http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277176.stm


ROFL!!! While in Zurich to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award Roman Polanski is finally arrested on the US warrant for fleeing the country before being sentenced for having sex with a thirteen year old girl. Yeah, this was definitely a man that needed to be recognized for his lifetime achievements.

Hopefully the extradition process will be fairly rapid, so that we can have the media entertain us with some court room theatre in place of the boring health care battles, at least for a short time.

Leave it to the French, they are going to contest the extradition.

Leave it to the French, they are going to contest the extradition.


I actually saw an entertainment reporter on the news decrying the fact that someone "obviously has a vendetta" against Polanski. Ummm, he had sex with a thirteen year old, and fled the country before sentencing after pleading guilty; there is no vendetta but merely the law being followed, which the reporter seems to ignore in Polanski's case.

Aye but understand it in context, the warrant is like 30 years old. I think people are more like 'why now? Should have been done decades ago'. I do agree with charging him, finally, but it is a bit suspect why it has happened so much later on.

I'm sure he won't be imprisoned, or imprisoned for very long, but it's good to see a closing to this case. I do believe Polanksi should answer the grave charges presented before him since he evaded justice--he is a fugitive, after all. Are we saying that if you happen to evade arrest for 30 years, we'll simply let the cookie crumble?

The US will most likely bring him before a court, and the prosecution service is liable to broker a probation deal of some sort. Since the victim of the case in question has wished for minimal press--and has even asked for the original charges to be dropped--I am sure this case will be handled swiftly. But having been on the run for 30 years and therefore rubbed the egos of those who have been after him, Polanski will surely be charged, but I do not believe the US will sentence him to imprisonment, or very long imprisonment, in light of mitigating factors for his work in the theatrical arts.

But crime is still crime, and whether the charges are 3 years or 30 years old, he should still answer them. We have, after all, deported and extradited a purported Nazi guard to German courts for crimes that are more than 30 years old.

To clarify, this is not an issue of him being charged with the sexual crime, but of his pleading guilty and then fleeing before sentencing. The 'warrant' is for being a felon who fled the country to avoid facing the consequences of his behavior. He has admitted guilt; he just did not want to pay for it.

The main reason he has not been arrested before is only because he did not put himself in a position where a country with a strong extradition pact with the U.S. might arrest him. It is also why he did not do any of his film work in the U.K., because he feared they would do what has now been done.

From what I understand he entered a guilty plea based on a deal he made with prosecutors for a sentence of time served. Shortly before sentencing the prosecutor reneged on the sentence part of the deal and still would use the guilty plea.

He drugged a 13 year old and raped her. The bastard should just now be getting out of jail.

He drugged a 13 year old and raped her. The bastard should just now be getting out of jail.

I think the thing that boggles my mind is that the people in France are OK with letting him get away with it. I'm really NOT looking for a future where "every city the whole world round [...] will just be another American town," and I respect that values in other contries are different from ours.

But the girl was 13 years old, mon ami!

I think the thing that boggles my mind is that the people in France are OK with letting him get away with it.
But the girl was 13 years old, mon ami!


I saw part of a statement given by Debra Winger, who is chair-person or something for the film festival, or whatever it is going on in Zurich. She was saying she hoped he would be released soon enough to be able to join them for the retrospective of his career; it sure sounded to me like she felt he was being persecuted, and she apparently also is okay with him not being punished.

Please, Debra, stay in Zurich. We don't need you here.

I saw part of a statement given by Debra Winger, who is chair-person or something for the film festival, or whatever it is going on in Zurich. She was saying she hoped he would be released soon enough to be able to join them for the retrospective of his career; it sure sounded to me like she felt he was being persecuted, and she apparently also is okay with him not being punished.

Please, Debra, stay in Zurich. We don't need you here.


Totally agree.

There are countries where 13 is the age of consent. America ain't one of them, but statutory charges when both parties are consenting? Put me on the side of anti-consensual criminal laws. Drugs, prostitution, suicide, statutory crap: All should be under education, not criminal law.

Also, the specific authorities involved have since been proven with written documentation to have the vendeta he's always claimed they had.

