• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Chutkan laughs. Lauro sits back down.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

In my day, never was longer.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable VA House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / TV & Movies / Movies / What Is Good For Priests is Good for Filmmakers

What Is Good For Priests is Good for Filmmakers

by John Cole|  November 27, 20091:14 pm| 189 Comments

This post is in: Movies, Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Bernard-Henri Levy:

The decision to free Roman Polanski is a wise decision. It honors the people who took it. It shows that the arguments developed by the movie director’s partisans — including those published on the French review’s website of La Règle du Jeu — have finally been fruitful. It shows that Polanski’s French lawyers, Hervé Témime and Georges Kiejman, were right to remain tenacious. At this very moment, I am thinking about Emmanuelle, his wife. I am thinking about his two kids who saw their dad’s name ignominiously dragged through the mud. I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski whom I don’t know but whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped pouring contempt upon him, hounding him through hatred and asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthysm era all over again. At least, the nightmare is about to end. At least the end of the hell is looming. And this, for the time being, is what does matter.

Do these guys understand how stupid they sound talking about the “injustice” of jailing a man who anally raped a kid after feeding her booze and quaaludes? He raped a fucking teenager, then fled the country to escape justice.

You know, I used to be of the position that it has been decades, the girl apparently has decided to let this pass, that it is no big deal. But after listening to Polanski’s defenders try to excuse the inexcusable and act like hunting down child rapists is a witchhunt, I almost want Polanski to spend the rest of his life in jail.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Because the right
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

189Comments

  1. 1.

    Sentient Puddle

    November 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    If they’re going to defend him, maybe they could at least not compare the arrest to McCarthyism. Then I could at least read without rolling my eyes.

  2. 2.

    tc125231

    November 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    Personally, I am not a defender of Polanski. He did what he did, and if he gets jailed for it –c’est la vie. However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing.

    It really isn’t hard to imagine you as a Bush supporter.

    Take a deep breath.

  3. 3.

    Tony J

    November 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    I guess it really is Chinatown, John.

  4. 4.

    MattF

    November 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    There’s something morally broken there– it’s just ugly. And, then, when Woody Allen signed up for Polanski’s defense. Augh.

  5. 5.

    Dave C

    November 27, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    @tc125231:

    Yeah, Cole, you really need to work on toning down your anti-child-rapist prejudices.

  6. 6.

    donnah

    November 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Whether the girl forgave Polanski or not is irrelevant. He committed a crime and fled the country. He’s gotten away with it and shouldn’t be allowed out of prison. “Serving time” in a Swiss chalet? That’s disgusting.

    Plus, it says to me that if you have the money, you can commit whatever crimes you choose and you won’t have to pay. It says that rape is not serious enough to prosecute. It says the young girl who suffered is not as important as the man who raped her.

    That’s a lot of bad messages.

  7. 7.

    eemom

    November 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    @tc125231:

    what incoherence is this?

    It is a “prejudice” to condemn a child rapist?

    It really isn’t hard to imagine you as a fucking idiot.

  8. 8.

    Tony J

    November 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Personally, I am not a defender of Polanski. He did what he did, and if he gets jailed for it —c’est la vie. However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing.

    WTF?

    Are you really saying that child-rapists are the victims of prejudice?

    There’s trolling, and then there’s this. Please go fuck yourself.

  9. 9.

    gogol's wife

    November 27, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    @Dave C:
    You beat me to it (which always happens here).

  10. 10.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Plus, it says to me that if you have the money, you can commit whatever crimes you choose and you won’t have to pay. It says that rape is not serious enough to prosecute. It says the young girl who suffered is not as important as the man who raped her.

    Which, interestingly, is the exact same message you get from Chinatown. It makes me wonder if Noah Cross is a much more autobiographical character than Polanski will admit.

  11. 11.

    Cassidy

    November 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    The only bright side about this is that I’ve always thought Wes Anderson’s movies sucked. But now I don’t have to go through some mind-numbing account of how amazing he is from his fans. I can just end the conversation with “he signed the petition supporting a child rapist”.

  12. 12.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    @donnah:

    Plus, it says to me that if you have the money, you can commit whatever crimes you choose and you won’t have to pay. It says that rape is not serious enough to prosecute. It says the young girl who suffered is not as important as the man who raped her.

    It’s not just about the money, it’s about the celebrity, and the power. Some people actually look at artists as a kind of priesthood, whose work and contribution to culture is so important that we have to overlook their crimes.

  13. 13.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    And BTW, if Polanski didn’t want his kids to see his name dragged through the mud, he should have taken care of this legal problem, like, 30 years ago. Sorry, “but won’t someone think of the children?” is incredibly inappropriate here.

  14. 14.

    Liberty60

    November 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    People like Henri Bernard Levi are why people like Sarah Palin become popular.
    These preening self-absorbed people with their sense of entitlement are the poster children for the wingnut charge of “elitists”.

  15. 15.

    eemom

    November 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    I will add that I don’t think most people understood the reality of what Polanski did until his recent arrest. It was glossed over by the “sex with a minor” charge and the misperception of there having been consent. And his much ballyhood “hard life.”

    However, the true facts are now recognized even by the clueless emmessemm. What the man did was unforgivable. To paraphrase that smug-ass twat Whoopi Goldberg, it WAS “rape-rape.” And she was a CHILD.

  16. 16.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    @Cassidy:

    Scorsese also signed the petition, but I can kinda-sorta understand that since most people would be reluctant to believe that their friend of 40 years is a rapist. Scorsese’s probably been in denial since the story broke. Anderson has no excuse. And I’m very disappointed in Jonathan Demme.

    Anyone notice the extremely important person in Hollywood who didn’t sign the petition? Steven Spielberg. Good for him.

  17. 17.

    Shell

    November 27, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    We are all Roman Polanski now.

  18. 18.

    DougJ

    November 27, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Lévy’s reputation for narcissism is unparalleled in his home country, and he’s not unaware of the fact. The headline of one article about him coined the immortal dictum, ‘God is dead but my hair is perfect’. He has been known to say that the discovery of a new shade of grey leaves him ‘ecstatic’, and that people who vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen cannot buy Philippe Starck furniture or Yohji Yamamoto clothes (as if their aesthetic taste were their greatest offence).

    (link)

  19. 19.

    justinslot

    November 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Emma Thompson took her name off the Polanski petition after being asked about it by bloggers, I believe.

  20. 20.

    arguingwithsignposts

    November 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to. Nothing will take away the hysteria of those ones who have never stopped pouring contempt upon him, hounding him through hatred and asking for his punishment as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthysm era all over again.

    Spoken as if Polanski were Jean Valjean or something.

    Please, step away from the pearls and stop reading from The Hyperbole’s Dictionary.

    As someone noted above, these are the types of people who spawn Sarah Palins.

  21. 21.

    John Cole

    November 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    @tc125231: I’m not even sure what to say to that.

  22. 22.

    Cassidy

    November 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Oh I know, but I’ve never had the displeasure of sitting through a half hour conversation while someone tries to explain to me how brilliant Scorcese is. I can take or leave him personally, but now it’s a little easier to skip over the 3 hour long mafia epic.

  23. 23.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    @Cassidy:

    It’s a matter of personal taste. I can recognize that Stanley Kubrick was a brilliant filmmaker, but I find most of his films boring. Scorsese is a great filmmaker and I like him a lot, but he’s not to everyone’s taste.

  24. 24.

    D-Chance.

    November 27, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    At this very moment, I am thinking about Emmanuelle, his wife. I am thinking about his two kids… I am mostly thinking about him…

    Strange, but he didn’t give a thought to the victim.

  25. 25.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Oh, I hate this comparison. The priests and Polanski.

    What should scare the shit out of everyone about the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is this: the state cooperated with the Church. The state was complicit.

    In Dublin. In Toledo. In Boston.

    The state showed ridiculous deference to the Church, partly, in my view, because we have decided to extend completely unearned deference and the benefit of the doubt to religious, and partly because the Church was and is politically connected.

    That didn’t happen with Polanski. Polanski was prosecuted, and then pursued. Despite his clout. Despite his influential backers. The pursuit was high-profile, because Polanski is high-profile.

    Polanski is what happens when the state acts without bias.

    We can get used to the idea that Roman Polanski and the Catholic Church are going to hire legal talent, and their defenders are going to lobby on their behalf, and Polanski and the Catholic Church are going to abandon all responsibility for their crimes.

    I can’t do a thing about that. What I can’t and shouldn’t accept is the state cooperating with them. The (current) head of the Irish police agency got it right. The real betrayal is not the Church. It’s that the state didn’t protect those children, in deference to the Church. That’s what takes it out of a “Catholic scandal” and makes it an issue of real concern to everyone.

  26. 26.

    West of the Cascades

    November 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Thought experiment:

    Roman Polanski is an ordinary (i.e. non-famous) black man. Same result?

    Didn’t think so.

  27. 27.

    Cassidy

    November 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Depends on the mood I’m in. I still think Wes Anderson is pretentious crap, though.

  28. 28.

    Sloegin

    November 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    We all banter on about the 23 percenters; the tribalists on the right. Let’s not ever forget that there’s some percentage of tribalists on the left as well.

    Teh crazy is an equal opprotunity bitch.

  29. 29.

    Blue Raven

    November 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    @kay:

    The (current) head of the Irish police agency got it right. The real betrayal is not the Church. It’s that the state didn’t protect those children, in deference to the Church. That’s what takes it out of a “Catholic scandal” and makes it an issue of real concern to everyone.

    Needs repeating. Far too much willingness to allow, in aggregate, thousands of felonies to be a “private matter.” It reminds me of how people wouldn’t discuss sexual abuse in families, either. This is the bureaucracy doing in the macro what saying things like “keep quiet about Uncle Herbert” did in the micro.

  30. 30.

    jeff

    November 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    I have been so appalled over the way the beautiful people have reacted to this issue. I’ve never seen so much indignation in my life, and over what is, after all, a criminal child rapist. I have no idea what to say, other than “I do not share the values of these people”. That one guy up thread, though? He should fuck off forever.

  31. 31.

    freelancer

    November 27, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    OT (just because I cannot stop laughing):

    What’s more lame than conservarap?

    Religious. Abstinance. Rap.

