Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends

If a rapist escapes justice for long enough, should the world hand him a get-out-of-jail-free card? If you're Roman Polanski, world-famous director, a lot of famous and gifted people think the answer is yes. Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a thirteen-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles, pled guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor and fled to Europe before sentencing. Now, 32 years later, he's been arrested in Switzerland on his way to the Zurich film Festival, prompting outrage from international culture stars: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Martin Scorsese, Pedro Almodavar, Woody Allen (insert your own joke here), Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg and many, many more. Bernard-Henri Levy, who's taken a leading role in rounding up support, has said that Polanski "perhaps had committed a youthful error " (he was 43). Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival jury, wearing a red "Free Polanski" badge, called the Swiss authorities action "philistine collusion." Frederic Mitterand, the French cultural minister, said it showed "the scary side of America" and described Polanski as "thrown to the lions because of ancient history." French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, called the whole thing "sinister."

Closer to home, Whoopi Goldberg explained on The View that his crime wasn't 'rape rape,' just, you know, rape. Oh, that! Conservative columnist Anne Applebaum minimized the crime in the Washington Post. First, she overlooks the true nature of the crime (drugs, forced anal sex, etc), and then claims "there is evidence Polanski did not know her real age." Talk about a desperate argument. Polanski, who went on to have an affair with 15-year old Nastassja Kinski, has spoken frankly of his taste for very young girls. (Nation editor-in-chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, who tweeted her surprise at finding herself on the same side as Applebaum, has had second thoughts: "I disavow my original tweet supporting Applebaum. I believe that Polanski should not receive special treatment. Question now is how best to ensure that justice is served. Should he return to serve time? Are there other ways of seeing that justice is served? At same time, I believe that prosecutorial misconduct in this case should be investigated.") On the New York Times op-ed page, schlock novelist Robert Harris celebrated his great friendship with Polanski, who has just finished filming one of Harris' books: "His past did not bother me." This tells us something about Harris' nonchalant view of sex crimes, but why is it an argument about what should happen in Polanski's legal case?

I just don't get this. I understand that Polanski has had numerous tragedies in his life, that he's made some terrific movies, that he's 76, that a 2008 documentary raised questions about the fairness of the judge (see Bill Wyman in Salon, though, for a persuasive dismantling of its case.). I also understand that his victim, now 44, says she has forgiven Polanski and wants the case to be dropped because every time it comes up she is dragged through the mud all over again. Certainly that is what is happening now. On the Huffington Post, Polanski fan Joan Z. Shore, who describes herself as co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium), writes: " The 13-year-old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!)." Actually, in 1977 the age of consent in California was 16. Today it's 18, with exceptions for sex when one person is underage and the other is no more than three years older. Shore's view--that Polanski was the victim of a nymphet and her scheming mother--is all over the internet.

Fact: What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style "bad sex." A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury "because I was afraid." Those facts are not in dispute--except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn't mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

Fact: In February 2008, LA Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa ruled that Polanski can challenge his conviction. All he has to do is come to the United States and subject himself to the rule of law. Why is that unfair? Were he not a world-famous director with boatloads of powerful friends, but just a regular convicted sex criminal who had fled abroad, would anyone think it was asking too much that he should go through the same formal process as anyone else?

It's enraging that literary superstars who go on and on about human dignity, and human rights, and even women's rights (at least when the women are Muslim) either don't see what Polanski did as rape, or don't care, because he is, after all, Polanski--an artist like themselves. That some of his defenders are women is particularly disappointing. Don't they see how they are signing on to arguments that blame the victim, minimize rape, and bend over backwards to exonerate the perpetrator? Error of youth, might have mistaken her age, teen slut, stage mother--is that what we want people to think when middle-aged men prey on ninth-graders?

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

***** The Mind-Body Problem, poems by Katha Pollitt, is just out from Random House.

Comments (445)

1. For the sake of my daughter, I want to seePolanski's ass in jail. At least that way he might experience the seduction he imposed on a little girl.

   I imagine his pleads of "no don't" will be just as ineffective.

   Nice article from someone I never agree with until now.

   Good job.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 01:56am

2. I have never been able to bring myself to watch anything by Polanski because the consciousness of his horrible crime comes up each time I think of him. That it has taken so long to have him arrested is a condemnation of all the European countries he has inhabited and visited over the past three decades. It is appalling to find so many people willing to give him a free pass just because he is (supposed to be) a great artist. I hope the US justice system works at least in this one case and that this rapist is duly punished.

   Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 02:53am

3. The argument is being made (though not brought up by Katha here) that it is "understandable" he skipped bail because he apprehended the judge would go back on a supposed deal. Since when has apprehension of the judge's intentions been bona fide ground for fleeing from the consequences of one's crime? The beauty is that none of his apologists question that he actually committed this reprehensible act!

   Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 02:57am

4. Thanks, Ms. Pollitt, for what you say. I am flabbergasted by the insistence by so many white liberal elitists with artistic pretensions that Polanski's sexual violence should be dismissed for any reason. This is one of the most outrageous examples of unearned rank and privilege that I have ever heard about.

   Debra Winger's support for Polanski really sticks in my craw. She's a mother, right? Winger hasn't been in many films in the last fifteen or so years because, or so I had believed, raising her children was a priority for her for a time. A mother! How could a mother take Polanski's side? And a feminist one at that? I've always thought of Winger as a feminist. Where did I get that mis-impression, huh?

   A forty-three-year old man gave alcohol and drugs to a child. He showed concern for getting her pregnant. He ignored her repeated requests that he not insert his penis into her anus. And let's not forget that he was inserting his penis into her anus to avoid knocking her up. He knew what he was doing: he was satisfying himself at a child's expense.

   I have never seen any of his movies, except I saw Rosemary's Baby before he raped the thirteen year old. I have assiduously avoided all his art. And I always will.

   Now I want to avoid the art of all the scuzzy artists calling for Polanski to be allowed to escape responsibility for his rape of a thirteen year old.

   Ms. Winger: imagine a child you love, read the transcript of the multiple rapes, imagine a middle-aged man doing those things to a child you love . .. and then imagine that rapist getting away with it. What is wrong with you, Ms. Winger? Retract your support.

   Posted by Tree_Fitz at 10/01/2009 @ 03:54am

5. For 32 years, Polanski was essentially protected by his money, the money he earned for others & by the French, Polish, US (yes), Israeli & Swiss authorities. The US, in the course of 32 years, tried only 5 times to extradite Polanksi. The Swiss for many years have enjoyed his spending money in their well-protected enclave for multimillionaires, Gstaad. So why now? A confluence of factors ... the LA DA was embarrassed by the recent film doc, exposed as incompetent, bumbling, deceitful, lazy ... the Swiss are eager to earn Brownie points with the US to ease up on US tax pressure on Swiss banks, particularly UBS.

   Bottom line: no one involved really gives a damn about justice, certainly not the Swiss nor the LA DA nor Polanski, nor the French & Polish govts.

   Posted by sloper at 10/01/2009 @ 05:22am

6. I have been waiting for Katha to weight in on this and all I can say is: Thank God for Katha Pollitt! It has been dismaying to see the response to this on the part of many people I had formerly admired.

   Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 05:27am

7. I agree with Katha 100%. What Polanski did was dispicable. There is not one set of rules for raping a 13-year for normal people and different set of ruls for raping a 13-year old if you are in the movies.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/01/2009 @ 06:26am

8. Two thoughts

   --Why after 32 years? I think it is time for some "layers" to make money because Polansky is 76 and now it is still time to come to his money, not anymore after he is dead.

   --I am very courious if all these people who will have Polansky in jail, what they think and do about politicians who are responsible for war in Iraq with some hundred thousand killed. And there are the daughteres of Iraquis raped and raped, because they need money to live.

   Posted by Janko1 at 10/01/2009 @ 06:44am

9. Throw the book at him for child rape and evading the law. Identify and prosecute everyone who harbored him here and abroad.

   Posted by Milhaus at 10/01/2009 @ 07:06am

10. Sorry, but despite what some sympathizers (and Francophobes) think....living "in exile" for 30 years in France is not "suffering enough"....

    you do the crime, you do the time...especially this kind of crime.

    Frankly, if it was my daughter, I'd put him a cell with Charles Manson....and yes, I know what Manson's people did to Polanski's wife.

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 07:20am

11. I almost always disagree with at least some of what Katha Pollitt says. Here I am in 100% agreement.

    Cahill

    Posted by Cahill at 10/01/2009 @ 07:25am

12. polanski deserves jail time.

    so did ted kennedy...

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 07:30am

13. Frankly, I was prepared to see some sort of "Nation" sentiment on the side of Polanski, considering who is lining up behind him. I glad to see that isn't the case. How can it be possible that this many people are so morally bankrupt?

    Read yesterday that Whoopi Goldberg said that Polanski hadn't committed "rape-rape". Could somebody tell me why this person is on television?

    I wonder what sort of "rape" Whoopi would consider it to be had it been her daughter...or her?

    Just recently, that Wilson woman explained the rape/incest committed by her father as "happening in more permissive times"?

    Anybody ever notice that people from the 1960s and 70s always seem to explain their bad behavior on the fact they were living in those decades? I have NEVER had cause to say, "Hey, it was the 1980s" or "It was the 90s, everyone was doing it." Doing what? Buying mutual funds?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/01/2009 @ 07:32am

14. Frankly, I was prepared to see some sort of "Nation" sentiment on the side of Polanski, considering who is lining up behind him. I glad to see that isn't the case. How can it be possible that this many people are so morally bankrupt?

    Read yesterday that Whoopi Goldberg said that Polanski hadn't committed "rape-rape". Could somebody tell me why this person is on television?

    I wonder what sort of "rape" Whoopi would consider it to be had it been her daughter...or her?

    Just recently, that Wilson woman explained the rape/incest committed by her father as "happening in more permissive times"?

    Anybody ever notice that people from the 1960s and 70s always seem to explain their bad behavior on the fact they were living in those decades? I have NEVER had cause to say, "Hey, it was the 1980s" or "It was the 90s, everyone was doing it." Doing what? Buying mutual funds?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/01/2009 @ 07:32am

15. Being an artist, I tend to separate an artist's artwork from the artist, like I do children from their parents and tend to not punish children for what crimes their fathers or mothers did at any given time.

    However, as far as Polanski, I do agree with Katha Pollitt. And I also believe Polanski should be given enough jail time to truly appreciate and understand the suffering he caused to the children he sexually abused, raped and scarred for life.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 07:41am

16. oh the pinch faced moralists. tsk, tsk.

    there are two crimes to talk about. one is the crime of statutory rape, which unlike just plain rape is not a crime of violence, since the victim likely consented.

    as for the modeling session, the mom could have chaperoned.

    the second crime is the judge planning to renege on a legal plea agreement.Polanski was right to flee this corrupt justice.

    we have incidentally been through this movie before, with Charlie Chaplin, admittedly a greater artist than Roman.

    y'all should be ashamed of yourself, so ready to cast the first stone. especially you Bushfools. Polanski is not accused of multiple sex crimes.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 08:36am

17. What's also somewhat disturbing, considering our times, is the fact that Polanski had all the capability and access to the best medical counseling around--- not to mention surrounded by all the most beautiful and willing, of-age women. He has very little to nothing to really defend his actions with. Whatever the emotional trauma that led him to criminally wrong actions, he is the one that made the wrong decisions, no one else.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 08:37am

18. hey Slope, how does Israel figure in all this?

    Oh, I forgot, it's always the jews' fault. whattadisgusting post.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 08:38am

19. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 08:36am

    Do you have any kids?

    Have any of them been raped?

    Was Nastassja Kinski of age or the other children he admitted to being attracted to?

    Please, he is or was sick and either pleads insanity, gets help in jail or simply does his jail time.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 08:53am

20. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 08:36am

    1. "...the victim likely consented" - meaningless, since she was by law below the age of consent, and because the mix of alcohol and quaalude anyway robs "consent" of all meaning.

    2. "...statutory rape...is not a crime of violence" - have you bothered to read the girl's testimony before the grand jury?

    3. All of Chaplin's young companions were above the age of consent.

    4. If it is alright for criminals to flee because of what they *think* the judge is going to do, would there be anyone in prison at all?

    Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 08:58am

21. Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 08:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    wrong on all counts.

    the girl had a motive in her description of what took place. money.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:06am

22. the judge reneged on the plea agreement, that is illegal. Roman was right in leaving.

    the plea agreement was time served and voluntarily leaving the country. Polanski met both of those conditions. the judge was crooked.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:09am

23. If the judge was a crook-- and that's a separate issue, that's why there are appeals and mis/retrials and investigative oversight.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 09:18am

24. Emile, the judge did NOT renege on the plea agreement (Polanski never gave him the chance) and judges ARE NOT BOUND by plea agreements reached between the prosecution and a defendant. If a judge feels the agreement is too lenient (or even too harsh) he or she is empowered to alter the terms.

    Every comment you've made here has been error-filled; check your facts before posting.

    And speaking of fact-checking, Ms. Pollitt: Whoopi Goldberg was trying to ensure that her show didn't get sued by Polanski for misstating what he was charged with; she was in no way excusing or downplaying Polanski's crime. That was abundantly clear to me the day "The View" covered the story but obviously not so to the media, which prompted Ms. Goldberg to issue a clarification yesterday.

    Posted by ryking at 10/01/2009 @ 09:35am

25. once the judge accepts the plea agreement he cannot welsh on it. that is what happened here.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:41am

26. - and that's a separate issue, that's why there are appeals and mis/retrials and investigative oversight. Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 09:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    this IS the issue.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:42am

27. Janko1, you wanted to know why Polanski was arrested after 32 years? Because the prosecution finally knew exactly where and when he was going to be -- something that was difficult to establish even when prosecutors knew his Swiss address, due to his frequent traveling for his films.

    Polanski plead guilty, then fled the country before he could be sentenced; since his plea had been entered for the record, no statute of limitations applied in this case.

    As for your implication that people who want Polanski jailed are hypocrites who might not care as much about jailing members of the Bush Junta for their war crimes, I assure you I want to see them tried, convicted, and imprisoned too.

    Posted by ryking at 10/01/2009 @ 09:46am

28. "once the judge accepts the plea agreement he cannot welsh on it. that is what happened here."

    Once again, you're wrong. A judge is NOT bound by a plea agreement. You're clearly unfamiliar with American legal proceedings. But by all means, continue to undermine your case, such as it is, with ignorant pronouncements.

    Posted by ryking at 10/01/2009 @ 09:54am

29. the judge agreed to the plea. Polanski was about to be railroaded. he was right to flee.

    everything else is emotion and cheap moralizing.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:54am

30. A judge is NOT bound by a plea agreement.

    he is bound to keep his agreements. else there would be chaos and no one should ever agree to a plea.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:57am

31. perhaps you can back up your arrogant assertions with the relevant statutes in California at the time.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:57am

32. emile/Prof. ROLF will not answer the question...

    do you have any children and would you be as forgiving if it had been one of them?

    Plus, I'm curious as to HIS particular motivation in defending Polanski? The Hollywood community, I can see....but why our Germanophilic scholar?

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 10:09am

33. Just the facts without superfluous verbiage and moral posturing. Polanski pled guilty to committing the crime of having unlawful sex with a minor. Before sentencing, he fled the jurisdiction of the court. He is a fugitive. He broke the law. No statute of limitations. No rationalization. He was arrested legally. He has to be brought to justice. In the proper venue, the courtroom in the U.S.(L.A. County), he and his lawyers will have the opportunity to challenge, show cause or any mitigating circumstances that led to his actions. That is the way any person in similar circumstances would be dealt. His artistry, movies, cultural elite and influential friends are irrelevant to the case. HE BROKE THE LAW TWICE. HE HAS TO PAY whatever the court decides.

    Posted by Gianrico at 10/01/2009 @ 10:18am

34. I agree with Emile.

    When I was 15 years old, I had sex with 14, 15, 16 and 18 year old girls. I'm not scarred for life. Hell, I'm not scarred at all... and neither are the girls I slept with.

    As I grew older, I continued to sleep with girls a few years younger or older than me. I'm sure there were circumstances when the girl was 'underage' while I was 18 or older.

    I'm now 55 and the youngest women I sleep with are in their early 20's. They *eagerly* sleep with me of their own free will. Nobody is being harmed here.

    The first problem with 'statutory' rape is that it *presumes* the underage person (boy or girl) is unable to consent. While I'll grant that a few underage persons are unable to consent, the vast majority of underage persons are certainly able. I was able when I was 15 and 'underage'.

    The second problem with 'statutory' rape is that it doesn't consider the age of the 'rapist'. What do you think should have happened when I was 15 and sleeping with a 15 year old girl? Should be both be arrested and charged with rape? The only thing here that would 'scar us for life' is the unwarranted criminal record that we both would suffer.

    Many countries have far more sensible laws concerning 'statutory rape' and place the 'age of consent' at 13 or 14. Once our children reach puberty, they have strong hormonally-induced urges and all the laws in the world are not going to stop them from having sex. Just because a few choose to have sex with someone older is no reason to criminalize that older person. Why do our US laws ignore nature and human biology? Why is it suddenly okay for an 18 year old to have sex with an 82/72/62/52/42/32/22 year old, but not a few days earlier when he was 17? Age is to blunt a discriminator; rate of growth to maturity is highly individual.

    Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:22am

35. MSNBC interview:

    'MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about the Clinton Global Initiative, fifth annual, and what you've achieved here. The focus on girls and women, ...and from a U.N. report, this is a startling fact: At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, with her abuser usually someone known to her.

    PRES. CLINTON: Well, I agree with that. And what we wanted to do here was to focus on both the positive things that need to be done in education and access to the workplace, in health care, care for the children, and in the negative things we need to stop, including violence against women. You'd be amazed how many of the young women who work with our foundation in countries around the world as advocates, trying to get people to exercise prevention and not communicate HIV and AIDS, you'd be amazed how many of them became HIV positive because they were raped going to and from school. So we have to talk about that. And there's this whole problem of trafficking, which has gotten worse in the economic downturn, which disproportionately affects young women, but also affects some young men who are sold into bondage, into basically servitude for indebted work that they can often never escape from.' -- http://www.msnbc. msn.com/id/33032390 /ns/meet_the_press/page /2/

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 10:27am

36. @GLT: How many of the women in their early 20's who "eagerly" sleep with you do you drug first? How many of them say "No, no, please stop, please, let's go home" as you ask them about the date of their last period before switching nonconsensually from vaginal sex to anal sex?

    This is not a case of statutory rape. This is not behavior you can write off because of teenage hormones, or that the girl was a wanton libertine. If she had been 45 and a professional prostitute, this would have been rape. He didn't have a wanton fling with a doe-eyed bohemian far more sophisticated than her tender years would imply; he drugged and raped a child.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:33am

37. I am disgusted that the courts just dropped the ball on this and let him flee the country. I was a child when all that went down , So I never knew. watching the news and seeing Nancy grace foam at the mouth, I am appalled too! I don't care you are. I have a 9th grader and the thought of a 43 old man do those things to her makes me sick and I would of blown his ass away along time ago.

    These "stars" that support him, ought to be slapped repeatedly!!! Who the hell cares how creative and "wonderful" his work is! Do you think that poor child who was getting her insides tore up thought that?! Lets recap... getting the child drunk, drugging her, anally raping her.....twice! I am no rocket scientist, but that spells major jail time to me.

    I am glad this now 44 year old woman can forgive him, bless her heart, but what message does this send our youth??? run from your problems and trouble you caused? that people are disposable? wake up america. This is to not be tolerated. Crimes committed now or 30 years ago still need to be punished t o the fullest! Someone should rape his raggedy ass twice and then he can tell us about justice!

    Posted by Cheril at 10/01/2009 @ 10:33am

38. Polanski's mistake was in confessing. He should have done what high-profile pedophiles in the arts always do: Deny everything, pay off the victim, gather the support of powerful friends, become indispensible to the cultural life of a community.

    I suppose if I respected the legal process in which he was submerged more than I do, I would be less indifferent to his extradition and more willing to hope the Swiss (of all people!) do not extradite him, and that he is free to resume his life in the countries where he is protected from the dubious absolutes and serendipitous justice of our native land.

    Posted by JFHill at 10/01/2009 @ 10:37am

39. Posted by Gianrico at 10/01/2009 @ 10:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    lest we forget. Polanski has never been found guilty by a jury of his peers, a cornerstone of our laws.

    if the judge reneged on the plea, it is as if the plea never happened.

    why did the state drop six out of seven counts it indicted Polanski for?

    Posted by Cheril at 10/01/2009 @ 10:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

    you're foaming at the mouth. this was not a child. it was a young women who agreed to a nude photo shoot with a known philanderer.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:50am

40. I would of blown his ass away along time ago.

    would have....

    oh, and grrr, kill, kill.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:52am

41. Interesting to see Martin Scorsese of all people coming to Polanski's defense. Taxi Driver presented a pretty compelling picture of how seemingly sophisticated and "consenting" minors are preyed upon by adults.

    Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 10:52am

42. Taxi Driver is a film based on a literary work, which Scorsese did not author.

    this has nothing to do with his opinions.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:54am

43. Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:22am

    1. The law on statutory rape has *very* clear exclusions if the age difference between the parties is less than 3 years, so none of what you describe in your post falls under the definition.

    2. What meaning does "consent" have when the young girl concerned has been given alcohol and the equivalent of a date rape drug?

    Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 10:55am

44. Okay, if a thirteen year old is a "young woman" in your world, then I definitely see where you're coming from and hope it's not a place across the street from any elementary schools.

    Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 10:56am

45. Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    and I agree with you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:56am

46. Emile: How many stupid decisions does a 13 year old girl have to make before she no longer deserves the protection of the law? Consent to a nude photo session does not equal consent to sex.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:58am

47. All of the arguments I see presented here in favor of Mr. Polanski are not only fatuous but elitist in the extreme. No art trumps crime. And I am saying that as a fan of his films and a lover of art. I am an artist myself. Bottom line: Polanski must do some jail time not only for what he did but also to set an example to his Hollywood friends to let them know they are not in a privileged class (at least as far as the law is concerned) and that no one, not even a great artist, should ever think they can get away with crime simply because they produce art. This argument has been presented too many times lately and must cease. We are a nation of laws not men, no matter how great their contribution.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 10:58am

48. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:54am |

    Yes, I believe I just pointed out that irony, which you underscored.

    Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 10:59am

49. wrong on all counts. the girl had a motive in her description of what took place. money. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:06am

    Wrong - just because you say so? Or do you actually have facts and logic to back your statements?

    Specifically, do you dispute that Polanski:

    - ...gave the girl alcohol and quaalude? - ...knew she was below the legal age of consent? - ...is a fugitive from justice?

    If there was any miscarriage of justice in the sentencing (an assumption, since no sentencing took place), there were - and are - enough legal avenues to have that redressed. Fleeing the jurisdiction is hardly an appropriate response.

    Posted by oneworld at 10/01/2009 @ 11:01am

50. Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    why do you think most of the charges were dropped?

    a trial would have revealed that this girl was sexually active, and in this case consented to champagne and to the quaalude. she had had drugs before.

    the girl settled this case for money long ago.

    there is no purpose served by bringing Polanski back to the US.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:11am

51. I had a lot more sympathy for Polanski before I saw the documentary about the case, but this is anything but a simple situation.

    First, Ms. Pollit, a 13 or 15-year old is not a "very young girl" or even a "young girl." She is a girl or even a very young or young woman. A four-year old or six-year old is a very young girl, and as far as I know, Polanski has never been accused of having sex with pre-pubescent girls.

    Before I saw the film, I'd thought this was just a case of consensual sex with a minor and as it is a legal, ahistorical fiction disproved every day by real life that no minor can consent to sex, I didn't think Polanski should have ever been charged. However, the facts of the case clearly show that Polanski engaged in full, non-consensual, drug-assisted rape, an appalling crime however way one looks at it.

    On the other hand, the charge of judicial misconduct can't be dismissed. As I understand it, there was a three-way agreement between the judge, the prosecution and the defense regarding sentencing, and then the judge informed the prosectuion that he was going to go back on the deal in court and throw the book at Polanski.

    Given the history in this country of cops, prosecutors and judges cutting corners, withholding evidence and railroading defendants into jail and on to death row, why is anyone, especially on the left, surprised that someone jumped bail rather than get chucked into prison for several years contrary to his deal with the judge and DA? Or why he did not return for a hearing he was not legally bound to attend and put himself at the tender mercy of American "justice?"

    Polanski's crime was evil, but I can't support compounding judicial misconduct by calling for him to be jailed now. The system can't get a second bite.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/01/2009 @ 11:15am

52. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:50am

    So Johannes, if a 13 year old girl is a "young woman"....you'd have no problem having sex with one yourself?

    ((BTW, yes, I know he's got me on Ignore....rhetorical to point out his position))

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 11:17am

53. KatherineT:

    No drugs involved. I used drugs when I was a teenager but gave them up in my early 20's and I don't care to hang out with people who do use drugs. I do drink beer and wine, but even hard liquor is something I (mostly) don't do anymore. Also, a woman (young or not) who uses drugs or is a heavy drinker is not appealing to me and not someone I would hang out with, let alone date or sleep with. No, there are no drugs involved.

    Anal sex? Sorry, that's not my thing either. I do very much enjoy providing oral sex (both cunnilingus and analingus) and I enjoy receiving oral sex if she knows what she's doing.