How is it consenting when he drugged a 13 year old?

There are countries where 13 is the age of consent. America ain't one of them, but statutory charges when both parties are consenting? Put me on the side of anti-consensual criminal laws. Drugs, prostitution, suicide, statutory crap: All should be under education, not criminal law.

Also, the specific authorities involved have since been proven with written documentation to have the vendeta he's always claimed they had.

Even if she consented, if she initiated, if she was entirely at fault and he was entirely innocent ... he plead guilty. He admitted guilt, but ran away before the sentencing. He had every chance to prove his innocence, but he said he was guilty and ran away - that is what they are bringing him back for. Everything else is irrelevant.

The folks I have heard taking his side for the most part have not had daughters. I have not heard anyone that I know has a daughter in her early teens who believes it was okay to give champagne and drugs to a 13 year old. I have also not heard of any with a daughter who believe it was okay for a man in his forties to rape and sodomize a thirteen year old. I was not there, but I have heard she said NO.

I don't know where this girl's parents were when this was taking place, but I do know how I would have reacted if I had been the father. Polanski would have disappeared before ever making a plea agreement, and he would never have been found.

If California now determines that living in a chalet in Europe and partying and skiing and cavorting with the jet set is proper punishment for committing rape and sodomy on a 13 year old, they are going to be flooded with appeals from those now incarcerated for lesser crimes.

If she was stone cold sober and willing, you'd have a hard time convincing me we shouldn't have some sort of law protecting someone of that age. The idea is that individuals of a certain age are not mature enough to safely make that decision, and I spend enough time working with teens to think that's a pretty good law. There's also something revolting about the idea, not because of taboo so much as if you've spent time around a 13 year old, you realize just how young that really is. As absurd as it is for the amount of time that has passed - he committed the crime, admitted to it, and fled justice. Time to pay up.

I hope this sob never feels the Red carpet under his feet from this day forward.

Then once in, I hope they send him to a prison that harbors folks who have thier own daughters.

Even if she consented, if she initiated, if she was entirely at fault and he was entirely innocent ... he plead guilty. He admitted guilt, but ran away before the sentencing. He had every chance to prove his innocence, but he said he was guilty and ran away - that is what they are bringing him back for. Everything else is irrelevant.

I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that he plead guilty to get a particular plea bargain. Then, the prosecutor reneged on the deal at the last minute and Polanski fled before sentencing because of that.

Not that it in any way justifies what he did. I have zero sympathy for him.

It's hard to fathom that any Western country would knowingly harbor someone like that to begin with.

There are countries where 13 is the age of consent. America ain't one of them, but statutory charges when both parties are consenting? Put me on the side of anti-consensual criminal laws. Drugs, prostitution, suicide, statutory crap: All should be under education, not criminal law.

Also, the specific authorities involved have since been proven with written documentation to have the vendeta he's always claimed they had.

She for one cannot consent. He gave her alcohol and Quaalude. She also told him no many many times, he kept pressuring/ignoring her. Hes a straight up rapist. After this incident he had a "relationship" with a 15year old girl. Keep in mind he was over 40. The guy is seriously a piece of shit. The day after he found out his wife and child were dead, he was out with 2 women.

I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that he plead guilty to get a particular plea bargain. Then, the prosecutor reneged on the deal at the last minute and Polanski fled before sentencing because of that.

Not that it in any way justifies what he did. I have zero sympathy for him.

It's hard to fathom that any Western country would knowingly harbor someone like that to begin with.


Come on, it's the French. Are you that suprised?

Michael Jackson is suspected of molesting children, people are ready to burn him at the stake.

Polanski is being charged with sex with a 13 year old and people are making excuses for him?

I dunno, sounds like a whole new double standard if you ask me.

Michael Jackson has plenty of hard core supporters too.

His alleged kiddy-fiddling was more widely believed because he was just, well, very weird.

I don't get the 'making excuses' for his behavior part - his actions were clearly rape of a minor - but I think the appropriate question at this point is 'what is being served?' by his arrest and extradition.