    Behold, the funniest video on Youtube.

    What do you think these guys call themselves? I vote for

    “John Three Sixteen Mafia“

  32. 32.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    And, I would add, the focus on the victim cuts both ways.

    Polanski’s defenders are claiming the victim doesn’t want Polanski punished, so he should escape consequences. It’s a ridiculous argument that any criminal defendant could try, I guess, but they don’t, because it’s not Victim v Criminal. It’s State v Criminal.

    The Church used this tactic too. They paid them off, or bought them counseling, and then tried “no harm, no foul, we’ll care for these victims, in-house!” What if ever criminal defendant or suspect said that?

    The focus on the victim is wrong-headed. It’s appealing emotionally, but it’s going to lead to skewed results and bad decisions. The perpetrators are going to rely on that misguided focus to escape sanctions.

    The status of the victim, like the status of the perpetrator, cannot matter. That’s just an invitation to bias.

  33. 33.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    It’s telling, tho predictable, that Polanski’s defenders all avoid using the words ‘rapist’ or ‘rape’. Mustn’t remind people of RP actually, you know, like did.

  34. 34.

    Nick

    November 27, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    If only he was black or a muslim…or a black muslim.

  35. 35.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    @kay:

    The state showed ridiculous deference to the Church….

    I would be curious to know what the typical prosecution and suggested sentence would be for others who committed the same crime that Polanski was alleged to have committed.

    I get the impression that the state showed ridiculous deference in his case as well.

    The other sad point of similarity involve people who refuse to believe that priests were culpable or minimize the damage caused or seek to blame the victim and those who try to mount similar excuses for Polanski. I’ve read people try to describe Polanski’s victim as a “older and wiser than her years” temptress.

  36. 36.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    @kay: yes.

    Also, I tend to not stop at thought experiments that go, “if this were a black man” as though what happens to black men is real, unbiased justice, and we coddle everyone else. As though what happens to black men is the standard to which all prosecutions must rise.

    It’s getting kinda Nancy Grace in here. I don’t know what happened. There was never a trial. The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice. I think crimes are committed against people, and those are the people that matter.

    That said, I think the petition was just a very bad idea, and Polanski’s talent as a director or artist or whatever is irrelevant to the discussion. As though his freedom is therefore more precious than the average person’s. Yuck. But it’s not going to make me boycott anybody’s movie who signed it. I can’t boycott everyone I disagree with or I’d have to Galt myself into outer space.

  37. 37.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Personally, I am not a defender of Polanski. He did what he did, and if he gets jailed for it —c’est la vie. However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing.

    Mmmyeahhh, let’s fix that:

    Personally, I am not a defender of Polanski. He did what he did, drugged and anally raped an adolescent and fled the country to escape punishment and if he gets jailed for it —c’est la vie.

    Yeah, that works better.

    However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing.

    Your mind is, unsurprisingly, easily numbed.

  38. 38.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    @kay:

    That’s why Polanski’s defenders keep ignoring the fact that he pled guilty. He admitted to a lesser charge, but he still admitted to a criminal act. If they can keep it in the nebulous he-said-she-said realm, they can create enough doubt to win public opinion to their side, as long as they hide the fact that he admitted his guilt to a court of law in his plea bargain.

  39. 39.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    @Blue Raven:

    It’s the same sort of thinking that leads to interviewing the families of the victims of people on death row, and all but polling them on what is an appropriate sanction. “Death penalty? Yes, or No? Let’s ask the victim’s family”.

    Polanski is almost a case study in why focusing on the particular victim (or perpetrator) is a really, really bad idea.

    I have read comments where the Polanski defender attacks the girl’s mother: “she had a negligent mother, therefore, I conclude, there’s shared responsibility here, and he should go free”.

    Whaaat? I know how they got there, though. It was inevitable.

    It’s the same freaking argument the defenders of the Church are making. “We paid off the victims, and the priests are all dead anyway. What’s the problem?”

  40. 40.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    November 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    @eemom

    To paraphrase that smug-ass twat Whoopi Goldberg, it WAS “rape-rape.”

    When I first saw this quote, I was convinced Whoopi was suffering from a serious case of self-loathing. But when I watched the whole segment it became clear that the point she was making is that statutory rap – sex with a minor – isn’t “rape-rape”. Which I actually agree with.

    But nonconsensual sex is rape-rape. And for her and Melissa Gilbert to pretend that isn’t what occurred simply because the mother drove the girl to Polanski’s house is simply put, retarded.

  41. 41.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    @Phoebe:

    There was never a trial.

    There was never a trial because he pled guilty. If you tell the judge, “Yeah, I did it,” that’s the same as being found guilty by a judge and/or jury. The only problem with the plea bargain in this case is that it can be distorted by Polanski’s defenders to claim that since there wasn’t an actual trial, he could still totally be innocent even though he admitted his guilt.

    The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice.

    It’s not so much that the victim doesn’t want him prosecuted as she wants it to be over. She’s had to deal with all of this shit over and over again for 32 years. That’s over 30 years of people blaming you for being some kind of 13-year-old Lolita who forced Polanski to drug you and assault you.

    But even that’s beside the point. What Polanski has been pursued for since 1977 isn’t rape, but fleeing the country to escape the punishment that he agreed to in his plea bargain. That is very much the business of the state. We can’t have people admit to crimes, flee the country, and then come sauntering back because, hey, it’s been 30 years, why can’t we just forget about the whole thing?

  42. 42.

    Citizen Alan

    November 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    I’m with West of the Cascades @ 1:56, although I have no clue how to link to that post.:)

    The truth is that I generally ignore anything related to Polanski. Personally, I think he should spend the rest of his life in prison. On the other hand, I fully expect him to get off completely because he is a wealthy, privileged white man who, because of his age and artistic legacy, is considered a sympathetic defendant by many people despite the severity of his crime. Given the vast amounts of money he can bring to bear, I have little doubt that if it comes down to it, he can get his guilty plea revoked and then beat the rap at trial, and if worst comes to worst, it’s a state crime, and I can easily see Arnuld giving him a midnight pardon right before he leaves office in order to curry favor with film industry insiders.

    Also, as others have noted, I find it difficult to get to worked up about this single incident, no matter how disgusting the details, when the Catholic Church has been engaged in a decades long criminal conspiracy to conceal institutional child molestation and they still have enough clout in this country to wreck health care reform and undermine gay marriage rights across the nation. I suspect that if Roman Polanski were a known fundamentalist Christian of some stripe and he were a sufficiently hard-core conservative, then the folks on the right howling for his head would rationalize ways to support him, while all the elite filmmakers who signed that stupid petition would be demanding a life sentence.

  43. 43.

    The Other Steve

    November 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    I can do nothing but agree, John. This whole business is just stupid.

  44. 44.

    me

    November 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    @freelancer: *facepalm*
    “You know that feeling you get when somebody embarrasses themselves so badly YOU feel uncomfortable?” — Trent Reznor

  45. 45.

    bjacques

    November 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    BHL is a tool. He was also pimping the crusade against Iraq because, you know, gotta defend the Enlightenment against the Saracen hordes.

  46. 46.

    The Other Steve

    November 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    But even that’s beside the point. What Polanski has been pursued for since 1977 isn’t rape, but fleeing the country to escape the punishment that he agreed to in his plea bargain. That is very much the business of the state. We can’t have people admit to crimes, flee the country, and then come sauntering back because, hey, it’s been 30 years, why can’t we just forget about the whole thing?

    BINGO! We have a winner.

  47. 47.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    Ok, I suppose another reason I distinguish Polanski from the Catholic Church, and this is assuming he’s guilty, is that the church stuff never came to light, and those victims were never paid attention to until the stuff did come to light.

    In the church’s case, there is the problem of letting these guys repeat offend, again and again. That would be a problem even if each victim was catered to on the spot. And that’s completely not ok, of course. I just don’t think that’s going to be a problem in Polanski’s case, and so there’s a big difference. But I also speculate that what happened to P at the time probably did deter him — and/or some other hot tub sleazo [it does seem like this all happened in a sort of depraved culture, and not really an isolated thing] — from doing anything like this again. And if that’s the case, then great. It’s great that it came to light, and necessary that he should suffer exile and shame. Assuming he’s guilty.

  48. 48.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    @The Other Steve:

    That’s why Polanski’s defenders spend all of their time blabbing about how his crime wasn’t really a crime and oh his poor wife and children. It’s pretty hard to argue that someone who pleaded guilty to a crime should be allowed to escape punishment for that crime just because they had the ability to flee the country.

  49. 49.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    @Brachiator:

    I don’t know that Polanski was treated terribly differently than any wealthy person with a good lawyer would be treated.
    His lawyer(s) went the “mental illness” route, which is a perfectly legit “stay out of jail” stalling tactic. They used what they had. If the legislature wants to tighten up or limit that defense, they can do that. I don’t have any problem with a vigorous defense. I wish everyone got one, but that’s another issue.
    I do think the state can enforce a sentence, and they did that here.
    I think it’s really corrosive for certain people to be permitted to ignore a sentence. On some fundamental level, it discredits the whole process.

  50. 50.

    Anya

    November 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    @tc125231: As someone who deals with the aftermath of rape, I can tell you that John’s venom is well placed. Many of the young girls and boys who are raped, even when they convince themselves that they consented, almost always, never recover. Sometimes it is easier for them to convince themselves that they agreed, it makes the pain easier to bare.

    A 40 something drugging and raping a 13 year old who is unapologetic should not be excused or shown any mercy. If he was a poor man, he would not get these defenders.

  51. 51.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    @Phoebe:

    Ok, I suppose another reason I distinguish Polanski from the Catholic Church, and this is assuming he’s guilty …

    He admitted his guilt in his plea bargain. How much more proof do you need?

  52. 52.

    Joey Maloney

    November 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Could we arrest this Levy twat and have him serve Polanski’s prison term? With his mouth sewn shut?

  53. 53.

    tavella

    November 27, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    @Phoebe: It’s getting kinda Nancy Grace in here. I don’t know what happened. There was never a trial.

    He _pleaded guilty_ and yet you are somehow mystified and “don’t know what happened”? He committed a crime, that’s what happened, and he fled the country to try to avoid his sentence. It’s not very hard to comprehend.

  54. 54.

