Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:01 AM
Tue Nov 10
67 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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
09/27/09
1. The doc, while informative and interesting regarding legal misconduct, was not unbiased. It was heavily in favor of Polanski and excused what he did at every opportunity.
2. I don't think he served the time he -should- have gotten for what he did, but legally, he served the sentence he was given, then ran when it was reneged. I don't think either was right.
3. I'm appalled that anyone thinks what he did was excusable because of the other tragedies in his life, his obvious skill as a director/storyteller, or because the victim took a settlement. None of that excuses rape.
4. We have ages of consent for a reason in this country, and I think this is one of them. A 40 year old has no business being with a 13 year old, and the adult is ALWAYS the responsible party. Full stop. If you can't control yourself around a child or adolescent until they're 18, you have a problem. Not the child or the adolescent. A 40 year old simply has no excuse. None.
09/27/09
I cannot understand why so many people have rallied to his defense when it was a 13 year old. The documentary I saw implies that it is "puritanical" American views that have "victimized" him--please! His constantly repeated excuse, that she was mature and sexually adult, is horrifying. Even if she seemed to be mature, she was 13 years old, and he had to drug her. If he expressed any remorse it would at least show that he recognizes that he was wrong, and criminal. The fact that he views himself as the victim of this case is reprehensible!
I'm glad he was arrested.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/28/09
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
Roman Polanski had a difficult life and some really tragic things happened to those he loved. That doesn't, however, excuse RAPING a child. Nor does 30+ years of "exile" (in which he still made films) mean he has "served his time." He hasn't and I just don't understand why so many people are apologizing on his behalf and excusing his behavior like it's alright. His celebrity might have made his trial more complicated and corrupted than it needed to be, but his celebrity also literally bought him a get out of jail free card until the Swiss arrested him.
09/27/09
09/27/09
There is an idea somewhere in these clauses that is valid and accurate, though the sentence's grammar is gnarled and the word misuse miserable.
There are both good and bad messages in the paragraph which contains the sentence. In an attempt to refrain from choosing a side, Jay-Z mashed those messages hopelessly together, where they will fight forever like enemies trapped in a locked elevator, unable and unwilling to reconcile.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
It looks like they cut a lot right out of the middle, right here: "It was either a situation where she can grow. … " There's a comma, an ellipsis and no explanation of what the "either" was.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
I'm not sure where I am headed with this, but people can be assholes, and assholes can be complex.. something like that.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
also, i think a lot of child molester/rapist were people who were sexually, physically, and mentally abused when they were kids, but that doesn't justify them hurting other people.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
They're also incredibly manipulative.
And, well, lots of abuse victims manage not to turn into molesters.
09/27/09
09/27/09
One pertains to the legal domain. Person allegedly committed a crime (emphasis on ALLEGED--you are not guilty in our society until you are declared so by a jury, and sentenced by a judge.)
The other pertains to the psychological domain. I'm frustrated that you guys keep coming at me with this "but he raped an underage girl!" stuff, when I initially meant to just trace the logical, consequential roots of such alleged behavior. Gaaah. I need to stop hogging this thread!
09/27/09
i understand what you are trying to say though: the rape may have been caused by the psychological problems resulting from the trauma he experienced. that is true, yes. but lots of people have traumatic experiences and it in no way EXCUSES inflicting a traumatic experience on another person. it may explain it, but it doesnt make it go away, it does make it better, and it doesnt serve justice.
09/27/09
second, i don't think there is any logical root for his behavior. His action seemed very calculated, he knew what he was doing and thought it out - he's just very manipulative.
09/27/09
I don't give a shit about what excuses he makes and others accept. It's so funny he didn't pick another group of people to prey on, but had the good luck to attack young girls and commit a crime that results in the victim being trashed and accused! Isn't that just so tragic?!
The only logic here is that of a guy who picked his victims with an eye on easily-shutting them up.
09/27/09
09/27/09
He pled guilty. And he was the most privileged of privileged, so whining about how poor dear Roman was bullied and coerced is just fucking comical! Do you live in a safe or something? Do you not know one fucking thing about how rapists get treated? Especially rich guys like Polanski?
HERE. SMALL WORDS. HE PLEAD GUILTY.
There. Do you GET IT now? If anybody's missing the point, it's you.
Roman Polanski, bullied and coerced and coaxed! AHAHAHAHA!
I bet you rooted for OJ, too.
09/27/09
09/27/09
People always look for excuses after the fact because rape is such a horrible crime and yet most rapists, you can't see it on their faces. And rapists come from every strata of society. Saying something has to have caused it needs to stop, because some rapists do in fact just decide to commit rape. It's easy, it's almost penalty free, and everybody bashes the victim, instead of them.
09/27/09
And, you know, if it looks like excusing a rapist after about five or six statements, it probably is.
09/27/09
also, it's hard to have a trial with a man who refuses to come to the US. If he's so innocent then he would not have ran his ass out of the country?
09/27/09
What absolutely horrified me was finding out Angelicia Huston was in the house when Polanski raped the girl, and she leapt into bashing the victim eagerly. Gah!