Let's remember, first of all, that he wasn't legally *convicted* of rape - he pled guilty to sex with a minor and his actual sentence was psychiatric observation and community servive. There's also the issues associated with the mishandling of the case prosecution and that the evidence suggests that the judge was going to reneg on the plea deal after he was in custody. There is the issue of the victim and her wishes - and she has repeatedly stated that she does not wish prosecution against him to continue because she does not believe that anything will be served and it forces her to keep reliving the incident. Granted, this does not in itself make a case for deciding not to prosecute (consider laws designed to protect victims of domestic abuse who frequently recant out of fear of retaliation or because the abuse cycle is in now in the remorse/'honeymoon' phase)), but given this woman's clear and rational declaration that she has recovered from the event and her rationale I tend to give her more credence than someone who is currently *in* the cycle of abuse. And finally there is the fact that had Polanski simply fled when the arrest warrant was issued and never stood trial the statute of limitations on this assault would have elapsed a long time ago by California law. Given all of these things, I find the whole exercise rather pointless - what *is* being served beyond some ritual sacrifice to the pagan gods out of the interests of making him 'pay' for something that is long in the past and, as far as we can tell, an isolated incident for which the sentence meted out in court was (perhaps unfairly) minimal?

Let me be clear - I think that Polanski through his lawyers has been 'playing cute' with the issue of his sentence and case appeals in recent years and if he had been content *either* 1) to come to the US for a hearing or 2) live out the remainder of his days quietly in France he wouldn't be in this position. That said I think that I've been more surprized by the bloodthirstiness of the reactions to this case than by either his apologists or by the petty machinations of LA County for twisting Switzerland's arm after all these years.

One last thing that has struck me as interesting about this whole case is just how much public perceptions/moral-social 'norms' have changed in the last 30 years with regard to the issues both of rape and of child sexual exploitation vs precociousness, (mostly for the better I might add; I might have been able to speak out about my own assault had our cultural conception of acquaintance rape been different in those days). In the late 1970s, it was not at all uncommon to glorify budding adolescent and even preadolescent sexuality. Brooke Shields was a sex symbol of sorts at 11 (my first girlfriend had pictures of her pasted all over our little love nest ;) ), barely-teenaged models are paraded around as fully sexualized adult women to this day, and just this month a large and fully nude photo of Shields (at age 10!) standing in a bath, which has hung in the Guggenheim for years, had to be taken out of an exhibit on 'controversial art' at the Tate Modern in London this week due to the public outcry (I've seen the image, and while it's not, hm, pornographically sexual it certainly makes one a bit uncomfortable to look at). We may not be *comfortable* with the fact that we were more sanguine about the issue of budding teenage sexuality (and thus in some cases complicit in the abuse of young girls), but it is an undeniable fact that a major cultural shift has occured on this issue in the US in particular. In addition, thirty years ago, abuse of power type rapes where 'no-one was hurt' simply weren't aggressively prosecuted, if at all, there were no 'rape shield laws', and the *culture itself* of the late 1970s and early '80s with its mythos of permissive sexuality put strong pressure on both individuals and the culture to reframe many cases that were clearly rape as something that was on some level *globally* consensual and thus rationalized away.

In the case of Polanski, I think a large part of the collective cry for blood results from our own internalized shame looking back at what we were, and for 'justice' that can never be meted against the standards of a different era. I don't personally object to his extradition and hearings to resolve this case; but putting him on trial again today even were it possible (it shouldn't be, due to double jeopardy, he was convicted and sentenced), or applying an overly harsh penalty to him for fleeing based on our outrage at a past miscarriage of justice in the light of current standards, seems both disingenous and serves no useful purpose.

Regards,
Nydia

This mess might be a good argument for why consistency in all matters of the law is important. The possible mishandling of his case originally is clouding things unnecessarily now.

As a thought - a 13 year old today is unable to determine whether or not charges are pressed, it's automatic. How we handle that with someone 30 years later I'm not sure.

In the case of Polanski, I think a large part of the collective cry for blood results from our own internalized shame looking back at what we were, and for 'justice' that can never be meted against the standards of a different era. I don't personally object to his extradition and hearings to resolve this case; but putting him on trial again today even were it possible (it shouldn't be, due to double jeopardy, he was convicted and sentenced), or applying an overly harsh penalty to him for fleeing based on our outrage at a past miscarriage of justice in the light of current standards, seems both disingenous and serves no useful purpose.