    Also, certainly not *all* the women I sleep with are early-20's... not even *most*... just a few. But I have to admit that my interest drops off considerably as the woman approaches or passes menopause... its just normal human biology. I am most interested by women of child-bearing age.

    But you typify the person who automatically disdains (and ultimately wants to criminalize) the older-man with younger-woman relationship. I think such relationships can be mutually rewarding as the younger woman benefits from the greater wisdom, maturity, and worldliness of the older-man while the older-man benefits from the youthful exhuberance and fresh outlook of the younger woman. They can both be very happy. (In theory, I could see the same occurring with a gender-switch but such older-woman with younger-man relationships are rare.)

    And isn't this what underlies the uproar over this Polanski matter? Would the uproar be as strong if she was 16 or 17 and he was 18 or 19? I think not.

    A lot of this is about middle-aged post-menopausal women who wish they were young again and middle-aged married men who have lost hope of ever sleeping with a young woman again. Jealousy.

    Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:18am

54. this IS the issue.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:42am

    The issue her is RAPE. And if the judge reniged, then I can see a great law suit coming at that time.....

    hard to claim "I was framed" when you bolt away from the very system that will unfrtame you especialy with his pull and cash...

    Your posistion here is a little "dummkopfish...."

    and before you get harummpf...I have had my DK moments. too.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 11:18am

55. - ...gave the girl alcohol and quaalude? - ...knew she was below the legal age of consent? - ...is a fugitive from justice?

    the girls accepted both alcohol and drug.

    she said she was 16 and looked it.

    he is a fugitive from tainted justice.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:21am

56. However, the facts of the case clearly show that Polanski engaged in full, non-consensual, drug-assisted rape, an appalling crime however way one looks at it.

    this has never been tested in open court.

    I do find your post reasonable, as is often the case.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:23am

57. and that's a separate issue, that's why there are appeals and mis/retrials and investigative oversight. Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 09:18am | ignore this person | warn this person this IS the issue. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 09:42am

    Actually the issue is Polanski raping a girl below the age of consent; against her consent. (And an issue MANBLA or child/adult love organizations have worked very hard to legalize.)

    Lastly, being a single parent with two jobs, I and a lot of other working parents tend to share each others children sitting duties by necessity. It was/is very understood by most that if any parent were to even act slightly in that kind of criminal direction, it was agreed and accepted as a 'disappeared and never to be seen again' sentence. And I do not mean the preferred banishment like Polanski.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 11:26am

58. From the website http://www. feministe.us/ blog/archives /2007/01/03/the-rape-of-mr-smith/

    'Mr. Smith, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of 16th and Locust?'

    'Yes.'

    'Did you struggle with the robber?'

    'No.'

    'Why not?'

    'He was armed.'

    'Then you made a conscious decision to comply with his demands rather than to resist?'

    'Yes.'

    'Did you scream? Cry out?'

    'No. I was afraid.'

    'I see. Have you ever been held up before?'

    'No.'

    'Have you ever given money away?'

    'Yes, of course–'

    'And did you do so willingly?'

    'What are you getting at?'

    'Well, let's put it like this, Mr. Smith. You've given away money in the past–in fact, you have quite a reputation for philanthropy. How can we be sure that you weren't contriving to have your money taken from you by force?'

    'Listen, if I wanted–'

    'Never mind. What time did this holdup take place, Mr. Smith?'

    'About 11 p.m.'

    'You were out on the streets at 11 p.m.? Doing what?'

    'Just walking.'

    'Just walking? You know it's dangerous being out on the street that late at night. Weren't you aware that you could have been held up?'

    'I hadn't thought about it.'

    'What were you wearing at the time, Mr. Smith?'

    'Let's see. A suit. Yes, a suit.'

    'An expensive suit?'

    'Well–yes.'

    'In other words, Mr. Smith, you were walking around the streets late at night in a suit that practically advertised the fact that you might be a good target for some easy money, isn't that so? I mean, if we didn't know better, Mr. Smith, we might even think you were asking for this to happen, mightn't we?'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 11:27am

59. Polanski's crime was evil, but I can't support compounding judicial misconduct by calling for him to be jailed now. The system can't get a second bite.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/01/2009 @ 11:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

    The system never finished its first bit. Mr. Polanski had legal recourse; instead he fled justice. That alone warrants jail time regardless of the merits of his arguments in the underlying case. And frankly, I don't see much merit. The claims of judicial misconduct are tenuous at best but they do deserve judicial revue if for no other reason than due process. And, as revealed above, no judge is bound, in any case, in any jurisdiction in the United States by any agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant. Mr. Polanski should, in my opinion, receive 5 years, perhaps with some time off for good behavior. Anything less will be a mockery of the law.

    and,

    Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 10:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    and I agree with you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Emile duBois, sir, don't you understand that GLT has himself admitted, here in his postings, that he is also guilty of crimes. Doesn't "crime" or "guilt" mean anything to you.

    "Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the institutionalized medium of reason, that's all we have standing between us and the tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of unbridled, undisciplined feeling."

    Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965)

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 11:32am

60. Actually the issue is Polanski raping a girl below the age of consent; against her consent.

    this has never been proven in court.

    in statutory rape, it is possible for the victim to have consented. force need not have been involved.

    you are making an emotional argument.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:33am

61. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    why do you think most of the charges were dropped?

    a trial would have revealed that this girl was sexually active, and in this case consented to champagne and to the quaalude. she had had drugs before.

    **

    Mr. Polanski was offered a plea bargain, as sexual offenders against youth frequently are, in order to avoid subjecting the girl to a trial.

    As for her prior history and drug use: what relevance does that possibly have? If you were at a party and had voluntarily had a few drinks and maybe some other mood-altering substances, and a man 30 years your senior forcibly had sex with *you* despite your requests that he stop and take you home, would you consider yourself raped? Or that by showing up and having a good time, you'd made yourself sexually available there to anyone who wanted you?

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:34am

62. what is presented here as fact is merely the girl's version of events, nothing more. her grand jury testimony is not a fact.it is her version of events. Rashomon anyone?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:36am

63. To ryking

    When I read some layers earn about 1.000$/hour, so I think I am very near to the cause of jailing Polansky now.

    I didn't say: All the people who want Polanski jailed are hypocrites, but how many are.

    I am really courious, what have Ms. Pollitt or the lawyer Ms. Geraldine A. Ferraro (in NYT) done to bring Bush & Co to jail.

    The question is too, why has the judge 1977 changed his promise.

    Posted by Janko1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:37am

64. Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    OK, so if you don't drug and forcibly rape women, why do you think your experiences are relevant to Mr. Polanski's trial? Do you think having consensual sex with a 22-year-old is similar in any way to forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old who is chemically incapacitated and pleading with you to stop?

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:37am

65. Emile duBois, sir, don't you understand that GLT has himself admitted, here in his postings, that he is also guilty of crimes. Doesn't "crime" or "guilt" mean anything to you.

    GTL is not guilty of anything.you are out of your mind.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38am

66. TO ALL THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS PERSON....I ASK YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION IN EVERY SENSE OF BEING FAIR MINDED ABOUT THIS ISSUE...AND THAT QUESTION IS...IF THAT WERE YOUR 13YR OLD CHILD...WOULD YOU STILL BE GIVING YOUR SUPPORT?....NO...WELL NOW YOU CAN SEE WHY WE DON'T EITHER!!!!...AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS BASSICALLY LAUGHED AT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR OVER 30 YEARS..MAKES IT WORSE...AND HEY!!..IF NAZI'S COULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AFTER 30-40 YRS...SO CAN POLANSKI...FOR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN!.....BOOK-EM DANNO!!!!..I GUESS HIS SUPPORTERS BELONG TO THE RAPE-A-KID AND IT'S OK FOUNDATION...WHERE THEY MOLEST AND ABUSE CHILDREN!!!..PUT HIM IN JAIL AND LET'S SEE IF HE CAN PRODUCE A NEW HIT MOVIE....YEAH I KNOW WE CAN CALL IT.."HOW I BECAME A CELL B***H"....LET THE RAPIST..BE RAPED!!! NOW THAT IS JUSTICE!!!!!

    Posted by csanfordivy at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38am

67. 'Or that by showing up and having a good time, you'd made yourself sexually available there to anyone who wanted you?' -- KathrynT

    A woman wearing revealing clothing is sexually assaulted by a man wearing an expensive suit. She pulls out a gun and says 'Give me your wallet, if you think I was asking for rape by wearing these clothes, you're asking for robbery by wearing those!'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 11:40am

68. Posted by Janko1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    It wasn't the judge's promise. Plea bargains are made between the prosecutor and the defendant, and are recommendations to the judge only. The judge is completely free to ignore those recommendations and proceed on his or her own judgment.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

    The reason the facts of this case were never presented in open court is because Polanski fled the country before that could happen. By all means, let's allow him his opportunity to present those facts now.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:41am

69. I am really courious, what have Ms. Pollitt or the lawyer Ms. Geraldine A. Ferraro (in NYT) done to bring Bush & Co to jail.

    Posted by Janko1 at 10/01/2009 @ 11:37am

    They have done nothing because there is nothing for them to do. No crime has been committed. No one charged, brought up on charges or filed a reasonable breif that would bring them up...only emotional tearing of clothes and nashing of teeth by....the leftys...

    which draws plenty of eye rolling and yawns....even from the left itself. Its an emotional safety value for those wrapped a little too tight.

    And, no serious lawyers want to ruin their careers or credibility before the bar, the real clients with cash,reasonable thinkers and any other future clients...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am

70. Posted by csanfordivy at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    an emotional argument. the mom consented to a nude photoshoot without a chaperone.. end of emotional/hysterical argument.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am

71. GTL is not guilty of anything.you are out of your mind.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well, sir, you have answered my question and revealed your contumacious attitudes toward the rule of law. Obviously you did not read GTL's postings carefully.

    From GTL's posting above:

    "I agree with Emile.

    When I was 15 years old, I had sex with 14, 15, 16 and 18 year old girls. I'm not scarred for life. Hell, I'm not scarred at all... and neither are the girls I slept with.

    As I grew older, I continued to sleep with girls a few years younger or older than me. I'm sure there were circumstances when the girl was 'underage' while I was 18 or older. "

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am

72. To ryking:

    You are correct that the judge does not have to follow a plea bargain, but what you left out is that if the judge does not follow the plea bargain the defendant has the option of withdrawing his plea of guilty and setting the case for a jury trial. His apprehension of what the judge might do is no excuse. I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and frankly all my clients are apprehensive.

    To: Emil duBois: She couldn't give consent because, she was 13! and Drugged! But more importantly, She said NO! Whatever happened to No means No? I believe that if this were Mel Gibson and not Roman Polanski you would have a different attitude.

    Posted by sigifrith at 10/01/2009 @ 11:46am

73. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    What on earth relevance does that have? My mother let me take cooking classes once; does that mean the instructor could have killed and eaten me?

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:47am

74. Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    he's not guilty of anything. you are reaching.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

    not worthy of a reply.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:50am

75. I have murdered both my parents.

    I am not guilty of anything.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:50am

76. It's an amazing day when there is shared agreement by the assortment of people like Katha Pollitt, Mask, Darin, Bushfools, and myself.

    What unites this collection of people who differ often is a share sense of outrage produced by the common decency that most civilized people hold together to make a civilized society.

    What is not surprising is the response of Jr (Emile). It is that kind of condescending approval that allows celebtrities and politicians to violate others without consequence when the average person would get decades in prison.

    Thank you Katha for taking this stand.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:54am

77. The issue is not so simple, and no one is talking about a "get-out-of-jail-free card." Did Polanski not pay for his crime? Did he not do 42 days in a correctional facility in which he feared for his safety? Was that "observation" not meant, in fact, as punishment and therefore contrary to the spirit of the law? Did not Polanski not lose his beloved adopted country? Was his Hollywood career not completely wrecked? Was he not kept from his friends all these years in an enforced exile? According to his lawyer Dalton no man received a prison sentence for his crime the year prior. Polanski fled for fear that the judge would renege on a deal sparing him more jail time. Why kick this serious and complicated matter around like a football? Why not deal with the parties involved with thoughtfulness and humanity instead -- and that includes Polanski, who -- yes -- committed a serious offense but is neither a spoiled brat-artist nor an ax-murderer.

    Posted by mwoldin at 10/01/2009 @ 11:55am

78. She couldn't give consent because, she was 13!

    she could not give legal consent, but she may have consented.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:56am

79. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Emile, I'm just trying to figure out what other crimes can be covered by parental consent to an only vaguely-related activity. Maybe that's too broad for you, though, so I'll narrow the question: What other activities can a parent consent to so as to imply that their child is sexually available, regardless of her words to the contrary?

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:56am

80. the mom consented to a nude photoshoot without a chaperone.. end of emotional/hysterical argument.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:45am

    Whoa, watch out: with that reasoning, no woman will ever pose for a Maxim photo shoot again!

    Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 11:57am

81. ...and what did happen to the model for Picasso's "Nude Descending a Staircase"?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 11:58am

82. regardless of her words to the contrary? Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 11:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    she asserted this afterwards.it has never been tested in any court.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:00pm

83. she asserted this afterwards.it has never been tested in any court.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Then by all means, let's test in in court. Coincidentally, I think Mr. Polanski will be available for that very thing shortly.

    Are you aware of any evidence which contradicts this young woman's sworn testimony?

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:01pm

84. Posted by mwoldin at 10/01/2009 @ 11:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

    right. Polanski actually complied with the plea. he had served the time and he left voluntarily.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:02pm

85. and that includes Polanski, who -- yes -- committed a serious offense but is neither a spoiled brat-artist nor an ax-murderer.

    Posted by mwoldin at 10/01/2009 @ 11:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Your point about dealing with this case with thoughtfulness and humanity is well taken and, perhaps, you are correct that Mr. Polanski is not a "spoiled brat-artist", but his supporters in Hollywood certainly are. And that term might also apply to his defenders here such as the simply wrong Emile duBois.

    Regardless, most of us posting here on this blog and I think most Americans, seem to agree that Mr. Polanski should not be punished for being a spoiled brat artist but for being a fugitive felon.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:02pm

86. Are you aware of any evidence which contradicts this young woman's sworn testimony?

    yes. Polanski's version of events.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:04pm

87. Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    cheap ad hominems.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:05pm

88. One question Emile duBois, are you related to Mr. Polanski or do you have some fiduciary relationship with him? Your fervent defense of him makes no sense otherwise. Why do you identify with him so much? Surely, it can't be just because you are a fan?

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:07pm

89. yes. Polanski's version of events.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Did he allocute to those events under oath? If so, where can we find the transcript?

    If he hasn't, then frankly, I think sworn testimony weighs more heavily on the scales of justice than a press release.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:08pm

90. Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    gofuckyourself.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    it's a question of she says, he says. that's what we have trials for. the prosecutor could have had a trial. he chose a plea. the judge agreed to the plea.

    in an ideal world, Polanski would return to court, and a fair judge would pronounce the sentence agreed to in the plea.

    all the rest is emotional drivel.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:15pm

91. all the rest is emotional drivel.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The rule of law is not "emotional drivel".

    Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:19pm

92. it's a question of she says, he says. that's what we have trials for. the prosecutor could have had a trial. he chose a plea. the judge agreed to the plea.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Where is your evidence that the judge agreed to the plea? I've just read the transcript of the plea proceedings, and in it, the judge makes it explicitly clear that he is *not* bound by the plea, and that in fact he may set the plea agreement aside entirely at the probation and sentencing hearing.

    Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:20pm

93. Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 11:17am

    At least sounds like the type who'd film nude video of ten year old "women" as long as their parents signed a release. . .

    Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 12:23pm

94. Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 12:23pm

    It seems an INORDINATE excess by emile/ROLF to defend Polanski out of "simple fair-mindedness", doesn't it?

    To say that a 13 year old girl is a "young woman"...and that Polanski is the "victim"?!??!?

    It causes one to wonder if emile has some personal reason for such a defense???

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 12:31pm

95. To Dont_Know:

    I have not admitted guilt to anything. I said that when I was 18 I had sex with girls who were under 18. (Hence the quotes about 'underage'.) In some jurisdictions this may have been a crime, in others not.

    I also said that when I was 15 I had sex with an 18 year old woman. Why isn't anyone here rushing to my defense? After all, I am a *victim* (sob) of this older woman. I can't tell you how distraught I was (NOT). Interestingly, in this case, the woman had recently turned 18 and her stupid parents (having learned of our sexual liason) called and threatened to charge me with statutory rape - its seems they didn't know my age and had forgotten the legal effect of her recent birthday. They changed their tune swiftly when I told them my age and pointed out that it was their daughter who should worry about such charges, not me.

    ==

    Some folks ask the question "What if that were your child? How would you feel then?" Well, I believe I would have to know the circumstances. I certainly would NOT automatically be upset or angry. I would of course be concerned... was this something my child (make or female) wanted or was this something that was forced upon him/her? Was my child emotionally (or physically) traumatized or does s/he feel good about what occurred? These are questions I would have regardless of her age or his.

    Assuming she wanted it and was not traumatized, I'd feel much better about my 13 year old daughter having sex with a famous and successful 46 year old film director than an unscrupulous and violent 15 or 16 year old member of a street gang... because, with the 46 year old, I'd feel that I taught her to make good choices. But in either case, I'd feel it was largely her choice to make. [Again, the assumption is she's not forced or tricked.]

    Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:42pm

96. there were shenanigans between the judge and a prosecutor, which is something our moralizing blue stockings ignore. that is not justice.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 12:51pm

97. @Mask Things that make you go hmmmm. . .

    Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 12:51pm

98. Unfortunately, I suspect that emile dubois would not be making this argument if we were talking about Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich instead of Roman Polanski.

    This man plied a 13-year-old with alcohol and barbituates.

    Was the mother acting responsibly? No. I'd have to say that was a piss-poor job of parenting there.

    Does that change anything? No, it doesn't.

    I cannot identify with Polanski. Empathize with him. I can imagine myself as a parent. I can even remember being 13 years old myself.

    In either of those two positions, I would consider a bullet too good for Polanski.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/01/2009 @ 12:51pm

99. Unfortunately, I suspect that emile dubois would not be making this argument if we were talking about Trent Lott or Newt Gingrich instead of Roman Polanski.

    This man plied a 13-year-old with alcohol and barbituates.

    Was the mother acting responsibly? No. I'd have to say that was a piss-poor job of parenting there.

    Does that change anything? No, it doesn't.

    I cannot identify with Polanski. Empathize with him. I can imagine myself as a parent. I can even remember being 13 years old myself.

    In either of those two positions, I would consider a bullet too good for Polanski.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/01/2009 @ 12:51pm

100. As a free market conservative and unrepentant capitalist who is so conservative as to make GW Bush look like Che Guevera I read two articles of the Nation today and a "Hooray and Huzzah! escaped from me before I could stop them! I often find the Nation's political and economic positions laughable but two articles ; this one on the outrageous international turd Roman Polanski and the other a plea to Obama to get the hell out of Afghanistan have me reconsidering. Is it possible that there is common ground and perhaps even common sense at the Nation? Hope and Change spring eternal. As for Afghanistan, Obama should tell the world that the US is departing the British-cobbled " nation" and leaving it to its own backward devices . He should also make it known that should another terrorist action spring from its rocky landscape that they can be assured of having at least part of the place becoming a radioactive ashtray within 48 hours. As for Polanski, perhaps Obama can arrange a transfer to Joliet in Illinois? Then the untalented vermin can learn what "no" or "please stop" is supposed to mean from an entirely different position.

     Posted by alf at 10/01/2009 @ 12:57pm

101. I have not admitted guilt to anything. I said that when I was 18 I had sex with girls who were under 18. (Hence the quotes about 'underage'.) In some jurisdictions this may have been a crime, in others not.

     Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     In what jurisdiction did you have sex with "underage" girls.

     You also wrote "When I was 15 years old, I had sex with 14, 15, 16 and 18 year old girls."

     In most jurisdictions, if not all, even though you were only 15, you could be charged because at least one of the girls, by your own writing, was 14.

     I suppose you think that the "boys will be boys" argument applies to you and that consensual (I am assuming this was consensual) teenage sex is "OK". But I doubt if these girls parents would agree. You also say they were not scarred by their encounters with you. How can you be sure?

     And to your defender, Emile duBois, I am not reaching. I am simply a concerned parent who is appalled at the lack of morality as well as the lack of respect for the law in your & his postings. Your defenses of Mr. Polanski are much worse, in my view, that those of his Hollywood supporters. None of them, as far as I know, have condoned underage sex.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 12:57pm

102. This comments section is clearly not being vetted. Dear Nation: please publish a good, *sane* selection of comments rather than EVERYTHING.

     Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:07pm

103. Posted by alf at 10/01/2009 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     the untalented "vermin" is you.

     I do not refer to other people as vermin. this is something Nazis did, and we all know how that turned out.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 1:07pm

104. Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     if you knew anything about this blog, you would know that it is NOT vetted, and you would also know that we like it that way.

     in udder woids, get lost.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 1:09pm

105. "What is not surprising is the response of Jr (Emile). It is that kind of condescending approval that allows celebtrities and politicians to violate others without consequence when the average person would get decades in prison."

     Don't forget buisiness moguls too.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:10pm

106. As a free market conservative and unrepentant capitalist who is so conservative as to make GW Bush look like Che Guevera I read two articles of the Nation today and a "Hooray and Huzzah! escaped from me before I could stop them!

     Posted by alf at 10/01/2009 @ 12:57pm

     ...and then you read the article about Czar Jennings

     http://www.thenatio n.com/blogs/notion/47959 2/stop_bullying_the_ant i_bullying_czar

     Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 1:10pm

107. Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you are welcome to do your own vetting, with the ignore button.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 1:10pm

108. Actually the issue is Polanski raping a girl below the age of consent; against her consent.

     this has never been proven in court.

     in statutory rape, it is possible for the victim to have consented. force need not have been involved.

     you are making an emotional argument.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --never been proven in court because the defendant RAN AWAY! and judges don't make plea agreements. you're completely ignorant of the law in this regard. prosecutors make plea agreements, judges approve them or disapprove them.

     I'm sure the deadbeat dads of America, who are held in contempt for not complying with child support or alimony or any other agreements with their exes, would love to use the same argument after they skip court and a capias is issed and they appear before the judge in handcuffs: "but your honor, I had a feeling you wouldn't rule FOR ME!"

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:10pm

109. what is presented here as fact is merely the girl's version of events, nothing more. her grand jury testimony is not a fact.it is her version of events. Rashomon anyone?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --something polanski could have fought at trial, if he felt she was lying. oh, wait--he fled!--guilty guys never do that!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:11pm

110. @elsie2557--

     You can put anyone whose comments seem consistently not worth reading on your "ignore" list, then they won't show up on your screen.

     You can also "warn" the Nation's web department if someone's flagrantly violating the comment board rules. They do follow up on warnings.

     Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 1:12pm

111. This comments section is clearly not being vetted. Dear Nation: please publish a good, *sane* selection of comments rather than EVERYTHING.

     Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I once agreed with you but I have come to learn that the less than "sane" comments often reveal more about where a commentator is coming from than their more thought out postings. For example, examine the postings above of Polanski-defender Emile duBois.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 1:13pm

112. Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 1:13pm

     Polanski defender and possible child pornographer.

     Posted by habiba at 10/01/2009 @ 1:20pm

113. Quite frankly, Polanski would not be alive today to be arrested for this crime if I was the mother of that girl!! Shame on all the mothers and fathers who are supporting him! What if it was your 13-year-old daughter?? Let justice be served!

     Posted by CalMother at 10/01/2009 @ 1:20pm

114. emile wants to shift blame to the 13 year old girl, to the 13 year old girl's mother, to the prosector, to the judge...

     anyone but polanski, who, when he thought that a judge may not simply allow probation and a brief stay in a psychiatric clinic to do the trick of letting him off the hook--fled. blame everyone but the fugitive 44 year old who had sex with a 13 year old!

     how many people would even get the special treatment he was given after being arrested? certainly not most guys who can't afford to pay lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour.

     emile's right that justice was perverted--but it was perverted by the pervert who fled...

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:25pm

115. Posted by alf at 10/01/2009 @ 12:57pm

     I would be inclined to warn the jihadists that should one more attack against the US, another beheading of an American, or any more idiots like AZIZIZAAZZI or what ever his name is from Denver, are found planning our doom with explostions et al, the calender would be backing down toward the cities of Mecca, Medina, and a few more "Holy Sites"....we shouldn't have to live with terrorists on a daily basis like the Israelis... Tehran could be added...the Waziristan area too...

     These would be verbal warnings delivered by a whisper into the ear of the representatives of all the places mentioned...seems maybe they can be effective where we are not conventionaly...nothing like presssure from the inside for one to notice a change from the outside...and this message would be delivered without the idiots in the press ever knowing...

     Rash and crazy? You bet...but if they believed we would do it...who knows..

     OK JR...Im waiting..open up both barrels..Grr,kill,kill...

     Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 1:26pm

116. SweetEmily, my apologies. Using the term "vermin" ,normally used to describe animal pests, to describe Polanski was indeed unfair to vermin everywhere. How about Polanski is an untalented, self-obsessed, predatory pustule on the backside of the world? And perhaps you enjoy non consensual anal sex, but in my part of the planet, which you obviously do not inhabit, Polanski would be very, very dead. Hopefully, some Swiss prisoner will feel the same.