    Tony J

    November 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    It’s getting kinda Nancy Grace in here. I don’t know what happened. There was never a trial. The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice. I think crimes are committed against people, and those are the people that matter.

    Sorry, but very much no, on all counts.

    We do know what happened. We have the victim’s testimony, where she explained how Polanski arranged to have her delivered to Jack Nicholson’s house for a photo-shoot, drugged her, put her to bed, then raped her.

    We also know that Polanski pled guilty to a lesser charge before fleeing the country, and that he later defended himself in an interview by claiming his detractors were hypocrites, because “everyone” wants to have sex with teenage girls.

    The victim was 13, so a minor, when he went on the run. The fact that thirty years later she’s sick and tired of being defined as “That girl Roman Polanski got away with raping” isn’t surprising, and it’s certainly not a factor in whether the State should pursue him and put him on trial.

    YMMV.

  55. 55.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    I think some people are misunderstanding John’s point. He’s saying (I think) that some people treat artists like their priests and so think that they should be excused from any crimes they commit the same way the police in Ireland thought that child-molesting priests should be excused for the crimes they committed.

    Kay has a good point about the differences between the two cases, especially the indifference of the Irish police as compared to the dogged pursuit of the Polanski case by Los Angeles prosecutors. But what John is really comparing is the excuses made for the perpetrators by their supporters, not how the legal system or hierarchy treated the perpetrators.

  56. 56.

    The Tim Channel

    November 27, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Polanski could just become a wholly owned subsidiary of Blackwater, where rape isn’t even illegal.

    He’d have been better off torturing and killing people, then getting on TV and bragging about it. Like Cheney.

    Enjoy.

  57. 57.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    November 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    ,

    The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice. I think crimes are committed against people, and those are the people that matter.

    Same here. The state is an artificial construct, after all.

  58. 58.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    @Mnemosyne: My understanding — and I could be wrong — is that Polanski fled because he was afraid the judge would not keep to the terms of the deal, his deal with the prosecutors. He was willing to bite that particular bullet, but not the maximum sentence, which is what he thought was coming down the pike, rightly or wrongly. I get this from the documentary [more specifically my memory of the documentary] “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”. Maybe I have to see it again. But I’m pretty sure he thought he was going to get much worse than the terms of the agreement.

    What I meant by saying there wasn’t a trial is that the evidence never came to light in any methodical way. The fact that he pled to a lesser charge does not change that. A plea agreement means exactly this: the defendant and the state decide to skip a trial and do xyz instead, based on their own perceptions of how a trial would come out. It’s the bird in the hand vs. two in the bush, or much much worse in the bush. Much of it hinges on the defendant’s risk-aversion.

  59. 59.

    Zoogz

    November 27, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    I think it’s really corrosive for certain people to be permitted to ignore a sentence. On some fundamental level, it discredits the whole process.

    To say the least. The two reasons a state punishes a citizen for non-compliance of the law is to attempt to rehabilitate, and to deter other citizens from non-compliance. Escaping a sentence is negative to BOTH outcomes, which is a major feat in a question where most answers have at least one benefit.

    This case shows that the international community will bend over backwards for a person who pled guilty in an established court of law and not punish them, especially when the punishment (1.5 months already served, a possible 1.5 months or so afterward) was one of the lightest punishments ANY rapist would ever receive given a drugged 13-year-old victim.

    I have no idea what Polanski’s character is, but I can’t really even see that he’s rehabilitated. A 500k “settlement”, pretty much a payoff to the victim, is pennies compared to Polanski’s wealth. He was known to be unfaithful even when in committed relationships. I don’t know if this question is facetious, but I feel it needs to be asked: what’s to prevent him from doing this again, if he feels the need to? For that matter, if he does rape an underaged girl, will he continue to receive get-out-of-jail-free cards from the international community? How many of these rapes do a Palme d’Or and an Academy Award merit, like three?

  60. 60.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    @Zoogz:

    I don’t know if this question is facetious, but I feel it needs to be asked: what’s to prevent him from doing this again, if he feels the need to?

    “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

    Roman Polanski, 1979 interview

  61. 61.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    @Phoebe:

    The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice. I think crimes are committed against people, and those are the people that matter.

    Personally, I prefer the crime-against-the-state theory, because the alternative is worse (IMHO) if you look at how it actually works in cultures where compensating the victim is the basis for legal sanction. If you want to live in a society were criminal matters are settled by blood money debts and the family and friends of the perpetrator have the capacity to bring their social, economic and political power to bear against the victim or victim’s family so as to pressure them to minimize those debts (or to maximize them when the victim is more powerful than the perp), keeping walking down this road. As it is, we already have that sort of situation in this particular case, except that friends of the perp are bringing their influence to bear on the state rather than the victim, which at least makes it a more even contest.

    It seems to me that too many miscarriages of justice in our existing system are already occurring because our system is not as blind to the status of the victim and the perp as ideally it should be, and placing the victim at the center of our focus will only make things worse in that regard.

    Now victimless crime (e.g. the War on Some Drugs), that’s a different story.

  62. 62.

    MBunge

    November 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    “I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice. I think crimes are committed against people, and those are the people that matter.”

    It’s interesting to see someone in the 21st century casually toss off the transformation of revenge into justice that civilization has been working toward for thousands of years. Yes, crimes are committed against people. But if you don’t want people deciding to kill the guy who smashed up their car in the parking lot, you’ve got to take the pursuit of justice out of the hands of the individual.

    Mike

  63. 63.

    tavella

    November 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    @Phoebe: My understanding—and I could be wrong—is that Polanski fled because he was afraid the judge would not keep to the terms of the deal, his deal with the prosecutors. He was willing to bite that particular bullet, but not the maximum sentence, which is what he thought was coming down the pike, rightly or wrongly.

    That in fact is the risk you run with a plea deal: you are making a deal with the prosecutors as to what they are asking, you are not making a deal with the judge. This is the risk _everyone_ runs with a plea deal, tens of thousands every year. If you can’t deal with it, then you don’t plea, you take your chances in court. You do not get to flee the country. Your tender, tender concern for Polanski notwithstanding.

  64. 64.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    @Phoebe:

    I get this from the documentary [more specifically my memory of the documentary] “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”. Maybe I have to see it again. But I’m pretty sure he thought he was going to get much worse than the terms of the agreement.

    Yeah, you might want to look for some additional evidence beyond that documentary, which is incredibly biased in Polanski’s favor. It’s not terribly accurate about what happened, to say the least.

    As I understand it, the original plea agreement was that Polanski would spend 90 days in a prison psychiatric hospital, but was let out after less than half the time. The judge was considering having Polanski serve the balance of that time, another 40-odd days in jail, so Polanski fled.

    That’s the “maximum sentence” that Polanski was so afraid of: another 40 days in jail. For raping a 13-year-old girl.

  65. 65.

    Anya

    November 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    @Phoebe: Ok, I suppose another reason I distinguish Polanski from the Catholic Church, and this is assuming he’s guilty, is that the church stuff never came to light, and those victims were never paid attention to until the stuff did come to light.blockquote>

    Just read Roman Polanski’s August 8, 1977 courtroom guilty plea. I am hoping you will feel ashamed for defending this callous criminal. Here is a helpful link:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/

  66. 66.

    Punchy

    November 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    OT:
    ESPN reporting Tiger Woods seriously injured in car wreck. No info beyond that

  67. 67.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Polanski would get absolutely hammered today. Hammered.

    Sentencing aside, he’d be a first tier sexually oriented offender, and subject to draconian reporting rules, and all the public sanction that goes along with that. Twenty five years of mandatory reporting, in my state.

    If he were a normal working slob adjudicated sexual offender, and not a film director, he probably would not be able to secure paid employment, anywhere, after time served, because of the stigma.

    He’d be on a list that people could access on the internet, and they would object when he moved into their neighborhood. The schools next to his home would be notified of his presence.

    His defenders should stop weeping. I have zero sympathy.

  68. 68.

    psychobroad

    November 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Only almost?

  69. 69.

    Cassidy

    November 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    @Phoebe: I’m getting a little lost in your posts. Should we put you at the “Rape is okay” table, or the “rape is bad” one.

  70. 70.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    @Brachiator: This, I think. It’s the auteur concept gone berserk.

  71. 71.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    @MBunge: You misunderstand my pov, as did the post before. Which is understandable as those words might be used by, you know, Dirty Harry or whatever.

    My point of view [and I think I speak for some who share it] is that the victim matters much more to me than, say, “society’s need for retribution” or whatever phrase or other Obama uses to justify his support for the death penalty. I’m not for revenge at all. I’m for “restorative justice” http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction

    I think we all agree that Levi is kind of an idiot, though.

  72. 72.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    @Cassidy: rape is bad!
    Sorry for the confusion.

  73. 73.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    @Phoebe:

    I’m for “restorative justice.”

    What’s the restorative justice solution for Polanski’s crime against the state, which was fleeing his sentence? As I and several other people have pointed out, the fact that his victim is tired of having to deal with the publicity doesn’t magically erase the fact that he fled the country to avoid serving the balance of the sentence that he agreed to in his plea bargain.

  74. 74.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    @MBunge

    But if you don’t want people deciding to kill the guy who smashed up their car in the parking lot, you’ve got to take the pursuit of justice out of the hands of the individual.

    Absolutely. But if a person doesn’t want to kill the guy who smashed up their car and in fact doesn’t want to pursue action against him at all, then where is the reliable testimony supposed to come from?

  75. 75.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    @Mnemosyne: According to a 2003 Larry King interview, the judge
    __

    SILVER: Well, what the judge did was frankly outrageous. We had agreed to a plea bargain. It wasn’t what the prosecution wanted, it certainly wasn’t what Polanski wanted, but it was what we wanted. We were the victim and this is the way in which Samantha would not be in trial. Samantha would be — her name would not be exposed at the time. And she would be allowed to recover.
    __
    And the plea was proposed to the judge, the judge approved it. And then frankly the day before he called us in the chambers and said he was getting a great deal of pressure and a great deal — he was concerned about criticism of him in the press. And he was going to sentence Polanski rather than to time served, which is what we agreed to, to 50 years. That’s a long — big difference. And…

    The “SILVER” speaking here was Samantha Geimer’s attorney.