Regards,
Nydia

This is such drivel. He fled before sentencing. He should be arrested and punished for that on top of the original sentence. Which by the way fleeing probably breaks his plea bargain and he should be nailed again.

The cries for blood have nothing to do with "how we were" and everything to do with the guy is a pedophile rapist that escaped because he was rich and deserve punishment.

On the issue of the victim and her wishes, that is the only reason they allowed him to plea in the first place. They were going to nail his ass to the wall, but she did not want to be put through that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33188359/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

On the lighter side, I thought this was fun. I can't imagine how they'd consider him a high risk for flight from the country. :D

Nydia, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but I don't think I quite agree with your justifications.

Thousands of girls (and perhaps boys) are raped every year, and if we focused our efforts PARTICULARLY to get Polanski, then I agree, that effort would have been better put on finding current dangers. But if we were out to get Polanski because of a little overzealousness, then it is sad that we spent that effort.

Polanski's arrest HAPPENED because his entry to a country with a US-extradition treaty were known and expected, advance enough that the paperwork could be pushed through. That did not require much effort: any US extradition office should be doing their jobs anyway by looking out for news like this. We're already paying their salaries; if they recognise a name, we should make sure nobody can run from the law.

Can you really expect a 13 year old to be willing to have sex with a person way over her age? Don't you agree that might be a bit over board? Let's remind ourselves of the facts: Polanski inserted his penis through her anus and later ejaculated within her, before which she was drugged and had no choice but comply.

I'm not so sure she would be honoured to have had her virginity taken, even if it had happened in an oversexualised era. You seem to imply that child rape in the 70s is not the same as rape in the 2000s, since child date rape was acceptable then? Even so, Polanski was CHARGED in the 70s by the moral standards of the 70s; he pled guilty and fled in the 70s! That hasn't changed! She wasn't a willing participant like Shields; she was drugged and compelled against her own will!
Given all of these things, I find the whole exercise rather pointless - what *is* being served beyond some ritual sacrifice to the pagan gods out of the interests of making him 'pay' for something that is long in the past and, as far as we can tell, an isolated incident for which the sentence meted out in court was (perhaps unfairly) minimal?
Polanski is a fugitive of justice, and whether or not he has been on the run for 1 year or 30 years, if there is an opportunity to arrest the man, then we should do it. Nydia, you seem to be making this an issue of revenge. It simply is not; it's about meting out justice. And as far as I can remember, the judge accepted his guilty plea. He was waiting to be sentenced. I'm pretty sure you don't have a daughter, because even if this happened to you in the 70s, you would be crying foul.

He announced on his website he was going to be there. Took no effort or money at all.

He sodomized her twice. After being told no many many times.

There was an excellent article on why the Polanski case is so thorny published today on Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,653586,00.html

To the folks who replied with outrage here, I'd ask you to revisit the first sentence of my previous post. There is no question whatsoever that this was rape of a minor and if such things 'count' for anything, the Der Spiegel and years of his own remarks make clear that Polanski is unremorseful and uncomprehending (his own words particularly bring home the latter, something that is true in more rape and other such crimes than we care to admit) of the enormity of what he did to this young girl - if intelligent enough to have learned not to do it again. Given the long and convoluted history of the case and how much time has elapsed however, the fact remains that little would be served by lengthy and expensive haggling in attempts to throw away the key now - Polanski has already lived his life, it will not give Gailey the thirty years of her life back, and given how unusual the case is (and the nature of power itself) it's rather naive to think that this will have any sort of deterrent effect on others in the seat of power who might commit such crimes. Assuming he can even be extradited, if the LA County DA's office has Gailey's (and their own, given the state of California's budget) interests truly in mind they will quietly negotiate for a short sentence that Polanski and his lawyers will spend relatively little energy fighting and wash their hands of it.

