of the hundreds, possibly thousands of "child molestations" that happened in your jurisdiction.

This discussion is not about abortion and it is intellectually dishonest for you to bring it up as you have.

Cedarford wrote: Well, because after puberty, it's not child molestation - which if you actually had a law degree you'd know. Its pederasty.

Child molesting is typically charged under California Penal Code Section 288 which reads:

(a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or
lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes
provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

Please note that the statute does not mention "puberty." Furthermore, pederasty is typically a relationship between an underage boy and a man. You are misinformed.

This comment is another example of your lack of forthrightness. If you can't defend your position why don't you say so instead of maligning prosecutors, feminists, mothers and me?

buster said...

@ montana urban legend:

Tell you what, m.u.l. Read,just to begin, H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility, and then get back to me. It's not my job to teach you moral and legal philosophy. You might also read Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment. Both men are deeper thinkers than you.

montana urban legend said...

Ok buster, other than restitution, I could see libertarians placing some emphasis on deterrent effects and protecting society. But I'm sure you can bet that they're a lot less into the rehabilitative and vengeance-oriented aspects that drive the populist impulses at play here and generally.

"Well," you might say, "Vengeance isn't a part of punishment." To which I would respond that any effort to decouple rehabilitation from vengeance is purely academic. Liberals have attempted it, and come a lot further than anyone else. But to argue that vengeance doesn't serve the same redemptive ends that rehabilitation does is futile - at least on a sociological level.

If a criminal act cannot be redeemed by the offender, then the society stands to lose its opportunity to redeem itself by not taking some measure against him or her. And the will to avenge is an undeniable part of this; even if you want to deny that the state condones such thinking, the public doesn't. And in a democracy the state is accountable to the public.

Anyways, you had some complex thoughts concerning guilt and punishment, I heard?

montana urban legend said...

Your 6:55 response wasn't posted by the time I had submitted my 7:08 comment, buster. But feel free to get back to me regarding "deep thoughts" any time you feel like it.

elHombre said...

Pompous Montanus wrote:
One thing I do know, el Hombraneus Honumculus, is the difference between an opinion and a fact. I also know the difference between an argument and a diatribe. And the difference between a dialogue and an endless series of self-congratulatory dismissals.

If that is true it is not evident from your comments. That you do not know the difference between a response and an ad hominem argument is apparent from your reply to me.

Forgive me if my 6:21 response seemed dismissive, I simply didn't realize the extent of your ignorance. I assumed that everyone knew the other "legitimate components" of sentencing such as protection of the public, general deterrence, retribution, etc. Naturally, this assumes that one defines "legitimate" with the community and the legal system as the framework rather than the confines of one's own mind.

If "ideally", as you claim, the only legitimate component is restitution, civil courts would provide an adequate forum.

As I said, you don't know what you are talking about.

montana urban legend said...

Tell you what, Buster. I am sure Dostoyevsky is a deeper thinker than either one of us. But that shouldn't stop you from simply and succinctly referring to whichever one of his or Hart's ideas make my comment wrong, as opposed to poring over and regurgitating their entire works.

William said...

This thread shows that Cedarford is more harsh in his criticism of a sexually active teenager than he is of a rich, Hollywood Jew. This is very wobbly thinking for an anti-semite. If Daffy can blame the Kennedy assassination on the Jews, surely Cedarford can find Zionist undertones in this case. Whether from laziness or intellectual torpor, Cedarford shows an inability to prioritize his prejudices. Jews should go at or near the top of every irrational rant. Black people are OK, but if you want dark conspiracies the Jews are the best scapegoats since the Jesuits. Outside of the porn industry teen age cumsluts have very little influence on the media. It's very difficult to make them the heavy in the ongoing debacle of our civilization. Stay focused, Cedarford.

montana urban legend said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
montana urban legend said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»