The Academy Award-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested on Saturday night in Zurich by Swiss officials on a U.S. arrest warrant for a crime he committed more than 30 years ago. In 1978 French-born Polanski fled the U.S. on the eve of his sentencing after he admitted to statutory rape charges involving a 13-year-old girl. Polanski fled because he believed that Laurence J. Rittenband, the Los Angeles judge who was was presiding over the case, was going to back out of the plea deal that Polanski’s lawyers had made for him. The director hasn’t returned to the U.S. since he became a fugitive, although he has continued to make award-winning films that are well-received in the States. Polanski was in Zurich as part of the Zurich Film Festival where he was expected to be given a prestigious achievement award.
Polanski’s arrest re-opens the case against the esteemed director. Last year, a documentary (Roman Polanski: Wanted And Desired) came out that focused on the life of Roman Polanski and his fugitive status. Some critics felt that the film was too flattering to Polanski and quickly glossed over the acts he committed against the 13-year-old girl (which included anal penetration, giving her drugs and her testimony that she resisted and asked him to stop) and his rumored deep interest in girls in their early teens. (Rumors of the middle-aged Polanski courting underage girls in the ’70s have always floated around Hollywood.) After the documentary came out, Polanski and his lawyers tried to get his nearly 30-year-old case dismissed, sighting new evidence that came out in the documentary as proof of legal wrongdoings; however, they didn’t want to follow the Los Angeles judge’s statement that if Polanksi (or really any fugitive) wanted to challenge his case he would have to do so by coming back to the United States and turning himself in.
Polanski’s arrest has stirred up mixed reactions in the media. On the one hand, Polanski is a talented director who is well respected in the film community. He has also had a hard life: he escaped the Holocaust and his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered in their Bel Air home by the Manson family in 1969. Defense of Polanski that has cited these facts has either assumed that geniuses should be allowed to commit unlawful acts because they are special members of our society (the famous people defense) and/or that people who have endured hardships should be excused from the law. Regardless of the defense, the acts that Polanski committed against a very young girl are never excused, Polanski is just given special treatment in this particular case. These excuses are assuming that the sexual well-being and safety of a young woman–not to mention the laws that are put in place to protect her–are hogwash when compared to the wants of a “Great Man.” It sends a clear message to young women that they are the lowest rung on the power ladder, no matter how hurt or disgusting or unlawful the act that has been committed against them was. Does this kind of reasoning send a message to young, powerless women that they should pipe down and accept it when a more powerful man assaults them?
Polanski’s case is contentious. Some people–like me–are mixed up about their artistic admiration for Polanski and their personal revulsion at what he did to a young girl (and possibly more young girls). Does liking Polanski’s movies mean you are in some way approving of what he did? There is also the much-touted fact that the 13-year-old girl involved in the case–now 45–has come forward and asked for the charges to be dropped against Polanski since she has already forgiven him and re-opening the details of the case would cause understandable emotional damage to her family. (The woman brought a civil case against Polanski and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum–so perhaps in her mind justice has been served.) Should we respect the wishes of the victim in a case like this?
Polanski’s lawyers say that they are going to fight the extradition, although it appears that if he did return to the U.S. he might get his charges dropped. Since the ’90s he has attempted to work out several deals with the Los Angeles court system, only to drop the deal later for sometimes silly reasons (in 1997 he objected to having his court appearance televised). Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza, the judge currently overseeing the case and the judge who told Polanski he would have to return to the U.S. if he wanted his case dismissed, has said that Polanski has a strong case for dismissal, he just has to go about asking for it by the ways set forward by the law, not the ways he imagine would be appropriate.
Some of the reaction to Polanski’s arrest has been a little comical. The French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said that “there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has shown its face.” The French! What, did they not know that Polanski was wanted in the U.S.? Do they believe that bending laws meant to protect young men and women should be bended according to each famous person’s needs? Robert Harris, a British novelist and friend of Polanski has said that Polanski’s arrest was “politically motivated” (without elaborating on what exactly are the politics behind the arrest of a Polish-French film director who makes mainstream movies that are well-received in Hollywood) and that he is “shocked” that a 76-year-old man would be “treated in such a fashion.” I’m shocked that he is shocked. Was Polanski beaten in prison and this hasn’t made the news yet? Ever since his arrest, Polanski has been given special treatment by the authorities: plea deals were arranged, he was allowed to leave the country while facing trial and sentencing and the court has been open to working out new deals with him granted that he returns to the United States. These defenses of Polanski fit back into the “Great Men should be treated differently” mindset, which is damaging to both a stable democracy and those many, many, many people who aren’t “Great Men” (or women).
What a douche.
All he had to do was serve his sentence, but instead he felt he was above the law.
I know. And since he is famous, in a way, he’s been refusing this girl to try to move past her rape for the last 30 years. Would ANYONE want to be constantly brought up like this? Every time he wins an award, every time he does ANYTHING? Poor girl.
He should have grown some balls and just taken his punishment.
He should face a court for what he did to a young woman, and let justice take its course. Anything else will just mean us young women can be raped or abused by someone in a power position and nothing will ever happen. I don’t care how amazing his films are – he’s still a paedofile and should be judged as such. However, I also understand the woman’s position – probably she just wants to leave this behind, after 30 years.