    Later in the interview:
    __

    KING: Lawrence Silver, there is something I don’t understand. If the community sort of liked Roman Polanski at the time, if the mother was held in low regard, as was the daughter, why did — where was the judge getting the political pressure from to hang Polanski?
    __
    SILVER: Well, I think one of the things that happened the day before the sentencing when the whole thing blew up, frankly, was we were asked to come to chambers and as we were sitting down, the judge took a phone call from — and he identified it was — the secretary identified it was Bill Farr (ph) from “The L.A. Times.”
    __
    And there were his conversation with Farr (ph) said, no, no, I’m going to to do what I told you to do, you’re going to make your deadline. I’m going to tell them right now. And I think that there was some elements, if you will, that made the judge believe that having him serve time, that time served was not adequate.
    __
    There was — there was a reason, I think, in terms of Polanski could have been held up to 90 days. He only served for the psychiatric examination 42 or 43 days. But I think the judge wanted Polanski, for whatever reason, to be deported. He didn’t want him in the United States. Unfortunately, he didn’t have the power to do that. He was a state court judge. And so I think what he was going to do is to sentence him to 50 years, and then sometime later reduce the sentence if he agreed to voluntarily deport himself and never return to the United States.
    __
    KING: That was not the wide held public opinion at the time.
    __
    SILVER: No. The wide held public opinion was that something was wrong with Samantha and that something was wrong with her mother.

  76. 76.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    The “SILVER” speaking here was Samantha Geimer’s attorney.

    You mean that, 10 years after Geimer won her civil suit against Polanski where she received at least $500,000 and her attorney got a nice cut of that, her attorney is now saying Polanski got a raw deal?

    Color me shocked. Also please note that Silver is her civil attorney. The attorney in the criminal case would be the prosecutor since s/he represents the state, not Geimer.

  77. 77.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    @Mnemosyne: He didn’t flee the country to avoid the sentence he agreed to. The judge acting on his own volition was going to set aside the plea agreement that he had previously agreed to, and impose a much harsher sentence. I think that in the interview with King Silver exaggerates the maximum amount of prison time the judge could have imposed, but it wasn’t going to be a wrist slap.

  78. 78.

    kay

    November 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    @Phoebe:

    Victim-specific sentencing would be the absolute height of retributive justice, or vengeance. The victim isn’t a party for a good reason.

    Can we allow the victim to impose a sanction, in contradiction of the judge? You’re willing to let this victim overturn a sentence.

    What’s the difference?

    If Polanski had been acquitted, can the state ask the victim for a second opinion, and then impose the victim’s chosen sentence?

  79. 79.

    Zoogz

    November 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    The “SILVER” speaking here was Samantha Geimer’s attorney.

    Not the prosecutor nor the judge. Besides, Larry King pretty much shot his whole argument full of holes. One reporter from the L.A. Times is going to influence one of the highest-profile criminal cases of the late ’70s?

    I think that in the interview with King Silver exaggerates the maximum amount of prison time the judge could have imposed, but it wasn’t going to be a wrist slap.

    Proof? There’s no other account other than this, even today’s newspapers would probably be ashamed to run this.

  80. 80.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    By the way, anyone who’s curious can read the Polanski transcripts at The Smoking Gun. They have the transcript of the actual plea deal, the victim’s testimony to the grand jury, a letter from Lawrence Silver telling the judge that they don’t want to have to go through the circus of a trial, and Polanski’s probation report.

  81. 81.

    Mumphrey

    November 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Somebody wondered how this would have ended if Polanski had been a black guy. Whole other outcome. Nobody would have lifted a finger to help him.

    I also wonder how many of these assholes would be writing and speaking on behalf of Polanski if HE had been some nobody and the girl had been an inportant actress or somebody. Somehow I don’t think they’d be signing petitions to have him let go.

  82. 82.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    You know that dramatic moment in the documentary where the prosecutor says he asked the judge to sentence Polanski more harshly? Turns out he now admits that he lied. And there’s no way to ask the judge, since he died in 1993.

    It’s pretty convenient for a lawyer who (understandably) just wants the case to go away so people will stop harassing his client to claim something that’s not documented anywhere else and can’t be disputed by the only other witness, isn’t it?

  83. 83.

    freelancer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Wow, people.

    Rape is bad. Rapists should be dealt with by the state and imprisoned for an appropriate length of time.

    By the way, can I get a new thread for fuck’s sake? This argument is the legalistic equivalent of a nerd-off, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, only even more depressing.

    In short, the BJ version of Aliens vs Predator, whoever wins, we lose.

  84. 84.

    Mark S.

    November 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    That does bring up something I’m confused about. If you agree to a plea, and the judge decides, no, I’m going to give you the maximum, can’t you change your plea? You’re only agreeing to plead guilty because you think you’re going to get some leniency. Shouldn’t you get to change your plea if in fact you aren’t going to get any?

  85. 85.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Geimer was represented by Silver during the plea bargaining proceedings: she and her mother wanted her kept off the stand and out of the courtroom if possible, and he was involved in those negotiations. A good account of the rape, plea bargain, and Polanski’s flight cant be found in the LA Times. The story does a particularly good job in showing how Geimer’s story was “scrubbed” in the media to make it seem less horrifying.

  86. 86.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I’m not saying that restorative justice = exactly what happened.
    I’m saying that I <3 restorative justice. Not the blood money debts, or revenge killings that my victim-centric previous comment led some to believe I endorsed. That is all.

    What would restorative justice do about the sentence-fleeing? Probably not a whole lot. This is the RJ shorthand from the site:

    Practices and programs reflecting restorative purposes will respond to crime by:
    1. identifying and taking steps to repair harm,
    2. involving all stakeholders, and
    3. transforming the traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime.

    Then we have to define harm – not the rape harm, mind you, the fleeing harm – identify the stakeholders [???], and identify the communities [again-???].

    The harm would come in the state resources expended as a result of his fleeing. The stakeholders, besides Polanski, are some institutions. Possibly also again Samantha Geimer, simply because anything to do with the trial and the publicity would continue to affect her. Then everyone [who wants to] could sit down and talk about it. Did he really think he was going to get fifty years or forty days? Etc.
    I don’t know what the outcome would be because that’s the process. All I’m doing is speculating. But I like the process because it puts the actual people involved first, and abstract definitions of “the people”, and the institutions who don’t really speak for them, last.

  87. 87.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    I think that in the interview with King Silver exaggerates the maximum amount of prison time the judge could have imposed, but it wasn’t going to be a wrist slap.

    You may want to read the victim’s testimony before you start to worry about Polanski’s wrist getting slapped too hard.

    The only reason the victim’s family agreed to a plea bargain was that the didn’t want her to be dragged through the mud during a trial. Thanks to Polanski’s fleeing the country and giving self-justifying interviews for 30 years, she got dragged through the mud anyway, and with no way to really defend herself. What an asshole.

  88. 88.

    freelancer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Ahem. Go Big Red. Also.

  89. 89.

    Wile E. Quixote

    November 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    This makes me wish that we’d send in some of the special forces types, kidnap Polanski, remit his ass to Los Angeles and tell the French, the Swiss and the Poles to go fuck themselves if they have problems with it.

  90. 90.

    Martin

    November 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    @freelancer:

    Which presents the greater existential threat – the Death Star or the Doomsday Machine?

  91. 91.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    @Zoogz: See the LA Times article I linked to in my last comment.

    @Mnemosyne: Didn’t see the documentary; no desire to. I think Polanski is pretty much scum, and that this attempt by some in the entertainment industry to paint him as some kind of genius who isn’t bound by the laws we normal people people have to follow is just bullshit. Having said that, I find the chest-beating in threads like this wearisome.

    @Mark S.: IANAL, and I’d like to know how this works too.

  92. 92.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    So what exactly are you arguing here? That Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old but he was totally justified in fleeing because he heard a rumor that the judge was going to give him a harsher sentence?

  93. 93.

    PeakVT

    November 27, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    It’s really irrelevant what the crime was or what the victim says or what the judge did.

    Polanski skipped out on his sentence. That shouldn’t be allowed to stand no matter how famous or ordinary the convict is.

  94. 94.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I’ve read the victim’s grand jury testimony, and remarks that she’s made in several interviews.

    Where do you get the idea that I don’t think that Polanski is a shit? I just think that the judge’s behavior in his case was pretty shitty too. That doesn’t mean I think Polanski should get off as a result.

  95. 95.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    Then let me state my position since we seem to have gone down the he-said-she-said rabbit hole again:

    By fleeing the country rather than serve his sentence, Polanski thumbed his nose at the American justice system. IMO, that’s what he needs to be punished for at this point. We really can’t set a precedent that if you’re rich, you can escape punishment for a crime that you admitted to if you just wait it out long enough. Even if the prosecutors settle the actual rape case for time served, Polanski still needs to serve some time for fleeing the country.

    Polanski’s partisans try to obscure the facts with a lot of handwaving and claiming that the mean ol’ judge was going to be mean, but the fact remains that he fled the country rather than serve his sentence. He didn’t even bother to find out what the sentence would be and then appeal it. He just hopped a plane and took off.

    That in itself is a crime, and he needs to be punished for it.

  96. 96.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    @kay: @kay: Restorative justice doesn’t = victim decides the punishment. Victim is definitely involved more. Here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/01/youth-offenders-justice-prison

  97. 97.

    dan robinson

    November 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    Personally, I am not a defender of Polanski. He did what he did, and if he gets jailed for it —c’est la vie. However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing.

    It really isn’t hard to imagine you as a Bush supporter.

    Take a deep breath.

    Prejudices? It is a matter of record. It is the court records. Being against boozing up a 13 year old and giving her quaaludes before raping her is prejudice?

    I think the guy should have been strung up by his fleshy parts and left to rot, and I’m not, nor was I ever a supporter of either of the Bushs (although Bush père had the stones to go off and enlist, something Bush fils did not)

    It isn’t prejudice to want to protect those in society who need protection.

  98. 98.

    freelancer (itouch)

    November 27, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    @Martin:

    Which presents the greater existential threat – the Death Star or the Doomsday Machine?

    secret answer #3, the us senate.

  99. 99.

    Col. Klink

    November 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    BHL is and always will be France’s David Hasselhoff. There is nothing ‘serious’ about him. He’s an utter joke.

