I don’t care what anyone says; Roman Polanski is a rapist:
Let’s get one thing clear from the outset: Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Yes, Whoopi, he even “rape-raped” her, whatever that means. Ignoring her explicit pleas and protests, he fed her champagne and a quaalude, forced her to undress, and then vaginally and anally penetrated her. That’s rape, by any definition and with any number of hyphens. And it’s all there in the public record.
I know the victim in Polanski’s case has come out in favor of the charges being dropped, and while I appreciate her reasons for calling for the charges to be dropped, I still think anyone who defends what Roman Polanski did ought to have their heads examined.
How can anyone support Polanski? I just don’t get it. I couldn’t even bring myself to watch “The Pianist” and I love those kind of movies…but I just couldn’t watch it knowing Polanski is a rapist.
Yeah, I don’t understand the support for Polanski either. If you commit a crime, you should be held accountable.
I agree. Polanski continued to have sex with teenage girls (like Nastassia Kinski) after he fled to Europe. He benefitted from more liberal age-of-consent laws in the countries of his exile.
Polanski’s suffering during the Holocaust and the murder of his wife and unborn child do not excuse child molestation. Most child molesters were themselves abused as children, but I don’t see Whoopi Goldberg making excuses for them.
This is nothing but Hollywood tribalism, the rallying to defend one’s own. It also demonstrates Hollywood’s warped view of the role of underage girls in our society. By putting provocative clothes and make-up on pre-pubescent girls, the entertainment industry portrays them as sexually mature and available. It seems that some in the industry therefore believe that a 13-year-old girl is the equivalent of an 18-year-old.
There is no defense for what Polanski did. And anyone who defends his actions is certifiably looney.
Should the State seek to try a person for a crime if the victim does not seek it?
Jill, do you want to weigh in on that?
PB, I’ll just chime in with my own two cents:
I think the state should seek to prosecute a person for a crime like rape even if the victim doesn’t seek it, simply because if the state doesn’t, it sends entirely the wrong message.
I’ve read a postings online arguing this very point – since the victim doesn’t want him put in jail (more accurately, she just wants it all to be over) we should just leave him alone. What I wonder – and asked some of these people but never go a response…how about wife & child abusers? That very attitude would certainly be supported by those people since “it’s our secret”, “nobody will believe you”, “it’s your fault” etc while being an awful insult to injury, is unfortunately effective at convincing victims to keep quiet.
Crimes are “the state vs. ____” or “the people vs. ____” not victim A vs. ___. Certainly is not unusual in many cases for the prosecution to not proceed if they don’t feel like they can make their case without the support/testimony of the victim but that’s a practical matter. Crimes are prosecuted only in part for the victim, but the major goal is for justice in the larger sense.
Is the State supposed to send a message?
Shouldn’t the message be that those who break our laws will be held accountable?
If we fail to prosecute those who commit crimes, we’re sending a message that it’s okay to break the law.
“If we fail to prosecute those who commit crimes, we’re sending a message that it’s okay to break the law.”
I completely agree. This statement should be applied to illegal immigration as well.
No more than the same message they should send anyone in a similar situation. If you give an 13 year old alcohol, drugs then repeatedly violate her against her wishes, and you plead guilty to it, you don’t get to avoid punishment because you fled the country.
One of the red herrings here is this whole claim that they were “going to make an example out of him” bit. Since he fled before the actual sentencing, this is a completely unsubstantiated claim that meant to cull sympathy. It’s right up there with, he’s been punished enough. Find me someone convicted or who plead guilty to what he did, with the facts of this case who did not serve prison time. There are guys serving 20 years or more for doing less than he did.
I do not believe that victims should determine either the prosecution or the sentence of criminals. Polanski’s victim claims she “just wants it to go away” — but he also paid her a hefty settlement some years ago, which could be considered hush money.
Think about all of the pressure that the Catholic Church has brought to bear on some families of abuse victims not to go to the secular authorities. If the state takes the attitude that they should not get involved if the victims and their families do not want them to, many more children will be abused who could have been protected.
By the way – thank you for posting this & making your position clear on this. I think you would have to look awful hard to find a conservative supporting Polanski, but I didn’t suspect it was a left vs. right issue either – and your post & comments here would be in line with that. It’s a very small subset of liberals – Hollywood elite who should not be seen to represent an opinion of anything beyond their own little world which.
BTW, Salon has what I’d consider the
definitive piece on this case.
‘Hollywood’ wants to hire Polanski or work for him. Self interest or pedophilia is the most likely root of their support. The jerks.
Btw, his current wifie is also 33 years younger than he. I mean he knows what he likes!