Too bad the mother wasn’t prosecuted at the time for endangering her daughter by putting her in that situation (the mom was dating one of Polanski’s friends).
If that was my daughter, Polanski would have been looking over his shoulder for years until I beat him within an inch of his life.
Saying that the mother should be charged with endangerment is entering dangerous territory. How was the mother supposed to have known that Polanski would do such a thing? Things like this (sadly) often happen where the perpetrator is someone that the victim or a family member of the victim *think* they know well.
Well, let’s see. The mom was dating one of Polanski’s friends, she begged Polanski to photograph her daughter and pressured to have him put her in his films, and then allowed her daughter to go to a party where she was allowed to consume alcohol and quaaludes, then pose nude.
Sounds like Mom should have been in trouble also.
You ask what is political.
Under US law and the bilateral extradition agreement between the US and France, the US could have asked at any time that Polanski be tried in France. They have never done so, therefore never applying existing US law, undoubtedly under fear that French justice would be too leniant.
The international warrant was not issued until a Republican law and order ex-cop was elected L.A. District Attorny, three decades after the events. There is no doubt this is political.
This same DA has refused to apply California laws concerning battered women, and the courts have removed him and his entire L.A. County DA’s office (the largest in the US) from l such cases, for misconduct.
Thanks Tamara for clarifying why this is a political issue. He ought to have been apprehended years ago, but I am relived to hear that he is finally arrested. His freedom always showed the world that the wealthy and revered can get away with rape.
I wish more media outlets reporting on this case would focus less on Mr. Polanski’s artistic talents and tragic past and recognize that as a society, we cannot give a pass to anyone who commits the oral, anal, and vaginal rape of a drugged child.
I am glad he is finally caught
no-one is (or should be) above the law
No matter hor great artist he is, or a difficult past, he he has raped a 13 year old
But the (now 45 year old) victim wants the charges dropped. as she doesn’t want this to affect her husband and children more than it already has.
Criminal prosecution has nothing to do with the victim, and everything to do with protecting the people from future acts of criminals (hence, the suit is brought by the people’s representative: the DA). That said, I am utterly sympathetic to her plight and fervently pray she escapes futher psychological harm.
There are a number of objectives to be accomplished in criminal prosecution (punshiment, rehabilitation), and one is the deterrent effect a conviction and subsequent punishment has on would-be perpetrators of a similar crime. The repulsive thing about htius case is that by allowing Polanski to duck prosecution, we do not deter similar acts by similarly situated perpetrators. Some would say we have condoned his acts (I am not sure).
On the other hand, if we prosecute and he escapes conviction (likely, given the passage of time and the probable jury pool) then we have set bad precedent that can be used to let future rapist/pedophiles off the hook.
I guess I still come down on the side of prosecuting. We owe it to the kids.
No, the laws also exist to produce (however imperfectly) a just society. The victims preferences in this case are not as important as society’s (all of us) interests in making it clear that rich celebrities should not be given more leniency than the rest of us just because they have friends who can get their (narcissistic) thoughts into print anytime they want.
His celebrity-friends reactions to his crime and their sense of entitement is a direct assault on any notion of a just society.
I haven’t read anything about what his” friends” have said, I’ve only tried to read about the facts of the case.
And contrary to what people have been repeating ceaselessly, I have seen no statement by Polanski saying his creative work excuses anything.
HIs and his lawyer’s arguments are purely legal, as far as I have seen. And in a just society, those arguments would be heard.
As far as him being given “more leniency” than others, tell me what other unknown criminal is being pursued after more than thirty years for such a crime by the LA District Attorney? In fact there are hundreds of murder cases that are given less resources and money, and even numerous rape-murder cases that interest the D.A. less.
Polanski is not being shown leniency because he is famous. He is specifically being targeted because he is famous. Polanski owns a house in Switzerland, where he could have been arrested at any time – instead the D.A. decided to have him arrested when he went to receive a prize. Maximum publicity for a politically motivated elected District Attorney who is now being mentioned for higher office.
A just society?
It’s about time!
He committed a serious crime, and he thinks he can just skip the country and go on with life as usual? Thank goodness justice caught up with him.
He should not get a pass, it would send a HORRIBLE message. Just because he has talent doesn’t make him any less of a sick pervert than John Phillips. He needs to man up and serve his time.
I am still waiting to hear the full truth regarding the original rumors about his involvement in arranging for his wife, Sharon Tate, to be murdered while he happened to be out of the country.
Whoelse remembers this?
And what about the truth about rumors that he is Satan’s child, sent to earth to prepare for the second coming of Rosemary’s baby?
hahahahha Tamara
Well, I always thought Hitler was pretty good at painting. If Polanski wants to get let off based on artistic merit then I guess the guy who killed his parents is innocent too.
Insightful….its true, too.
it’s so nice to finally see some coverage on this that isn’t a bunch of self involved “artists” claiming he should be let go because of his hardships and accomplishments. As a victim of rape and in general, as a human being, I was highly upset and disgusted that so many public figures are demanding his release. What he did was against the law. If it were any other person NOBODY would be demanding release.
