<-Built to Spill Was Built to Rock |Main|seXterra the White->

Guilty Men Should Be Sentenced

September 28, 2009 11:28 PM

'm having a hard time understanding the attitude that most people seem to be taking towards the whole Roman Polanski thing. I just want to make sure I understand this: the guy admitted that he had nonconsensual sex with a thirteen-year-old girl, right? The guy raped a little girl, yeah? And it's not even like he just raped a little girl--which is bad enough. No! The guy admits that he did it, and then he decides that he doesn't want to live with the consequences of his actions, so he exploits his wealth and runs off to a different country where, for thirty years, he makes a mockery of the American justice system. Then, when someone finally arrests the sleazebag, people get all upset about it? What the fuck? Let's consider the possible grounds on which people might suggest that Mr. Polanksi deserves some sort of leniency.

He's a Holocaust survivor
No one's going to deny that having personally experienced the Holocaust was probably a terrible, terrible ordeal for Mr. Polanski and his family. I'm honestly sorry that anyone had to go through that, and it turns my stomach to even think about it. But there are any number of survivors that didn't go on to commit fairly heinous sex crimes, so I don't see how the fact that he went through a horrible thing absolves him of guilt for a horrible thing he did later. Holocaust survivors, in general, deserve the respect they get and more, but having survived even that atrocity doesn't give anyone the right to do what Mr. Polanski admitted to doing.

His wife was murdered
Again, Mr. Polanski had a terrible thing happen to him. But, again, the fact that something bad happened to him doesn't mean he can do bad things to others.

He's made a bunch of movies
Is the idea here that if you've done enough entertaining stuff, you're good to go? By this logic, could Bono shoot a guy and get away with it? I've never seen any of Roman Polanski's films, and they all sound like stuff I wouldn't enjoy, but even if he were the guy behind Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Superman, Back to the Future, rainbows, bacon, and sunshine, I don't see how any of that would excuse him drugging up a little girl and then having sex with her.

He's had to live with what he's done for thirty years
That's just bullshit. For the past thirty years--and even before that, really--the guy's been hugely wealthy. I don't understand how people could seriously contend that, because the guy's been traipsing around Europe for the past three decades like some sort of free-spirited twenty-something, he deserves a pass. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that he's been a fugitive for thirty years counts against him: the guy has had over a quarter of a century to realize that the right thing to do is pay his debt, but he's refused to do so.

At the end of the day, I understand that people change. As the victim in the case herself said, it doesn't seem like Mr. Polanski's done this again. Maybe this really was a one-time thing fueled by drugs and an inflated sense of entitlement. And, yeah, I'm sure that the Roman Polankski that was arrested in Switzerland isn't the same man as the Roman Polankski that had sex with a little girl in Jack Nicholson's house. But those are all things that a judge should consider at sentencing. The fact remains that this is a man who committed an incredibly serious crime, admitted it, and then ran off before justice could be done.

Roman Polanski isn't the typical criminal. He's old, he's rich, he's white. But none of that means that he's any less guilty, and none of it should mean that he's any less subject to the demands of justice.



6 Comments


kristin said:

"He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland," said photographer Otto Weisser, a friend of Polanski.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/index.html

Well, at least it was just a little mistake. Honestly, what's a little child rape between friends?

I'd also note that the judge says he was facing a potential 48-day sentence. I'm sure the guy I know who got 3 years for having sex once with his 14-year-old girlfriend would be willing to trade.

September 29, 2009 7:57 AM



Lauren said:

Here's something that's confusing me that maybe you legally minded people can clarify. Polanski's main argument seems to be that it was consensual. The 13-year old wanted to have sex with him. But isn't the point of statutory rape that 13-year olds can't make that kind of decision? Why would you make that argument?? She was 13!!! He still took advantage of a poor, star-struck kid in the worst way possible and hasn't had to pay for it at all, except to live in Switzerland (poor soul). And he thinks that by saying it was consensual will help somehow?

September 29, 2009 8:50 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

kristin,
Right? I honestly get that maybe this isn't something Polanski would do today, but how does that excuse the fact that he did it thirty years ago? The people who try to minimize his actual behavior turn my stomach.

Lauren,
I haven't seen anyone make that argument, but maybe I've missed it. But I'll say this: of all the ridiculous things that people have been saying, that strikes me as one of the less offensive ones.

As an argument about the severity of the offense, I think it's a fine argument. I mean, look: we don't want adults having sex with thirteen-year-olds. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that all instances of statutory rape are the equal. Let's consider two situations. In the first, the "victim" is a girl who had consensual sex with her older boyfriend. The girl is willing to testify that she chose to have sex, that she told her boyfriend that she was ready to make that kind of decision, and that he was generally very respectful about the whole thing. In the second situation, a guy with no previous relationship with a teenage girl plies her with drugs and alcohol until she finally relents.

There's a crucial difference between those two situations, and if I were representing the person accused in the former situation, I'd make absolutely certain to point out the circumstances that make his situation different from the second example.

Your larger point--that this is unlikely to be helpful to Polanski--is dead on, however, especially since he already admitted that he committed a crime.

September 29, 2009 2:35 PM



Utah said:

"Roman Polanski isn't the typical criminal. He's old, he's rich, he's white." So all black people are typical criminals? Poor people? Young people? Dogs?

September 29, 2009 6:55 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Mr. Utah,
Your logic is all backwards. My statement that Roman Polanski isn't the typical criminal because he's old, rich, and white boils down logically to this: He is old, rich, and white, therefore he is not the typical criminal. What follows from this is that if someone is the typical criminal, that person is not old, not rich, and not white. That is a drastic oversimplification, but I think that it's "true," at least in the sense young, poor minorities are overrepresented in the pool of "criminals."

Your interpretations of my comments (which boil down to "if someone is black, then they are a criminal") do not follow from my statement. And that's not what I meant.

September 29, 2009 10:18 PM



kristin said:

Lauren and Ismael,

I agree with everything that you both said so far. I'd also point out that only Polanski says it was consensual. The victim says in her grand jury testimony that she was vaginally and anally raped.

So it's completely possible that he took advantage of a poor, star-struck (and drunk and drugged BY HIM) kid in the worst possible way, and then tried to pretend for 30 years that she wanted it. Classy.

September 30, 2009 9:30 AM



Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.