     Posted by alf at 10/01/2009 @ 1:35pm

117. Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 12:42pm

     From his responses, I suspect that GLT does not have any children (at least any he acknowledges or knows about).

     It's interesting how for most of us, being a parent unites left and right on some issues with this one being an excellent example.

     And almost without exception (like JR/Emile), it is non parents who take a different stance.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:36pm

118. "Why after 32 years?"

     Because he RAN AWAY.

     For 32 years the authorities tried to catch him, but he had someone warning him when and where they'd arrive, and he'd fail to appear.

     He's said in a published 1984 interview that he does not regret what happened that day, he regrets what happened to him afterwards (book: Roman Polanski Interviews, search inside the book on Amazon.com for "girl"). He went on to have an affair with at least one underaged girl (Nastassja Kinski), and reportedly she's not the only one. So it's not like it happened just that one time.

     I can only hope that the people saying it's no big deal are not hearing the whole story or think it's "made up" to discredit someone out of jealousy. He isn't fleeing from some silly law made to punish freethinking individuals. He's fleeing from culpability for drugging and anally raping a young girl. The philosophy of the Marquis de Sade considers this acceptable; civilized society does not.

     A 43-year-old Wunderkind director has a lot more power than a 13-year-old aspiring model who's been drugged. Polanski used this power. But when it looked like he might not be the biggest dog in the fight, and might be caged up with some mutts who won't confer him respect based on his artistic ouevre, he turned tail and ran.

     Posted by jupiter9 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:43pm

119. Larry--your last post is pure drivel. I'm not a parent. I think Polanski should answer for his crime. Plenty of the "media" or "elites" that are taking Polanski's side are parents.

     Don't make this a "parents care more than the childless" arguments...'cause it's not only untrue, it's prejudical to people like me.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:43pm

120. This is the most honest article I've read so far on the Roman Polanski affair. And the only one that respects the true victim and the law.

     Thanks Katha for demonstrating what integrity in media looks like.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:48pm

121. I think there's middle ground here. I say let Polanski stay out of the USA if he wants to just as long as the parts of him that were actually involved in the rape get returned. Know what I mean?

     Posted by JerichoValley at 10/01/2009 @ 1:54pm

122. Larry--your last post is pure drivel. I'm not a parent. I think Polanski should answer for his crime. Plenty of the "media" or "elites" that are taking Polanski's side are parents.

     Don't make this a "parents care more than the childless" arguments...'cause it's not only untrue, it's prejudical to people like me.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:43pm

     it was poorly worded. But in general, look at the responses on this type of issue and they will closely parallel a breakdown of parent vs non parent. Obviously there are exceptions like yourself on the nonparent side and JR/Emile of the parental side.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:56pm

123. still b.s. larry. complete b.s.

     how do you account for all the "hollywood" people taking his side?...most are parents.

     you're not making this into "people who aren't parents generally don't give a shit"

     no sir.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:58pm

124. just as long as the parts of him that were actually involved in the rape get returned. Know what I mean?

     Posted by JerichoValley at 10/01/2009 @ 1:54pm

     Sounds like the Monty Python idea of raising revenues by taxing "all foreigners living abroad"

     Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 1:59pm

125. To Dont_Know:

     All the sex I've ever had has been consensual.

     Teenage sex is a fact of life. In past centuries, teenage marriage was not only accepted but was promoted. Our biology has not changed so much over the centuries. Why has our attitude toward teenage sex (and marriage) changed so much?

     Its understandable that, as a parent, you want to protect your children. But society and its laws does at times overreach. I do not believe that all laws should be respected simply because they are laws... some laws can be absolutely stupid. Do you know that even the mildest pat on the back or handshake, if unwanted, meets the technical definition of "Assault & Battery"? This is stupid but, in most cases, our legal system is able to sort out the difference between a mild & friendly pat on the back and a bludgeoning with a lead pipe. Our legal system should also be able to sort out the difference between a teen (or adult) who is able to consent to sex from one who is not; but the stupid 'statutory' laws remove this discretion from the judge. As a result, many adults have been unfairly criminalized.

     In the case of Mr. Polanski, I do not see how anybody benefits from his recent arrest. Certainly not the 'victim' who openly opposes all this brouhaha. Certainly not the taxpayers who pay all the prosecutors and judges and law enforcement personnel. Certainly not the public to whom Mr Polanski poses no danger. There is just no good reason for pursuing the matter.

     Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 2:10pm

126. A lot of ideological cross currents here. Everything Pollitt says is > evidently true about the case and she is right about the fatuousness > of the Hollywoodites,intellectuals and denizens of Celebrity World who > have rallied around Polanski. On the other hand, no one would ever > have cared about this again(and the victim just wants it to go away) > but for the decision of the Swiss authorities to arrest him, a > decision which probably had as much to do with a desire to > re-ingratiate themselves with the US authorities in light of bank > secrecy battles as anything else, since he has a house there and > obviously has been there many times before without difficulty. I also > notice that yesterday Mr. Hsu, a fundraiser for Democrats who violated > the "bundling" laws re contributions, was sentenced to 24 years in > jail. 24 years. The US criminal justice system is voracious. I have a > feeling that Polanski will never again spend a day outside prison if > he is extradited. I am not sure that is a good thing.

     Posted by Peterconn at 10/01/2009 @ 2:10pm

127. Quite frankly, Polanski would not be alive today to be arrested for this crime if I was the mother of that girl!

     grrr, kill, kill.

     the mom agreed to an unsupervised nude photo shoot. she was complicit in putting her in that situation.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:25pm

128. the mom agreed to an unsupervised nude photo shoot. she was complicit in putting her in that situation.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You've still yet to explain how it is that consent to a nude photo shoot equals consent to sex, Emile.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 2:26pm

129. Granted this is anecdote-- OK, maybe gossip- but a very credible Swiss friend told me in 1970 (7 years before the Mulholland Drive incident) that Polanski was notorious in Gstaad (where both my friend and Polanski had chalets at the time) for the orgies over which he presided, always involving very young women. The Swiss authorities behaved inappropriately back then- not now. Face it, the guy is likely no different from other pedophiles-- he undoubtedly has been and will be a repeat offender (given the chance). Plenty of child molesters continue their sordid careers regardless of age. In other words, it's the likely future victims who will benefit from his incarceration. I doubt that these innocent children would agree that he "poses no danger."

     Posted by rriley at 10/01/2009 @ 2:31pm

130. I would have thought that the Nation would have made a more thoughtful discussion possible. As it is one has to sift through alot of craziness to get to comments that are worth reading.

     Posted by elsie2557 at 10/01/2009 @ 2:34pm

131. Let´s just forget all crimes!!! For example the holocaust!... A crime is a crime yesterday, today , tomorrow... Always!!!! There are not good crimes or bad crimes. Celebrities and movie stars keep doing what you do! : entertainment and please don´t talk about anything else because is a shame. Just like the ones that celebrate, honor and applause criminals and dictators like chavez: oliver stone or michael moore, but live in the confort and safeness of liberty and democracy. Leave all that behind and live with them!!!

     Posted by glendacantv at 10/01/2009 @ 2:36pm

132. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009

     Playing devil's advocate just for the fun of it again emile?

     Posted by Benchrest at 10/01/2009 @ 2:42pm

133. Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it does not. it does however tell us a lot about the quality of the parenting.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:42pm

134. Playing devil's advocate just for the fun of it again emile? Posted by Benchrest at 10/01/2009 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you think it's fun, the attacks on me?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:44pm

135. Baudelaire "The Devil's cleverest wile is to convince us he doesn't exist."

     The whole Polanski story, in my opinion, is the hand of Satan at work. First and foremost it turns us against each other. The behavior of the mother undermines the role of motherhood and family. It is obviously morally confusing to those without a strong moral compass in their lives. It provides an argument for supporting immorality as "it wasn't so bad." or "it was a long time ago." or "the girl didn't look like a minor." - all with the intention of deceiving us as to who the actual victim here was. It makes a parody of the law. Lastly it allows the 24/7 media chambers' talking puppets to incessantly use the expression 'anal raped her twice' until everyone has a clear mental image of that behavior in their minds while sitting at the breakfast table watching Good Morning America!

     Yep, Satan's hard at work on this whole affair. And he's hiring!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 10/01/2009 @ 2:44pm

136. "you think it's fun, the attacks on me?"

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:44pm

     no, just that you can take either side of the argument and make the other side doubt their sanity.

     Posted by Benchrest at 10/01/2009 @ 2:55pm

137. Posted by Benchrest at 10/01/2009 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it's good to see a friendly face.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:55pm

138. Had the victim in this case been a young boy, I bet he wouldn't have this many supporters.

     Posted by QueenofDiamonds at 10/01/2009 @ 2:57pm

139. From his responses, I suspect that GLT does not have any children (at least any he acknowledges or knows about).

     It's interesting how for most of us, being a parent unites left and right on some issues with this one being an excellent example.

     And almost without exception (like JR/Emile), it is non parents who take a different stance.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Antisocialist, you are right. Decency crosses ideological boundaries. Thank goodness! And I think you are right about GLT and Emile duBois not being parents. This makes sense. Finally. But not being a parent is no excuse for undecorous attitudes towards the safety of children.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:00pm

140. Word to the wise:

     if you expect JUSTICE to have anything to do with your OWN health & well-being... pay attention.

     Apparently, NOBODY cares what this case is doing to a woman who is **telling the World** she doesn't wish this case to be continued.

     There is something wrong when the Society feels itself more wronged & entitled to retribution than the will to do right by the victim.

     & you wonder why rape victims don't report...

     BECAUSE NOBODY CARES WHAT THE VICTIM WANTS, apparently.

     Posted by ThisCanadian at 10/01/2009 @ 3:01pm

141. no, just that you can take either side of the argument and make the other side doubt their sanity. Posted by Benchrest at 10/01/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you flatter me.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:03pm

142. I agree, Katha. But America is known for its double standard and free pass for the rich and famous.

     Posted by DavidHardcastle at 10/01/2009 @ 3:05pm

143. unlike many here, I was a thinking adult, when these events transpired. it was a different time.

     Bench are you accusing me of cynicism, or disingenuity ?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:06pm

144. this many supporters.

     many?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:07pm

145. Roman Polanski must be held accountable for his selfish act he forced upon a helpless 13 year old adolescent. Why she was alone with a much older man in a hot tub at Jack's home is a real good question. Where were her parents? Who was responsible for her welfare and well being? Roman Polanski did what a lot of men would have done in that circumstance. It was wrong. It also was a fantasy. Samantha Gailey has forgiven him and doesn't want to bring up this matter anymore. So I say listen to her wishes and honor them. Give him his 90 days in jail and let it go !!! The sad thing is that a girl lost her virginity to a desparately saddened and destitute victim of a gruesome murder of his wife and friends and though it is not an excuse it is a reality. Our society is full of hypocricy and until this country does something about The Bush Family and it's former administration and their cohorts in MASS MURDER, TREASON, and GRAND LARCENY then all other crimes are moot because our country is on it's way out if we let these murderous thieving bastards continue to acrue power and wealth and destroy our civil rights and the happiness we are all entitled to strive towards !!!!!

     Posted by roostertlc at 10/01/2009 @ 3:13pm

146. Certainly not the public to whom Mr Polanski poses no danger. There is just no good reason for pursuing the matter.

     Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     How do any of know that Mr. Polanski poses no danger to the the public? How do any of us know what his behavior has been like since he fled? (Do you really think someone who commits rape and sodomy has only engaged in this behavior once?)

     And do you really think a fugitive felon should have the benefit of the doubt before he serves his time?

     And yes, teenage sex is a fact of life but so are all crimes & misbehavior. Their existence does not warrant our turning a blind eye. I am no prude, but teenage sex (along with promiscuity, out-of-wedlock births, STDs, the whole gamut of sexual misconduct) does harm society and as an adult you should know that. And even if you don't agree with what I just listed, how could you not think that rape doesn't harm society? And even if you don't think Mr. Polanski raped the girl, how could you not think that fleeing justice doesn't harm society?

     The benefit to society from Mr. Polanski being extradited and sentenced to a few years (I think 5 is appropriate) is called justice and respect for the law. Something you and his Hollywood supporters apparently are willing to wave.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:16pm

147. BECAUSE NOBODY CARES WHAT THE VICTIM WANTS, apparently.

     Posted by ThisCanadian at 10/01/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     What victims want is usually a consideration in such cases but it is not the only consideration nor the most important one. That is simple black letter law. The law is not the same as victimology which is what you are supporting.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:21pm

148. I always find it amazing the lengths people will go to to argue a legal case that, were it not for the media, would frankly be none of our business.

     How many writers on this page or elsewhere have spoken out with such passion against the murder of innocent children in Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan? Murder, mind you. I bet not very many.

     Our society likes so-called black and white news. It is easy to take a stand on "stories" such as this one because you can back it up without any need for real research. No real facts are required. Just opinions. Just Dr. Phil truisms.

     Never mind that Polanski never faced a jury. Innocent until proven guilty. Black and white.

     Now what about those poor kids about to be murdered in Iraq? And Afghanistan? Any takers?

     Posted by kingharvest at 10/01/2009 @ 3:24pm

149. I have some confusion about this.

     1. When this happened I was a naive young woman who was horrified by the crime and by the people who protected the criminal.

     2. I have since read much about the Woody Allen case, including the Connecticut judge's decision. This has made me deeply cynical about justice because of famous men who get away with crimes against women and children.

     3. I'm older now, and I resent the good publicity that Polanski is getting at the same time I pity the old man. BUT, it was the little old man's gigantic ego that got him into this recent mess. Had he lived a quiet life, making movies but NOT going to award ceremonies, this arrest likely would not have happened to him.

     4. I admire the victim who wants this crime forgotten and has forgiven her abuser. This publicity is hurting her. So for her sake, I wish it would stop.

     Finally,there is an enormous amount of criminal sexual exploitation of young girls and boys going on right now in the US. Therefore, people should reserve some of their outrage over one example and demand for justice for all those children.

     Posted by Portia at 10/01/2009 @ 3:26pm

150. Finally,there is an enormous amount of criminal sexual exploitation of young girls and boys going on right now in the US. Therefore, people should reserve some of their outrage over one example and demand for justice for all those children.

     Posted by Portia at 10/01/2009 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Portia, of course, we should, and I do and I think everyone posting here does, reserve a great deal of outrage over the exploitation of all young girls and boys. But like in all matters, we can only deal with the aggregate by concentrating on the example. Settling EACH INDIVIDUAL crime or misconduct is the only way to encourage better behavior in the society as a whole.

     And of course, the publicity is causing angst for the victim. It always does. But angst is not what harmed her. What harmed her was Mr. Polanski's uncontrollable urge to rape and sodomize her.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:33pm

151. Katha,

     Great column. Thank you for noting this hypocrisy which somehow escapes many people, particularly the deep thinkers in Hollywood.

     Here is some legal shorthand which will help your many readers: if you are in doubt whether an action is legal or appropriate, just imagine what your reaction would be if George Bush did it.

     That should help.

     Posted by Polybius at 10/01/2009 @ 3:34pm

152. Had the victim in this case been a young boy, I bet he wouldn't have this many supporters.

     Posted by QueenofDiamonds at 10/01/2009 @ 2:57pm

     Naw, that wouldn't have been a problem for the liberals in Hollywood, or apparently for some Catholic Bishops...

     BUT, just imagine the vitriol if Polanski had been a Bush supporter!!!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:35pm

153. Katha hits it out of the park once again! Thanks.

     Posted by hpontiff at 10/01/2009 @ 3:35pm

154. I agree with Katha on this 100%!

     Posted by djf at 10/01/2009 @ 3:37pm

155. BUT, just imagine the vitriol if Polanski had been a Bush supporter!!!----Posted by freiheit1 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Karl Rove would have insisted he not retire and that he run again for his seat in Florida's 16th Congressional district.

     Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 3:37pm

156. Now what about those poor kids about to be murdered in Iraq? And Afghanistan? Any takers?

     Posted by kingharvest at 10/01/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     When you have time read what people are posting on articles about Iraq, Gaza or Afghanistan. I think you will see plenty of "passion against the murder of innocent children" in those wars.

     and, re your other comment:

     "Never mind that Polanski never faced a jury. Innocent until proven guilty. Black and white. "

     Going for a plea and admitting your guilt is no different than being proven guilty. Guilt is guilt. Black and white.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:39pm

157. The concept of statute of limitations was created for a good reason, but the U.S. apparently decided that draconian punishments and cold cases are better than a statutory amnesty. Assaults with more lasting damage than that inflicted by Polanski are waived all the time. It isn't, though, the seriousness of his offense, but whether our country wants to occupying itself with pursuing every felony, no matter how distant, with the power of the state. The result is a massive police state and a small army of private bounty hunters.

     Too bad the U.S. doesn't put this relentlessness into prosecuting war criminals and torturers. Polanski doesn't deserve a pass because of his wealth and fame, but then neither does Dick Cheney.

     Posted by alecdubro at 10/01/2009 @ 3:40pm

158. While I agree with much of the substance of Ms. Pollitt's anger with Polanski, I fail to see how putting this guy is jail now does a service to "society." The great failure of our criminal justice system is that there is a often a disconnect between the punishment and the crime, mostly due to our vast imprisionment of lower class and working class people for non-violent acts.

     But the reason for punishment, in my view, is not to make some people like Pollitt feel better. If it were a fair system (which it's not), the purpose would be (mainly) to lock people up who do represent a threat to society.

     Polanski did serve jail time; his court case was badly handled and justice was not served by the laughable Hollywood pretensions of the judge. Even the prosecuting attorney agreed that Polanski had good grounds to flee the states, given the fact that he was NOT receiving a fair trial.

     If he had been arrested over thirty years ago for what he did, I might see the point.

     But 30 plus years late? What is this? Do you really think Roman is a threat to you? Will he now rape your child?

     This arrest serves no purpose other than a vendetta pursued by the LA District Attorney's office. Surely somewhere this deserves mention.

     Ron

     Posted by roncox at 10/01/2009 @ 3:40pm

159. ! The sad thing is that a girl lost her virginity to a desparately saddened and destitute victim of a gruesome murder of his wife and friends and though it is not an excuse it is a reality.

     what makes you think she was a virgin?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:40pm

160. Now what about those poor kids about to be murdered in Iraq? And Afghanistan? Any takers? Posted by kingharvest at 10/01/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     not on this thread.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:42pm

161. It doesn't matter who Polansky is a rape is a rape and what he did is monstruous. Forgiving his past would mean that important and successful people are allowed to do whatever they want no matter how despicable and immoral it is. He must pay for what he did even if the victim says he's forgiven him, which is something I find hard to believe.

     LR

     Posted by lramirez at 10/01/2009 @ 3:42pm

162. 'No wonder Middle America hates them.'

     Ms. Pollitt nails it. Well, there's one person on the Left who -- at least in this case -- thinks clearly. Thank you!

     I'm a middle-aged man and my son's soccer team scrimmaged with a team of 12-13 year old girls the other night. All I could think about is what Polanski did to that child. Everyone needs to read her deposition and see how many times she said she was afraid of him and how he preyed upon that fear. Raw evil in the act. Makes you want to cry.

     Polanski is like the beasts who visit SE Asia and have their way with underaged girls. The judge should toss out the plea bargain and put this beast on trial.

     And all of us need to boycott Hollywood. Defund Polanski's enablers.

     Posted by egdusa at 10/01/2009 @ 3:46pm

163. If creative talent justifies a Get Out of Jail Free card, what level of immunity should other directors' talent let them get away with? http://bit.ly/225QH

     Posted by bluecoua at 10/01/2009 @ 3:50pm

164. The concept of statute of limitations was created for a good reason, but the U.S. apparently decided that draconian punishments and cold cases are better than a statutory amnesty. Assaults with more lasting damage than that inflicted by Polanski are waived all the time. It isn't, though, the seriousness of his offense, but whether our country wants to occupying itself with pursuing every felony, no matter how distant, with the power of the state. The result is a massive police state and a small army of private bounty hunters.

     Too bad the U.S. doesn't put this relentlessness into prosecuting war criminals and torturers. Polanski doesn't deserve a pass because of his wealth and fame, but then neither does Dick Cheney.

     Posted by alecdubro at 10/01/2009 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I hate Dick Cheney at least as much as you do and I would love to see him prosecuted for what I think he has done, but until someone can come up with an exact indictment we can not compare him to felons like Mr. Polanski, even if Mr. Cheney's crimes are worse. Our beliefs simply do not have the same weight as the process of law.

     And if you right and "Assaults with more lasting damage than that inflicted by Polanski are waived all the time." that is wrong and should not happen. If you know of any such case, please inform us. And pursuing criminals does not make a police state. Having a Gestapo pursuing people with different politics than those running the state, or pursuing people in a minority -- now that is a police state. American law enforcement has made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future, no doubt, but that does not make America a police state. Just the opposite, America and the American system of law makes this the freeest country on the planet

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:51pm

165. it does not. it does however tell us a lot about the quality of the parenting.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Again, why is the quality of the parenting relevant? Does our justice system have some kind of carnival ride yardstick out front, saying "Your mother must have been at least this caring for you to receive protection under the law"?

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 3:52pm

166. #

     ! The sad thing is that a girl lost her virginity to a desparately saddened and destitute victim of a gruesome murder of his wife and friends and though it is not an excuse it is a reality.

     what makes you think she was a virgin?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 3:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You have sunk to a new low. Have you no shame?

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 3:54pm

167. Friends, Roman, countrymen, if artistic license includes rape, then Katha Pollitt is wrong. If not, then the evil that men do lives after them--especially if it goes unpunished. Justice delayed is justice denied, all the Hollywood hullabaloo notwithstanding.

     Posted by K1912 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:57pm

168. I would like to know what opinions you have about something being done about these Hollywood supporters of Polanski? How about a boycott of all their works until Polanski serves his full sentence? If they are with him, on his side, then they should be with him all the way, don't you think? And I say this being a Democrat who appreciates Hollywood support for our candidates.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 4:03pm

169. why is the quality of the parenting relevant?

     it isn't? what about the victim's prior sexual mores? her previous drug use? not relevant? that she voluntarily gets into a hot tub naked with a man, not relevant? that she settled with him for a big chunk of money, not relevant.

     I suspect the above might have a bit to do with the fact that judge, prosecutor and victim agreed to a plea.

     does anyone seriously think that this man could get a fair trial now?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:10pm

170. Polanski should go to jail. Period. If it had been my daughter he raped, he would already be dead. The hypocritical phoney "elites" that think he should get away with this most terrible of crimes are an embarrassment to the human race. Don't these imbeciles know that a rapedvictum never completely gets over that tradgedy? It is the US justice system that allows soft, or no punishments like this that is much of the reason that sexual crimes keep going up in our country.

     This was not the act of a kid that didn't know better. It was not someone smoking weed, it was a horrible crime. Anyone who thinks Polansky shouldn't be severly punished is an idiot!

     Posted by danielivan at 10/01/2009 @ 4:13pm

171. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Keep sinking. You are still blaming the victim and approving the purp.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 4:14pm

172. Posted by Portia at 10/01/2009 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     a confused post. we are discussing the Fatty Arbuckle case and not Woody Allen.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:18pm

173. How about if you ask the woman who was thirteen when he raped her how that affected her life and what she would like to happen to him now. He was a pervert then and he's a pervert now. Disgusting!

     Posted by caedmille at 10/01/2009 @ 4:18pm

174. emile, you have a lot of friends here huh?! perhaps you should think before you speak. By that time the bile that spews from your mouth may have time to process and filter. So the rest of us can stomach such idiotic comments.

     a 13 year old CHILD! is not of age to consent to anything! shame on the Mother for allowing the photo shoot to begin with. Polanski should have his nutts nailed to a tree. Emile, here is where you can rant, and rant! people like you have no idea the hell rape victims go through. If a drugged up, drunk child is your idea of a woman, that is sick!

     Posted by Cheril at 10/01/2009 @ 4:19pm

175. Janko1, you wanted to know why Polanski was arrested after 32 years? Because the prosecution finally knew exactly where and when he was going to be -- something that was difficult to establish even when prosecutors knew his Swiss address, due to his frequent traveling for his films.

     complete nonsense. Polanski lives in Paris, France. he travelled to Switzerland, where he was feted for his lifetime achievement.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:20pm

176. it isn't? what about the victim's prior sexual mores? her previous drug use? not relevant? that she voluntarily gets into a hot tub naked with a man, not relevant? that she settled with him for a big chunk of money, not relevant.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yes. None of that is relevant. None of that is consent to sex. Sex without consent is rape.

     The only things that are relevant are 1) did he know she was underage at the time, which he admitted to in his plea; 2) did he knowingly give her intoxicating substances, which he admitted to in his plea, and 3) did he continue having sex with her after she said no, which he never confirmed nor denied under oath.

     So, by his own admission, he is guilty of drugging a girl whom he knew to be underage and having sex with her. And we have her sworn testimony that her actions were not even consistent with consent, which has not been refuted under oath. The preponderance of the evidence is pretty clear here.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:21pm

177. Posted by caedmille at 10/01/2009 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     be sure to ask her about the money.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:24pm

178. Thank you, Katha.

     The Robert Harris op-ed was moronic as well as shameful. I can perhaps conceive of some potential arguments sympathetic in some respects to Polanski, but it is beyond me to understand The Times' decision to publish this particular piece--unless as a sotto voce demonstration of the idiocy of the position being taken.