  100. 100.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    I just think that the judge’s behavior in his case was pretty shitty too.

    I would feel a lot more comfortable if we weren’t getting our information on the judge’s purportedly shitty behavior second- and third-hand. I suppose that if the 50-year ruling had come down and Polanski had then fled, I would feel differently and might even think he was right to flee. But right now, all we have is people recalling things that happened over 30 years ago without a shred of documentation and no one can contradict them because the only guy who knows for sure died in 1993.

    Getting into Polanski’s motives for running is another rabbit hole, because there’s no proof either way what the judge was planning to do. The fact remains that he ran and then spent 30 years publicly taunting the prosecutors.

  101. 101.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I agree with you about him needing to be punished for his taking off. The sad thing is, that as far as I’ve heard, no one is talking about adding additional charges for flight to avoid prosecution: last I heard (but I don’t follow this Polanski thing obsessively) LA just wants him back on the original charges. From what Silver says, only the underage sex charge is still available, the others having expired due to the statute of limitations. I don’t know whether that’s true or not.

  102. 102.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    @tc125231: It’s amazing how similar these apologetics are to defenses of OJ Simpson I used to hear in the 1990s. “Oh, I’m not defending Simpson, maybe he broke the law, maybe he didn’t, I’m not saying either way, but really, you’re the one who’s a really bad person by thinking it’s such a bad thing that he was acquitted. It really isn’t hard to imagine you as a white supremacist”.

  103. 103.

    Tonal Crow

    November 27, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    This makes me wish that we’d send in some of the special forces types, kidnap Polanski, remit his ass to Los Angeles and tell the French, the Swiss and the Poles to go fuck themselves if they have problems with it.

    “I need your Ring, that you know now: but I give you my word that I do not desire to keep it. Will you not at least let me make trial of my plan? Lend me the Ring!”

  104. 104.

    DZ

    November 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Bernard Henri-Levy is now an accessory to rape, and he should be hailed. Any of the rest of you who defend the anal rape of a 13 year old after feedoing her qualudes should also be jailed. You supporters are scum. I hope I’m being clear.

  105. 105.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    @Liberty60:

    People like Henri Bernard Levi are why people like Sarah Palin become popular.

    He also neatly confirms many of the worst stereotypes of the French.

  106. 106.

    DZ

    November 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    jailed not hailed

  107. 107.

    DZ

    November 27, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    @LD50:

    I live in France 5 months a year and I don’t know any French like this.

  108. 108.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    @DZ: I’m not saying he’s a representative Frenchman, I’m saying he evokes a stereotype of French intellectuals that’s very real.

  109. 109.

    eastriver

    November 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    He ass-raped a child. I don’t care how sorry he is, or forgiving the now-adult rapee.

    Put his yet-to-be-plowed ass in jail. Crisco up that puckering poop-shoot and let’s get to some holing of the corn.

  110. 110.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    PS, By ‘real’ I mean ‘a stereotype held by lots of people’.

  111. 111.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    @Mnemosyne: “Polanski thumbed his nose at the American justice system.”

    Yeah. I dunno. This may be where you and I part ways the most. If I thought I was going to get 50 years would I stay to appeal it? I’d probably thumb my nose at the A.J.S. and get on the plane. I’m not saying Polanski isn’t a scumbag blah blah effing blah, but I do believe the guy was [probably still is] messed up in the head due to his personal history, and not one to have a lot of faith in justice systems. Jeebus, how can anybody who pays attention? The whole Innocence Project wouldn’t even be necessary if we could just put our faith in the glorious American Justice System. I would not be at all surprised if he really thought he’d get 50 years. Maybe you think he deserved it. But that’s another issue.

    I have to go buy a meat thermometer.
    Ciao for now.

  112. 112.

    Zoogz

    November 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer

    What LA Times article, if I may be so bold? I saw a transcript, nothing else. Point with the transcript is that the attorney is a single source that is clearly conflicted in the matter, only representing a client rather than the state. Where’s the backup for this otherwise non-sourced story from a person who’s not part of the prosecution for criminal charges?

    I haven’t seen any other evidence that proves that the judge was acting with any vindictive tendencies past a willingness to give a rapist a full (gasp) 90 days in prison. The link contained in this comment provided a rather succinct analysis of the transcript, which showed that Polanski knew that he committed a crime, that the State of California would determine a punishment, and if the deal went sour Polanski could change his plea.

    Nowhere in this thread have I heard anyone suggest that even if the judge ended by jacking up the sentence to 50 years that an appeal may be in order, which is a very valid recourse in our justice system, and far more appropriate than running away rather than serving forty-eight more days.

  113. 113.

    DZ

    November 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    @LD50:

    Well, you’re not wrong there

  114. 114.

    The Sheriff Is A Ni-

    November 27, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Its nice to see that there are those allegedly on the left who believe that laws are only for little people and Republicans. All you need to do is make some classic films and you too can get away with raping a teenager!

  115. 115.

    PTirebiter

    November 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    …read the victim’s testimony before you start to worry about Polanski’s

    Exactly. I was still living in Hollywood at the time and Polanski’s lawyer wasted no time in smearing the girl and her mother. And since the Grand Jury testimony was sealed, and the cops weren’t leaking the report, his spin became the conventional wisdom. The ambitious actress/mother/pimp meme was pretty easy to buy given Hollywood’s history for such things.
    It was a rape-rape of a child by an immoral storyteller with a fawning audience.

    Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison.

    Polanski needs perspective to affect repair of those days; I think ten years in the general population at Chino or Terminal Island would fix it for him.

  116. 116.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    From what Silver says, only the underage sex charge is still available, the others having expired due to the statute of limitations. I don’t know whether that’s true or not.

    That sounds about right. My brief Googling seems to indicate that California has been talking about removing the statute of limitations from sex crimes, but that wouldn’t affect the Polanski case because the statute ran out so long ago for his crimes. The only one that could still be actively pursued is the one he pled guilty to — there’s no statute of limitations on a guilty plea.

    I’m in Los Angeles and there have been some rumblings here about prosecuting him for the fleeing, but never underestimate the ability of Los Angeles prosecutors to fuck up a case. It took two tries to get the Menendez brothers prosecuted and they went on a spending spree after murdering their parents. It took two tries to get Phil Spector prosecuted and he shot a woman in the head inside his house. And those are the successful prosecutions.

  117. 117.

    tc125231

    November 27, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    @Dave C: Actually, I do not believe the specifics are QUITE as presented by that remark.

    But hell, it feels good to be superior. Knock your socks off. Call sarah P and have a nice jaw about it.

  118. 118.

    Zoogz

    November 27, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    @ Phoebe

    The biggest problem I have is this. If someone forcibly broke into Polanski’s house, beat him soundly, robbed him of his belongings and of his faculties to direct… wouldn’t society have a very legitimate reason to find this person before s/he does any more damage to society as a whole? Besides, it’s amazing that Polanski would be relying on a state system of policing its citizens that he personally circumvented for thirty-plus years, and more than slightly hypocritical.

    Besides, fanciful scenario or not, Polanski may have done the same thing to the victim in this case. All the victim was looking for was the ability to use her talents (in this case, her attractiveness) in order to make a career for herself. Instead, Polanski took something even more precious than her innocence, which was her ability to have a normal life and career. Now, she’s nothing more to the world than Polanski’s raped little girl rather than an actress, model, whatever. Does $500k and 42 days in jail fix that, even if she says it does? Would she have had a better life if he performed restitution (as the Restorative Punishment guidelines detail) immediately rather than reluctantly, after ten years had already passed?

  119. 119.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    @Zoogz:

    The LA Times article is in comment #84. It’s a good, if depressing, read and a pretty good summation of the case.

    I think Comrade Scrutinizer and I just got caught up on a technicality — otherwise I think we’re in agreement.

  120. 120.

    The Sheriff Is A Ni-

    November 27, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    @tc125231: Polanski ass-raped a teenage girl, you’re defending him, and you’re shocked that someone considers themselves morally superior to an asshole like you?

  121. 121.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    But hell, it feels good to be superior.

    Evidently it does:

    However, I find the intense reverence you give to your prejudices mind-numbing. It really isn’t hard to imagine you as a Bush supporter. Take a deep breath.

    Thank goodness you don’t succumb to the temptation.

  122. 122.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    @Mnemosyne: There has been a lot of reporting on the judge reneging on the plea agreement: he had a meeting with the defense attorney and the prosecutor. From the LA Times article I linked to earlier:
    __

    He met in chambers with Gunson and Dalton on Jan. 30 to discuss the sentencing two days later. He told them he wanted Polanski to do more time in prison — and then leave the country, according to the attorneys’ declarations. Rittenband said he would send him back to Chino for 48 days to complete the 90-day stint, then release him, if Polanski agreed to voluntary deportation. If not, he would face a longer prison term.

    (emphasis mine)
    So both attorneys stated this meeting happened, and that the judge had refused to accept the original plea agreement, saying that he wanted to terms changed from time served (the 42 days in Chino) to 90 days plus voluntary deportation (something judge couldn’t insist on), or else a longer jail term.

    I think Polanski’s motives for running were pretty clear: he didn’t think he was going to be able to get away mostly scot-free. Running was stupid: he should’ve gone to trial and taken his chances.

  123. 123.

    PTirebiter

    November 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    @LD50:
    I

    t’s amazing how similar these apologetics are to defenses of OJ Simpson I used to hear in the 1990s.

    Oddly enough, it was a young Detective Philip Vannatter that made the initial arrest of Polanski. It was his arrest of Simpson that made him famous.

  124. 124.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    November 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    @LD50: Trivia: Philip Vannatter, the lead detective in the Polanski case, was one of the first detectives to respond to the Simpson crime scene.

  125. 125.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    @Phoebe:

    I think you’re right about our biggest point of disconnect because I’m still firmly on the side of fixing our justice system (possibly even adding some restorative justice-type ideas) rather than replacing it. Ira Einhorn argued that he shouldn’t be jailed because the justice system was corrupt and he had been prosecuted in absentia (which I, too, disagree with) but there was still that little matter of his girlfriend’s dead body found stuffed into a trunk in the closet of his apartment. I don’t think any amount of restorative justice short of putting him in a jail cell where he wouldn’t be able to kill anyone else would be justifiable.