"If he's so innocent then he would not have ran his ass out of the country?"
Yeah...funny, that!
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
But to the point you raised: Plea deals are SO MUCH more complicated than what you indicated. I never watched CourtTV in my life, but I reported on crime trials in the state of California. Defendants are often cornered into pleading guilty, because their attorneys feel like they cannot establish reasonable doubt in a jury trial. That doesn't bloody mean the defendants ARE actually guilty. If you look at the sum total of tried murder cases in CA at least, a TON of them were reversed on appeal in a federal circuit court.
BTW, it's totally cool to disagree with me.. I welcome it. I love a good polemic; it's fun.
09/27/09
Your words are very hurtful. I am an incest survivor, but I would never abuse my son.
09/27/09
And your point about reversals on appeal doesn't speak to the issue at hand. You're referring to *tried* cases being reversed, so the observation does nothing to illuminate the circumstances under which a defendant makes a plea deal.
Also, what do you mean by "ton"? It may appear that lots of convictions are getting overturned. But: 1) How many appeals are filed vs. how many appeals are successful? As a percentage, I suspect your "ton" is insignificant. 2) A successful appeal IS NOT AN EXONERATION OF THE DEFENDANT. It very likely means there was some procedural irregularity. It's not the same as declaring the defendant not guilty.
09/27/09
09/27/09
Most of the arguments I've seen on this topic leave the machinery of the law behind and focus on other aspects of the case -- but I think you're correctly framing the most relevant questions in an interesting way.
I think most of the arguments opposing you here are seeking to debunk an argument that you're not even making. So I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
1) You can be "guilty in our society" and factually guilty of something, even if you haven't been found guilty by the legal system and subjected to punishment. You can also be factually innocent, while still being found guilty in our legal system. Declarations of guilt or innocence by our justice system are legal determinations, and only pertain to whether someone should be deprived of their life, liberty or property by the government, and have nothing to do with whether people can express disgust over a defendant's actions. On the rare occasion that evidence necessary to convict a factually guilty defendant gets thrown out because of the exclusionary rule, we don't have to say, "well, I guess he was actually innocent, since he can't be proven guilty in a court of law."
2) Guilty plea = same exact legal effect as being found guilty by a jury. I don't care what you've seen on Law and Order, if you've sat through enough plea hearings, you will realize that judges go out of their way to explicitly inform the defendants of what exactly it means to waive a trial, and what it means to waive a trial by jury. Also, not all trials are before juries. Many, many trials are bench trials, where they take place before a judge. I understand there are issues with the plea system, but you are wrong to think juries are the only way to legally OR factually determine someone's guilt or innocence. And if you wanted to argue that all criminal proceedings should take place in front of a jury, you can't even begin to imagine how massively the justice system would have to be overhauled, and expanded. The point of a jury is to help sort out murky facts and sketchy witness testimony, but the facts of a crime aren't always in question. Sure, even if they aren't in question, people still should have the right to go to trial, but since that is the PURPOSE of the jury, it isn't always necessary to have jury trials in criminal proceedings.
3) Two wrongs don't make a right. So many of the criminals in our justice system right now, even for the non-deviant crimes, like robbing a 7-11, have really heartbreaking stories too. I'd love to hear all those commenters on Gawker and Defamer argue that a poor black defendant who forcibly raped a 13 year old, after being raised in the ghetto of Philly, and having their mother and wives gunned down should also get a break. Who knows if throwing these people in jail is a true deterrent, or humane. But Polanski's victim did not deserve to be raped, and she will forever have her own heartbreaking story.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/28/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
I get really tired of the way we abdicate our own responsibility in our obsessive tabloid culture. Just because people are well known, or choose to try and make a living in an industry that, if successful, means a certain amount of press, doesn't mean they've signed over their entire lives to our every whim. And I can't even believe people actually think that. I mean...what other career would we basically tell people, don't be successful or you're asking for people to photograph you every time you leave your house, make up lies about you,scrutinize every word you say, and follow you around and demand your attention and time or we'll hold it against you?
And to be honest, her current lifestyle does not draw attention to itself when you think about it. In her younger years, maybe. But now she's a mother, she works, and she does charity work. She's not waving her underwear over her head down Sunset or carrying a vial of blood around anymore.
I just can't help but feel like this is a form of "blame the victim" that we think is okay because they have money and they "deserve" it for picking this career. A career, fyi, that has no guarantee of any sort of success, let alone this kind. Acting is by no means a guarantee of any level of success, and all it takes is one truly bad movie to wreck a career a lot of the time.
My point is just that...we always get annoyed when "stars" point out how ridiculous tabloid culture is and I can't help but wonder why.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
[www.salon.com]
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
Yup! If he was regular skeevy child rapist, he would have been doing 20 years with Bubba as a cellmate.
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
09/27/09
im sure he doesnt want to go to jail. i wouldnt either. but im not going to give him a free pass just because hes a rich guy with a good pr person.