Why is it that Hollywood players believe their artistic and mercurial nature is an excuse for them to abide by different laws then the rest of us? Unless, of course, somebody does something to them….
I don’t get what Polanski’s so afraid of, Hollywood justice is a joke. At most he would have gotten a few months in the can and community service with Chris Brown. BFD. What a pussy!
The woman dropped the charges, I think it should be dropped. People are just too eager for vengence. The purpose of the legal system is to A.) Redress the wronged party and B.) In the event that the criminal is a danger to society, detain him.
A.) Was redressed in the civil suit. So unless you think a 76 year old film maker with his profile is a danger to our society (he’s in france now…. let the french decide that) then it just costs tax dollars to achieve B.)
Or do you want what they’ve been currently doing C). A dog and pony show, to bolster some politician’s ratings.
If a person breaks a law then he is a criminal. polanski broke two laws, first raping a 13 year old girl. and yes, it was a rape, she repeatedly said no to him, but he still forced himself onto her. he broke the second law when he decided to flee on the day of the sentencing because the judge may have added more time to his sentence. of course, since he ran, and thus became a fugitive, we can’t be too sure what the judge would’ve sentenced.
also, this man was not in exile as many people think. he has citizenship in france, it is his home.
Nope–she didn’t drop the charges, there are no charges to be dropped. He i npt CHARGED with a crime, he is convicted. Determined guilty (by his own volition).
He pleaded qilty on charges of statutory rape. And even if you don’t beleve that she begged no and tried to get away, there is still the fact that he drugged her to contend with.
He’s a piece of shit. Months after he raped this girl he took up with a then 15 year old Nastaja Kinski. Clearly he’s a perv with a thing for underage girls. It’s disgusting that the French have been ass licking this guy for 30 years.
No, he did not plead guilty to statutory rape.
In a plea deal, Polanski pled guilty to “unlawful sex with a minor”.
As in all plea bargaining, it is probable the prosecution felt he was guilty of a greater crime, but felt there was a sound risk that he would receive a non-guilty verdict from the jury. In other words, that he was legally not guilty.
It is highly likely that, with different changes in law and with different community standards and awareness concerning child abuse, that Polanski would have been treated more severely today.
But it is also clear that with the apparent criminal activity by the “neutral” judge and the prosecution in the affair, that even if Polanski returns, all charges against him will likely be dropped. And correctly so, from a legal standpoint. We cannot allow judges to act illegally, to actively collaborate with one side or the other when they are supposed to be neutral. It is the same thing as a judge accepting a bribe to let someone off.
This of course plays right into the hands of the conservative L.A. Prosecutor, who will say that “activist” judges have released a rapist, while he tried to be the good guy. The fact is that he is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not eventually millions, for his own televised career, and his own conservative politics, which assert that being a battered woman should not be considered in cases where women defend themselves against violent spouses.
If you are worried about the message to society, this DA is sending all the worst ones
Zelda wrote “Nope she didn’t drop the charges, there are no charges to be dropped.”
I think there is a factual error in this. While Polanski pleaded guilty, he was never sentenced, so the charges still stand.
As I understand it, the victim did indeed recently ask the court for all charges to be dropped, in her best interest. Her request was not granted.
The point is that the victim has no charges. In a criminal proceeding, the acused is on trial by the state, for a crime against the state. The victim is a mere witness. It’s different than in civil proceedings, and the victim’s opinion means nothing.
The other reason to punish people is for deterrence – to show other members of society that this behaviour is not acceptable, and you will not get away with it. I think that’s the most valid reason to pursue this. I think it’s wrong that it wasn’t pursued before, and the politics of it are incredibly stupid, but that doesn’t make it necessarily wrong to pursue now.
Yes, Kai, I can certainly go along with everything you’ve said. The fact that the DA is likely doing something for the wrong reason doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
But if the message is deterrence, pragmatically-speaking, what happens if Polanski is released? And how effective is that deterrence if potential criminals say, “I may get away with it for 30 thirty years, leading a rich and famous life”?
Kai wrote: “The point is that the victim has no charges. In a criminal proceeding, the acused is on trial by the state, for a crime against the state. The victim is a mere witness.”
At first I thought you were right about this, but I discover that under the California Penal Code, the victim’s opinion about punishment *must* be taken into consideration. The court is not obliged to follow the victim’s opinion, but California lawmakers have decided that it is indeed important.
Wow! Sorry then, difference of juristiction. It sure doesn’t work that way up here. But in the end, it still isn’t the primary issue.
I agree that letting him off for thirty years hardly sends the right message. I think it’s a tough call here – it is right for him to be punished, but there does seem little point this late in the game.
I guess what do you do when you’re new to a position – let go what previous people failed to pursue, or try to do what’s right, even if it’s ages overdue? And that’s giving the hugest benefit of the doubt to the pursuer here, which I’m not convinced he deserves.
So realistically, it’s too late for anything to be actually a right answer.
Kai wrote “I guess what do you do when you’re new to a position – let go what previous people failed to pursue, or try to do what’s right, even if it’s ages overdue?”
Well actually the D.A. isn’t new – I believe this is his 9th year.
The famewhore mother should be tried for badgering Polanski to see the girl and telling him she was eighteen.