     Members of the elite entertainment/cultural community defending Polanski and criticizing the attempt to bring him to justice demonstrate both moral and political idiocy, and deserve the widespread contempt they will reap for this behavior.

     I have not noticed any particular sympathy among this community for efforts by those high in the Catholic hierarchy to protect their clergy from justifiable punishment for their sexual predations of minors. Yet they instinctively gather to protect one of their own --on grounds--what? That drugging and raping a 13 year old (whatever one thinks of her mother) is less problematic if the rapist has an artistic sensibility? Preposterous. Disgusting.

     I am, like Polanski and a number of signers of documents supportive of him, a Jew. I have enjoyed a number of Polanski's films and admire his artistic talents. I am, generally speaking, a liberal (somewhat more precisely, if it matters, a left communitarian). I do not consider myself a prude, and am critical of puritanical aspects of much American culture (and the influence of the religious right on American politics). All that given, I consider the attacks on Polanski's apprehension, and the defenses of his conduct in this matter, shameful.

     This is the season, for Jews, of deep introspection and resolve to adhere to higher moral standards. Those defending Mr. Polanski can and should spend some time looking in the mirror, and resolving to do better.

     Posted by The Wise Bard at 10/01/2009 @ 4:24pm

179. there are thirteen year olds and there are thirteen year olds. a relation of mine moved in with her lover when she was thirteen. who are you all to judge other people?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:26pm

180. I feel Polanski should get his day in court. He needs to be grilled and as a a result say he was wrong and not above the law to have raped or seduced this minor and ran away. The victim should be put on the stand to provide her recollections of the rape or seduction and the jury to determine if in fact it was a consensual matter or if she just lost self control and let the famous director take her. She may decide to sue,if that be the case, and put the past behind her. After all 30 years have passed.

     Posted by ilaw at 10/01/2009 @ 4:26pm

181. #

     there are thirteen year olds and there are thirteen year olds. a relation of mine moved in with her lover when she was thirteen. who are you all to judge other people?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     In this case? The person doing the judging was an actual JUDGE.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:29pm

182. Posted by ilaw at 10/01/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you are ill informed. she cannot sue. she settled with him for an undisclosed sum of money. pay better attention.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:30pm

183. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=KathrynT

     you're not him.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:31pm

184. the judge agreed to the plea deal. he DID not judge anything.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:32pm

185. the judge agreed to the plea deal. he DID not judge anything.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You keep saying that the judge agreed to it, when in fact he did no such thing. If you have sources that state otherwise, I'd love to see them.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:34pm

186. Why should this case be tried thirty years later when the victim doesn't want that?

     Posted by someonestolemymother at 10/01/2009 @ 4:35pm

187. I still think that there are two important issues here. First, justice must be served and Mr. Polanski should serve time. I think most of us agree on that (with a few notable exceptions above). But the other important issue raised in Ms. Pollitts article is the "lot of friends". Shouldn't there be more than just outrage at their aid and comfort. If not, then I fear they will feel free to support the next famous-artist-criminal. Folks in Hollywood support many great causes and I applaud them for that, but they should learn that they are not in a privileged class when it comes to the law. They should not expect special behavior if they break the law or engage in misconduct, nor should they expect any support from their peers if they do break the law or engage in misconduct. We should not simple express our outrage but we must break them of these unreasonable expectations. Don't you think? Again I appreciate Hollywood's creativity and I appreciate Hollywood's support of progressive causes. But I do not appreciate anyone associated with Hollywood thinking they deserve special treatment in the eyes of the law. And also this attitude of being special because you are an artist and creative is actually hurting the very progressive causes that Hollywood activists support. Americans love our Stars but we do not like them getting special treatment in our courts. They get enough special treatment everywhere else.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 4:36pm

188. I read the same thing you did. if the judge did not agree to the plea deal, there would have been no plea deal. where does it say that he did not agree to the plea?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:36pm

189. ...and what did happen to the model for Picasso's "Nude Descending a Staircase"? Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Not Picasso, Duchamp.

     Although I think what RP did is absolutely beyond the pail, and he is certainly not above the law, I am not sure he is your typical hollywood big wig wielding his power.

     The swiss are up to something dodgy, as many seem to be in this case.

     RP is a scapegoat of somesort, but he does deserve what he gets, unfortunately for him.

     There is definitely got to be something up with someone who fancies a girl 30 years younger than he is and close enough to childhood not to know what is going on or what she might want or imagine she might want.

     Rape is always rape if the person even shows unwillingness, let alone says no, at any point, and anybody who goes beyond this is not really interested in the other person. So a doubtful sex partner.

     Poor brave girl, what an idiot her mother must be.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/01/2009 @ 4:36pm

190. As an additional comment to the submission I e-mailed a few minutes ago, I think Polanski should be sent to prison where he can be subjected to the fate of most child molesting creeps who land in prison. And I hope that he imagines that brutal treatment many, many times before it actually happens and, with his marvelous, artistic imagination, that he suffers mentally before the fact - as most cowards do.

     Posted by caedmille at 10/01/2009 @ 4:37pm

191. beyond the pail,

     look out, don't step in the bucket.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:38pm

192. I don't know why anyone is surprised that the Hollywood elite side with Polansky. They are sleaziest, most deviant people in the mondern world and have been since there has been a Hollywood. How many 18 year old actresses do we see naked. And, if they are 18 at the viewing they were much younger at the filming. Just thinking about letting my daughter be anywhere near those people makes my skin crawl. And the parents are just as bad. Look at the history; Lindsay Lohan is a prime example. Even The Godfather took a shot at it. Hollywood is a cesspool, and the women have to defend the actions of the men or they don't work again. Polansky needs to do hard time and, in the absence of his mother's permission, I give his cell mates my permission to abuse him.

     Posted by wredner at 10/01/2009 @ 4:39pm

193. It's sad, but I just read through most of this thread. First of all, GLT is just using this as an excuse to brag about his sexual exploits -- we musn't encourage him by trying to argue with or enlighten him.

     Emile is a classic diversionist. He argues everything but the merits and facts of the case. Nothing he says is actually relevant to whether or not justice has been served for a crime committed, which it hasn't.

     I am so tired of the "but why don't you care about this, why don't you do something about that" arguments. Again, these comments serve to divert from the case that is being discussed because the writer has no strong argument to make on this case. The insinuation that people are not capable of caring and doing something about more than one thing is just ridiculous.

     And as for the case, first of all, in order for people to believe that their legal system works and that all people are equal before the law, Polanski must answer for his crime. Secondly, there is a very good chance that Polanski, no matter his age, is still attracted to underage girls, and surely a man in his position continues to have access to girls like Samantha who would be willing to pose for photos in order to advance their careers but might not want to have sex and really don't want to be raped. Polanski raping again just doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

     dont_know: Yes, we should do something, eh? So, let's do it. Is that petition posted somewhere so we can see all their names beyond the ones mentioned in the news?

     Posted by LisaBcomm at 10/01/2009 @ 4:40pm

194. in statutory rape, the sex can be consensual.

     a sexually active teenager agrees to a nude photo shoot, accepts drugs and alcohol, gets into a hot tub naked with a naked man, and you all pretend she's little red riding hood. don't make me laugh.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:41pm

195. I read the same thing you did. if the judge did not agree to the plea deal, there would have been no plea deal. where does it say that he did not agree to the plea?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The judge is not and never is a party to a plea deal. A plea is made between the defendant and the prosecution; it is a non-binding recommendation to the court.

     As for the judge's words, the transcript on The Smoking Gun, pages 11 and 12, yield this excerpt:

     THE COURT: Yes. Before you do so, however, I must advise the defendant, under Section 1192.5 of the Penal Code, that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; that the Court may, at the time set for hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval, in light of further consideration of the matter; and three, in such case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea, if he desires to do so.

     Sounds to me like the judge went above and beyond to make it clear to Mr. Polanski that he absolutely did not have to abide by that plea argument and did not consider himself bound to it.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:43pm

196. Posted by caedmille at 10/01/2009 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Certainly, Mr. Polanski should do time but he should not be raped in prison as you propose. That is every bit as wrong as what he did. And even if I were to experience some Schadenfreude at such a fate for him (I am only human), that would also be wrong. Justice is what we should seek, not vengeance, although I understand your feelings.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 4:45pm

197. I do find it strange however that all these people are so enthusiastic about supporting him, its as if they all feel somewhat threatened too, or perhaps they don't really know what he did?

     It can't be that they are all either so star struck or stupid that they don't believe he did it...

     I mean he is a good director, but he has made his share of trash too...he is very glam, that is true, intellectual edge to sexy stuff, funny/witty, slums it sometimes with artist like Schnabel etc. not just hollywood A list.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/01/2009 @ 4:45pm

198. that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court;

     what does this mean, if not that the judge approves. he does not deny it. he claims it's not binding, which is a different matter. he states however that he approves.

     just as a matter of fairness, if the judge is not bound by i, why should the defendant be?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:47pm

199. He should be treated as anyone else would be treated. There should be no "Polansky Exception" in law. (I don't even ask that he be treated as he would have been if he was black and his victim white.)

     Posted by JIMNATION at 10/01/2009 @ 4:48pm

200. Posted by marilynm at 10/01/2009 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     not once did I cite Polanski's considerable artistic achievements. just to make the record clear.

     I'm not accusing you of accusing me of this.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:50pm

201. Hey Emile, tell how you really feel?

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/01/2009 @ 4:50pm

202. Is that petition posted somewhere so we can see all their names beyond the ones mentioned in the news?

     Posted by LisaBcomm at 10/01/2009 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Here it is:

     http://www.sacd.fr/Le-cinema-soutient-Roman- Polanski-Petition-for-Roman-Polanski.1340.0.html

     Posted by dont_know at 10/01/2009 @ 4:51pm

203. Schnabel is an awful artist. his reputation has suffered as the years pass.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:51pm

204. #

     that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court;

     what does this mean, if not that the judge approves. he does not deny it. he claims it's not binding, which is a different matter. he states however that he approves.

     just as a matter of fairness, if the judge is not bound by i, why should the defendant be?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     It means that the Court approves that the plea be entered; that the Court has established that the plea is a legitimate plea, unbesmirched by threats, coercion, or bribery.

     The defendant has a different role in the court than the judge does. That having been said, I'm not aware of any statute that binds the defendant to a plea deal; he can change his mind up until the plea is entered in the record. But just because the judge approves of having the plea entered in the record doesn't mean that he's bound by that recommendation. Read the law for yourself if you're not sure.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:54pm

205. emile duBois and GTL are vigorously defending the indefensible. We do not like reprobates sleeping with kids in America. Period. If I were the kid's father, I would have given Polanski's untrimmed European member a very generous circumcision.

     You do not sleep with kids, even if they "consent" or are "seductive" or sold as sex slaves by their parents. I know us Americans are supposed to be rubes, but I would rather be square than a kinky European sophisticate. Are artistes allowed to eat children in Europe?

     Posted by jimbox at 10/01/2009 @ 4:59pm

206. Here it is plain and simple, with no emotion: If you don't like how the legal system works, you do something to effect change. Until that change is enacted, you abide by the law and you don't run when you don't like how the law is being applied to you, especially if you have admitted to committing a crime. How could our society function if every person who was being processed in the legal system but wasn't pleased with the outlook of their case simply took off. This is what some of the commenters are suggesting. And this is a man who could afford fancy legal counsel. Imagine how much this fleeing option would appeal to those who couldn't afford the kind of legal counsel that might get them a sweet plea deal with little time served.

     Posted by LisaBcomm at 10/01/2009 @ 5:04pm

207. And good point jimbox. It is wrong to have sex with kids. It is against the law. So it would be wrong even if the mom said: "Here Roman, you can have all kinds of sex with my daughter as long as you make her a star. She might fight you a little, but I hear you like that." A man who cared about not breaking the law, who cared about women and kids and didn't get off on forcing himself on someone weaker would have said No thanks.

     Posted by LisaBcomm at 10/01/2009 @ 5:11pm

208. I have long wondered why the mother wasn't prosecuted as well.

     This is a complicated issue. While I basically agree with Katha Pollitt, there is one aspect I think hasn't been brought-up.

     I have a lot of aesthetic heroes, aspects of whom simply bother me. Jack Kerouac, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan; all have done things in their personal lives that I find appalling. However, I am able to seperate their personal lives from their art. In other words, I can extol the virtues of their art, while eschewing the example they have set as far as their treatment of women is concerned.

     It's simply too bad that so many of Roman Polanski's fans can't do the same.

     Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this sad state of affairs is that Roman Polanski has never expressed contrition for his actions, at least so far as I am aware of. That said, I still appreciate his treatment of the classic novel "Tess."

     Posted by dshandy at 10/01/2009 @ 5:12pm

209. Here's a little thought experiment.

     On a parallel Earth, Father Roman Polanski of the Roman Catholic diocese of Los Angeles drugs and anally rapes a 13-year old boy and then flees to Europe where the powerful Catholic Church helps him avoid justice for many years, shuffling him from parish to parish.

     In 2009 he is arrested at a Catholic Bishop's conference.

     All other details remain the same.

     Are we still defending him? Emile?

     Posted by Delsyn at 10/01/2009 @ 5:19pm

210. Ahhh, emile duBoi, I have to agree with you on this one. When emotion rules, logic flees. This reminds me of a Tea Party. Everyone is ready to administer their own particular brand punishment to this guy because of the issue involves rape of a minor. It further pushes everyone's button when you mention Hollywood, money and elite.

     The facts, as I understand them, are that he plead guilty as a condition of a plea deal. The deal would have given him time served. He fled before the judge pronounced sentence and finalized the deal.

     So, he admitted guilt and would have been given an agreed upon sentence. As I see it, emile and others aren't defending a crime that Mr. Polanski admitted to. Of course, there is no defense for rape.

     I don't understand why his plea doesn't end the subject of the rape? Why impose new and additional punishments for the original crime? His crime now is of fleeing before the judge issued his ruling. It seems to me what the judge might have done and why Mr. Polanski fled are irrelevant speculation.

     So what is the punishment for fleeing the jurisdiction? Is it necessary to rejudge the original crime which had apparently been resolved because the judge did not finalize the deal? That is a legal issue that I don't know the answer to. However, everyone's emotions seem to be running hot and there is a general demand for a lynching regardless of the legality.

     Just saying.

     Posted by phelonius at 10/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

211. For the record, the seduction props were champagne and Quaaludes, and the acts were cunnilingus, full frontal rape, and anal. He was nice enough to give her the choice of anal to begin, and she did not agree to either, so he made his own selection, avoiding pregnancy by the anal finish. See the transcript.

     You know how children have this wonderful facility for neoligism? I knew of a fourth grader who spelled "knowledge" phonetically as "no legs," which is fabulous; the physical is represented as walking, the legs, so the mental is no-legs.

     The victim of the rape by Polanski called the first act perpetrated upon her as "cuddliness," a child's approximation of what she had heard. It breaks your heart.

     Right now, I care less than a shag for "Rosemary's Baby" or any of the tinsel toys who support this rapist, even if they be editors of Nation.

     Posted by Tremonius at 10/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

212. to emile dubois who wrote: "a confused post. we are discussing the Fatty Arbuckle case and not Woody Allen."

     Woody Allen is very relevant to the case of Roman Polanski, except Allen seduced his own step-daughter and more. Both got away with sexual exploitation of young girls, so far. But I think Allen's career has suffered. His movies have gone down hill ever since he seduced (when she was 14) and married his step-daughter.

     Posted by Portia at 10/01/2009 @ 5:34pm

213. If Polanski had committed the act in Spain, where the age of consent is 13 (raised from 12 in 1999), would he still be a pedophile?

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png

     Posted by Tatra at 10/01/2009 @ 5:35pm

214. i think most libs and conservatives can agree... polanski should be in jail. PERIOD.

     who gives a shit what the age of constent is in Spain? he didn't rape a 13 year old in Spain did he?

     Posted by sirhcus at 10/01/2009 @ 5:39pm

215. People, get facts straight. Polanski was not arrested for the crime he committed against the victim, he was arrested because he was convicted of that crime and fled before sentencing. The guilt of the crime has already been determined. So, though I feel sorry for the victim of the crime, her wishes really mean nothing. Per our legal system, the crime of fleeing before serving your sentence was against The People of the State of California.

     Posted by QueenofDiamonds at 10/01/2009 @ 5:40pm

216. Polanskis' talent notwithstanding,what does it matter if she was or was not a virgin; what matters is that someone we once had compassion for had to give an underage girl alcohol and drugs in order to have sex with her- period. You can philososophize all you want, slant it any way- say she was a slut, say her mother was a slut- but it still doesn't change the fact that the girl was raped.

     Posted by RockyMissouri at 10/01/2009 @ 5:43pm

217. This is OLD BUSINESS and the girl who is now a woman has forgiven Polanski and has also been very well taken care of by him much to her gratitude. WE were NOT THERE and for us to assume therefore that the situation was coerced is hardly fair even though to be sure he was guilty of 'Statutory Rape' if not the real kind. Soon Yi Previn has acknowledged that SHE was the one to make the sexual moves on Woody Allen and not the other way around and so Woody can only be criticized for being so morally 'weak' as to avail himself of her 'offering' of herself to him. (However, as made clear in the Film 'Wild Man Blues' their relationship is indeed a Genuine Love Affair even if it upsets older women to know that. )

     The Truth of this business that's going on now is that the Right Wing is using this to perpetuate the Same Old Cultural War, making us Progressives and Liberals out to be decadent Latte loving sexual deviates, in this case, but otherwise using it to distract from their own trespasses as always. We can be sure that the Right Wing Talk Shows and even Lou Dobbs and CNN are talking this story up to get our attention away from the Health Care legislation.

     I say that since the so called victim has forgiven him and again been well taken care of, it would be the best solution for the rest of us to likewise LET IT BE. Yes Roman Polanski DESERVES special treatment in that he happens to be one of the Greatest Film Maker ARTISTS in this WORLD that so greatly NEEDS such Cultural enlightenment. His most recent Film 'The Pianist' was one of the BEST he ever did and I for one am SO THANKFUL he was FREE to Make it.

     Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 5:46pm

218. Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 5:46pm

     How many of these clowns are out there?

     Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 5:49pm

219. Thank you for your article, Ms. Pollitt. It is disturbing to see people whose art I have admired support Polanski. It undermines a real appreciation for the altruism that so much of Hollywood has extended to the world to have certain stars like Whoopi Goldberg or Debra Winger take the inane positions they have taken. Have they read the court transcripts? Do they have children of their own? How can anyone, but, especially a woman, distinguish between "rape" and "rape-rape?" I will never forget that!

     Perhaps, some folks who think Polanski wasn't proven guilty don't understand the plea bargaining system in the US courts. Polanski said he was guilty and other charges were dropped to protect the minor.

     I appreciate Hollywood - the efforts of so many people in the business on behalf of important causes and the creation of great (and not so great, sometimes) entertainment we have all enjoyed. I hope other Hollywood voices are heard from on this to help drowned out the foolish ones that seem to be the loudest right now.

     Posted by pacpalgal at 10/01/2009 @ 6:05pm

220. Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 5:46pm

     i'm a diehard liberal as any right winger here can attest but i think polanski deserves ZERO special treatment. its akin to the right claiming that the bush crime family shouldn't be investigated (and prosecuted) because it was in the past, because he's no longer president and we should move on. bullshit.

     we all bleed red, shit brown and breathe oxygen. NO ONE deserves special treatment. i'm shocked at fellow liberals defending polanski - this only amplifies the right wing rhetoric that liberals are morally bankrupt. it's truly pathetic.

     Posted by sirhcus at 10/01/2009 @ 6:06pm

221. Emile DuBois: You are clearly ignorant of not only American legal proceedings and the facts of Polanski's criminal case, but you are also pro-rape and a remorseless liar.

     You have no credibility here.

     Posted by ryking at 10/01/2009 @ 6:10pm

222. srusten: Being a great artist does not excuse criminal acts. Would you excuse Hitler for the Holocaust if he's judged as a great painter some day?

     Regarding the victim's wishes: It doesn't matter if she wants the matter dropped. Polanski broke SOCIETY'S laws when he drugged and raped her when she was 13.

     Polanski ADMITTED to drugging her, giving her alcohol, and performing various sex acts on her against her will. He plead guilty to a criminal charge. Then he fled the country when it looked like his sentence would not be a wrist-slap, thereby committing another crime. Past-time for him to be brought to justice.

     Finally, regarding right-wingers and their culture war against us: Hollywood elites excusing the rape of 13 year -old play right into their hands. As a liberal, it has now become even MORE difficult to defend Hollywood against the right's usually absurd charges.

     Posted by ryking at 10/01/2009 @ 6:12pm

223. and another thing all the defenders of polanski seem to neglect: HE'S A GROWN MAN; who gives a shit what may have been the girl's (and she was a girl, not a young woman) intentions. who cares if she was a willing participant, (and the evidence suggest otherwise - what exactly does NO mean?)polanski was an adult at the time and he knew the law and knew the consequences but chose to run away like a pussy. yeah, the pianist was a great movie, so fucking what. any defense of polanski is appalling.

     Posted by sirhcus at 10/01/2009 @ 6:17pm

224. The point is that things need to be put in perspective. It is pointless to try him in a media circus in CA after all these years. After entrapping him to give him a lifetime award in Switzerland! AS IF the Swiss and the US pursue every active warrant! There are many other warrants which do not expire, for crimes against humanities, that still wait for the speedy action of both governments! And when the Swiss incarcerate a survivor of the Krakow Ghetto in a setup, it brings back some nasty memories (read what the Swiss write about this in their press). As IF there are not many more important crimes IN THIS COUNTRY to prosecute. And for all you jail lovers (Katha Pollitt!?, I am amazed, truly) try reading Angela Davis' book on incarceration and the end of jailing. These responses and the comment reads like something from the right wing press, and not a left liberal paper which should think through the questions of incarceration, of what serves the system and powers to be, and YES, including thinking through the issues of inter-generational sexuality! There is a law, but then, there is also justice which is sometimes served by NOT doing. By putting things in perspective.

     Posted by dragan at 10/01/2009 @ 6:22pm

225. Are we still defending him? Emile? Posted by Delsyn at 10/01/2009 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     did the victim pose nude, and accept alcohol and drugs, and did this victim get naked into a hot tub with a naked priest? I'll have to think about that one.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 6:23pm

226. Hey Emile, tell how you really feel? Posted by Denise29 at 10/01/2009 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I've been doing so all day.

     I believe he seduced her. he was a cad. she cried rape, realizing there could be a payday. howzat?

     But just because the judge approves of having the plea entered in the record doesn't mean that he's bound by that recommendation. Read the law for yourself if you're not sure. Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     so now you admit that the judge approved the plea. good.

     I will in turn concede that the judge need not be bound by that acceptance.

     as far as fairness is concerned if every judge went ahead and did what this judge intended to do, there would never be another plea agreement.

     that the state agreed to drop six charges, could also mean that their case was weak, as well as the desire to spare the victims cross examination.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 6:33pm

227. If Polanski had committed the act in Spain, where the age of consent is 13 (raised from 12 in 1999), would he still be a pedophile?

     Posted by Tatra at 10/01/2009 @ 5:35pm

     If the act was committed with an 18 year old he'd still be a rapist...he drugged and raped someone. He's a rapist even if it was on your grandma...

     Posted by ADHD at 10/01/2009 @ 6:51pm

228. Posted by ADHD at 10/01/2009 @ 6:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     rape and statutory rape are not the same thing. for instance, the victim can be the perp's lover. it is the state which has a problem with the situation.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 6:55pm

229. if it was "Father Roman Polanski" and the 13 year old was a altar boy--emile and anyone else who is taking Polanski's side now wouldn't dream of mounting any sort of "blame the parent, blame the court system" defense.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 6:58pm

230. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 6:55pm so drugging somone and forcing yourself into them when they've said no is statch now?

     Posted by ADHD at 10/01/2009 @ 7:01pm

231. there are thirteen year olds and there are thirteen year olds. a relation of mine moved in with her lover when she was thirteen. who are you all to judge other people? Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --statutory rape doesn't differentiate between "thirteen year olds" and "then there are thirteen year olds"

     she was underage. you're a very sad individual defending a child rapist.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:06pm

232. technically he wouldn't be a pederass, in Spain, which is really off the subject, but are you saying that he's only guilty of Statutory rape? please explain (I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)

     Posted by ADHD at 10/01/2009 @ 7:08pm

233. in statutory rape, the sex can be consensual. a sexually active teenager agrees to a nude photo shoot, accepts drugs and alcohol, gets into a hot tub naked with a naked man, and you all pretend she's little red riding hood. don't make me laugh. Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --she could skip the foreplay and have said "fuck me roman" ... she's underage. she could have shown him a fake license that said she was 18. it's irrelevant. subjective knowledge is immaterial in statutory rape. the only thing that matters is the fact of her actual age.

     besides, he had no excuse to NOT know she was underage--the mother had to consent to the photo shoot for the fact that she was underage.

     the man's a sexual predator who happens to have a talent that's made him rich. if he was Father Roman Polanski emile wouldn't defend him if you gave him a million dollars to do so.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:12pm

234. you think that no man has ever been unjustly accused and convicted of rape?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 7:15pm

235. still b.s. larry. complete b.s.

     how do you account for all the "hollywood" people taking his side?...most are parents.

     you're not making this into "people who aren't parents generally don't give a shit"

     no sir.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 1:58pm

     Urmy, if you look at my post, I was addressing the range of bloggers on this thread. I wasn't addressing Hollywood or the world in general.

