The notion of Pacino ruing his sex-for-sustenance the morning after makes him sound incredibly endearing. Dustin Hoffman used to set off my 'grandpa fever', but after that story about him essentially raping his brother's girlfriend, Pacino is at the head of the pack.
So here he is in other countries, a rapist (surely SOMEONE in Continential Europe thought he was a threat and a criminal, and didn't follow along with the unbelievable accusations of our "Puritanism")...who was keeping him from hurting someone else, his (much younger than him when they met/married) wife?
That anyone had the gall to defend the drugging and rape of a person (a child!) is unbelievable. I shudder to think about it--seriously, wtf is WRONG with people that they can lionize him (not simply pardon or ignore, but celebrate him) as a martyr of the coarse, moralistic U.S., and rationalize an act of violence? What does it say about their cultural views of children or sexual assault?
I can understand sympathy for Polanski and repudiation of the U.S. when the judge for reneged. (Although Jesus, a year and a half sentence for the crime Polanski committed? Ridiculous...if Philip Garrido teaches us anything, it seems that even as recently as ten years ago our sentencing practices for the minority of rapists we actually detect and convict is half assed....even if there's evidence that, like Garrido, these are serial offenders we're dealing with. I know it was Polanski's first offense and he pled to a lesser crime to avoid a trial, but the lenient sentencing of the past still makes my skin crawl, to consider one big way liberalism went wrong when it came to public safety or protection of citizens. Not that I think we're doing much better today or that longer/mandatory sentencing necessarily leads to justice or real crime prevention now....)
I can understand him running--how many people here can honestly say they wouldn't do everything they can to avoid prison, even if they feel genuine guilt (which he did not)? Who wants to atone by being locked up? Polanski and those who commit violent crimes and run are not acting in the interests of a frightened or angry public, they're acting in self-interest. I don't like it, but I definitely understand it. If I was a rapist, I'd try to escape caputure and imprisonment too.
Given that his victim says she no longer wants any role in legal dealings with him, that's the main I care about this worm....that he is (was?) free to hurt someone else if he so chooses.
I feel very, very sorry for his children, if not for him.
Our justice system totally failed and gave him a slap on the wrist. Polanski served his ridiculously light sentnce and then the court completely reneged after he was released. It's an incredible shame that the courts in LA let him get away with what he did, but it's completely unacceptable for the legal system to short circuit itself like it did in Polanski's case. Not that I'm unsympathetic to the reasons why, but it's still utterly unacceptable. A haywire legal system is a danger to everyone subject to it. If he were sentenced to another term for what he did, that would set a horrifying legal precedent. Our legal system needs to take responsibility for failing Polanski's victim and stop trying to break its own laws.
@Ginmar Rienne: Wait, what? Who said the judge bolted? Of course it was Polanski. He served his sentence (a mere few weeks, WTF) and was released. Then the judge decided after the fact that his now-served sentence wasn't good enough and ordered him to serve a second sentence for the same crime. So Polanski split.
@MeganGlass: I'm afraid that it is misleading at best to say that Roman Polanski served his sentence; he served a psychiatric evaluation period. He jumped his bail before the final sentence was issued: [www.nytimes.com]
@mccorman: Thank you. I feel like every time the topic of Polanski comes up people insist he "served his sentence" when in fact he did nothing of the sort.
@mccorman: A second thank you for making this point clear. People are quick to jump on the "U.S. legal system is a vast conspiracy to fuck with people's lives" bandwagon. Polanski JUMPED BAIL. He never served his actual sentence.
@mccorman: I'd read (in many a place, at that) that the psych eval period had been his sentence. So thanks for clearing that up for me. I'd been highly irritated for some time that the justice system had been up to misconduct, and now I can be satisfied that justice may yet be served without legal process being subverted to the potential detriment of us all.
@MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治: yeah I've read that (incorrect) fact as well. The amount of misinformation out there regarding this case is just insane. I'm very interested to see what will now happen w/r/t how long a sentence he will ultimately serve.
@MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治: Er...no. Don't be obtuse. Did you really think I was saying the judge ran? Seriously? No. But good for trying to go with the 'poor victimized rapist' argument--I haven't seen that more than ten times today. However, your execution was flawed and the East German judge gives it a 5.0 in execution, while it gets an even worse 4.8 for technical ability. The other judges were even less impressed. You might want to sit down: I'm afraid you're out of the medal round.
@bluebears: If he'd served two sentences...Wait, sorry, he can't do that. Double jeopardy would apply and you can bet his high-priced lawyers would have trotted that out immediately, and that it would be the centerpiece of all arguments in support of his...right?...to flee from justice or whatever they're trying to call it.