This was an amazingly screwed up case. The judge offered Polanski a plea deal. Polanski accepted it. Polanski was told that the plea was not binding.
Another prosecutor not assigned to the case, coached the judge on the sentencing, changing the original plea deal. Polanski would be allowed to withdraw his plea sentence of statutory rape. Having the other prosecutor coach the judge amounted to both judicial and prosecutory malfeasance.
Polanski pretty much did everything he was asked to at virtually all stages. He peacefully went to the police and accepted arrest without any problems.
When the original judge sent him for the original 90 days of evaluation by prison psychiatrists (who are not noted for their sympathetic treatment of prisoners… they are hired for that reason) what they determined was that Polansky was not a Criminally Sex offender AND. that there was no rape. The event was consensual not their opinion but by the best evidence they could come up with. They recommended that Polanski be sentenced to time served, and probation along with regular psychiatric care.
What the non attached prosecutor recommended that the judge do was not accept the original plea deal, send Polanski back to the same prison psychiatric unit for another 90 days, and then release Polanski but only after making “voluntary deportation a term of his release.
That, unfortunately was not within the jurisdiction of the judge. They can’t make voluntary deportation part of a sentence. Only the federal government can deport.
Basically I am getting all of this stuff not from all of the opinion driven media, not from editorials, analysis or hearsay, but from the newpaper articles from 1978 newpapers and later articles between that date and Polanski’s recent arrest. One example is:
Washington Post, August 10, 1977
Movie director Roman Polanski was ordered to undergo examination by two court-appointed psychiatrists in Los Angeles to determine if he should be institutionalized as a “mentally disordered sex offender” for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
Polanski, 43, pleaded guilty to one of six charges facing him, thereby avoiding a trial.
The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl’s mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany such a trial.
The prosecution agreed to dismiss five other charges, including two more serious counts—furnishing drugs to a minor and rape by use of drugs.
The results of the psychiatric examinations will help determined whether Polanski will be deported as an undesirable alien.
Basically the thing that the judge ended up wanting was what ended up occurring.
In 1998, the Polanski’s lawyers were offered another deal. If his lawyers and Polanski dropped their assertions of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, they would drop efforts to extradict Polanski and there would be no further sentence added. Polanski accepted again. This was recorded in many papers, this is the one I have located:
Deal Will End Roman Holiday for Polanski
By Michelle Caruso in Los Angeles and Helen Kennedy in New York
Originally published in the Daily News (New York), October 1, 1997
Twenty years after he fled to Europe to escape punishment for raping a 13-year-old girl, fugitive director Roman Polanski will surrender in Los Angeles, sources confirmed yesterday.
Under a deal worked out in two secret meetings between the judge and Polanski’s lawyer, the 63-year-old director won’t serve any time in jail, sources said.
Now we get to this year and the timing of Polanski’s arrest.
In January 2009. the woman who was the 13 year old girl in the case who now lives in Hawaii had her attorneys file a request to drop all charges against Polanski. That is not relevant to the state, but she has decided she want not merely to forget it all, but she wants her charges of 30 years ago dropped.
On February 2009 a California Judge heard Polanski’s request to have the case dropped. The judge had a problem with that because it was not clear if Polanski had to be present in order for him to do this or not. But he did rule, much to the consternation of the current prosecutors, that there had been substantial misconduct on the part of the judge and the prosecutors and gave Polanski until May 7th to show up in court. This the result of testimony given by the prosecutor who admitted last year on film that he had coached the judge on how to phase his statements to Polanski at his sentencing hearing before the hearing. Again a rather severe violation for a judge. Polanski’s lawyers are appealing the necessity of Polanski having to be present in order for his lawyers to have the judge drop the charges on the grounds that he already has found considerable misconduct in Polanski’s case. If that occurs, the judge would be able to drop charges against Polanski and the prosecution would find itself unable to continue issuing requests for extradition.
The timing of Polanski’s arrest is rather problematic. What was becoming apparent to the current prosecutor was that it looked like Polanski was getting close to getting the entire case dropped. While the dropping of charges by the victim in the crime does not drop the states right to go after Polanski, it would be rather tough to do a lot without her testimony again. Other than his fleeing the United States, there isn’t much they can do about the original charges.
Another problem for the prosecutors is that while the Swiss Officials acted on the U.S. request originally, the more they are looking at the case, the more the Swiss judge is questioning whether Polanski fits the conditions for being extradited due to the original plea bargain and the recommendation of the psychiatric officials at the prison he was sent to. Their recommendation was “time served” and psychiatric probation.
The fact that Polanski was charged and accepted a plea bargain in lieu of a trial is another problem for the Swiss. Their courts are now determining the legality of the U.S. extradition request, which has actually not been formally submitted. The U.S. merely asked the Swiss to hold him until they make the request. The U.S. has until November to send the actual extradition request. If the lower court disagrees, they let Polanski go. If they do not, the next court the Federal Tribunal can overturn that. Basically the Swiss can decide that the U.S. request is not legal.