     I had no intention of suggesting that non parents don't care.

     In the case of GLT, I can tell you has a pastor who has counseled thousands of people that he exhibits in his writing a total lack of understanding of parenthood and how it affects you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 7:16pm

236. that the approval of the Court to the plea is not binding on the Court; what does this mean, if not that the judge approves. he does not deny it. he claims it's not binding, which is a different matter. he states however that he approves. just as a matter of fairness, if the judge is not bound by i, why should the defendant be? Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --judge error and prosecutorial misconduct are what appeals are all about. and appellate judges would love nothing better than to overturn a trial judge who abuses his discretion. if that's what roman thought, he had rich, smart lawyers who surely would have made all the right legal arguments (unlike you, of course, who has argued nothing but lame misdirection and attempted to impeach the character of the victim and the victim's mother).

     polanski fled. he's a fugitive. he decided that he's above the law.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:17pm

237. I think it's just the anal everyone is so up tight about!!!

     Come on people, it's perfectly natural to feed someone booze and pills and then ram it in there. His only crime was not waiting until she passed out, right? because then she couldn'ta proved nothin

     Posted by ADHD at 10/01/2009 @ 7:17pm

238. If Polanski had committed the act in Spain, where the age of consent is 13 (raised from 12 in 1999), would he still be a pedophile? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png Posted by Tatra at 10/01/2009 @ 5:35pm | ignore this person |

     --yes, but he wouldn't be in legal trouble. and the important fact is, of course, he did it here, where the age of consent is higher than 13.

     you're arguing from a lowest common denominator position. it's a weak argument.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:22pm

239. Posted by dragan at 10/01/2009 @ 6:22pm

     RIGHT ON Dragan, you GOT IT absolutely Right and I too am SADDENED that Katha Pollitt is unable to see the Trees for the Woods in this story or to be at all objective either, he righteous indignation obviously the stuff of Female ANGER rather than the Compassion she has been previously noted for.

     WHY SO EAGER to IMPRISON ANYONE as you so profoundly make clear, and WHY Roman Polanski when the most HEINOUS criminals imaginable OUR TIME who are G.W.Bush and Dick Cheney who used their Power to launch a First Strike ILLEGAL war on a nation, namely Iraq that was NOT GUILTY of any offense against us to warrant such, and then continued their efforts to Erode our Civil Liberties almost as if the agenda was taken direct from Mein Kampf, further compounding their Crimes by instituting TORTURE as a defensible practice in total CONTEMPT for the Geneva Accords and putting our own Military at Risk for like retaliatory Torture and in total CONTRAVENTION of not only International Law but our OWN Constitution and Bill of Rights...

     I could GO ON, but I would hope the point is made, YES Dragan, this Polanski story is of Little Import compared to the more SERIOUS Crimes that we are doing so LITTLE to act upon and that the our Media is so eager to Sweep Under the Rug.

     LET IT BE as I have said, this is OLD BUSINESS and NOT worth even a whit of our attention in this most HORRIFIC Age of our existence in this World when we are literally on the Brink of Extinction and the END of Civilization itself.

     Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 7:30pm

240. you think that no man has ever been unjustly accused and convicted of rape? Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --of course men have. there are rotten apples in all walks of life. my girlfriend works in a civil court as a temporary clerk (she just graduated from law school and is awaiting her bar results...will find out next friday, keeping my fingers crossed for her!) and they there are plenty of times when men contest restraining orders and win. sometimes it's very obvious the woman who filed the restraining order is doing nothing more than trying to fuck with the man (who's usually an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend; or on their way to becoming one)...if those guys don't fight it in court, they are only hurting themselves.

     If Roman thought he did nothing wrong, or at least wasn't legally guilty...why even accept a plea offer from the prosecutor? you claim since some counts were dropped the case was weak. well, if it was so weak, why didn't polanski fight it in the first place?

     also, why do you think the judge was supposedly not going to ultimately accept the plea deal made between the prosector and polanski? when the plea deal was made, polanski had to complete a probationary period, which included time spent getting psychiatric evaluation. if he doesn't successfully complete the probationary period, a judge does not have to accept the plea recommendation from the prosecutor.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:34pm

241. Emile's Law ... if she's been raped (or otherwise) before, she can be raped again, fair's fair. Hey, Emile, did you serve in Nam, rape in Nam? Still young enough to do time in Iraq & Af/Pak? You have the invader's mentality Laws are for little people, not for ubermenschen like you.

     Posted by sloper at 10/01/2009 @ 7:36pm

242. in one breath emile will defend a child rapist...

     and in the other he'll compare people who call the child rapist a "vermin" (or similar) to nazis (since it's "dehumanizing" language)

     emile, read "Lolita" it's an excellent book. since, for some strange reason, you don't see polanski as a rapist (which anyone with common sense does), I seriously doubt you, as someone who fancies himself a conossieur of the arts (and "Lolita" is considered a masterful work of fiction, one of the best novels ever)...would be able to stick to your guns after reading that book.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:50pm

243. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=sloper

     this is really unfair.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 7:53pm

244. Roman Polansky drugged and raped a 14-year-old girl.

     If had been a boy, he would have served his legally prescribed term post-haste, I bet. And he should here.

     I believe Polansky's "Chinatown" is a masterpiece. But in this case he is criminal who committed a pre-mediated violent crime.

     His crime is the same as the crime of the grandfather in ChinaTown". It just didn't include incest.

     Posted by leafofgrass at 10/01/2009 @ 7:55pm

245. emile--no one gives a shit about your ignore list. and wiht your arguments today, on this thread, have truly been the "devil's" advocate. sad, sorry day for you. one that someday, if you regain your soul, you will regret.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:00pm

246. so now you admit that the judge approved the plea. good.

     ****

     Yes. I've never argued anything else. Approving the plea is not the same as accepting the plea. Read the whole transcript; by approving the plea, he was simply allowing the plea to be entered on the record.

     Perhaps you think that "approving the plea" is the same thing as "approving OF the plea"?

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/01/2009 @ 8:08pm

247. well you haven't shown that he did not approve the plea.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 8:17pm

248. or of the plea. whichever you have asserted it, but no proof is offered.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 8:18pm

249. kathryn--you seem to be wasting your time. anyone with passable knowledge of the legal system would be aware of what you're talking about. and anyone with simple common sense or the ability to use Google would have understood what you're (rightly) saying about the plea process. you will never get emile to admit he's wrong...he's doctrinaire.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:21pm

250. WE have reached a Terrible juncture in our history on this Planet in which we have Turned our Back on Civilization and substituted the Bully Pulpit and MOB RULE for Civil discourse and Reason, the one side that is the RIGHT literally trying to FORCE their ignorance upon us aided and abetted by the GOP in the protection of the interests of their Paymasters who are the Corporate State, the Insurance, Banking and Finance Industry and all the others seeking a Free Pass from being required to deal with their own Pollution and Industrial Waste, NO concern for the People and the consequences of their actions...

     One has to ask the question as to whether these are genuine Human Beings with Hearts and Souls or some form of Deranged Alien species from another Planet or something, not just Empty Suits as they have been so described but indeed a Full Blown International MAFIA that has NO Allegiance to this or any other Nation but only its Lust for Profit!

     46 MILLION PEOPLE in America with NO Health Care whatsoever and yet here is the Congress of the U.S. playing Politics as Usual and Max Baucus and the GOP in tandem with the Blue Dog Dems 'using' the opportunity to provide MORE largesse to the Insurance Mafia rather than doing what even our new Presidenthas made clear is the ONLY thing that will work which is NATIONAL HEALTH or Single Payer Government provided Health Care.

     And WHERE is our new President, as was asked in another Critique I read in Huffington Post, this guy's Values are no longer to be SEEN so eager is he to COP OUT to Appease the Proponents of Poltiics and Business as Usual he Promised to Eliminate? Does the Polanski story really amount to a Hill of Beans in comparison? I THINK NOT!

     Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 8:26pm

251. Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     there is room for all kinds of discussion, momentous and trivial. you need not participate.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 8:29pm

252. Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --for the first time on this thread, I agree with emile (his 8:29 post).

     you've essentially written the same (long-winded) thing numerous times.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:31pm

253. Shame on Debra Winger! How would she like it, if she was in the 13 year old's place. Polanski set up all the circumstances the drugs, room, the nerve of questioning a 13 year old girl about the dates of her period and then deciding to enter the rape from another angle to clear himself. Lights, camera, action! Then of course he has manipulated the US court system by evading what has been due to him for a very long, long time. Then of course there is, Oh, Gee I am 43 years old but have a fetish young girls one fourth my age. Well, Mr. Polanski it is not legal to have sex with a thirteen girl or boy old in this country. You are master at manipulating everything to revolve around you. Martin Scorcese is disrepudible citizen for thinking the laws of this country should bend for his sick friend Polanski who has a fetish for young teenagers. Scratch off his movies. Woody Allen is just as sick as Polanski for marrying his daughter. God knows what went on in the Allen household before their marriage took place. Then of course we have the victim asking for the whole thing to just go away and willing to forgive Polanski for crimes against her.

     If Mr. Polanski wants to live in America. Then he must abide by the laws of this country. Basically has destroyed the victim's reputation and her emotional well being because everytime this subject is brought up her name is drug through the mud. She will never escape this and neither should Polanski.

     The fact that liberal Hollywood carries banners for the civil rights and injustices around the world and then turn a blind eye to what has happened in their own backyard just because Mr. Polanski is such a nice guy. Debra Winger is just trying not to loose her footing in the movie industry. Scorsese is an inconsiderate chau

     Posted by cfagan at 10/01/2009 @ 8:40pm

254. Anne Applebaum writes that there is "evidence" that Polanski did not know the age of his victim. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the victim alleged forcible rape, which is illegal whether a person has reached the age of consent or not. Second, on the statutory rape charge, knowledge is not an element. Statutory rape is a "strict liability" offense, meaning the elements of intent and knowledge do not apply. It doesn't matter if Polanski truly thought she was 80, the fact that he had sexual relations with a girl under the age of consent makes him guilty.

     Posted by pmidey at 10/01/2009 @ 8:47pm

255. cfagan--even emile dubois, who surely considers himself a liberal (and thus, by definition, concerned with victims' rights)...has spent all day dragging a 13 year old girl's name through the mud

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:49pm

256. it's only considered rape if a catholic priest does it. Bill Clinton. Polanski and others like these rapists get a free ride because liberals change their morals as the situation does.

     Posted by apoorspic at 10/01/2009 @ 9:00pm

257. you've essentially written the same (long-winded) thing numerous times.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:31pm

     ACTUALLY urmygyro, I've only made TWO posts on this forum and they were by no means the SAME and if you suffer from an inability to Read anything but One Liners that is not my problem but YOURS.

     YOU have been saying the same thing over and over and OVER AGAIN well over a couple of DOZEN times already and obviously NOT bothering to LISTEN or try to understand what anyone ELSE has to say.

     Nobody is trying to "drag a 13 year old girl's name through the mud" but to only make the point I made myself, Were YOU THERE, was I, were ANY OF US?

     SO it's SHE SAID/HE SAID. And it's not at least 30 years since this event happened and the girl now a Woman has FORGIVEN HIM...

     WHY are YOU so HOT TO PUNISH folks, urmygryo, IT's OLD BUSINESS. Let it GO and let's get back on track with the more PRESSING matters at Hand...

     Posted by srusten at 10/01/2009 @ 9:08pm

258. apoorspic--i assume you bring in clinton b/c of the lewinsky affair. she was in her 20s. and he did not forcibly rape her. completely consensual.

     immoral yes.

     illegal? c'mon!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 9:09pm

259. I'm breaking out a LOL for the Nation bloggers. This might be the only thing we will ever all agree on at the same time. So give me 5, then up high, now down low, finger wiggles, finish with a fist bump.

     Posted by Milhaus at 10/01/2009 @ 9:13pm

260. not to mention the woman was lavishly compensated for her troubles.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 9:14pm

261. This is bigger than just Roman and his crude dalliances folks.

     How could people POSSIBLY miss this incredible chance to take the whole liberal artsy establishment who defends him to task for being amoral perverts and enablers of sick and disgusting actions? This could only mean that THEY are possibly guilty as well. Guilty of making bad movies and making us watch them... guilty of looking the other way while Woody (!) Allen dumped his wife for their daughter... guilty of coke sniffing, pill gulping, champagne swizzling debauchery in the nations capital of offense, relapse and moral degradation... HOLLYWEIRD.

     From Fatty Arbuckle and Charlie Chaplin, to Michael Jackson and a thousand other nameless perverts, this is our America. Even though it was just statutory rape, even though he only gave her a 'sliver' of a quaalude, the guy should spend some time in jail, forced to watch his own movies with some big guy who likes him. When he gets out, which shouldn't be long, he can start a reality show with Pee Wee Herman and Robert Blake... the ratings would be spectacular and they'd sell ads like elephant ears at the carnival! Keep your eye on the sparrow! If you can't do the time don't do the crime!

     Now, seriously, why aren't he conservatives all over this obvious crumbling and decay of our nations moral infrastructure? Because of Clinton, or Larry Craig, or Ted Haggard? Jimmy and Tammy Baker? Swaggard? Bush and Cheney? Rush and his viagra fueled sorties with prostitutes?

     Beyond weird into weird to the 10th power, the jug of hypocrisy flows like honey down the steps of our country like Niagra unleashed, like girls gone wild, like Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, I gaze in rapt disbelief at all of this and chuckle... then I scream... then I chuckle... then I order a pizza.

     Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 9:26pm

262. i'm enjoying emile's "the rape was paid for" so let it go justification....

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 9:32pm

263. Excellent article, Katha...

     Like... are many of his 'friends' calling themselves 'feminists'?

     Is there any correlation between Hollywood's 'preference' for immature and waify leading women... the gratuitous sex scenes they are so often displayed in... and any justification for Polanski's disgusting and immoral sexual 'conquest'?

     Has Polansky openly apologized to his potential audience for the 'likelihood' of his behavior being seen as a role model?

     As Hollywood 'entertains' us... so should it morally guide us...

     ...and by the grotesque amount of sexual predation at large in America today... it apparently does just that.

     He didn't even have the guts to take a legal stand for something he so 'fervently' believes in...

     Oh... but he is such an arteest...

     Posted by ttr at 10/01/2009 @ 9:45pm

264. Polanski was in his 40's,she was 13 at what part of this disaster did romeo say I have to have you? Then he ran away for 30years.If this was me doing it with a 13 year old it's wrong. Throw him in the can with her day as his guard. That might balance this whole thing out.

     Posted by whatozz at 10/01/2009 @ 9:52pm

265. As Hollywood 'entertains' us... so should it morally guide us...

     you have got to be kidding. moral guidance? hahahahahaha.

     famous mogul quote; if I want to send a message, I'll use Western Union.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 9:54pm

266. He is a rapist and according to the law he should be punished.who the hell is this ass hole anyway?i believe that he screwed natasha kinski too when she was under age and that apparently happened in germany.

     anyone who is supported by likes of henry levy(friend of ariel sharon) and kouchner and is a fugitive rapist does not deserve any respect.

     fuck him.let him rot in jail.

     Posted by excalibur999 at 10/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

267. but the stupid 'statutory' laws remove this discretion from the judge. As a result, many adults have been unfairly criminalized.

     Posted by GLT at 10/01/2009 @ 2:10pm

     Not just adults. Teenagers who are just over the age of consent have been jailed for having sex with their still underage girlfriends or boyfriends. Gay teens have been especially easy targets for politically ambitious prosecutors.

     Posted by cka2nd at 10/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

268. Nope... not kidding.

     That kind of sex is reprehensible... and Hollywood ought to know better... ought to teach better... ought to set a better example... ought to promote and respect social welfare... ought to be a pillar of the public trust that gives it meaning...

     Any self respecting 'man' would have turned her down if she had offered him $1000... in real life...

     Posted by ttr at 10/01/2009 @ 10:11pm

269. Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 9:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Liberal artsy establishment? Establishment, really? Do you want all of the depraved things individual right-wing nuts do, to be an excuse to condemn all conservative viewpoints? Ripping your statements to shreds is to easy, so I'll save my breath. Thanks for exploiting the rape of a child to stammer out your dumb ass political views.

     Posted by Milhaus at 10/01/2009 @ 10:14pm

270. It is amazing how the liberal left can contrive such a convenient memory or should I say "the ability to overlook and forget"

     Personally, I am glad this degenerate chose to leave the country so that we did not waste a lot of time and money prosecuting him and then have to pay for his prison time. I think that everyone that supports him should move to where he is.

     The best thing that could happen to our country is to have the liberals take over. Now instead of criticizing those that create value - they are going to get the scrutinity they deserve.

     I have a 14 year old daughter and I would wish the sorry individual good luck on surviving if he did that to my daughter. Unlike the liberal left coast - there would still be swift justice here in Texas.

     I bet his supporters all support PETA too. Imagine that - no support for an innocent 13 year old girl - but save ovepopulaed unwanted animals.

     Wake up America and adopt some family values. NOW

     Posted by Crasher at 10/01/2009 @ 10:21pm

271. So who is worse, Kennedy or Polanski? Seems like the Nation has been more than willing to give Kennedy a "get out of jail" ticket. Which one is the lower low life, Kennedy or Polanski?

     Posted by blackstart at 10/01/2009 @ 10:22pm

272. As my dearly departed mom used to say - they killed the only good Kennedy.

     I did not realize until his death that when Ted went off the bridge into the water and let Mary Jo die there - the water was only 7 feet deep. I hope they put old Ted 7 feet deep instead of 6. Good bye Teddy.

     Posted by Crasher at 10/01/2009 @ 10:26pm

273. The problem I have here is that good old boy John Ensign screwed his aide and that seems to be o.k. because she was of age. How about our friend Newt who was doing the same to his aide when he was trying to run Bill Clinton out of town. What is wrong is wrong, how did Romeo get Sharon Tate when it seems he liked teenagers?

     Posted by whatozz at 10/01/2009 @ 10:37pm

274. Posted by ttr at 10/01/2009 @ 10:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this is all nonsense.

     there is this great script I've been trying to sell to the movies, about the parson and his faithful wife and his adorable children. funny, they just don't make those kind of movies. and you know why, because nobody would pay to go see them.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:38pm

275. this thread has done wonders for my iggy list. practically doubled.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:39pm

276. Posted by ficheye at 10/01/2009 @ 9:26pm

     I'm pretty sure there are just as many per capita pervs in hollywood, as there are in politics; as there are in the general public.

     Usually victims of childhood abuse and/or other major tragedies beyond their control, without lots of counseling, tend to turn into similar violent perpetrators. These vics turned perps, do so in order to resolve their own need to feel they've gained control of their victimhood by in turn victimizing; creating new victims. And so the evil chaos grows with every new vampiric glamour bite passed onto yet another ever larger infected generation; upon generations, multiplying ever so slowly-- becoming accepted and very common place.

     Perhaps also why the husb/cHeney admin were not impeached.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/01/2009 @ 10:54pm

277. I work with young girls who have been sexually assaulted, some in this same manner. Each time someone defends this guy, I feel like this woman, and my girls, are raped all over again. I consider the support that people continue to show RP another form of misogyny and oppression and am saddened at how little progress we've made in this day and age. To me, this is comparable to the judge who chastized a five-year-old for "seducing" the adult man who raped her.

     Posted by BigMomma at 10/01/2009 @ 10:57pm

278. Gonna grow so much... make your Iggy Pop!

     Same old BS duBios... Sex sells crap.

     Plenty of drama in doing the right thing... dontchathink?

     Posted by ttr at 10/01/2009 @ 11:00pm

279. First, to label Polanski as a pedophile and a danger to society seems to ignore the fact that everyone initially associated with the case agreed that he was a basically "moral man" who committed a heinous mistake. In a contemporaneous story, UPI reported that Judge Rittenband ruled that Polanski could not be classified as a "mentally disordered sex offender" and directed Polanski to be evaluated by two psychiatrists. One, Dr. Alvin Davis, told the judge that Polanski "is not a sexual deviate and does not normally seek sexual pleasure from children. . . The offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment and loss of normal inhibitions in circumstances of intimacy... with some coincidental drug and alcohol intoxication." He notes that Polanski has "normal remorse for his offense." The other psychiatrist concurred. The judge also noted that the victim looked older than her age and "regrettably was not unschooled in sexual matters." The probation report concluded that Polanski was an intelligent and moral man who had made a mistake and was sorry for it. The Probation officer concluded that: "Incalculable emotional damage could result from incarcerating the defendant . . ." As a result of this, they decided that the sentence and punishment contained in the plea agreement would be appropriate. I was taught that we are all imperfect and we all sin. Polanski's sin may be greater than most but does that mean that he must necessarily be condemned to life in prison? The judge then, apparently changed his mind, which is his right. However, there's reasonable suspicion that he did so not because he thought the case warranted a harsher sentence but because of the weight of public opinion. In this case, we have 31 years of history to support their conclusion

     Posted by lfdow at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04pm

280. did the victim pose nude, and accept alcohol and drugs, and did this victim get naked into a hot tub with a naked priest? I'll have to think about that one.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 6:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yes. All other relevant facts remain the same.

     This is not so very different from the "seduction" scenarios played out by priests across LA with 13-year olds and the rest of the US in the 70's and '80s that the Catholic Church is STILL paying for -- selling buildings and cutting back on services to pay for it in some cases.

     What those priests did to those boys happened a long time ago. Shouldn't we all just move on? After all, the Catholic Church does so much good work among the poor and as priests, those men undoubtedly did good works for which they should be praised. So really, what's a few rapes in the course of a long an illustrious career serving the public good?

     What about it Emile? Will you advocate dropping the charges against those priests? Or are the contributions of the director of Chinatown more important than those of the Church?

     Free Father Polanski!

     Posted by Delsyn at 10/01/2009 @ 11:07pm

281. I get it now. The rads definition of rape is dependent upon the cultural milieu of the unwanted dick.

     An "enlightened" prick should be free to commit transgressive acts of involuntary liberation.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:09pm

282. Posted by lfdow at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04pm | ignore this person |

     --even if one wants to excuse the rape (which you seem to want to do)...there's still the little thing of fleeing the jurisdiction...

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:09pm

283. Just think, if you guys could have raped that Palin cunt, I mean really humiliated her and put her in her place when she was just a young girl, think of what could have been achieved.

     The Polanski plan on a mass scale, think of it! It's time to rethink "rape," isn't it?

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:17pm

284. -However, there's reasonable suspicion that he did so not because he thought the case warranted a harsher sentence but because of the weight of public opinion.-

     by lfdow at 10/01/2009 @ 11:04pm...

     Or... there may have been a 'reasonable suspicion' held by the Judge as to whether or not this was an isolated incident... an unprecedented "transient poor judgment and loss of normal inhibitions in circumstances of intimacy..."

     Posted by ttr at 10/01/2009 @ 11:36pm

285. "Mao preferred young, simple girls who felt deeply honored to be chosen by the great man, even to the point of taking pride in catching a venereal disease from him. When his doctor suggested that the chairman might want to stop his sexual activities while the disease was being treated, Mao refused. "If it's not hurting me," he said airily, "then it doesn't matter." As far as hygiene was concerned, Mao's solution was more sex: "I wash myself in the bodies of my women."'

     Let our modern Maoists bathe in those same waters. How dare we snaggletooth provincials deny them?

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38pm

286. "Fact:...A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested." It's pretty clear that Katha Pollitt is not familiar with the definition of "fact." I would like to know how it is not a he-said/she-said situation. Everything I have read points to this being exactly that situation. From my understanding, Geimer claimed he gave her alchohol and pills and he denied those statements. I have not read about any other person attesting to Polanski giving Geimer alchohol or pills. Has there been any proof of her actually receiving the alcohol or pills from Polanski?.

     Posted by scucullu at 10/01/2009 @ 11:59pm

287. Let our modern Maoists bathe in those same waters. How dare we snaggletooth provincials deny them?

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I think it is just the tough economic times! Most of Polanskis defenders just want to justify pimping out their 13 yr. old, sons, daughters, sisters, nieces, etc. and defending Polanski is their way of rationalizing and justifying their own behavior to get more money coming in!

     Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 12:16am

288. My point previously is just that I'm saddened by how much Americans seem to lust for punishment. We imprison more people that essentially any other country in the world and certainly more often for non-violent crimes (rape is not a non-violent crime). Whenever a case becomes public, a majority seems to always want the most severe punishment, politicans get elected by establishing that they are harder on crime than their opponents, and we seem to prefer to believe the worst of anyone who commits a crime, whatever the crime is.

     Whether it's Polanski or Joe the Plumber, I think if there is an outcome that results in putting an offender back as a productive member of society that seems to me to be a better alternative than incarceration. In this case, the original prosecutors (who are not there to be lenient on accused persons) believed that Polanski would not reoffend, the probation department believed that he would not reoffend, the judge initially said that he should not be classed as a sex offender, and he's lived for 31 years without, apparently, reoffending. Isn't it better to do something that makes even a bad person a productive member of society than it is to imprison him for life? Why must our focus be only on punishment and not on salvation?

     And I'm not saying that he's a good guy or that what he did is in any way O.K.

     Posted by lfdow at 10/02/2009 @ 01:11am

289. Knowing that the victim is a strong woman who has moved on with her life I can view this thread with a bit more detachment than if I believed her psychological health hung in the balance.