  126. 126.

    Mark S.

    November 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    My brief Googling seems to indicate that California has been talking about removing the statute of limitations from sex crimes, but that wouldn’t affect the Polanski case because the statute ran out so long ago for his crimes.

    I don’t think the statute keeps running in you flee the country. If I’m wrong, they probably should look into changing the law, cause then I’m going to California to rob a bank, hide out in Belize for a couple years, then come back and rob another one.

  127. 127.

    Zoogz

    November 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Even with the LA Times article, it’s tough to believe that Polanski would have endured much more than the 90 days in jail, and Polanski had a recourse in appealing. My issue is that the judge is painted as completely improper, and there’s really no indication that he was.

    In essence, it’s hard for me to take Polanski’s statement as hyperbole while hearing about a judge who was going to go back on a plea-deal as honest unvarnished truth.

  128. 128.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    This, I think. It’s the auteur concept gone berserk.

    Justice, Hollywood style, certainly seems to be a little … different.

    “Pulp Fiction” co-screenwriter Roger Avary is behind bars at the Ventura County Jail today — several days after the writer/director’s twittering revealed that he was serving his sentence for a fatal car crash in a furlough program rather than in jail.
    ..
    In September, Avary was sentenced to a year in jail for causing a car crash in Ojai that killed a passenger and injured Avary’s wife.

    Furlough? Twittering? I’m half surprised that they don’t have their personal assistants doing their time for them.

    Plus, it turns out that even though Avary pretended to be rolled up next to hardened criminals, he never spent a second in jail.

    Bonfiglio said that Avary had not previously spent a night in the jail because he posted bail the day he was arrested. When he reported to jail Oct. 26, records show he was remanded at 7:54 a.m. and released 11 minutes later.
    …
    Bonfiglio said it was likely a “procedural process” and that Avary was then referred to the work furlough program, where he spent his days on the outside.

    Must be nice.

  129. 129.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    So both attorneys stated this meeting happened, and that the judge had refused to accept the original plea agreement, saying that he wanted to terms changed from time served (the 42 days in Chino) to 90 days plus voluntary deportation (something judge couldn’t insist on), or else a longer jail term.

    Actually, the original plea agreement was for a 90-day evaluation in Chino. That’s why the article talks about Polanski “completing” his stint, not a new sentence. Polanski was released early and the judge was pondering if he wanted Polanski to serve out the rest of the 90 days as was in the original agreement. Pedantic, but there’s a difference between serving an additional 90 days beyond your plea agreement and serving the balance of the 90 days that you agreed to in your plea bargain.

    Polanski agreed to 90 days and then decided he didn’t want to have to serve all of them. I think it’s pretty clear which person broke the plea agreement here.

    Though you have to admit, it’s ironic that Polanski was so afraid of being deported that he fled the country and hasn’t been allowed to return since, which is pretty much the same thing.

  130. 130.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    @Brachiator:

    Part of that is how insanely overcrowded our jails and prisons are in California, thanks to the War on (Some) Drugs. Paris Hilton wouldn’t have had to spend a day in jail for her drunk driving conviction, but she was stupid enough to piss the judge off.

    Note to the wise: if you’re in front of a judge, don’t act like the charges against you are a joke, because you will make him or her mad.

  131. 131.

    Karen

    November 27, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    I’d settle for castration.

  132. 132.

    burnspbesq

    November 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    @Citizen Alan:

    Also, as others have noted, I find it difficult to get to worked up about this single incident, no matter how disgusting the details, when the Catholic Church has been engaged in a decades long criminal conspiracy to conceal institutional child molestation and they still have enough clout in this country to wreck health care reform and undermine gay marriage rights across the nation.

    If that’s not trollery, then you and those mysterious others are missing the point. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior; distinctions based on supposed differences in degree are inherently absurd.

  133. 133.

    Mark S.

    November 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    He couldn’t handle another 90 days? I thought he freaked out because he was afraid he was going to get something like fifty years.

    It reminds me of this:

    He put himself in a position where he was going to have to do ten years in prison 90 days in jail, that’s what he did. And if you know Roman, you know ain’t no god damn way he can do ten years 90 days. And if you know that, then you know Roman’s gonna do anything Roman can to keep from doing them 90 days, including telling the federal government any and every motherfucking thing about my black ass fleeing the fucking country.

  134. 134.

    dan robinson

    November 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    I’d settle for castration.

    I’d settle for castration after he spent a lot of time as the pivot man in a game of “The Aristocrats”.

  135. 135.

    PTirebiter

    November 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    @Mark S.:

    I don’t think the statute keeps running in you flee the country. If I’m wrong… they probably should look into changing the law, cause then I’m going to California to rob a bank, hide out in Belize for a couple years…

    As long as you don’t get caught and charged before you go to Belize, you’re good.

    Polanski was never convicted and none of the charges or the plea deal were ever adjudicated and entered. All the charges are still available to the D.A.

  136. 136.

    Chuck Butcher

    November 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    You really really do want issues like this to be State v Offender. You very much want me to stay out of the consequences, you very much want me to trust the State to deal with this. My decision on the matter as a father would make the State’s pale in comparison.

    Since there appears to have been an agreed sanction, that is what should be imposed. Fuck the idea of him walking away from it. The public’s perception of this really ought to be immaterial, it is a legal issue and it had been sorted out.

    Because I don’t know what actually drove the flight and I’m not sure it is knowable I have doubts about the wisdom of levying additional charges. For the plea bargain system to work, it is important that deals be upheld. I’m pretty sure that what the plea agreement involved was important to all parties or in such a case wouldn’t have been agreed to.

  137. 137.

    burnspbesq

    November 27, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    @Shawn in ShowMe:

    Same here. The state is an artificial construct, after all.

    So if I were to hit you upside the head with a baseball bat, putting you into a permanent vegetative statue, in the course of stealing everything you value, you would be indifferent as to whether that artificial construct would intervene on your behalf?

    Didn’t think so.

    Thanks for playing. What lovely parting gifts do we have for our contestant, Vanna?

  138. 138.

    MBunge

    November 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Phoebe – “My point of view [and I think I speak for some who share it] is that the victim matters much more to me than, say, “society’s need for retribution””

    The frickin’ victim’s not supposed to matter at all. Whether you rob a rich man or a poor man, it’s robbery. Whether you kill a mother of 3 or a homeless drug addict, it’s murder.

    What you call “restorative justice” is actually pretty darn close to the way criminal misbehavior used to be handled in antiquity. Modern principles of justice came about largely in response to how inequitable and corrupt so-called “restorative justice” was in practice.

    Mike

  139. 139.

    johnatparis

    November 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Lévy is an ass. Even here in Paris, where pretentiousness can, among his class (think chattering, think not socially-useful…think a French version of Thomas Friedman, popularizer of half-baked ideas thought important by his class this decade and forgotten the next), is raised to an art form.

    There is a difference though here among our clueless elites. Ours know they are apart, aloof, clueless. If there is one pretence they do without, it is that they are one of the people. Lévy is no exception.

    In America of course, Chuck Todd, David Broder, Tim Russert, George Will and the rest of the millionaire’s public intellectual club will remind you they are of the people and in fact will tell you what the people think!

    Not sure what is more disgusting to tell you the truth.

  140. 140.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    @Chuck Butcher:

    For the plea bargain system to work, it is important that deals be upheld. I’m pretty sure that what the plea agreement involved was important to all parties or in such a case wouldn’t have been agreed to.

    That’s part of the problem with all of us non-lawyers arguing about this stuff online. As far as I can tell (non-lawyer that I am), Polanski was the one who didn’t want to fulfill his part of the plea agreement, because he agreed to 90 days, was released after 42, and fled at the thought of serving the balance. There are all kinds of rumors about what the judge wanted to do, but the only statement by the judge that we have that has multiple witnesses is what Comrade Scrutinizer quoted at #121, which was to have Polanski serve the rest of the time in the plea agreement and possibly deport him.

    Though every time I say that, legions of lawyers come out of the woodwork to explain to me that just because Polanski’s plea agreement stated 90 days it doesn’t mean that he didn’t fulfill the terms of the plea agreement when he was let out after 42 days, but that’s when my brain starts to hurt and I have to go lay down.

  141. 141.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    @Mark S.: Ha! That snippet runs through my head way too often, considering I saw the movie only once. It’s because QT put it on the soundtrack, and the soundtrack is very very good.

    I also thought P thought he was getting 50 years or something like it. And again, what he would have got is not really the point, it’s what he subjectively thought he was going to get that motivated the fleeing.

    I’m for him getting what he agreed to in the plea bargain, and no prison rape stuff that the others are drooling for. Also a fine for the fleeing.

    [pounds gavel]

    Next!

  142. 142.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    @MBunge: No it isn’t. See previous response to Kay.

  143. 143.

    mario

    November 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    It’s really irrelevant what the crime was or what the victim says or what the judge did.

    Polanski skipped out on his sentence. That shouldn’t be allowed to stand no matter how famous or ordinary the convict is.

    the only post in the whole thread that makes a lick o’sense.

  144. 144.

    mario

    November 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    hmm

    that didn’t work quite right.

  145. 145.

    Michael

    November 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    I don’t know how I’ve gotten so far through this thread without hearing about how Polanski was a Holocaust victim and had his first wife murdered by the Mansons. No Polanski apologetics are complete without weepy recitations of those events.

    ‘Coz after all, those events have caused thousands of Holocaust descendants to get wasted, drug and ass-bang 13 year olds.

  146. 146.

    Liberty60

    November 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    @MBunge:
    Exactly- “Victim-centered” justice is inherently unfair.
    While most imagine it centers on healing the wounds to a victim, it actually puts the victim on trial; if you are a sweet-faced PTA mom, your assailant gets one sort of justice; if you are a ugly obnoxious jerk, the assailant gets another.

    Putting the victim on trial is the oldest defense tactic in the book; its why we came up with the “crime against the State” idea.

  147. 147.

    MBunge

    November 27, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Phoebe – “No it isn’t. See previous response to Kay.”

    Uh, yes it is. I suppose if your going to childishly maintain that a system of “restorative justice” would magically be immune from the powers of influence and intimidation that exist in the world, you would be right. But since those forces would work upon a system of “restorative justice” just as they do they current system, you’re completely wrong.