Most of the timing of this seems to be based on recent events. The legal request to drop charges by the girl, the recent ruling of a judge which found, for the first time, that Polanski’s case was very badly handled, and finally, the fact that his lawyers are appealing the judge who made that ruling’s request that Polanski must be present for the charges to be dropped. If he does not need to be present, the indications are that Polanski’s charges would be dropped because of that handling of the case. What makes me think this is likely is the fact that the prosecutors are trying to deal with Polanski, not on the original charges, but for leaving America (actually the judge didnt prohibit that, Polanski was allowed to leave the U.S. by the judge while awaiting final sentencing as long as he returned for the sentencing, given the nature of his job. They are also attempting to get the lawyers who handled the original case for Polanski prohibited from being in court on the charges of fleeing the United States so they cannot bring up the issues of misconduct by the original prosecution and judge. This alone indicates that they have no intention of even bringing up the original case, but going after Polanski for fleeing the U.S. before he was charged. A little unusual to me.
It wasn’t consensual, a 13 year old cannot consent. Furthermore the victim said that she most certainly did not want this and simply did not know how to get out of the situation. He drugged her, gave her alcohol then anally raped her. How can you defend that? If Joe Shmoe from a trailer park in Alabama did this no one would be looking to excuse him. If you think he should be excused for his talent then why not let Charlie Manson out of prison? After all he wrote songs for the Beach Boys so he should be excused too by your logic…..
* If Joe Shmoe from a trailer park in Alabama did this no one would be looking to excuse him. *
Pretty much sums it up.
Under California law at the time, even if a minor could not give legal consent, it did indeed make a difference if the minor consented. It also made a difference if Polanski knew she was a minor – which apparently the child’s own mother mazy have denied to Polanski.
If Polanski was Joe Shmoe there is no chance that L.A.’s DA would be going after him in these conditions, 30 years later.
What if Polanski had been at the head of a criminal conspiracy to hide tens of thousands of cases of child rape for decades? Should the prosecutor go after the Pope for officially ordering his Bishops and Cardinals to obstruct justice in all cases of priests raping children?
Maybe no one would be going after Joe Schmoe after 30 years. Not all th wway in Europe, anyway.
But that doesn’t mean that he is still to be held completely responsible for paying back his legal debt.
If THIS guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Mechanic had to be hauled in than the same goes for Polanski. Let your president pardon him if that is just, but you can’t just walk away without dealing with it just because you directed Chinatown. Fame, fans, wealth, genius…none of that should put you bove the law.
There’s also this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kelly_(rapist)
totally non famous, totally tracked down in Europe years later.
Is it finally being done for the wrong reasons? maybe. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
*is not still to be held
And let’s all pay close attention to the section where he says he knew she was a minor:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html
Yes, if you play close attention, you notice that he first consulted with his lawyer, which may just mean that he did not want to say that, perhaps because it was dangerous to say, but also perhaps because it was false. If you accept a plea bargain, you don’t get to tell the truth, you get to say what they want you to say – that’s why they agree to a lesser charge. It is no secret that innocent people sometimes plead guilty – I’m not saying this is the case here.
The woman present at the house who saw the child the day of the events claimed the 13-year-old could have passed for any age up to 25.
His pause? really? people do that all the time before entering a plea. He pauses in lots of places.
Yes, innocent people plead guilty. So do guilty ones.
Look, in all honesty, I always hoped that the man would stay in France til he died, live a good life, and all this would go away. I love his films. I’m sorry hi childhood was so hard. I’m sorry his wife was killed. I want to believe him I want to like him. But if I’m honest with myself, There is a whole lot of running around justifying behavious that shouldn’t be jstified. Is he being hunted bc he is a celebrity? Probably. Is he being defended because he is a celebrity? Probably.
And I can’t believe that you’re going with the “she looked older” argument. That is so not an acceptable defense.
I don’t think he’s being hunted just because he’s a celebrity, INTERPOL and extradition treaties don’t exist just to get Roman Polanski
You people defending him make me sick. This is a feminist website and you’re defending a pedophile who drugged and raped a 13 year old? You need your heads examined.
Zelda, YOU brought up him claiming he knew she was a minor & told us to play special attention to it.
I’m just following your lead.
Like it or not, “she looked older” was indeed a valid legal defense at the time.
You’ll notice the DA never asked her anything about Polanski’s knowledge of her age in the Grand Jury testimony. I must assume this is because he knew her answer could be damaging to his case.
Personally I think it does make a moral difference whether he “assumed” she was 13 or 16 or 18. That Anjelica Huston said she could pass for 25, and that the girl’s mother is reported to have told Polanski the girl was 18 would certainly make a difference to me. Intention is important.
When I look at the part of Polanski’s transcript that you mention, I see it is almost the only time he consults his lawyer. Twice in one minute. That’s not a “pause”, it is a man quite possibly surprised that he is basically being told he must admit something – true or not – that would seem to not have been part of what he understood the agreement to be. Should someone lie to get a plea deal? Certainly not in the best of all worlds. But we don’t live there.
There are two questions here – one is moral, one is legal.
The legal one, at least, must be considered from the state of law in 1977, which is before the change in consciousness brought about in large part by the feminist movement, but also by frank talk about sexuality, and the “discovery” that child molestation was/is endemic.
At that time, the accused party’s knowledge of age certainly was a key legal question. That has changed a lot since then, and today, “knowingly” doesn’t enter into the legal formula as much as it did at the time.