@Ginmar Rienne: You... are completely missing my point. The one I HAD been making, until I was corrected, was that a: his sentence was pathetic and a miscarriage of justice in the first place, and b: A second sentence for the same crime would have unacceptable consequences for everyone else who ever goes through the criminal justice system. It's not "poor rapist", it's "poor EVERYONE". Calm down, misguided snark isn't cute. Did you even read my response to mccorman?
And his lawyers HAVE trotted double jeopardy out, which seems to be where things have gotten so many of us confused.
@Ginmar Rienne: I'm promoting your comment, because it's so loopy and divorced from reality that many of our fellow commenters might enjoy it, on a meta level. Like "someone thinks this? Whoa, AMAZING!" Which always tickles the kids.
It's true, as MeganGlass points out, "missing the point" is a Jezebel tradition, and I'm very happy to see it continued into the late aughties!
I can not believe how many people have written things to the effect that Polanski should get a "pass" because of the tragedies he suffered during the first half of his life.
I don't care what Polanski or any other rapist or child abuser has experienced - they are NOT excused.
I can see how tragedy might lead to bad decisions but its up to individuals to make good choices, to not break the law, and to end cycles of abuse. And people can break the cycle of abuse.
Again, an abuser is NEVER excused from their violent, criminal actions because of anything that happened in their past.
@fluxus flucker: I agree! If some random guy who wasn't famous, who wasn't such at "artiste," pleaded guilty of raping a 13 year old girl, and then someone said he shouldn't be punished for whatever reason, because he was abused as a child, because his wife was murdered etc, I bet everyone here at Jezebel would FLIP.
@izzynomad: he actually never pled guilty to rape, it was "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". He has always claimed it was consensual. There's a very good HBO doc on him that lays out both sides of the story.
I saw all this discussion this morning and while at Blockbuster picked up the documentary. I hope I can look at it with a critical eye. I don't really have a firm opinion about it yet. I am interested, however, in people's comments about the Swiss doing this now.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Picture it. Sicily, 1959...
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
Pacino was a hustler? No way!
10/13/09
10/12/09
Please stop making sex tapes.
Love,
Me
10/12/09
If Kate wants full custody, this may be all the court needs to hear.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
09/27/09
That anyone had the gall to defend the drugging and rape of a person (a child!) is unbelievable. I shudder to think about it--seriously, wtf is WRONG with people that they can lionize him (not simply pardon or ignore, but celebrate him) as a martyr of the coarse, moralistic U.S., and rationalize an act of violence? What does it say about their cultural views of children or sexual assault?
I can understand sympathy for Polanski and repudiation of the U.S. when the judge for reneged. (Although Jesus, a year and a half sentence for the crime Polanski committed? Ridiculous...if Philip Garrido teaches us anything, it seems that even as recently as ten years ago our sentencing practices for the minority of rapists we actually detect and convict is half assed....even if there's evidence that, like Garrido, these are serial offenders we're dealing with. I know it was Polanski's first offense and he pled to a lesser crime to avoid a trial, but the lenient sentencing of the past still makes my skin crawl, to consider one big way liberalism went wrong when it came to public safety or protection of citizens. Not that I think we're doing much better today or that longer/mandatory sentencing necessarily leads to justice or real crime prevention now....)
I can understand him running--how many people here can honestly say they wouldn't do everything they can to avoid prison, even if they feel genuine guilt (which he did not)? Who wants to atone by being locked up? Polanski and those who commit violent crimes and run are not acting in the interests of a frightened or angry public, they're acting in self-interest. I don't like it, but I definitely understand it. If I was a rapist, I'd try to escape caputure and imprisonment too.
Given that his victim says she no longer wants any role in legal dealings with him, that's the main I care about this worm....that he is (was?) free to hurt someone else if he so chooses.
I feel very, very sorry for his children, if not for him.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/28/09
And his lawyers HAVE trotted double jeopardy out, which seems to be where things have gotten so many of us confused.
09/28/09
It's true, as MeganGlass points out, "missing the point" is a Jezebel tradition, and I'm very happy to see it continued into the late aughties!
Mazel Tov! And congrats!
09/28/09
Dude, I'm sorry you're missing the point. There's a missing comment in there somewhere, but thanks for being such a #$%^! about it. Congrats!
09/27/09
I don't care what Polanski or any other rapist or child abuser has experienced - they are NOT excused.
I can see how tragedy might lead to bad decisions but its up to individuals to make good choices, to not break the law, and to end cycles of abuse. And people can break the cycle of abuse.
Again, an abuser is NEVER excused from their violent, criminal actions because of anything that happened in their past.
09/27/09
09/28/09
09/28/09
09/27/09