    If a rich man rapes a poor man’s wife and then pays off the couple so they won’t file charges, our current principles of justice would consider that wrong and potentially even a crime itself. Under “restorative justice”, it would be considered business as usual.

    “Restorative justice” sounds a bit like Marxism. It can be useful for examining and criticizing the existing system but would be an awesome clusterfuck if used as the basis for a system itself.

    Mike

  148. 148.

    MBunge

    November 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Uh, that’s “you’re going” not “your going. Doh!

    Mike

  149. 149.

    Liberty60

    November 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    @Michael:

    I don’t know how I’ve gotten so far through this thread without hearing about how Polanski was a Holocaust victim and had his first wife murdered by the Mansons. blockquote>

    Well…there is good reason for this- Charles Manson had a very rough childhood, and years of alcohol and drugs robbed him of self-esteem. Sharon Tate was kind of a prissy jerk, and there is some evidence she invited the treatment she got….

    Sorry…its just so over the top, I really can’t even finish the thoughts, even in sarcastic snark.

    If only Bernard Levi felt the same.

  150. 150.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I don’t think we disagree much at all, then. I’m for reforming and not replacing, unless with a system that is a reformation of the replaced system.

    I don’t know who that Ira guy is, but restorative justice doesn’t also mean “no jail time for anybody”.

    I like restorative because it cuts to the chase of what was done and focuses on making it better, the long hard way, involving the people involved, fine tooth comb style. But it’s not incompatible with the idea of incapacitation, which is what prison is mostly good for, even if temporary, or deterrence.

    And, obviously, it would still be The State who would be in charge of this whole restorative justice thingy. My whole beef with the state vs. the accused is putting the prosecutor’s office in the position of being the only person with any legal standing.

    And civil courts are certainly an alternative to revenge killings. Revenge killings are for mostly drug dealers who have no recourse to civil courts to enforce a broken contract. If someone rear-ends my car, then no, I’m not going to burn his house down, I’m going to sue him. Unless he hands me a wad of cash, in which case I won’t.

  151. 151.

    MBunge

    November 27, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    “If someone rear-ends my car, then no, I’m not going to burn his house down, I’m going to sue him.”

    And if they guy who rear-ends your car can afford to spend enough on legal bills to put you into bankruptcy, hiring more and better lawyers than you could possibly afford so he gets a judgment in his favor?

    Mike

  152. 152.

    Chuck Butcher

    November 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    At sentencing in most trials I’m aware of the victim has a chance to speak. The victim is not subject to cross in that setting. Criminal actions are the State’s venue for the State’s interests. Civil actions are about making the victim whole or as much as the system can. Sometimes civil penalties are levied in criminal court – see making return of property, etc. though these seem to make a lessening of penalty contingent on that rather than court directed payment.

    Trying to jam civil action into criminal seems to me a mistake, the standards for verdict in each are not the same, nor are some of the process rules.

    I’m a construction contractor in which I AM full qualified

  153. 153.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Part of that is how insanely overcrowded our jails and prisons are in California, thanks to the War on (Some) Drugs.

    I ssuppose. Although it’s interesting how often celebrities get the benefit of the doubt here (as opposed to middle class and upper middle class convicted persons in general).

    Paris Hilton wouldn’t have had to spend a day in jail for her drunk driving conviction, but she was stupid enough to piss the judge off.

    Same with Avary. If he had not been doing the twitter thing, he would have been able to keep the furlough going.

    Avary now has an additional problem. He was building up phony street cred that he was doing hard time, which he no doubt would have used to help sell a screenplay. Now he’s just another lying putz.

    Chuck Butcher – For the plea bargain system to work, it is important that deals be upheld.

    Polanski had all kinds of legal remedies available. Instead, he chose to skip out. You can’t have it both ways and say that a defendant can defy the system in order to preserve it.

  154. 154.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    If I may put words into John’s mouth, I think his additional point is that the same people defending Polanski’s actions to the death are also excoriating the Catholic Church for covering up sexual abuse. So it comes across as, “It’s fine to diddle the kiddies — it’s only bad if a person I don’t like does it.” Claiming that it’s institution vs. person so Polanski should be excused only makes sense if you think that pedophile priests should be allowed to flee the country like Polanski did.

    (Not that anyone argued that here, but I think that’s Levi’s hypocrisy.)

  155. 155.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    @MBunge: I don’t think anything’s magically immune from the powers of influence and intimidation that exist in the world. That’s going to be an eternal problem no matter what the system is, and the only cure is transparency, where possible. But I don’t see how restorative justice [which is still supervised by the state, see @149] is any more vulnerable to it.

    The scenario you raise, where the rapist pays the victim off not to file charges, that seems to me more likely to happen in the current system, where rape victims can’t sue for damages. The restorative justice thing happens after the charges are filed, and after the guilt has been determined. It’s a sentencing thing. Nothing to do with the rules of evidence, which is where the “victim on trial” issue comes into play. At the RJ point, the trial is over or the plea has been entered.

    I do appreciate your typo correction. I thought there was an edit function for that, but I guess it was disabled.

  156. 156.

    Chuck Butcher

    November 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    @Brachiator:

    say that a defendant can defy the system in order to preserve it.

    Feel free to reason from what I write but don’t put your thinking on me. The quote you used says exactly what it says, not more. I wrote that in oreder to work, deals need to be honored, not that running is a cure which you infer I mean.

  157. 157.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    @Phoebe:

    The scenario you raise, where the rapist pays the victim off not to file charges, that seems to me more likely to happen in the current system, where rape victims can’t sue for damages.

    One of us is very confused, because I’m pretty sure that rape victims can sue for damages. In fact, Polanski’s victim successfully sued him in civil court. The families of murder victims can sue as well — that’s why OJ Simpson owes millions of dollars to Fred Goldman.

    I’m going to have to agree with Chuck Butcher and MBunge here: we have a civil court system that already does much of what you want from a restorative justice system.

  158. 158.

    Chuck Butcher

    November 27, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    @Phoebe:

    where rape victims can’t sue for damages

    What the hell are you talking about? That there may be nothing recoverable is true, but can’t?

  159. 159.

    ruemara

    November 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    I have no use for people who support rapists and it’s why I don’t watch Woody Allen movies or listen to that freak, R. Kelly. Polanski deserved jail because he raped a young girl. Period.

  160. 160.

    Comrade Darkness

    November 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    I’m really late, but I have to throw a “um, what?” at that Levy quote.

    What a wanker.

  161. 161.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    @MBunge:

    And if they guy who rear-ends your car can afford to spend enough on legal bills to put you into bankruptcy, hiring more and better lawyers than you could possibly afford so he gets a judgment in his favor?

    Are you arguing that a rear-end collision should be a matter for the criminal courts? There are problems with civil justice too, but personal injury/property damage ones are relatively easy for the little guy to win.

    Look, I’m fine with the state prosecuting a case. I never argued that victims should get their own lawyers. Notice how this victim felt she had to, though, once she figured the state wasn’t representing her interests.

  162. 162.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    block quote fail. I give up.

  163. 163.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    @Chuck Butcher: Can’t. This has been taken to the Supreme Court, I think, but am too lazy to search.

  164. 164.

    Brachiator

    November 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    @Phoebe:

    There was never a trial.

    Huh? A guilty plea is superior to a trail, and makes a trial unnecessary. Sometimes, the person who pleads guilty must stipulate to the facts of the case. “Yes, I did these things.”

    Are you saying that no person should be allowed to plead guilty? Or that a trial be held despite a guilty plea?

    The victim doesn’t want him prosecuted and that means a lot to me as I have never really bought the crime-against-the-state theory of criminal justice.

    This shouldn’t mean anything to you at all. This just opens the door to bribery and intimidation, family pressure, all the nonsense that for years kept people victimized. It adds an additional burden to a victim, who has already been hurt, by removing the assistance and protection of society and the law.

    Shawn in ShowMe — The state is an artificial construct, after all.

    Horsecrap. Human beings are social animals. The particular rules we create may be arbitrary, but the need to create rules is part of who we are.

  165. 165.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    @Phoebe:

    You’re misremembering the case. You can’t sue in federal court by claiming that your rape happened because of discrimination against women, but you can sue for damages in state court.

  166. 166.

    tavella

    November 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    @Phoebe: Can’t. This has been taken to the Supreme Court, I think, but am too lazy to search.

    Um, are you somehow confusing the VAWA case in 2000, in regards to federal law, with general civil law in the US? Because if that is your typical level of understanding and research, I can see how you came to parrot support for Polanski.

  167. 167.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    @Mnemosyne: For real? I know about OJ, but I’ve actually read articles about frustrated rape victims wanting to sue.

    Anyway, let’s say I’m wrong: They can sue, and nevermindsorry.

    I still don’t get why you guys are leery of restitution in sentencing. Also, RJ is about way more than restitution. It’s partly a way of getting the offender to understand and confront what he did, the impact it had, etc. way more so than happens in a courtroom, where the victim makes a statement to the judge, or more often someone reads a prepared statement. I’m not against that, but it’s just not the same.

    Ideally, when done right, it helps prevent recidivism, in addition to helping the victim feel better. That is what everyone should want.

  168. 168.

    Dream On

    November 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    The Levy article DOES have that Friedman-esque baloney style to it. He would have been more honest if he had just said “I love Polanksi’s films, so I feel connected to him.”

    The article is hero worship, and it’s no diofferent from that bizarre LA woman who released white “doves of peace” from a little cage on news that Michael Jackson had been acquitted.

  169. 169.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    @Brachiator: dagnabbit, asked and answered. I’m leaving.

  170. 170.

    Maude

    November 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    The film industry is what Reagan came from. The attitude is that “We are so special and can do no wrong.”
    We don’t do personal laws here. It’s the People v.
    The laws that exist now weren’t in place in the late 70’s.
    Polanski was a criminal then, he is a criminal now. The only question is about paying the consequences of his actions.

  171. 171.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    @tavella: Maybe. Maybe I am. Maybe I suck. Thank you very much!

  172. 172.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    @Phoebe:

    For real? I know about OJ, but I’ve actually read articles about frustrated rape victims wanting to sue.