The victim has publicly stated that she did not believe Polanski wanted to hurt her, nor even to frighten her.
But for me, besides the legal questions of guilt and due process, I don’t think we should forget why this particular man is being singled out for special treatment by a specific elected official. “High profile” is the only reason this case is being pursued.
(as an aside Tamara I really enjoy debating with you–its all very levelheaded and not pissy *sigh* if only all comment board debates could run so rationally)
Thanks for the aside, Zelda. I enjoyed your thoughtful original article, and the helpful additions that N.J. wrote above. Since then, I’ve discovered some of the original legal documents online, and it’s a real education to see how convoluted they can be, and how careful one has to be about taking them at face value. The young woman’s testimony to the Grand Jury is revealing, as she shows herself to be more thoughtful and serious than the D.A. questioning her.
It doesn’t matter if she looked 40, he DRUGGED and RAPED her. She did not want sex, he forcibly raped and sodomized her. Even if she was 40 it’s still a felony. Jesus!
Of course it matters if she was 40, or else you are very confused about the facts that she reported. She says she voluntarily had some champaign and that she voluntarily took less than a half qualude.
She testified that she was not physically forced to do anything – read her testimony. And even if it shouldn’t have been so, the idea that a 40-year-old woman could say no to sex and still want to have sex was certainly culturally acceptable – just read any Harlequin novel from that time. In fact, a woman was often expected (by herself and her friends) to say no, and then be swept away by passion. Of course it is stupid and antiquated, but it was true for many women. A good girl did not have sex before marriage – unless swept away.
If she had been 40 years old, no court at that time, and probably no court today, would ever have interpreted the reported facts of the case as rape.
Read her testimony to the Grand Jury.
Yes, I did bring it up because he said he KNEW she was a minor. Should we believe him?
WEll, if he had cuntless people who coud swear she looked older AND that that was a viable defense, then why WOULD he say yes? Why wouldn’t he say “no, and there are people who’ll back me up?” Because his knowing or not knowing does not make it any less of a crime, even if it were LESS of a consideration, it was still a matter of SOME consideriation or the question would never have been asked.
And by your logic, we are to assume that at this point in the proceedings, he turned to his attourney for an answer as though they had never before discussed these charges? Like he needed a line, as if he were in a school play? It’s possible that he turned to his attourney at this point to say “are you sure I should say this” because he wanted to lie about it. Fact is, the pause is not telling of anything whatsoever, othr than the fact that he spoke to his attourney.
And whatever the reason for pursual by the DAs office, that does not mean that the government is wrong to bring in a convicted criminal. Even if you don’t like it, or if it’s a waste of money, the laws behind it are solid. Overturn it for all I care, but Polanski made his own bed by fleeing the country and people can’t be outraged that he is being apprehended for a crime he DID commit: not rape, but fleeing the country in the middle of his criminal trial.
*countless! not cuntless!
Wow…unfortunate typo…
Particularly on a feminist blog! That might be the funniest thing I’ve seen on the internet all day.
Zelda,
No comment on your Freudian slip showing (or should that be Freudian bra?). ;-))
For me there are several questions here happening all at the same time.
What really happened?
What is the moral situation?
What was and is the legal situation?
Specifically concerning your question, Zelda, I think it likely (though I certainly have no proof) that Polanski did not know how young she was. Perhaps it was “don’t ask don’t tell”. Perhaps he suspected she was under age but assumed her to be older. Or perhaps he wanted to tell himself she was 11.
As to why he would lie about that in court, I thought I was being clear. If he did not say that he knew she was 13, the plea deal was apparently off. The charges against him would be much more serious. That’s how a plea deal works. Other countries don’t have plea deals. Ours does.
All this has to do with “what really happened”. We actually know very little, in part because the case did not go to trial, but was stopped by the plea bargain. It is possible to consult some, but apparently not all, of the Grand Jury testimony and police reports online. This testimony in some ways contrasts with public statements made by the very same witnesses, and none of them have been cross examined.
So from a legal standpoint, we can take at a face value Polanski’s plea bargain and accept his prima facie guilt – not of rape, but of unlawful intercourse.
But then we can also take at face value the evidence of the judge’s and prosecutor’s subsequent illegal behavior.
The victim herself says she finds Polanski’s flight, in the face of the circumstances, justifiable.
And from a legal point of view, the case will likely be thrown out. Thus reinforcing the idea that the famous have a right to rape.
As for the moral question, I don’t think it is simple. Neither do lawmakers, because the age at which women have the right to legally dispose of their own body differs from state to state and from country to country and from day to day. Not too long ago, at the time of this case, women could legally be married in the US at 13.
When I was 13, I certainly had consensual and much appreciated sex. And at that time, the cut-off age was 21 in the State where I lived. My partners for the next 8 years were all guilty of rape in that State. That wasn’t the dark ages, I’m much younger than Polanski.
And remember that in some US States today, cunnilingus is legally defined as “sodomy” and considered a greater crime than rape, if one or both of the concerned parties is under age. It was even illegal until very recently between married adults.
I may be getting off-subject, but I don’t think so.
Weighing the defense of children against the right of a woman to dispose of her own body is a reality that feminists must confront.