     One must salute the troll as he mightily holds forth waving his theories that a poor cad was victimized by a vixen and her devious mother. How the poor cad was a victim of a crooked judge who made him "promises" and that the evil is this case was perpetrated by the state.

     Let us presume that the troll is correct.

     Polanski the poor cad partied with a winsome Lolita, sexually experienced and wanton. She cries rape and perjures herself on the stand looking for her payday (we all know that rape accusations result in notoriously good payoffs for the victims).

     So the judge tentatively agrees to a non-binding plea agreement. This is a factual statement. We have both the public court transcript and California Penal Code Section 1192.5 says in clear and rather plain English that the plea is non-binding.

     The plea is non-binding. If the judge withdraws his approval the defendant is permitted to withdraw his plea.

     That is, he could have pleaded non-guilty and taken his chances with a trial.

     He chose to flee the country (a crime).

     The troll thrashes back with this zinger: "what does this mean, if not that the judge approves. .. he claims it's not binding, which is a different matter". Poor troll. The troll could have read the code itself but he is diverted by a fit of "anti-Schnabel" disgust.

     He leaves. When he returns he glibly raises the wanton whore argument and asserts that if the Penal Code really allowed a judge to withdraw a plea no one would ever agree to one.

     "Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck..."

     He has achieved True Sublime Idiocy.

     Posted by risa at 10/02/2009 @ 02:28am

290. #

     well you haven't shown that he did not approve the plea.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person #

     or of the plea. whichever you have asserted it, but no proof is offered.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I don't need to show it. The record shows it.

     The judge sentences the prisoner at the sentencing / probation hearing. Until then, the judge's opinion is not a matter of the public record. If, at the sentencing / probation hearing, the sentence is what was recommended by the plea agreement, then we know that the judge thought it was a good enough idea. But until then? Nada.

     There was no hearing, because Mr. Polanski declined to remain in custody until that point. So the judge never had an opportunity to either effect or turn away the plea recommendation. So while we've heard unofficial statements from him and rumormongering from his colleagues, the official position on the sentencing recommendation is that it is an unknown black box.

     In other words, if the judge had officially followed the recommendations of the plea bargain, we would know about it because the sentence would have been pronounced. In the absence of that pronunciation, there's no official judicial acceptance of the plea recommendation.

     Posted by KathrynT at 10/02/2009 @ 02:45am

291. Let our modern Maoists bathe in those same waters. How dare we snaggletooth provincials deny them? Posted by gangpapist at 10/01/2009 @ 11:38pm

     I concur wholeheartedly. It's good to see your muse returning. I was starting to miss the surreal prose of the gangpapist. I needed some inspiration.

     I disavow my comment about Fatty Arbuckle. He was innocent.

     Posted by ficheye at 10/02/2009 @ 05:22am

292. What a sad state liberal discussion has sunk to. A more reasoned dialogue over Polanski's arrest is sadly missing.

     There's clearly something wrong with arresting Polanski, there is also something wrong with the arguments over why he should not be arrested and finally there is something wrong with defending what he did. So what should we be thinking? Why are we not asking what we hope to accomplish with our justice system? Punishment or retributive justice? Prevention of Polanski repeating his crime? Deterrence of others doing the same? One would hope most Nation readers eschew the first, realize the intervening years rule out the validity of the second and are informed in the areas of history and science to know that after eons trying to prevent crimes with punishment, it has never worked in the long term.

     The enlightened alternative - applying restorative justice principles – is sadly missing from the discussion, reminding me of something Howard Zehr, a leading figure in the restorative justice movement, said at a lecture I attended, to the effect that never in history have we understood so much about the human condition and never have we acted so ignorantly in the face of that understanding.

     Ironically, the key elements for the restorative justice process are in place in this case. I will list them in the following post.

     Posted by austinw at 10/02/2009 @ 06:15am

293. Polanski has admitted his guilt, his victim has been given a voice and has indicated how she feels after the intervening years, the police and justice system have investigated and stated the case against him, his friends and allies have weighed in with his troubled background and evidence has been presented that places the circumstances of the crime in perspective – the nature of the Hollywood movie scene and the prevailing mores of its denizens.

     As usual, the justice system, using a retributive justice model, stands in the way of achieving a restorative justice resolution and has done so for more than 40 years. If all of the above elements were allowed to come together in a restorative justice process with an understanding that the only true justice is one where truth and reconciliation are the prime goals, it's likely Mr Polanski would see and acknowledge the harm he caused his victim no matter how common the practice may be in his circle and the possibility of venality for possible reward on the part of the victim would be eliminated. Both Polanski and the victim would no doubt have had a better outcome and we, the public, would not be conflicted and confused over what to think.

     It's high time for us to use our understanding about the human condition wisely and to recognize the forces and influences in our society that are preventing that understanding – ranging from the mass media to elite influences that always benefit from pitting people against people, and have been doing it at least since gladiatorial times.

     Posted by austinw at 10/02/2009 @ 06:17am

294. Wow, I'm stunned that The Nation has sunk this low. Your pandering to the pedophile-around-every-corner lynch mob notwithstanding, your banging on about anal (the girl also said there was vaginal intercourse in her grand jury testimony), the victim's own admission of knowing a thing or two about quaaludes and advising Polanski about them (again, see her testimony to the grand jury), I'm surprised your already fraught righteous outrage allowed you to touch on the misconduct of the judge in the matter. Really, I expect to read this sort of drivel from the likes of right wing idiots, but the Nation used to publish thoughtful well researched articles. I guess this saves me from buying your book, I just can't believe this piece is in the same publication I used to respect.

     Posted by irina68 at 10/02/2009 @ 06:23am

295. I love Polanski's films, or at least almost all of them I have seen (The Vampire Killers with Tate was a hard to take), and have for years and years. And there is no doubt in my mind that the horrors of his youth, and the Tate murder, had a profound impact on him psychologically, and maybe even his predilection for young girls, some need for sexual "partners" less likely to be taken from him, or something like that -- I am no psychologist.

     I also love Katha Pollitt, and have for decades, or more precisely have loved her contributions to The Nation, which are one of the first reads in every issue she contributes to.

     So I struggled with her piece -- looking intellectually for a way to excuse Polanski. Was the victim experienced sexually when it happened - though society and the law thankfully have evolved to show the total irrelevance of that fact. It's not as if a lot of 14 year old girls have not had sex, though she was 13. Or maybe, more persuasively -- was her testimony the result of aggressive prosecution, the intense pressure on any 13 year old girl whose reputation will be publicly severely damaged either way to try to shift or minimize the "blame" for what happened.

     But here is the bottom line -- she has never recanted, even though she wants the public nightmare to end already. And, so, Katha's absolute conviction of his guilt seems valid. And thus his obligation to face punishment.

     Facing punishment is not the same as being punished. He spent 42 days under some version of confinement, and other celebrities have escaped the shackles of the legal system despite the overwhelming evidence of their guilt in crimes including . . .

     Thanks for making me deal with my own conflicted feelings on this, Katha. I really do agree, but not until after a struggle.

     Posted by wrw5 at 10/02/2009 @ 07:04am

296. austinw--congratulations, on a blog with nearly 300 posts, you win the award for "most words adding up to nothing"

     kudos!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:26am

297. Wow, I'm stunned that The Nation has sunk this low. Your pandering to the pedophile-around-every-corner lynch mob notwithstanding, your banging on about anal (the girl also said there was vaginal intercourse in her grand jury testimony), the victim's own admission of knowing a thing or two about quaaludes and advising Polanski about them (again, see her testimony to the grand jury), I'm surprised your already fraught righteous outrage allowed you to touch on the misconduct of the judge in the matter. Really, I expect to read this sort of drivel from the likes of right wing idiots, but the Nation used to publish thoughtful well researched articles. I guess this saves me from buying your book, I just can't believe this piece is in the same publication I used to respect.

     Posted by irina68 at 10/02/2009 @ 06:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --BLAME THE 13 YEAR OLD GIRL...ESPECIALLY IF SHE'S A WHORE!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:28am

298. I'm fairly convinced after his lengthy and even excessive defense of Polanski, that emile (JohannesRolf to us old-timers), is NOT defending Roman Polanski due to admiration of his artistic ability or of a sense of "fair-mindedness"...

     but because he SHARES "something" in common with Mr Polanski as it relates to this case....

     and is actually defending himself.

     Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:33am

299. but because he SHARES "something" in common with Mr Polanski as it relates to this case....

     and is actually defending himself.

     Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:33am

     while not conclusive, an interesting suggestion. one that many of us have thought but not written

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 07:53am

300. hey Mask and Larry: while I think emile has made terribly weak arguments in defense of Polanski---he doesn't deserve to be called a child rapist (something neither of you have the balls to come out and say, just 'hint at')

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:02am

301. The majority of posters show a profound lack of moral clarity. Polanski raped a child and fled the jurisdiction to escape punishment.

     He needs to tell a judge why.

     Period.

     Posted by peterjkraus at 10/02/2009 @ 08:06am

302. peterjkraus--quite the opposite. the majority of posters want polanski to face a judge for his crimes

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:08am

303. I may have been right, and I may have been wrong. my understanding of the judge's prerogative was incomplete.

     I am however gladdened by many of the responses which substituted reason for bloodthirsty posing. you know who you are.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:21am

304. a sexually active teenager agrees to a nude photo shoot, accepts drugs and alcohol, gets into a hot tub naked with a naked man, and you all pretend she's little red riding hood. don't make me laugh.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 4:41pm

     Isn't this just a version of "I bought you dinner, now you have to put out"? How many people here believe that getting into a hot tub naked with a man is giving him permission to have sex with you?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 08:46am

305. Posted by Delsyn at 10/01/2009 @ 11:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this is nonsense, and here's why. it's a matter of scale. with Polanski we have one instance of "misconduct". with the priests it was widespread, pun intended.

     the same priests abused generations of kids, as the church covered up and moved the offenders around to other parishes.

     so you can pack up your lame attempt at gotcha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am

306. and maybe even his predilection for young girls, some need for sexual "partners" less likely to be taken from him, or something like that -- I am no psychologist.

     just look at the culture at large, and the way it sexualizes young girls.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:55am

307. Posted by Delsyn at 10/01/2009 @ 11:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person this is nonsense, and here's why. it's a matter of scale. with Polanski we have one instance of "misconduct". with the priests it was widespread, pun intended. the same priests abused generations of kids, as the church covered up and moved the offenders around to other parishes. so you can pack up your lame attempt at gotcha. Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --have you been at polanski's side his entire life? how do you know he didn't have sex with underage girls before the incident that got him in trouble? how do you know he didn't have sex with underage girls in europe after he fled the u.s.?

     --so someone who murders once is ok; only serial murderers deserve jail time. someone who rapes once is ok; only serial rapists deserve jail time.

     --and how do you know every priest situation? it's a lame attempt at deflection to say a man fucking a 13 year old girl is ok, but a man fucking a 13 year old boy is bad.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:57am

308. and maybe even his predilection for young girls, some need for sexual "partners" less likely to be taken from him, or something like that -- I am no psychologist. just look at the culture at large, and the way it sexualizes young girls. Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --"sexualizes" 13 year olds? where? and "sexualizes" is far different from "sex"...which is far different from "forcible rape"

     if anything, the cultural argument of sexualization of young girls is EXACTLY why young girls need to be protected (from bad mothers who let young girls pose nude--to bad men who drug and rape the young girls they want to fuck)

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:03am

309. I can view this thread with a bit more detachment

     yeah, right. detachment.hahahahahha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 09:26am

310. Roman Polanski is a pedophile and serial rapist. Is that okay because he is an artist? I am sure many pedophiles fancy themselves artists.

     There is no rape-rape. There is only rape. Consent is absent in a situation where drugs or alcohol is used to rob someone of their faculties. A thirteen year old lacks the understanding and intellect to make decisions concerning consent to the drugs, alcohol or sex.

     Polanski fled the law. Whether the judge was corrupt or not is of no consequence. He did not deny that he drugged a thirteen year old girl and forced anal sex on her twice. If he was working a plea agreement and the judge reneged on it, there were avenues for objection. Nobody gets to flee the law, regardless of who they are or what they did or did not do.

     Anyone who thinks that Polanski was justified is playing head games with themselves.

     Thank you Katha Pollitt for inserting some sanity into the discussion.

     Posted by ksliberal at 10/02/2009 @ 09:30am

311. Posted by lfdow at 10/02/2009 @ 01:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by austinw at 10/02/2009 @ 06:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

     There are a couple of other posts in this thread that seem to see, as I was trying to hint at earlier (sorry not to have been awake enough to be direct, work all day, read the blog before going to bed, sick today so can read more), that this is not a simple case of a rape of a minor.

     It is a very complex case, with so many ins and outs, that despite certain people grinding thier axes and getting thier yayas out, it can't boil down to any one thing. I have read almost all that is here (bar a few loony bits) and I think the reason I kept going is because I truly don't know what to think, but recognise there is a kernel of something quite telling and important here, besides that we all have what the spanish speakers call "morbo" about such a case.

     There is so much politics stuffed in here, of all manner of degrees, slants and persuasions I can't see how it is even possible to have the last word.

     Perhaps the best thing is for Polanski to make some kind of statement, or come to the States of his own free will to face this thing, so that no one can feel righteous about it any more. He knows he is guilty and a coward and he ran away coz he could.

     I am not sure how he deals with this inside, but he isn't a stupid person so he must feel something about it all but the coward bit is very common in all of us human beings. Not too many people really have the oportunity to overcome this, it would be great if he could, helpful to us all.

     Then maybe we could sort out what is really going on here.

     It has been interesting to think about.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 09:36am

312. Two questions to KP. What "joke" do you want inserted about Woody Allen, since he has been in a relationship with the same woman for over 15 years now? And, since you choose to advocate dismissing the expressed wants and needs of the victim--now a successful adult--how are you any different than Roman Polanski back then, who did the same way back when? In both case she is dehumanized, turned into an object to achieve the other's wants: sex in one case; societal retribution in the other.

     Posted by theo51 at 10/02/2009 @ 09:38am

313. Another thought:

     As he was an emotional coward way back then when he did this awful thing (consensual or not there is definitely something up with older men who like to have sex with very very young women, not boys thier own age mind you, that is another kind of sexual urge don't you think) I guess it is hard to imagine he would ever be able to be sufficiently mature and self insightful as well as heroic to come back and face the music, and by now he has another wife and family, and a whole host of other interests to take care of.

     So maybe forced return, ie extradition is the only way, but I don't see that this would have the same affect as his own admission of his double guilt.

     And it leaves room for too many other people to insert their own twist.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 09:47am

314. By the way did any of you out there ever hear about "the truth and reconciliation comission". It may seem like a stretch, but this and other similar methods for dealing with atrocities (which boil down to single horrible case even if part of a collective horror like Rwanda, Aparthied and the Holocaust) seem to be the most affective ways to get out of these kind of situations with dignity and for the better and general good.

     I don't want to equate this case to such horrible situations as genocide, but even things like the continued terrorism of the IRA has had to be dealt with by reconciliation commisions of this sort.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 09:50am

315. this is nonsense, and here's why. it's a matter of scale. with Polanski we have one instance of "misconduct". with the priests it was widespread, pun intended.

     the same priests abused generations of kids, as the church covered up and moved the offenders around to other parishes.

     so you can pack up your lame attempt at gotcha.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am

     "But your honor, I only killed one person. It's not like I'm a serial killer".

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:54am

316. By the way did any of you out there ever hear about "the truth and reconciliation comission". It may seem like a stretch, but this and other similar methods for dealing with atrocities (which boil down to single horrible case even if part of a collective horror like Rwanda, Aparthied and the Holocaust) seem to be the most affective ways to get out of these kind of situations with dignity and for the better and general good.

     I don't want to equate this case to such horrible situations as genocide, but even things like the continued terrorism of the IRA has had to be dealt with by reconciliation commisions of this sort.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --what the hell are you talking about? we have a criminal court system. that's the forum. he fled it. bring him back to face what he fled. simple.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:57am

317. Roman Polanski is a pedophile and serial rapist. Is that okay because he is an artist? I am sure many pedophiles fancy themselves artists.

     he was judged not be a pedophile by a court appointed psychiatrist. but you know better.

     he has not been accused of serial rape, but again you know better.

     that he is an artist is unquestioned, but it is his fame and prominence as an artist which is the important element here.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:03am

318. Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 09:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I do not think Polanski can get a fair trial here. what do you think?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:04am

319. yes, he can get a fair trial. but making a victim out of the rich man is your bag, so you'll argue he can't.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:13am

320. just look at the culture at large, and the way it sexualizes young girls.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:55am

     Now if we can blame the culture itself for sexual assault, what is a girl to do? How does she answer the accusation, "Well, she shouldn't have gone and involved herself with the culture at large!"

     Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 10:18am

321. Can anybody really feel they can get a fair trial? And anywhere for that matter...??? The courts do their best, we all, those of us who have a conscience and a modicum of coherence in the way we live our life and what we believe in, do our best. Sometimes we succeed better than others.

     At Urmy: the US criminal justice system is as good as the people who run it and uphold it, so there for is fallible.

     Roman Polanski is not a very palatable person, specially as we know all about his sexual prefs. which really leave a great deal to be desired. I think, personally, he is a rapist, and has probably done this more than once.

     Rape is, as ever, a complicated issue to try in a court, specially without damaging already damaged parties, however innocent you like to believe or not believe they are.

     There just isn't a simple answer, but short of his confession, and facing the music, a trial by his peers (12 people, hollywood or otherwise) would be the best second best.

     There are so many cases one can find to show how horrid rich and questionably powerful people get off even if they are tried in the US criminal or civil court system, OJ and MJ cases in point.

     There are also cases of witch hunts and scapegoats all over the place.

     What I don't understand is how anyone can see this as a simple "anything" case?

     And what have the Swiss to gain?

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 10:21am

322. marilynm--your arguments are not reasons for the criminal courts system to be taken out of the equation. he ran from the system. of course he's going to argue he can't get a fair trial. it's part of a strategy of taking heat off the original crime.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:31am

323. Can anybody really feel they can get a fair trial? And anywhere for that matter...?

     this seems to me a cop out.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:37am

324. Just in case anyone participating here wants to be enlightened or educated (including Katha Pollitt), and not threaten us with the "Texas justice of .45 and a shovel" like above. Incarceration is NOT the only way to serve justice, and certainly not in this case, (and I am not minimizing the initial infraction). I again refer you to the book by Angela Davis. In this particular case incarceration after 30 yrs is all but meaningless, and UN-just, for all host of reasons.

     Not even mainly because California is bankrupt and is now releasing its inmates from prisons by the thousand. And now wants to fly in and try Polanski at a cost of millions of dollars, imprison him?

     Polanski is someone whose release from the Swiss prison and pardon from both the US and Switzerland has been requested by TWO presidents and two ministers of foreign affairs, both countries NATO allies, one of them a VERY conservative 90% catholic Poland. And Sarkozy is hardly a softy when it comes to law and order to say the least, quite a fasho actually. These are not Hollywood punks, Ms. Pollitt please take notice. Now, why do you all think that is the case, why are they asking for his release?

     Now a question for you all. Would we have been better off if we had listened to the French when they told us (their CONSERVATIVE president and friend of Bush told us) that we should not go to Iraq? Do you remember bumper stickers "First Baghdad, then Paris, then Hollywood"? Does the US EVER stop and listen and do something wise, instead of aggressive and damaging to itself? Maybe, just maybe, for once we should wake up from the parochial slumber and listen to others.

     Posted by dragan at 10/02/2009 @ 10:39am

325. Roman Polanski is not a very palatable person, specially as we know all about his sexual prefs. which really leave a great deal to be desired. I think, personally, he is a rapist, and Roman Polanski is not a very palatable person, specially as we know all about his sexual prefs. which really leave a great deal to be desired. I think, personally, he is a rapist, and has probably done this more than once.

     who are you to judge him?

     has probably done this more than once. guilt by fiat? innuendo?

     the Swiss want to make nice. so we won't go after them about the tax cheats they protect. that is the gov't. Zurich is pissed at the gov't for ruining their homage to a great director.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:42am

326. Today's Score at NY Times: Story on Celebrity's(Letterman) Sexual Affairs--505 Reader Comments. Story on Unemployment Crisis--115 Reader Comments. A Trounching!!!!!

     Posted by theo51 at 10/02/2009 @ 10:51am

327. marilynm--your arguments are not reasons for the criminal courts system to be taken out of the equation. he ran from the system. of course he's going to argue he can't get a fair trial. it's part of a strategy of taking heat off the original crime. Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Urmy, you didn't read what I wrote, I said they are what we have so we have to go with them, but I think this thing goes deeper...as a start they really are a pretty good place to start.

     who are you to judge him? has probably done this more than once. guilt by fiat? innuendo? Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     EduB, and who might I ask are you to judge?

     Look I have nothing against you, so don't lets get personal. You have your view, great, it has been interesting to read and see what it has got everyone else talking about.

     Do I have to agree with you in order to have an opinion? Can't I appreciate something without being a meme of it?

     Plus, I just might know something you don't, (is that possible?) something more than just what I read in the press...

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 10:52am

328. who are you to judge him?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --says he who brags about his burgeoning "ignore" list...as if that's not a judgment

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:53am

329. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 07:53am

     Just "odd"....emile/Johannes RARELY shows this much interest in debating any topic with as many and as fervant postings....as he is on THIS topic.

     And the fact he not only grants NO concession to the victim's point-of-view....he even attacks her with an almost "She was asking for it" rationalization of the attacker, of a kind that I would have thought died out in the 1950s for ADULT victims of rape.

     The natural question is....why?

     Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:56am

330. Most of your conservatives blogging here on Mr. Polanski's fate and the support he is getting from some Hollywood characters (and many French ones - see the petitioners list) have appropriately focused your outrage on those on the list. But I see that some of you have gone hog wild and are blaming the entire left for supporting him. But as you can see from the many liberals and progressives here who think he should be punished and from the wonderful article by Ms. Pollitt that started this discussion, you could not be more wrong. I have not, as yet, seen any Hollywood boldface types coming out against Polanski, but I am sure there are many. Kindly keep in mind that this case is NOT a political issue, it is an issue of law and decency. Mr. Polanski is not being supported by the left, nor by liberals, nor by progressives; only by decadent elitists.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 10:57am

331. and Mask, for your assumptions about Emile duBois's motives to be true, he would have to have a truly repulsive pathology. A really sick puppy. Even hiding behind a screen name, his viewpoints are still in public.

     What I am beginning to suspect is that his comments are a marketing ploy by the nation. By having someone on their staff make such annoying comments, which invite the kind of response Emile duBois's has received, they keep interest in the blog up, which keeps interest in the website up, which helps sell the magazine. Could it be that his, and perhaps others, comments are just a modern day way of doing business?

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 11:05am

332. it's a matter of scale. with Polanski we have one instance of "misconduct". with the priests it was widespread, pun intended. the same priests abused generations of kids, as the church covered up and moved the offenders around to other parishes. so you can pack up your lame attempt at gotcha. Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

     You're begging the question. I said "All other relevant facts remain the same." Father Polanski only anally raped one 13-year-old boy. (though he later got involved in a homosexual relationship with a 15-year old Russian boy named Nathaniel Kinski).

     Does he get a pass?

     As for being a matter of scale, since we're all going to be living under your system of justice, the least you can do is define the scale for us.

     How many child rapes does someone get before they should be punished? One? Two? Is it dependent upon their artistic prowess? If this was Jerry Bruckheimer, would he get the same consideration? Steven Spielberg? If a priest only molested one 13-year old boy and then fled to Europe, surely he deserves the same level of consideration.

     Just because other priests molested more boys doesn't mean that Father Polanski who only did it once should be tainted by the fact that he shares a lifestyle and a profession with them. Wouldn't that be racist or homophobic or something?

     He only did it once, after all, and it was a really long time ago, and the victim has forgiven him and the government has other things it could be spending its money on besides the cries of a few altar boys who were really asking for it what with wearing those little white dresses and singing with those high voice during services plus their mothers encouraged them to become altar boys and spend time in CYO basketball..

     Posted by Delsyn at 10/02/2009 @ 11:17am

333. EduB, and who might I ask are you to judge?

     I don't judge him, or you. and that little rhetorical trick won't work.

     Plus, I just might know something you don't, (

     now don't be coy. if you think you know something I don't, spill it.

     as habitual readers of this post know and can attest to, I have never passed myself off as infallible. I am the only one here who has repeatedly confessed to errors in fact and in judgement, including above.

     has probably done this more than once.

     this is just not acceptable. I could easily say something about you, she probably has done such and such. not good.

     you really only know about Polanski in this one instance, which happened thirty years ago. no one deserves to be judged like that.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 11:21am

334. Posted by Delsyn at 10/02/2009 @ 11:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're off the reservation. sorry. ohne mich.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 11:22am

335. this thread has done wonders for my iggy list. practically doubled.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 10:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Can anyone who is reading this, and does not have me on their ignore this person list, explain to me what use is an ignore this person list. Seems to me all it does is blind you what people are saying (perhaps about you) and deprives you of all the fun of reading the sometimes absurd statements on theNation's blogs.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 11:30am

336. The arrest would have been good, if it took place at the time of the crime.Why the arrest took so many years? It is a shame.