    They can sue their attackers in state court but they generally can’t sue third parties unless they can show clear negligence on the part of those third parties. Those are probably the cases you read about. Most rapists aren’t exactly rolling in dough, so most people don’t bother with civil court.

  173. 173.

    HyperIon

    November 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    On Law and Order the plea part always has the guy accepting the plea “allocute” to the facts of the crime and state affirmatively that he accepts the plea.

    Wouldn’t this have been the time when old Roman could have declined the 50 years with a brief statement to the effect of “I was prepared to agree to 90 days. But I don’t agree to 50 years.”

    Because IANAL, I was wondering how accurate L&O is on this matter.

  174. 174.

    HyperIon

    November 27, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    @Maude: The film industry is what Reagan came from.

    WTF?

  175. 175.

    Phoebe

    November 27, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Thanks for edumacating my ignorant ass, and thanks for the link that you linked to, about that 2000 case. I don’t mean to be obnoxious, and I am against rape, very much, and think the “but he’s such a great artist” petition is creepy at best, but:

    That case you linked to. I know that there’s no undoing the rape. But from what I’ve read, testimonials and things, this is the kind of thing that maybe lends itself to the RJ treatment. Which is not about saying it’s ok, or here’s some money, but about healing to the extent possible. Which may sound odiously new-agey/wishful thinkingy, but the testimonials are persuasive. Healing and prevention of recidivism, that’s what I’m for, because I’m against the crime.

  176. 176.

    LD50

    November 27, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    @ruemara:

    I have no use for people who support rapists and it’s why I don’t watch Woody Allen movies

    Well, the facts that they’re all alike and he still stars in all of them and they all suck help too.

  177. 177.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    November 27, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    2burnspbesq

    So if I were to hit you upside the head with a baseball bat, putting you into a permanent vegetative statue, in the course of stealing everything you value, you would be indifferent as to whether that artificial construct would intervene on your behalf? Didn’t think so.

    Of course I would be indifferent. I’m in a vegetative state, remember? ;-)

    And I of course I want the state to act in my defense when I’m unable to speak for myself. But when I AM able to speak for myself, then I don’t want to be told that state’s interests supersede my own when I’m the friggin’ victim.

    It’s ironic that when the corporation, another artificial construct, is raping and pillaging the entire society, the state is strangely silent.

  178. 178.

    Viva BrisVegas

    November 27, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Polanski obviously deserves what he gets, but what are the Swiss getting out of this?

    As I understand it Polanski has been keeping a residence for years in Gstaad without being being troubled by legal niceties. So what made the Swiss authorities suddenly wake up and take notice of him?

    If I were his lawyer I think I would be advising Polanski to start climbing Mont Blanc asap.

  179. 179.

    Mnemosyne

    November 27, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    @Viva BrisVegas:

    As I understand it, there wasn’t a current extradition request for Polanski with Switzerland, but then Polanski’s lawyers decided to draw attention to themselves and filed a request to have the charges dismissed on the grounds that the DA’s office had lost interest in prosecuting him. If they hadn’t done that, Polanski would probably still be wandering free, but they pissed off the DA by claiming that and the DA’s office put in a new extradition request.

    There’s probably a lot of under-the-table stuff going on, too, given that the Swiss seem to be neck-deep in helping Americans hide illegal profits in Swiss bank accounts, but that’s what’s been in public.

  180. 180.

    Jill

    November 27, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    What makes me really sick is that on the Today show, what Polanski did was described as “having sex with an underage girl.” How sick a motherfucker do you have to be to turn drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old in every orifice possible into “having sex with an underage girl”?

    And these are the people who gave 24 x 7 coverage to Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from a consenting adult.

  181. 181.

    Comrade Darkness

    November 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    @Jill: and “consenting” is quite the understatement.

    The reference to McCarthyism nearly made me have an aneurysm. Yeah persecuting people for drugging and diddling children is the same as persecuting people for political policy thought. Yeah. Right.

  182. 182.

    Bruce (formerly Steve S.)

    November 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    But after listening to Polanski’s defenders

    Don’t. And don’t listen to the medievalists who want to kill, torture, or rape Polanski in revenge, either. How about we let the justice system run its course.

  183. 183.

    Porlock Junior

    November 28, 2009 at 12:00 am

    Then again, there’s the account that was given clearly enough in the news recently. (My main source for this is the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, one of the closest approaches to a decent newspaper in this country if you have the sense and will power to never ever ever see any of its editorial or op-ed stuff — though Rupert is working on this, and will soon fix it, and I don’t mean he’ll fix the editorial pages.)

    Polanski has a place in Gstaad — I just love the pic of his “chalet” I saw today — and goes in and out of there irregularly, spending most of his time in France where they have a more sophisticated, Continental attitude toward raping barely-adolescents; also, to the obvious wrongness of anything an American court does. (Sorry, the editorial opinions just expressed are mine, not any news story’s.) As there was no formal request from here to nab his ass and send him over, they didn’t trouble to run him down.

    Then he made it very public that he was going to a film festival or whatever in Switzerland, and the Swiss cops passed the word to the State Department, asking if they had an interest. After it was bucked to the state level where it belonged, this led to the request and the arrest. AFAIK there has been no denial of this sequence, so if we want to denounce the Swiss, we should stick to the things they’ve really done wrong.

  184. 184.

    The Raven

    November 28, 2009 at 2:26 am

    Polanski’s supporters are disgusting, aren’t they? But so is the desire for his blood. I’ve seen too much of “the need for justice trumps the victim’s desire to be let alone.” But Polanski, whatever his failings–and I’ve read enough about him to dislike him very much–is apparently not a repeat offender and didn’t someone else once decide this his desires were more important than hers? As if that isn’t enough, it appears this his money has trumped our “justice” “system.” Again. We’d have done better, I think, to let matters be. Croak!

  185. 185.

    phoebesmother

    November 28, 2009 at 9:08 am

    @Phoebe:
    Phoebe, in the next few years after fleeing the US, Polanski had infamous affairs with more than one girl under 18. Natasha Kinski was the most well-known. She was a shameless temptress of 15.

    Even after over 40 years I remember the dirty old(er) men who hope to get lucky with teenagers.

  186. 186.

    Bob Westal

    November 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    The Raven is absolutely right, there is some much over-the-top, Colbert-esque let’s-all-just-stop-thinking rhetoric in this case and on this very blog, it drives me a little crazy. However, just in case no one else has, I’d like to bring up a factual point.

    Roman Polanski has never admitted to or been convicted of forcible rape. He has, in fact, said the opposite. (I have to say this because people will claim he has never denied forcibly raping her, which is untrue.) He is of course, confessed to the equivalent of “statutory rape.” It is true, however, that, if we are to take the victim’s testimony as received and inerrant truth, he is certainly guilty of, for lack of a better word, “rape-rape” as opposed to simply sex with a minor under the influence of drugs. Admittedly, the use of champagne and half a qualude muddies the waters even more, and may explain why there was no corroborating evidence of forcible rape.

    Nevertheless, since when is the standard of proof in this country a single witness, uncorroborated by any other evidence?

    I personally believe that what we actually know for a fact Polanski did was quite bad enough — having sex with an extremely young teenager and giving her drugs — to allow him to call for him to do more time than he has already served. But the fetishistic calls for Polanski’s head, the fetishistic emphasis on the word “anal” (would it have been less bad if he’d limited himself to vaginal sex…and made her pregnant? Let’s just say that sex here is the crime leave the type of sex alone).

    Much worse and potentially damaging to our idea of justice is the conflation of an alleged criminal act (forcible rape) with a proven one (again, there is only one source of evidence of here and I simply don’t think it’s enough to be sure of what happened and I don’t understand people who are so all fired sure about what happened in a place with no witnesses and where the only two sources of information are obviously emotionally involved and were, also, stoned.

    It all makes me kind of fucking sick and ALMOST makes me want to agree with an idiot like BHL, except that it’s an even more idiotic argument than the Polanski-fetishists are making. There’s no question but that thedirector committed a serious crime. There is some question, however, about the most heinous of the possible charges — and that may actually be why the D.A. didn’t prosecute on those charges and left them at “unlawful sex.”

    There is so much stupidity in the Polanski case on every single side I can practically scream.

  187. 187.

    The Raven

    November 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Phoebe, in the next few years after fleeing the US, Polanski had infamous affairs with more than one girl under 18. Natasha Kinski was the most well-known. She was a shameless temptress of 15.

    I checked this out when Polanski was re-arrested. I spent a while digging through a good database of old newspapers and, to my my surprise, none of this–not even Kinski–was documented in reliable sources, and there were no further convictions. Kinski herself denies any affair. What there were, were many rumors. As far as I could tell, after his conviction, Polanski obeyed the law.

  188. 188.

    Tropical Fats

    November 28, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    1) There are no circumstances in which it is OK for a 40 year old man to have sex of any kind with a 13 year old. It’s rape.

    2) It is not OK for a man to rape someone. It does not matter how good he is at his job, whether that job is artist, plumber, accountant, or anything else.

    3) It is not OK to plead guilty to a crime and then flee the jurisdiction to avoid the punishment.

    I’m not usually one for black-and-white thinking, but… This isn’t that complicated. It just isn’t.

  189. 189.

    Zachary Pruckowski

    November 28, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Because IANAL, I was wondering how accurate L&O is on this matter.

    In the event that the judge gave a 50-year sentence or otherwise refused the deal, he’d be allowed to withdraw his plea and take his chances at trial. This was even explained to him in the transcripts:

    in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so

    You can’t read those transcripts and come away thinking that Polanski didn’t understand what he might be sentenced to and what he was risking.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

VA Purple House Delegates

Donate

Political Action

Postcard Writing Information

Recent Comments

  • frosty on Sunday Evening Open Thread: Matt Gaetz Gets Some of the Attention He Craves (Oct 1, 2023 @ 10:02pm)
  • Ken on Medium Cool – Time Travel! (Oct 1, 2023 @ 10:02pm)
  • The Oracle of Solace on The House is Empty (Oct 1, 2023 @ 10:00pm)
  • Chris on The House is Empty (Oct 1, 2023 @ 10:00pm)
  • EarthWindFire on Sunday Evening Open Thread: Matt Gaetz Gets Some of the Attention He Craves (Oct 1, 2023 @ 10:00pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!