You may decide that 13 is simply too young. It wasn’t for me, and I have considered my children mature enough to make that decision for themselves, even if in my State I myself could be imprisoned for allowing them to do so in our own home – even at the age of 17 years and 364 days. Today in my State it is a crime for my children to have sex until they are 18. And God forbid that they be gay or lesbian, because that legally increases the punishment, the Romeo and Juliet law not applying to Juliet and Juliet.
This criminalization of sexuality and of normal healthy human behavior is part of the cultural war against sex, which goes hand in hand with denying rights to gays and lesbians and women.
The Los Angeles D.A. in this case is on the wrong side of this war, and his decision to further his personal career and political agenda through this case is not innocent.
“This criminalization of sexuality and of normal healthy human behavior is part of the cultural war against sex, which goes hand in hand with denying rights to gays and lesbians and women.”
wow.
Tamara is probably Martin Scorcese. Creep.
Umm, you know that she was drugged first right? And that despite that, she kept telling him “No” and trying to get away?You don’t consider a man forcing his dick into a childs body after slipping her quaaludes, with her crying and telling him to stop, rape? If thats the case I really hope your lying about having children, or if you do that your neighbors alert Child Services.
Also, do you really consider 13 year old to have the decision making abilities of an adult?
Do you also want 13 year olds driving, voting, buying liquor, running for office, etc.?
Well, in some states we charge them as adults when they murder someone…
Just throwing that out there.
Fascinating point, Matrim.
There has indeed been this constant drive to consider people as legally responsible for their bad decisions at an earlier and earlier age, without granting them any legal right to make decisions about themselves and their bodies.
I agree that it’s stupid to have the age of consent so high, at eighteen. But I do think there is a key difference between a fourteen year old and a thirteen year old having sex, compared to a thirteen year old and a thirty year old. The balance of power is very different, and why some places have the age difference clause to consent laws (which I think make great sense. I’d put the age of consent at eighteen, with the allowance of any age if the participants are within two years.)
You may think that 13 is old enough to decide to have sex. But would you consider the average thirteen year old mature enough to make those decisions while under some coercion from a man twice her age?
In most European countries, the age of sexual consent is between 14 and 16. The age to legally drink alcohol is often in the same range, when there is a limit. The age to vote is usually 18.
You ask if the “average thirteen year old” is mature enough. Obviously the word “average” is where things get tricky. I’ve known many 30-year-olds that were very bad with these decisions. I have certainly known 12-year-olds who could make better decisions.
In fact, regardless of what the law says, most teens and some pre-teens are making these decisions – some well, some badly. They may be deciding to not have any sex at all, or not have some forms of sex at all, or only have sex with someone they love. But they are still deciding, and many of them are still – legally-speaking – criminals.
Remember that “sex” is not limited to intercourse. In some jurisdictions, breast-touching is assimilated with rape, even if both participants are girls aged 15.
When I was 16, I was at the University. Most people I met were over 18. I was “jail-bait”. Your two-year cut-off suggestion of age difference would have seemed very excessively restrictive, and I would have remained jail-bait for most people I was living perfectly normal friendship relationships with. Everyone assumed I was 18 or older.
The question of coercion is completely different. No one should be exposed to coercion. But be careful about the meaning of coercion – Merriam Webster’s says “persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats”. Using the Polanski case as an example, the victim has always maintained that this was not the case.
If we are talking about “being pressured”, either by the “perpetrator” or by “society”, then this is also obviously a concern.
This isn’t europe, this is America. We protect children from perverts here.
John Walsh says: “This isn’t europe, this is America. We protect children from perverts here.”
You may have a good point, without knowing it.
It may actually be necessary to protect children more in the US than in Europe.
Violent crimes of all kinds occur at much higher rates in the US.
While one could argue that possible under-reporting one place or the other, and differences in the definitions of sexual crimes, would make crime rates difficult to compare, in the case of murder, it is obvious that the rate is literally ten times as big in the US as in most European countries.
The US also has a prison population that is, by percentage, 20 times as large as in most European countries.
I don’t know why Americans are so much more violent, but maybe our kids do need more protection.
I think one of the key points here is the definition of child. I hear a lot of people in the US referring to high school students as kids, even college students. Americans have very few legal rights as individuals until age 18, even age 21 for things like buying alcohol or being an independent for college loans in some scenarios.
Europeans tend to mature faster and I think that’s because they have more legal rights and responsibilities. I don’t think there’s a single country in Europe where someone is not essentially an adult at age 16. In the UK for example you can do pretty much everything other than buy alcohol (you can buy wine with dinner but not in a store or at a bar), drive a car, and vote by age 16 and you have all those rights by 18. Most Europeans countries are even more permissive.
I grew up in the UK and I think I was 13 or 14 the last time someone referred to me as a kid until I moved to the US. I actually had a few people referring to me as a kid when I was in my twenties because I was in college (grad school) and working part time in a supermarket. The terminology makes a big difference. You tell a 16 year old that they’re a child and they’ll act like one but you tell them they’re an adult and they’ll be a lot more responsible.
“Today in my State it is a crime for my children to have sex until they are 18.”