     Posted by Dastu11 at 10/02/2009 @ 11:35am

337. Hot damn Uncle Bubba! You remember that li'l neegra bitch you diddled back in 79? Well it looks like these librals done went and put a statue of imitations on that there piece of ace on account of you wasn't the one what popped her cherry!

     Why, Ima gonna write a letter to every one of them fudgepackers in hollywood and get them to stand up for your good name, Uncle Bub.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 11:35am

338. Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 11:35am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Curious? Is your screenname some anti-Catholic allusion or just a type for gangrapist?

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 11:38am

339. @GLT: "Why is it suddenly okay for an 18 year old to have sex with an 82/72/62/52/42/32/22 year old, but not a few days earlier when he was 17? Age is to blunt a discriminator; rate of growth to maturity is highly individual".

     Well, why is it OK for a 16 year old to drive on his birthday, but not the day before? Or a 21 year old to get raging drunk on her birthday, but get an MIP if she's caught with a beer the night before?

     That is the law. How else could you establish a standard? It must be arbitrary by necessity. Could a 9 year old in your creepy world ever be emotionally mature enough to handle sex? How about 10? 11?

     Jeebus.

     Posted by VEH at 10/02/2009 @ 11:40am

340. Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 11:35am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Curious? Is your screenname some anti-Catholic allusion or just a type for gangrapist?

     See typos are frequent on blogs as we often type too fast. "type" above should be "typo". So I can understand if you meant that you are a gang rapist not someone who is anti-Catholic. But I would still like to know.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 11:42am

341. More liberals are coming out for prosecuting Mr. Polanski. I knew they would.

     Check out the blog on Huffington Post

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-iovine /girlfriends-guide-roman-p_b_307124.html

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 11:48am

342. Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Nothing personal, but I rest my case here. See you on the next thread.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 11:54am

343. dont_know

     Of course I hate Catholics don't you? Catholics are against abortion, dude, they should be waterboarded.

     And rape is a tool for the liberation of society man. As long as its done by a big old long righteous dick, like polanskis or maybe if noam chomsky was a rapist. the gulags were chock full of rape man. thats where all these glen beck lovin hicks belong, in a gulag gettin raped for their own good.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 11:59am

344. Of course I hate Catholics don't you? Catholics are against abortion, dude, they should be waterboarded.

     And rape is a tool for the liberation of society man. As long as its done by a big old long righteous dick, like polanskis or maybe if noam chomsky was a rapist. the gulags were chock full of rape man. thats where all these glen beck lovin hicks belong, in a gulag gettin raped for their own good.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 11:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Thanks for clearing up my confusion about what you are.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

345. No problem. It's important for you guys to identify "what" people "are." Always has been. Impossible to execute the Program without correct categorization and labels.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/02/2009 @ 12:06pm

346. no offense taken.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 12:20pm

347. It's amazing how much we support someone because of their work and it's especially so in the movies. We have to remember to separate the artist from their work. I could still watch his movies while he's behind bars and his strong supporters can see him all they want during visiting hours. The public is not losing anything.

     Most importantly lets realize that jail is not just about punishment. It's about learning your lessons, looking inward...bettering yourself.

     The list is endless on how he could have morally corrected himself for years and now it's evolving into a bigger mess everyday.

     My lesson from this.I don't want what he has. My wishes go out to the woman and others who have been abused by other persons.

     Posted by coneyislandgreen at 10/02/2009 @ 12:22pm

348. Polanski and Warren Jeffs are penpals... with Phillip Garrido. Can't wait to hear what Glen Beck thinks about all of this.

     345 posts? It's a new record for a non-topic. Put him in jail like anyone else who would do something like this and then run away. I never liked his movies, so his status is diminished.

     Posted by ficheye at 10/02/2009 @ 12:25pm

349. Posted by ficheye at 10/02/2009 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're surprised?

     it's about sex. nothing sells better than sex.

     and rightly so. we are programmed for it, it is the life force and various churches and such have made a good business trying to stamp it out. or put it in a cage.

     Roman's first "Knife in the water" is good, as are his film school shorts. no not those shorts.

     Rosemary's Baby is very good. I admit, I haven't kept up with his more recent work. he did give up a lot by fleeing, though not the good life.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 12:38pm

350. The moral and ethical compromises that so many artists and 'intellectuals' have made to support Polanski point to a corruption in our culture. He anally raped a child yet he has not been held accountable for it. No matter how his supporters justify their position, that brutal fact remains.

     I think it is (sadly) appropriate to compare the 'move on and forget' attitude we've seen from the left in this case with the right's resistance to confront the crimes of the Bush years. Principles of justice should not be this mutable.

     Posted by blacksquare at 10/02/2009 @ 12:40pm

351. I make my living as an artist. I vote democrat. I love movies.

     So what? Polanski has gotten away with this crap for far too long. How many other girls has he gotten? I have kids. If this happened to mine, I'd want blood. Gallons.

     As an art type liberal idiot, I assure you that I look at Polanski's supporters with as much disgust as you guys do. Maybe more. Consider:

     Many art types like to think of themselves as "storytellers." Pretentious, right? But true in that a good storyteller knows how to evoke sympathy, and how to make a villain seem nasty.

     So Polanski and his supporters in the entertainment industry are somehow not seeing how they look to everyone else. Like fatuous immoral crooks. Like the bad guy, the one at the end of Polanski's Chinatown.

     Exactly like him. "Separate the art from the artist," they tell us.

     Screw that noise. Same with Woody Allen, while we're at it.

     Posted by onionvolcano at 10/02/2009 @ 12:44pm

352. Posted by ficheye at 10/02/2009 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're surprised?

     it's about sex. nothing sells better than sex.

     and rightly so. we are programmed for it, it is the life force and various churches and such have made a good business trying to stamp it out. or put it in a cage.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Rape is not sex even when it is statutory rape. And the interest here in this case, by most of us, is not titillation but disgust. As with most of your postings, you are simply wrong. No not "simply" as many of suspect your motives in everything you write.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 12:45pm

353. "why do you think most of the charges were dropped?

     a trial would have revealed that this girl was sexually active, and in this case consented to champagne and to the quaalude. she had had drugs before.

     the girl settled this case for money long ago.

     there is no purpose served by bringing Polanski back to the US.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/01/2009 @ 11:11am | ignore this person | warn this person "

     oh my God, what is WRONG w/you?? a person's sexual history has NOTHING to do with rape - are you implying that only virgins can be raped?? are you insane?

     also, a person's drug history has nothing to do with rape, for the same reasons. deciding to do drugs (and what form of "consent" she gave for the drugs is another issue) does NOT mean someone wants to have sex, period. you are actually scary.

     also, as someone said before, a 13 year old GIRL is NOT a YOUNG WOMAN. i don't know how the hell you make that statement, but if it has anything to do with when a girl starts menstrating, i shudder at the thought of "early" bloomers, b/c some girls start as early as 8.

     and finally, you REALLY need to understand our legal system. Polanski pled to a criminal charge, not civil. whether the girl got $$ from him or not has NOTHING to do with criminal charges - it is the state that prosecutes crimes, and individuals who file civil law suits against each other - one has nothing to do w/the other. i don't actually know if there was a civil trial that settled, but if so, that has nothing to do with what is going on now.

     Posted by tortuga76 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:02pm

354. Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 12:45pm

     Pull yourself together. Some of the posters you take issue with are being facetious. Your problem with gangpapist is an illusion... he's yanking your chain because you are being too serious. Besides, the Catholics need a reality check once in a while, don't you think? It's not fair to just hack on the Mormons.

     Also, your perversion of his screen name to gang rapist was pretty low. There are enough 'flame' wars here without that kind of stuff.

     I don't really want to bust your balls on punctuation, but I can't quite make out your point sometimes because you don't put commas in at the right place.

     Posted by ficheye at 10/02/2009 @ 1:12pm

355. Bottom line is that soon this case will be settled in court and fugitive Polanski will become convict Polanski. Some of us will be satisfied with his sentence and others will not. He will serve his sentence and if he survives he will be freed. He will still be rich and famous and after a sip of champagne with his buddies he will put all this behind him. Will justice be served? I don't know. But this has been an interesting and stimulating debate about the law, decency & elitism in our society. And what I have enjoyed the most is seeing that people from various ideological and religious experiences (except for a few notable miscreants) can all share the same sense of what is right and what is wrong. There is still hope for humanity.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 1:14pm

356. Principles of justice should not be this mutable. Posted by blacksquare at 10/02/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person |

     Principles of justice should not be a right vs left football match.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 1:16pm

357. "Polanski, who drugged and anally raped a thirteen-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles"

     i'm not sure why it matters that she was "anally raped" as opposed to, say, "vaginally raped" or "orally raped"

     why does the author presume that anal intercourse is worse (for lack of a better word) than other forms of intercourse?

     and other than that, i have no comment on this matter.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/02/2009 @ 1:16pm

358. Posted by tortuga76 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I hear you.

     not all 13 year old girls are the same.

     he was never convicted of rape

     if she consented, is it still rape? I don't mean in the legal sense, but morally?

     I am not an evil person for asking these questions. so get that out of the conversation.

     none of the statements either party made has been tested as fact, in a courtroom. he did not plead guilty to rape, did he?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 1:21pm

359. and other than that, i have no comment on this matter. Posted by darladoon at 10/02/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     they are subject to hysteria.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 1:28pm

360. "if she consented, is it still rape? I don't mean in the legal sense, but morally?

     I am not an evil person for asking these questions. so get that out of the conversation."

     you're not an evil person, but how much do we know about the situation?

     were polanski and tate ever in love? how did their relationship evolve?

     Posted by darladoon at 10/02/2009 @ 1:28pm

361. This is so clear how can anyone support this man, Katha you hit the nail on the head, wait that would be a good punishment for him, no being sent to jail and having a roommate named bubba give him some anal sex to think about what he did to the young girl. It doesnt matter that he wrote famous movies, it doesnt matter that the crime was a long time ago, he did it, if he wouldnt have run from sentenecing he may have already served his crime and be back out. But of course he was able to continue doing what he liked doing, seducing young girls. What a sick disgusting man, who ever is defending him should look deep inside themselves. The crimes against women and children are drastic, it may be because of the recent trend of minorities and women being finally given equality, and men esp white males are committing crimes against women. it all comes down to power and oppression, perhaps white men are angry over women being empowered(76 cents on the dollar men make wow) and that is why so much crime against women and their daughters that is in the news is rampant. His ego got him caught, going to get a life time acheivement award , the people who support him should be ashamed of themselves. d. devilliers

     Posted by ddevillers at 10/02/2009 @ 1:34pm

362. why does the author presume that anal intercourse is worse (for lack of a better word) than other forms of intercourse?

     and other than that, i have no comment on this matter.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/02/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     This is a separate issue, darladoon, but ask any physician and they will tell you that sodomy is an unhealthy practice. That is why AIDS spread so rapidly among the gay and African populations as sodomy is still a common practice in these populations despite years of the medical community admonitions that the anus is an exit not an entrance. Does sodomy make what Mr. Polanski did even more wrong.? Well it does seem to me to be an extenuating circumstance. And it has colored some of the opinions here. But except for the health aspects, rape by sodomy or rape by vaginal intercourse, or rape in any other fashion, is all the same

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 1:39pm

363. When/where has Roman Polanski ever spoken frankly about his "taste for very young girls"?

     Posted by Costigan at 10/02/2009 @ 2:01pm

364. "This is a separate issue, darladoon, but ask any physician and they will tell you that sodomy is an unhealthy practice"

     whoa, slow down there brother.

     it's only unhealthy if you presume that its practitioners are not only carrying a virus, but intentionally aiming to spread it without the use of precautions (condoms, lubrication, regular STD tests, etc.)

     anal sex is just one manner in which can one can engage in sexual intercourse. whether one chooses to engage in anal sex is not conditioned on anything else (gay, straight, bix, african, european, whatever). straight and bisexual white people also engage in anal sex, because it feels good.

     you have just claimed that gays and blacks spread the virus further *because* they are gay and/or black, rather than because they engaged in presumably unsafe sex with an unwitting, unprotected partner.

     my point was simple: whether polanski had anal intercourse with ms. tate is irrelevant *unless* of course it was unprotected and/or mr polanski was carrying a virus (intentionally or unintentionally).

     Posted by darladoon at 10/02/2009 @ 2:18pm

365. The "man" drugged and raped a child! How is this even a discussion? Of course the reprobate, repugnant, reprehensible wretch should be bought to justice. Emile's defense of him is quite disturbing, since he is one of the regular posters with whom I seemingly share a great deal of political commonality. Rev. Anti, I think this is the only time we have ever agreed about anything, and i am not, nor do i ever plan to be a parent. His actions should be manifestly abhorrent to ANY decent human being.

     Posted by entropy at 10/02/2009 @ 2:22pm

366. You misunderstood what I wrote, darladoon. I did not say and I did not mean to imply that "gays and blacks spread the virus because they are gay or black". But I am saying that (1) sodomy is unhealthy whether one partner is infected or not and (2) no matter who engages in sodomy (gay, straight, black, white, whatever) those people are engaging in an unhealthy practice, and (3) sodomy, like all human practices, is a cultural artifact. Some cultures engage in sodomy, some don't. Those that do are more at risk than those who don't. That is simply a medical fact, regardless of whether you enjoy sodomy or not. And I would bet there are other enjoyable acts that are also not healthy. And as long as some people in some populations put pleasure above health, at least with regards to sodomy, disease will continue to plague those populations. Sodomy is not good no matter how much you enjoy it.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:25pm

367. I agree he should pay but jail for someone like Polanski is going to be golf and lots of media. Couldn't he endow all rape crisis centers in California in perpetuity for about 20 million dollars and stay in France or Switzerland?

     Posted by mariaradford at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

368. Couldn't he endow all rape crisis centers in California in perpetuity for about 20 million dollars and stay in France or Switzerland?

     Posted by mariaradford at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Great solution.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:35pm

369. Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:25pm

     So lesbianism would be safer than heterosexual sex for women....right?

     Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

370. So lesbianism would be safer than heterosexual sex for women....right?

     Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I am not sure what you are implying and I am not familiar with every sexual practice of lesbians. But I would think that your implication might have some validity if you were comparing non-sodomistic lesbianism to heterosexual sodomy. But it would not if the lesbianism included inserting objects in the anus. That is the point; not someones sexuality but the harmful practice of sodomy. And, Mask, all you have to do is ask any physician.

     Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:55pm

371. WOW too many posts.

     But just a thought related to another way further up. Too many posts to find the other one quickly, but it drew upon the comparison to catholic priests child molestation per the length of time between events and culpability if the perpetrator were different.

     That works will for those that are more left leaning defenders to ponder. But what about for those on the right. What figure would cause this much division amongst their core.

     What if the perp was found out to had been Raygun? Oh right, he's already way passed on additional controversy. But what about other far right hero types like Rump Limppaw or dIck cHeney?

     Would the right be arguing amongst themselves as strenuously as the left?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/02/2009 @ 3:00pm

372. all you have to do is ask any physician. Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:55pm

     especially as he's busy doing a colonoscopy or a sigmoidoscopy...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/02/2009 @ 3:13pm

373. all you have to do is ask any physician. Posted by dont_know at 10/02/2009 @ 2:55pm

     especially as he's busy doing a colonoscopy or a sigmoidoscopy...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/02/2009 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     We have to assume that physicians are doing no harm and know what they are doing, and do it carefully, when they perform colonoscopy or a sigmoidoscopy, but there have been cases where even these medical procedures have resulted in some of the same complications which can result from sodomy. But for the most part, we can not compare a carefully performed medical procedure with a lust-driven sexual practice.

     Posted by shadowknows at 10/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

374. we can not compare a carefully performed medical procedure with a lust-driven sexual practice. Posted by shadowknows at 10/02/2009 @ 3:21pm

     And I really wasn't.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/02/2009 @ 3:26pm

375. Posted by entropy at 10/02/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     and I'm not a decent human being?

     I am a parent, and I can only recommend it to you. it is in my opinion the highest state of bliss, though it comes at a price. the price is one of acceptance.

     think of my comments as misguided if you like, but realize they are in response to a "lynch him" attitude that held sway here.

     I don't see it in such stark terms, and yes I see Polanski as a human being. there was no violence. I do not believe sexual crimes are a capital offense, not that I approve of the death penalty for any offense.

     I thank you for your kind words about my previous posts.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 3:35pm

376. a lust-driven sexual practice.

     gosh, I love that kind of talk.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 3:36pm

377. Darla

     Sharon Marie Tate (January 24, 1943 – August 9, 1969) Married to the film director Roman Polanski in 1968,

     what they did in the bedroom is no one's business.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 3:40pm

378. a lust-driven sexual practice.

     is there any other kind?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 3:41pm

379. Two more points I need to make. First, does anyone believe this is the first too young girl he has raped? And second, a 13 year old girl means small to non-existent breasts, plus anal sex. Little boy?

     Posted by wredner at 10/02/2009 @ 4:12pm

380. you're off the reservation. sorry. ohne mich. Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Shorter Emile:

     "I can't answer the question. I've lost the argument. I'm taking my toys and going home."

     Posted by Delsyn at 10/02/2009 @ 4:17pm

381. If Joe the Plumber poured a 6 pack down a 13 year old girl's throat, got her to swallow a lude and then screwed her in the ass, I don't think many artists or intellectuals would be coming to his defense. But when the perv is Polanski or Peter Yarrow or some other very special person, well for crying out load, it's a privilege to be anointed with the golden jism from these gods in mortal form. Just ask anyone at Cannes. I suggest Salman , Milan , Martin , Pedro , Debra , MENSA members and Ivy Leaguers read Intellectual Fascism by Albert Ellis.

     http://home.iprimus.com.au/burgess1/ellis.html

     I think Orwell said of Salvador Dali that he was a genius from the elbow down and and asshole from the elbow up.

     Posted by porter1950 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:27pm

382. Rape is non-consensual by definition, you can't Rape the Willing. Give him a fine. How about all these Liberals here championing the legalized system of sexual slavery and violence in our prisons, because maybe every once and a while someone actually guilty gets it. $500 fine.

     Posted by DPGrassley at 10/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

383. Rape is non-consensual by definition,

     this is not true of statutory rape.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 5:21pm

384. you can't Rape the Willing. you can have consensual sex with a minor, you know it's consensual, your partner knows it's consensual. the state sticks its nose in and voila: statutory rape.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 5:28pm

385. there was a case where the DA wanted to requisition the abortion records of minors, in order to start a fishing expedition for statutory rape. the courts turned it down. and rightly so.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 5:29pm

386. This hysteria is a perfect example of why he may have felt then and still feel now that this type of case would not get a fair hearing. We make a great deal about these age issues but then the next minute sentence someone of this age as an adult in some other cases. The hysteria also only adds to the burden put on the girl as to how horribly defiled she has become. I do not condone forcing someone to do something they don't want to do whatever their age but we seem to be permeated with a degree or reaction that is interesting in view of not minding a bit killing multiples of very young children in places like Iraq and Afghanistan as acceptable collateral damage. We have predators flying right now waiting to surgically assassinate without trial at all and frequently get innocent civilians and there is no hysteria about that but sex does daily in our news.

     Posted by wildthing at 10/02/2009 @ 5:37pm

387. If Joe the Plumber poured a 6 pack down a 13 year old girl's throat, got her to swallow a lude and then screwed her in the ass, I don't think many artists or intellectuals would be coming to his defense. Posted by porter1950 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:27pm

     Ah, but what about the far right? Would they be as divided as the far left is about this? Would Joe have supporters like Rump Limppaw?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/02/2009 @ 5:51pm

388. 43 year old Polanski doped up a 13 year old girl and raped her. Polanski pled to a lesser charge and fled the country before being sentenced. Polanski knew full well what he was doing and deserves no sympathy, he made a fully informed choice which has finally caught up with him. Check out http://tinyurl.com/ydwccwq to see just how fully informed Polanski's choice to blow off his sentencing was. Polanski deserves to come back and face his sentence, whatever it may be.

     Posted by spokaloo68 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:32pm

389. "The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the prosecutrix was a well developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17 year old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the prosecutrix was not unfamiliar with the drug quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her tenth or eleventh year."

     "However, although the prosecutrix was not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl, this of course was not a license to the defendant, a man of the world, in his forties, to engage in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with her… and it is no defense to such a charge that the female might not have resisted the act."

     this is what the judge said.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/02/2009 @ 6:58pm

390. Latest Score: Nation Blog Comment on War in Afghanistan---74. Nation Blog Comments on Polanski Sex...389. What a Trouncing!!!!

     Posted by theo51 at 10/02/2009 @ 7:33pm

391. Yes, of course we are a nation of laws, as is Switzerland and the nations of the EU.

     But that doesn't keep any culture from examining individual circumstances through its judges, juries, advocates. Not the social status of the offender, but the nature of the offense, the number of offenses, the wishes of the victim, evidence of guilt and remorse in the perpetrator, the capacity for growth and rehabilitation. All these things are weighed in every case. Notice I put nature of the offense first.

     I would say this - that it is doubtful that the Jewish child Roman Polansky would have survived alone, hidden in the woods and farmhouses of Poland during World War 2, had he not been a cunning little thing, suspicious, adept at fleeing. (Though, as portrayed in The Pianist, luck was key, even when survival skills were keen.} Many many more innocent and trusting children perished, no doubt. Is it a good thing he survived the war? Even if it was partially because of qualities we might abhor under most circumstances? Even if the war and subsequent experiences darkened and distorted his perceptions of and reactions to the world?

     These are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones, or answers hiding as questions

     Posted by ruth10 at 10/02/2009 @ 9:28pm

392. There is a bright side to this. By going on the lam, Polanski has been out of the US for 30 years, thus unable to prey on American teens and preteens. Judging by the number of French names on that petition, I gather that old men coercing young girls into sex is just not something the French get worked up about. Well and good.

     If Polanski had gone to jail in California, he would have been out in what? Five or six years? And back to hunching teenage girls on the one hand, while collecting awards from the artistes in Hollywood with the other hand.

     So, all in all, I'd say that youth in the US have been well served, by removing a predator from circulation for thirty years or more, much longer than any jail sentence he would have received.

     Posted by twillie at 10/02/2009 @ 10:43pm

393. Polanski's acts were HEINOUS, there is no question, and he fled justice. He is GUILTY as charged, I've no doubt. My question is: WHERE WERE THE PARENTS OF THIS 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL???? WHY was she allowed to be in a situation where she was vulnerable to being DRUGGED AND RAPED in the first place????? Polanski is GUILTY as charged, but her parents are equally GUILTY of NEGLECT.

     Posted by susanlcarney at 10/02/2009 @ 10:47pm

394. Great article, Katha. I'm very relieved that you wrote it.

     When I logged onto The Nation tonight, I wondered what it would say about the Polanski case. And then, Katha wrote that great article. Whew!

     I just hope that Katrina Vanden Heuvel REALLY comes to the came conclusions as Katha Pollitt. It is disgusting to see women in leadership acting like honorary patriarchal males. Deborah Winger's behavior has been despicable. Hey, we want women in leadership to make a feminist difference.

     Posted by ktrig at 10/02/2009 @ 11:39pm

395. I can hardly believe the intransigence, the biblical-size judgmental tone, the vengefulness and the simplemindedness displayed by so many in this debate -- many, or most, of them supposedly part of an "enlightened" left. This disconcerting kind of reaction very closely resembles that of a lynch mob. A rather distasteful potential, with undeniable fascistic undertones, that a sizable portion of the "left" is clearly not immune from, and is apparently capable of whipping up quite readily and with gusto, given the "right" kind of provocation.

     Should I remind you all that the facts in question happened 32 years ago? That Polanski is now in his late 70s and has never since that time been either alleged to have committed or found to have committed sexual crimes, or ANY crimes? That he has been a father and husband for many years now, with children of his own? That he has amply proven to be a useful and creative member of humanity with a prolific body of work that has received wide acclaim through several decades (including an Oscar)?

     And, first and foremost, that the very girl from the 1977 event now wants the whole thing gone, and publicly forgives Polanski.

     After 32 years, the matter should rest between Polanski and the girl, now a fully competent middle-aged woman. (Or will she just forever be the "girl", deprived of any say if it contradicts the wishes of her self-appointed perpetual "defenders", including Ms. Pollitt?)

     She wants the case closed. It should be no one else's business at this point.

     I am not religious, but one need not be religious to believe in reasonableness and forgiveness. Besides which, I am at a loss to describe my revulsion at the spirit of blind and primordial vengeance that seems to animate so many of the people in this ongoing and heavily lop

     Posted by marco at 10/02/2009 @ 11:57pm

396. (Final paragraphs of my message, which was cut off previously)

     I am not religious, but one need not be religious to believe in reasonableness and forgiveness. Besides which, I am at a loss to describe my revulsion at the spirit of blind and primordial vengeance that seems to animate so many of the people in this ongoing and heavily lopsided "debate".

     This will be my only post. I am not interested in protracted "discussions" that change no one's mind and only escalate the hostilities. If you disagree, you keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine. That should work for both.

     Posted by marco at 10/03/2009 @ 12:00am

397. I think it is (sadly) appropriate to compare the 'move on and forget' attitude we've seen from the left in this case with the right's resistance to confront the crimes of the Bush years. Principles of justice should not be this mutable.

     Posted by blacksquare at 10/02/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     What crimes? What indictments? What defendents? Is there something going on in your dimension that we here in the first dimension have overlooked?