Regards,
Nydia

It's remarkable how you didn't answer our posts in relation to your post. I've just tried rereading your verbose post, but, again, don't quite get what you're trying to state. A complicated court case _still_ doesn't make it right for him to escape justice. A life well-lived doesn't make it even more so, either. If you commit murder and have a complicated case and express a bit of remorse and live most of your life, it doesn't give you the right to escape and thereby escape justice.

The claim you are making in your first sentence is that this is all in the past, and the precedent we should leave behind is, as long as you make a run for the border before you're sentenced, everything is good and well.

The fact that he has lived most of his life with impunity isn't a reason we shouldn't go after him. Justice serves its purpose when it is blind. Lady Justice carries a blindfold to symbolise objectivity, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness.

Actually, I *did* respond to your posts - you just didn't fully parse or particularly like the answer :).

Over the years on this board, I've repeatedly discussed the issues I take with regard to our system of criminal justice - that it treats people as effectively irredeemable - but that is largely immaterial here (I bring it up because you cite the 'life well lived' angle). My point with regard to Polanski is that little would be served to anyone, especially justice, at this late date with regard to penance for the actual offense - I think the case would be best served, as I indicated at the close of my post, with him receiving his original sentence for unlawful sex with a minor (as distasteful as that might be to us) with as much as they're willing/able to pack on for fleeing.

I brought up the issue of the different cultural and social norms *with regard to how rape was handled in the criminal justice system 30 years ago* because were justice to be truly blind, he should be judged by those standards and not those of a different era.

You'll notice that I *didn't* pull out the 'we should excuse him because of his great work', etc, line, what he did was still reprehensible, but I believe the crime and its history of (non) punishment should be handled consistently despite the 30 year gap to its resolution.

In lab at the moment so I have no time to comment further but I hope that addresses your questions/issues, even if my replies seem a bit bloodless or uncaring.

Regards,
Nydia

The reason why he should not be tried as if it was 30 years ago was because the news was already starting to make the 13 year old gear out to be a whore. Starting saying she was asking for it, making it up etc. There was a major stigma about things then, that was why she did not want to testify. I swear you are a paradox. You seem to be liberal and pro woman's rights, but something like this and you bring us right back to the stone age.

So, Nydia, what is your alternative? Just let it go? I'm sure that's justice. We still try people who commit murder in the 70s--should we just let that go too?

We are not asking for revenge. You are assuming the justice system will crucify him. We are asking that justice be meted out either by being sentenced fairly or being retried by his peers, of people who lived in that era. Given how pro-Government you have been in the past, I'm surprised by your answers. This is actually one of the rare times that Government has not overstepped its bounds and is actually executing its function.

If you're going to be a contrarian, at least add a bit of polish to your answers.

In Minnesota back in the 70's, he would have been sentenced to around 40years in prison. I guess California might be somewhat more lenient, but if not for his money and connections he would never have been able to get a plea agreement that would be simple jail time and no prison. The fact that he fled the country because he might have to spend an additional month and a half in jail shows his contempt for both the victim and our justice system. There was obviously no remorse.

He gave her champagne and drugs and then, over her protests, he raped her multiple times in multiple orifices.

I don't care if she had banged the entire junior high and high school varsity teams. The only relevant point here is she was an underage girl given alcohol and drugs and then raped by a man in his 40's.

This is not about rehabilitation; it is about retribution. The fucker needs to pay; first, for what he inflicted on the girl and, secondly, for his contempt of the courts and the legal process. He was already getting off with not even a slap on the wrist, and he ran. Fuck him.

Hit him where it hurts the most.......

His pocket book!

Then, California doesn't have to worry about a balanced budget. His money could offset any deficit. Justice is served, as he will not get to benefit from the monies he made while a fugitive from justice.

Also, the victim should get a little green thrown her way. Pain and suffering, etc.

Hit him where it hurts the most.......

His pocket book!

Then, California doesn't have to worry about a balanced budget. His money could offset any deficit. Justice is served, as he will not get to benefit from the monies he made while a fugitive from justice.

Also, the victim should get a little green thrown her way. Pain and suffering, etc.


She and Polanski already settled some years back for $500k.

She and Polanski already settled some years back for $500k.

Except from what I understand he never paid. But i will not swear to that.