“This criminalization of sexuality and of normal healthy human behavior is part of the cultural war against sex, which goes hand in hand with denying rights to gays and lesbians and women.”
“I’ve known many 30-year-olds that were very bad with these decisions. I have certainly known 12-year-olds who could make better decisions.”
Heard all these arguments before from a certain group. They like to turn it into a children’s rights issue, when all they want is the right to have sex with children.
By the way, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities are NOT happy when it is said that laws protecting children from people like Polanski are similar to the discrimination that LGBT have faced for so long.
Denying adults the right to have sex with children is not the same as as discriminating against women or the LGBT. Not even close.
Dan,
It is probably a mistake for me to consider other issues than simply Polanski in this blog. But I have been doing so.
I don’t know of any gay groups campaigning for sex between a 16-year-old man and a 20-year-old man being a crime. Nor lesbian nor transgender groups saying similar things.
Do you?
The question is where to draw the arbitrary line.
Should two 14-year-olds masturbating each other be a felony? Should a 18-year-old performing oral sex on a 17-year-old be a felony?
That is the case today in parts of our United States.
Where would you draw the lines?
Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws that don’t punish two underage or an over age / underage relationship if their only a couple of years apart. Those protect 13 year old from sick 40 year olds.
K wrote “Most states have Romeo and Juliet laws that don’t punish two underage or an over age / underage relationship if their only a couple of years apart. ”
Some States do, but they often only reduce the penalties, and as you say, sometimes the acceptable age difference is only two years. But there was no such law for 13-year-olds in California at that time. The victim’s boyfriend at the time was an adult.
BYW, the specific things acts I described above are all illegal in California, though not necessarily felonies. In other States they are.
I think you guys are a little full of yourselves.
The documentary is a hoax – plain and simple.
The evidentiary basis is non-existent and forged. And the forgeries themselves would be held up against the the most rigorous forensic standards the world has to offer.
Why do you think the lawyer in that “documentary” has owned up to the fact that he lied about the judge’s “prosecutorial misconduct”?
Because as a lawyer, he KNOWS that once he’s been subpoenad in court, he’d either have to fess up eventually or be caught committing perjury. The evidence is decidedly NOT in Polanski’s favor.
Why do you think Polanski won’t go to the US court if he has a case?
Answer: he knows he DOESN’T have a case.
Sorry, gullible boys and girls:
You’ve been lied to.
And apparently, you’re too stupid to figure that out.
Seriously, you believe that a “re-enactment” made by a child-rapist and his friends, who make their living by fabricating lies (because that’s what “movies” and “documentaries” really are) have anything to do with reality?
Don’t worry though.
You’ll all be too clueless to be embarrassed when the judge and the DA asks for Polasnki’s evidence of misconduct and his lawyers reply “what evidence?”
Polaski’s only hope is that the Swiss don’t extradite him to the US.
If he gets to the US, he’ll be sentenced and the appeals process will be a formality because a “documentary” is no match for reality.
I should expound further:
Again, the lawyer fessed up because he never expected Polaski to be stupid enough to get caught.
And if Polanski never got caught, the lawyer would never have to appear in court (which means he would never be in danger of committing obvious perjury).
Unfortunately, Polanski was stupid (or arrogant) enough to dare the LA DA to come after him by sending his lawyers to claim that the case should be dismissed because the DA was afraid of the phony charges in your Polanski’s “documentary”.
LOL.
Well, the LA DA knows you have nothing.
Seriously.
It’s not a good idea to bluff against a prosecutor when he can see your cards.
Not having seen the movie, nor having based my opinions on it at all, I’m not sure your posts are relevant to my being a “gullible” “girl”, as you have so charmingly put it.
PS – It may be a sexist assumption, but based on my own stereotypes about your aggressive, insulting writing style, I’m assuming you are a man. One who is perhaps more concerned with belittling others than with making a point.
However it was a Superior Court Judge, in open court, who publicly stated the charges of unethical behavior were credible.
But if you have some source for debunking a documentary I haven’t seen, I’d be glad to read your sources.
From the Los Angeles Times:
“By Harriet Ryan
February 18, 2009
Roman Polanski lost a battle Tuesday in his effort to get a 1977 child sex case against him thrown out, but in delivering the bad news, a judge suggested the acclaimed director may be a plane ticket away from winning the larger war.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza told a packed courtroom that he found the core argument in Polanski’s request for a dismissal of charges — allegations of unethical and, in some instances, illegal conduct by a prosecutor and a judge three decades ago — to be credible.”
Would anyone be defending a child-molester (because that IS what happened, in a nutshell) if he had put his penis in a complaining and unhappy 13-year-old BOY’s anus?
SO doubt it–he’d be called a pervert and arrested in Europe 20 years ago…
Roman Polanski was imprisoned since September when he entered Switzerland’s Zuric Airport for accepting an award. He is not only accused of raping an underage girl of 13 years but also is accused of escaping from the US police since 1978. If the charges against him are proved then he might face severe penalty like extradition. The director though has escaped all charges and has moved freely in different parts of Europe like any other independent citizens, now he will have to defend himself from the charges against him if he wants to live freely rest of his life.`
Up to date short article on our own web portal
<="http://www.caramoan.ph/caramoan-tour/