     Posted by BigPasture at 10/03/2009 @ 12:14am

398. Polanski is 76, has had no criminal problems for thirty years, since he fled in 1977.

     The DA will spend a good deal of money that the state of california doesnt have.

     The puritanical outcry is typically american (i live in europe, in norway, but am an american)......and one wonders, given that in a LOT of countries, thirteen year olds are consenting adults, sexually speaking. But americans love to wallow in moral indignation. And in punishment. And in forever claiming artists should be treated the same as everyone. Well, ok, but why is kissinger still walking around, and where are the court cases for all those priests who were simply shuttled off to another parish??? Nobody has their panities in a bunch about that.........or the police in the US who routinely abuse their power.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQSv88bdsbQ

     The victim wants the case dropped, she got her settlement.......and in any event, the details are far more murky that most writers, including politt, suggest. So, what is the point of this arrest? Who benifits? Are there not much more serious offenses and people to pursue?

     No, this is about celebrity and about publicity for the DA.....the craven snarky steve cooley. But the morality police will continue to rant and take what they imagine is the moral high ground. Its not.....let the guy go home to his family.

     Posted by steppling at 10/03/2009 @ 03:27am

399. somehhow a couple sentences got dropped from my above post. The point about artists is that indeed, they occupy a rather special place in soceity, albeit rarely in the US. Didnt mean to imply Kissinger was an artist. Kissinger is a war criminal.........but he and ollie north and a host of others, should be in jail.........not roman polanski for christ sake. He is no threat, he came to a resolution with his victim.........so let it go, and attend to much much more pressing matters.

     Posted by steppling at 10/03/2009 @ 03:33am

400. be worth reading the original probation report.... arts beat nytimes, 10 of jan, 2009

     Posted by steppling at 10/03/2009 @ 04:28am

401. If the victim had been a 13-year-old black girl, and the rapist a prominent 43-year-old white Republican, Goldberg and other Hollywood leftists would be singing a far different tune. Great article, except that "hates" isn't quite correct. "Loathes" is a better word for what Americans feel. No wonder leftist movies bomb. I've seen my last Whoopi Goldberg film.

     A Republican Congressman who sent sex messages to underage Congressional pages was driven from Congress, and not supported by his party. A Democrat Congressmen who had sex with an underage page was allowed to serve several more terms.

     Polanski's next film will doubtless be "Close Encounters of the Third Grade," as the old joke goes. The punishment for having forced anal sex with a 13-year-old should be at least as severe as the punishment for owning a kiddie-porn video of the act!

     Posted by tartanmarine at 10/03/2009 @ 05:48am

402. permit me to add a few disjointed thoughts which may have actually been covered-there is the legal concept of mallum in se-certain acts-are held to be inherently wrong aside from policy considerations,leave aside self serving rationalizations of the perp and his pals-think about your conversations with your peers when you were thirteen and just getting used to a grown up body-there may have been a touch of bravado,and anticipation-but where would the discussion of the bidniz end of a grown man's penis "fit in "? we treat our celebs like greek gods-they are our "escape" valves-and we forgive them nearly everything -but not this-i remember this case when it happened-law enforcement,the media and the courts treated it,as much as possible,AS SOMETHING WHICH HAPPENED TO POOR,PITIFUL,PUT UPON,POLANSKI-AS THOUGH ANY OF IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT HIS DEPRAVED ACTIONS. mallum in se.

     Posted by David Lucke at 10/03/2009 @ 09:53am

403. I didn't think my disgust and loathing of the immoral crowd in Hollywood could go any lower, but it has.

     Maybe the 90% classless pikers in the "entertainment" business will understand when then ticket sales plummet this isn't a boycott-boycott, but rather a simple boycott. Maybe endorsement deals will end with some stars when, say Toys R US or Babies R US realize we are not so much disgusted-disgusted, as we are disgusted with their endorsers.

     Maybe the 10% of Hollywood with enough sense to know a crime is a crime and Polanski is a slimeball who deserves to be sentenced accordingly for what he has already plead and fled for. Maybe they will be rewarded for their morality. And the other 90 % will not suffer-suffer, but rather suffer for their immoral ineptitutde.

     Posted by melissatx at 10/03/2009 @ 10:43am

404. Posted by melissatx at 10/03/2009 @ 10:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Hollywood boycott?

     in your dreams.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 10:54am

405. Joan Crawford, meet Gloria Jones. Like Mommie Dearest, Gloria Jones takes her problems with alcohol out on her children. In this memoir, Kaylie Jones, the only daughter of Gloria and the novelist James Jones, recalls a lifetime at the mercy of her occasionally charming but usually drunken mother. Harrowing stuff, to say the least: when 8-year-old Kaylie confronts Gloria about forgetting to pick her up from school, her mother replies, "God, you're so neurotic!" If there is one constant in the daughter's relationship with her mother, it is that "fighting back was like throwing oil on fire." It's no surprise that as Kaylie Jones's turbulent young adulthood commences -- presaged by the death of her father when she is 16 -- she too turns to alcohol to calm the storm within. Years of wanton partying eventually lead Jones, by now a published novelist, to hit rock bottom. With the help of a friend, she makes a successful bid for sobriety. As admirable as this is, Jones's journey -- which includes a stable marriage, a daughter of her own and a transformative passion for tae kwon do -- never seems to move beyond a simplistic narrative of addiction and recovery. Couple this with her penchant for name-dropping and irrelevant boasts (she mentions, for instance, that her toddler scores "off the chart" on a verbal development test), and one gets the feeling that her confessional treatment doesn't quite add up to the whole truth.

     Posted by meganbuskey at 10/03/2009 @ 11:44am

406. I'll get right to the point.

     Roman Polanski is scum. For any who disagree with this view, tell me what part of drugging up, and raping a 13 year old girl do you find "acceptable"?

     I've read the court testimony transcript (one can view the entire transcript on the Smoking Gun website).

     It's disgusting beyond words.

     Roman may have been a talented director, but that just doesn't do it for me. If this had ben ANYONE else, any other guy who did this sort of thing to an underage girl, he'd be looking at 25 years to life in state prison.

     Any questions?

     End of discussion.

     Posted by charles000 at 10/03/2009 @ 12:03pm

407. and this is relevant to what?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:03pm

408. End of discussion. Posted by charles000 at 10/03/2009 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     thanks for clearing that up.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:06pm

409. he'd be looking at 25 years to life in state prison.

     the sentence for murder is often 9 years.

     does that make sense?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:09pm

410. "he'd be looking at 25 years to life in state prison. the sentence for murder is often 9 years. does that make sense?" Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2009 @ 12:09pm

     Hey, it's like I was saying. The people (and 13 yo girls) of the State of California have benefitted from his self-imposed exile of 30+ years. The current brou-ha-ha will only extend that exile, to our benefit. Hopefully, until he passes away and goes on to whatever afterlife awaits child molesters.

     Posted by twillie at 10/03/2009 @ 3:51pm

411. WOW !! there are some demented justifiers for this Predator on here. Yes, Predator , as this wasn't his first RAPE of Jailbait, seems he has a Taste for it.

     Funny thing is, as I read His supporters,excusors,justifiors,blame it on the judge people, that appear here...I Do Not SEE YOU SERVING UP YOUR DAUGHTERS or GRAND DAUGHTERS for the Wolves lying in wait !

     Perhaps this is a Good thing for you

     There are Sheep is this Country...we need them they are Innocent and Good.

     And There are Wolves in this Country...we don't need them,they FEED on the Sheep ! This is Polanski's and The supporters,excusors,justifiors,blame it on the Victim's,blame it on the judge people.

     Then there is "The Sheep Dog" this is "ME". The sheep don't like the Sheep Dog, he looks like a Wolf,he has Fangs and a Capacity for Violence. The Difference, the Sheep Dog will NEVER hurt the Sheep !!

     My job is to Protect my Flock or DIE trying !

     Posted by wanderingghost at 10/03/2009 @ 7:13pm

412. I'm so happy with my righteous self.

     Posted by Citizen54 at 10/03/2009 @ 8:23pm

413. To those who defend Polanski: what about this case would change your mind to convince you that Polanski anally raped a 13 year old girl? If the victim had been younger? If the rapist wasn't famous? If she was forced to take the alcohol? If she screamed, instead of begged? I don't understand the arguments. Is it O.K. to forcibly have sex with anyone, or are you saying that she wanted it? In that case, how should she have indicated that she didn't want it? Maybe you should explain your definition of rape. Some accuse the victim of wanting money. Was that before, or after she got raped? I can't imagine being O.K. with this concerning any girl or woman, no matter how unsympathetically you paint her. And what's with that? Must we keep demeaning victims of sexual assault?

     Posted by hesse at 10/04/2009 @ 12:39am

414. Here it is, Sunday, October 4, 3:15am and I can't sleep, so I revisited Ms. Pollitt's column, on which I commented on October 1. This early morning I scanned the 400-odd (some, very odd indeed) comments which followed mine. I rarely comment on Nation articles, mostly on New York Times articles. The NYT does monitor its comments, and I am often astonished by the vitrol which passes through. Nothing prepared me, however, for the ludicrous stupidities, brutalities and invective which I found here.

     I believe in Social Democracy, despite the above evidence that the reactionaries are right when they say "the sleep of reason breeds monsters." Or, it may be, living in the United States drives people crazy. In any event, many, even most, of the above comments support the notion we humans are closer to our chimpanzee cousins than the Humanists like to believe.

     Posted by JFHill at 10/04/2009 @ 02:32am

415. Here is a LEGAL opinion by a professional lawyer, Ronald Sokol, who teaches at a US university (just a conclusion of his article, you can find the whole argument in NYT, all in favor of not pursuing this in court any further). He explains why extraditing Polanski would MOCK THE LAW.

     "Of course there is social value in discouraging criminals from fleeing the jurisdiction. There is value as well in seeing that justice is done and in showing that no one is above the law. But those values can erode over time if the circumstances which gave rise to the need for justice have vanished.

     To some, belated enforcement will appear arbitrary, a ritual of form over substance. When the state threatens imprisonment, it must be seen to act in an even-handed manner. If not, it mocks the very rule of law by its arbitrary act to enforce the law."

     Posted by dragan at 10/04/2009 @ 1:04pm

416. Let's see if I understand this Polanski business correctly. The United States, as always, attempts to impose its wars, its laws, its so-called morality/values on the rest of us. Thus, Polanski was convicted more than thirty years ago of statutory rape, in effect, in which it is now admitted that there was judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, in which the victim has asked that the case be dropped, in which his former sister in law says the sex was consensual. In spite of all these circumstances, a sanctimonious American judge talks about the rule of law in where? The United States? The American empire? Well, I suppose for some people. Ah but the vengeance of American "justice" is mighty and would it not be wonderful to see Polanski brought back to the United States in chains for all you sanctimonious Americans to jeer at.

     Posted by mikhailovich at 10/04/2009 @ 2:08pm

417. I have read this article today because I have been raped.I was sexually active at 13 with an older man and YES I believe now that he was a pervert that liked and preyed on young GIRLS ,not young women. I became sexually active because someone older than I manipulated me into sex! This story disgusts me.She was definately raped by a pedafile.A 43 year old man having any kind of sex with a 13 year young girl is a pedafile! In my opinion,Emily du Bois is a pervert and as for GLT you are disgusting,off topic,SPAM!Who cares about your sex life?Why are you telling us your sexual preferences? This is not what this story is about.It is about the Drug induced and ANAL RAPE of an innocent 13 year old CHILD by a 43 year old well aware of what he was doing RAPIST ! Pedophilia:The essential feature of this disorder is recurrent,intense,sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies,of at least 6 month's duration,involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child. The person has ACTED on these urges,or is markedly distressed by them.(Most importantly to stress to the sick men commenting here).The aGE OF THE child IS GENERALLY 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 OR YOUNGER!

     Posted by wenn360 at 10/04/2009 @ 3:24pm

418. Frankly I don't see how any woman can defend Polanski. Debra Winger, really? What is she on? Isabelle Huppert? Jeez! I thought these were semi-intelligent women!

     That anyone should say bygones should be bygones and let him off the hook really baffles me.

     Posted by cucarachita at 10/04/2009 @ 6:08pm

419. I would like to point out that it was much harder to prosecute rape cases during the 1970s than it is today. I have read cases where even badly beaten victims were questioned about their morality.

     Today most enlightened people understand that it is inappropriate to question the victim's morality. It does not matter whether she or he has had sex with 0 or 99 sexual partners. Everyone has the right to say "no." Rape is a violent crime and must be treated as such.

     This is not to say that U.S. legal system is perfect. We incarcerate too many people for nonviolent drug offenses. There are many cases of defendants not getting adequate legal representation because they are poor. Public defenders are often overworked and underpaid.

     But none of this excuses Polanski's behavior. As the Pollitt and others have pointed out, if he feels his conviction is unfair, he has other options than remaining a fugitive from justice. The fact that he has not used these other options makes me wonder why he is receiving so much support. Frankly, he deserves to be treated no differently than any other fugitive.

     Posted by Kingbird at 10/04/2009 @ 6:16pm

420. Dragan,

     You say that extraditing Polanski mocks the rule of law because justice was so belated. Didn't HE mock the rule of law by running away? So what is the time period in which a convicted child rapist can skip merrily away from their too-light sentence?

     Posted by jeaniemck at 10/05/2009 @ 12:14am

421. I echo Kingbird's views (and most others' here). The victim-blaming--especially in light of her age--is more than reprehensible. It doesn't matter if the victim had sex TWICE before, may have looked a little older than she was (but did she look 18, I wonder?), might have willingly taken the drugs, had a mother who wasn't properly supervising her--he was a 42 year old adult who purposefully gave drugs to a 13 year old kid to make it easier for him to force anal sex on her. He wasn't her 14 year old boyfriend who engaged in willing sex with her, much as Emile and a few others desperately want to pretend. What is so difficult to get about the crime that this man committed? He was an adult who not only knew better, he purposefully engaged in illegal, predatory behavior.

     The defense of his actions is mind boggling. I understand talking about what should happen now and debating that, but to pooh-pooh what he did--wow.

     Posted by jeaniemck at 10/05/2009 @ 12:23am

422. Thank you, jeaniemck, for the polite tone of asking a question. In this charged topic and responses above it is an exception.

     I am not minimizing the initial infraction nor setting a general rule. But in this particular case there are numerous legal and ethical reasons why it would have probably been better to let this one drop, please read the NYT piece.

     It is those reasons that in the eyes of many warrant the defense and release of Polanski. Isabelle Huppert ALSO has children (three), and is incidentally a super educated and intelligent woman, these people defending RP are not monsters.

     Purely legally, this is practically impossible to try in CA, the formerly injured party will not cooperate in a new trial and sentencing, etc. So maybe the state should have been more judicious in choosing which cases it wants to take up for extradition. The state ALWAYS does these calculations, if it is worth the money and time spent, etc. And if you choose to extradite one of the most accomplished living directors who contributes a lot to society, over ALL other possible cases, without any other infraction against him, after all these years, it raises a questions of motivation, ethical and political questions to which one would expect the Nation and Katha Pollitt would have been more attuned.

     And RP did make attempts at reparation both with the victim and the state, etc. So the reason for sentencing have been diminished. In absolute terms, yes, go ahead try him, etc. But history interfered and there never are absolute terms. So here you are doing one injustice to cure an old one. Justice is ALWAYS a matter of such choice, a lesser of two evils.

     And to answer your question, the state has MORE obligation not to mock the law than RP.

     Thank you again for the polite tone.

     Posted by dragan at 10/05/2009 @ 06:35am

423. You say that extraditing Polanski mocks the rule of law because justice was so belated.

     Posted by jeaniemck at 10/05/2009 @ 12:14am

     Ruins the whole concept for the "Cold Case Files" and "Dog the Bounty Hunter" shows.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/05/2009 @ 08:20am

424. If this goes to trial in CA, it will take a LOT of resources from a practically BANKRUPTED state, which is letting people out of prisons, cannot afford otherwise. So there will be OTHER cases, new cases of violence that will not be prosecuted properly, new injustices will be done to victims who will not have perpetrators settle with them (and mind you, RP did not HAVE to settle with the victim), whose cases will go unsolved because the state has no money to pursue properly, etc. So new injustice done because you want to pursue this particular one.

     It is true that legally the state prosecutes, regardless of the wishes of the victim, in order to protect its and society's interest. HOWEVER, in the case of statutory or other rape, the state often adjusts the sentence in order to protect further injuring the victim, even if the perp gets a lesser sentence. So it is not altogether irrelevant what the victim, now a grown up women, wants. If this goes to court, this will AGAIN injure her, and all of you cheering for the trial are ok with that. Another injustice perpetuated.

     On another note, the Nation and Katha Pollitt has done a disservice to the readers, by falsifying the state of affairs. Polanski is defended not just by writers of "schlock novels" and "Hollywood: (and Harris writes fine historical novels, so this reeks of yellow press unworthy of Katha Pollitt and the Nation; but passons); TWO states, both of which are NATO allies, with very conservative governments, made direct plea to the US state department, for pardon, clemency, leniency, etc. Also just to disabuse anyone that this has no politics involved.

     And to the last participant in this list above: where do you get your sense of justice, TV shows, Hollywood?! This is meant as irony, right?

     Posted by dragan at 10/05/2009 @ 11:41am

425. And no, it is not only because the time has elapsed that this should not have been pursued. Many other factors are at work, making this a disproportionate intervention on the part of the state. Not all crimes should be not prosecuted because of the lapse of time.

     And that is ALSO where a question of choice (ethical, political, legal, etc) of this particular one comes in.

     But a number of legal specialists I consulted (and provided some reference above) claim that this should not have been taken up by the state, for a number of legal reasons. I added some ethical and political ones.

     Posted by dragan at 10/05/2009 @ 12:49pm

426. It is a weak argument to suggest that Polanski should go free because Kissinger ( not an artist, indeed - Warhol said that art is anything you can get away with - but I digress), North, Bush, the Abu Ghraib bigwigs, My Lai bigwigs (Wasn't Colin Powell involved in the initial cover up.), the addict Rush, and so many other shit heads in America and the World get a pass. Nor does speculation about what Bill-o would be saying had Bill Kristal been caught with his pecker up some drunken, drugged up child's butt undermine the argument that a child shouldn't be having sex with anyone but herself, or maybe a dry hump with someone her own age. One's occupation, political affiliation, personal history, appearance or what have you have no bearing - a rapist is a rapist, a pedophile is a pedophile.

     Posted by porter1950 at 10/05/2009 @ 2:59pm

427. Just a quick poll here for everybody with an opinion (for or against) on Roman Polanski. How would your arguments change if it were about Father Roman Polanski the Roman Catholic priest?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/05/2009 @ 3:20pm

428. Father Roman Polanski - occupation - irrelevant.

     Posted by porter1950 at 10/05/2009 @ 3:56pm

429. BUT, just imagine the vitriol if Polanski had been a Bush supporter!!!----Posted by freiheit1 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:35pm

     Karl Rove would have insisted he not retire and that he run again for his seat in Florida's 16th Congressional district.

     Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     nah. impossible. too many of THEIR guys don't even like girls.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/05/2009 @ 5:57pm

430. Polanski and others like these rapists get a free ride because liberals change their morals as the situation does.

     Posted by apoorspic at 10/01/2009 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     And there are "family values" Repubs who like to hang out in men's rooms--what's your point?

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/05/2009 @ 6:04pm

431. Roman Polanski like anyone else should be held responsible for his or her actions. However, I think Pollitt and many others are sensationalizing his crime for ideological reasons. Polanski's victim, Moreover, Samantha Geimer, in the documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" said that she did not think justice was being served in the courts. If you watch the film many reasonable people, like myself, came a way understanding why Polanski fled. Last year Geimer said, ""Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." And "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." Last year she said, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever -- besides me -- and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it." Polanski should not be left off the hook, but I'm tired of this self-righteous indignation and mob mentality that questions the decency of people (as in "you support a pedophile") who question his prosecution or his extradition from Switzerland, a neutral country.

     Posted by Marcsl at 10/06/2009 @ 02:13am

432. Just a quick poll here for everybody with an opinion (for or against) on Roman Polanski. How do you feel about Phillip Garrido and Brian David Mitchell?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/06/2009 @ 09:05am

433. Well I don't know about Garrido, but Mitchell is a Mormon Fundimentalist so shouldn't he get a pass - not.

     Posted by porter1950 at 10/06/2009 @ 09:29am

434. Gee, I thought all male Libs get a pass from `Feminists' when it comes to dishing it out to women....didn't Bill Clinton incite the same number of female "Friends" who adored him?

     Posted by Happy at 10/06/2009 @ 10:28am

435. Polanski needs to be in prison in the US. He'll be really popular with the peeps. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

     Posted by trabaris at 10/06/2009 @ 11:58am

436. Had the victim in this case been a young boy, I bet he wouldn't have this many supporters.

     Posted by QueenofDiamonds at 10/01/2009

     Sadly, you may be right. I submit:

     Jesse Dirkising. Note that it was given "passing" treatment (meant last page); however, all msm articles fail to mention the 13 year old was sodomized by 2 gay men.

     Posted by melissatx at 10/06/2009 @ 4:41pm

437. Of course, a 'fact' in Ms. Pollitt's possession may not be a fact at all. Polanski didn't "drug" his victim. He offered her and she took between a third to a half of (not a whole) quaalude. They also drank champagne. You may not like the fact that 13yo's take drugs and drink, but this was consensual. It was the sex that the victim alleged was not - a 'fact' which Polanski 'admitted' only in the context of a plea bargain.

     It is also clear that the victim had and still has a vastly different view of things from Ms. Pollitt and a lot of other politically correct types who think 'justice' means a long incarceration followed by having to sleep under bridges and in public parks like stray dogs for the rest of one's life. Polanski's victim has already made clear that the prosecution and media frenzy were worse than the unwanted sex. And she has never wavered from her opinion that Polanski should not serve jail time - not then, not now.

     The case raises substantial questions of real justice, not the kind of kangaroo opinion justice practiced in this column. (Issues include whether the judge's representations to the defense and prosecution are binding. It should be noted that the prosecutor on the case, a straight arrow if ever there was one, found it perfectly understandable that Polanski fled when the judge began to waver.)

     It isn't clear at all from this column or any of the comments posted what ends would be served by Mr. Polanski's incarceration now - except perhaps to act out long-standing hostilities toward men, using Mr. Polanski as the scapegoat of the moment.

     Posted by otto117 at 10/06/2009 @ 5:46pm

438. From his responses, I suspect that GLT does not have any children (at least any he acknowledges or knows about).

     It's interesting how for most of us, being a parent unites left and right on some issues with this one being an excellent example.

     And almost without exception (like JR/Emile), it is non parents who take a different stance.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:36pm

     As childfree by choice person who thinks Polanski is despicable, fuck you very much for that. How does the fact that a great many child sex abuse victims are preyed on by their own parents fit into your Having Children Makes You A Better Person narrative?

     Asshole.

     Posted by Diva3333 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:41pm

439. Pollitt's last line is spot on and so important. "No wonder Middle America hates them." It's exactly that display of irresponsibility that always ruins liberal, progressive credibility. Here's hoping long-overdue justice is served once and for all, with the least amount of torment for the victim.

     Posted by lsayer at 10/06/2009 @ 6:51pm

440. Posted by otto117 at 10/06/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     good point Otto.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/06/2009 @ 9:10pm

441. Otto's "point" is nothing but MRA rape apologist bullshit.

     Posted by Diva3333 at 10/06/2009 @ 11:03pm

442. Good article. As a man rooted in a working-class upbringing, I have always believed that a commitment to law and order is an authentically left-of-center bona fides. Special pleading for the talented is incompatible with a true Left agenda. The fact that "Knife in the Water", a film I return to again and again with awe of its craft, happens to be a brilliant work is irrelevant.

     I always measure events like this with what I call the Septic Tank Rule. Let's say the same script happened with a man named Ramon Kowalski, a very successful owner of a septic tank cleaning service. He seduces, drugs and rapes in the same scenario at the home of one of his clinets. How is it relevant that he gave brilliant service cleaning septic tanks, or that he had a horrific childhood? Would our mythical septic tank cleaner have the same support among the elites?

     (And I just want to say, I am not a man who thinks words like "elite", "liberal", "progressive", and "intellectual" are pejoratives; they are to me badges of honor, but in such honor begins responsibility.

     One can still respect a man's professional corpus while expecting him to hew to the moral code we expect of the immigrant who cleans out our septic tank. We Left-centered will still read Arthur Koestler, despite of the strong evidence that he was a rapist; we savor the work while lamenting the wreckage.

     Posted by Ozu2009 at 10/07/2009 @ 08:36am

443. what if the girl had given Polanski the 'lude? not so far fetched, actually, given her experience with the drug.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/07/2009 @ 1:14pm

444. 'what if the girl had given Polanski the 'lude? not so far fetched, actually, given her experience with the drug.' -- Emile DuBois

     If you were to give me a 'lude, would that mean you give your consent for me to peg you?

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/07/2009 @ 2:56pm

445. Kate Pollitt is the most sensible and honest voice in The Nation. All the more sweet because she is so alone.

     She has character and it stays with her regardless of the cirumstances. She knows a bugger when she sees him. Neither his politics nor the celebrity of his friends neuter her moral sense. A worm with talent remains a lowlife.

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/08/2009 @ 12:41am