Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:56 PM
Fri Dec 18
73 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/28/09
11/28/09
Also: it is an obvious rape case if Victim?'s account is true but the devil's advocate in me wants to ask her how clearly she made the fact that she did not want to have sex. I know it'd be a shitty thing to ask but I feel like a drunken fratboy wouldn't be able to differentiate between "Look, I don't really feel like having sex right now" and flirtation (repeat: really shitty thing to ask).
11/28/09
There have been times when I'm very attracted to a guy and would not mind making out or messing around with him, but I DO NOT want to have sex yet, if ever. If I were with one of these guys and we had talked about how I don't want to have sex, yet he tried anyway, I would feel violated and hurt. Also, I can definitely understand feeling pressured and scared about how the other person would react...possibly by using force or hurting me.
I'm tired of this "if she doesn't scream bloody murder, stay sober and wear high necked blouses all the time, it's not rape" thing. I want there to be enough awareness and respect for women in our culture that I can go to a party, have a few drinks, wear a burlap sack or a short dress, and still be able to have enough faith in humanity to feel safe.
11/28/09
That statement encapsulates rape culture. (Not that JF is endorsing it.) Why do we expect that drunken frat boys have trouble understanding "I don't feel like having sex now"? We expect drunk people to understand that they shouldn't drive, pee on other people's lawns, trash hotel rooms, etc. Most people understand and respect these norms, even when they're drunk. When drunk people ignore these rules, they get punished because we hold them responsible. Why can't we expect drunk people not to commit rape?
11/28/09
11/28/09
Excellent point.
11/28/09
11/28/09
Because, of course, one is always in charge of one's surroundings and situation and if you're not, you should have been, Missy!
You can go anywhere you want and o whatever you want in any clothes you want. The only way to get raped is if there's a rapist around. Sober women get raped, for example. Women in long skirts get raped. Whoops, what about them, those hussies?
11/28/09
11/28/09
All I'm saying is that just like drunk driving, people sometimes do the wrong thing (MAJOR UNDERSTATEMENT ALERT) and consequently seriously harm others. I'd just like to distance myself from those situations as best as possible.
11/28/09
11/28/09
It's possible to admit that sometimes women give mixed signals without endorsing rape culture and saying every victim "asked for it."
There are undoubtedly many cases of rape where the guy involved has no idea what he's doing is unwanted.
Note: Based on the letter, I don't think that is what happened in this case. But to pretend that scenario doesn't exist is foolish.
And yeah, getting drunk at a frat party and going to a room with a guy is going to increase the likelihood of rape. It's not right, and it shouldn't happen, and it doesn't mean any woman who does the above deserves it, but we need to acknowledge that it's true so we can protect ourselves.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
"Life is shitty" is just a vague platitude that ignores the realities of womens' lives.
11/28/09
I strongly suspect this girl was a like a lot of girls in college. Free from home, looking to have some fun, and assuming that she had as much right to physical safety as all the men at that party. But she didn't. Not because of poor judgment, but because the guy was a rapist and she was there.
I am all for teaching women about steps they can take to minimize risk, so long as that never takes the form of suggesting that any decision they make is up for the judgment of "bad" if something happens to them. They're just decisions. And I think it's interesting that they wouldn't be deemed "bad" if rape hadn't happened. They'd just have been partying.
I think in the end, victim blaming serves a dual purpose. It puts the responsibility on the victim so we can perpetuate ideas about both men and women...but it can also serve to give the victim a sense of control through the blame. If they'd only done x, or y, or z it wouldn't have happened. If it's your fault, then you had some sort of control over it. It gives agency back, in a way. But it sadly does nothing to actually stop rape where it starts...which is with the perpetrator.
11/28/09
Humanity is not lost! Even on HuffPo some brave souls still see reason and justice! Have hope Jezzies!
11/28/09
I just ASSUMED that the courts would laugh in their faces. No bail, for he ran out once. And he raped a child! I just ASSUMED that all those celebrities with their noses on Polanski's ass would just be ignored.
Unfortunately, I'd forgotten to take into account that talent lets you get away with anything, as evidenced by the O.J. Simpson trial.
I also find it rather ironic that Goldberg stood up for him when she's the star of The Color Purple, a most empowering movie about a rape victim who overcomes obstacles and the rapists get what they deserve.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
"Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison."
I guess this makes sense when:
- someone continues to avoid imprisonment
- continues to make money and a career for themselves
- that person does not feel any sort of repercussion from their industry
is put in 'jail' and can't continue to break the law...then ya! Poor baby.
"Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to."
Ya, that's awful but since we're talking about a person who thumbs their nose at the law and doesn't think he should have to pay for his crime, that doesn't apply here.
"... as if we were living the darkest and most ferocious hours of the McCarthy era all over again."
Give me a fucking break.
Even if one based their argument on 'she has forgiven him' (which for anyone who has half a brain probably means she wants the media to leave her the fuck alone which they are totally not prepared to do) HE STILL FLED WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY SENTENCED. That's also against the law, no?
And last time I checked, he hasn't been pardoned.
His 'psych evaluation' was not incarceration.
He RAPED someone - he should be held responsible
He evaded being captured for decades (while continuing to win accolades for his work and OMG the poor thing had to live in Europe).
Why is there is a disconnect here?
WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT??????
11/28/09
The answer to that question is, apparently, a place where one can claim to be a "philosopher" when one "thinks about things, sometimes".
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Browsing Levy's HuffPo archive, I come up with [u.nu] in which he seems to be awfully, awfully upset about commutation rules.
Now, if you REALLY want to become properly enraged, I'd suggest [u.nu]
And aside from the general repulsiveness of the argument, you'd think a "philosopher" would be more interested in reasoning about why, say, rape is such a drastically lesser crime than murder and a bit less heavy on the 'insults, assaults and eviscerations'.
11/28/09
My personal favorite moment is when he says "It's not a crime worse than the one he suffered when his wife was murdered."
Cool. So it's nice to know that Holocaust survivors, refugees from Darfur, Sudan, or Serejevo can never, ever commit a crime worth prosecuting.
11/28/09
In response to this critique...he sued the guys who said that.
CLASS ACT ALL THE WAY.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
You do realize these are the blatherings of one tiresome old boob and that no nation-wide referendum re: the Polanski issue was held?
11/28/09
/That's what you're taking away from this? Really?
11/28/09
11/28/09
You rape someone, you go to jail. It's not rocket science.
11/28/09
11/28/09
God, some of the other comments are awful.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
And I know how you feel about the victim, but his apologists don't cite that, they paint him as a victim, which just boggles my mind
11/28/09
11/28/09
And I realise that most 'apologists' think he didn't do anything toooo wrong, which I completely disagree with and that boggles my mind too. But I'm sure that I'm not the only person that thinks he did something horrible, but who thinks that he shouldn't be in prison. It seems like I'm the only person on Jezebel that thinks so, though!
11/28/09
however, polanksi was already taken to court, charged, and then he committed an additional crime when he skipped bail. if Ms. Greer does not want to return to testify or play a role in his sentence for her rape, that's is just fine. but unfortunately, she is not involved in the fact that he is wanted for running while out on bail. it's a separate crime, and when you get to the point that you are LEGALLY excusing people for unrelated crimes in order to spare the original victim from more trauma, you are treading in dangerous waters. it sets a precedent, and, unfortunately, opens a loophole that would further encourage the threat, manipulation, and intimidation of victims.
also, regarding the original crime: the victim can easily decline to press charges, and can decide to drop charges, but once the criminal is charged and found guilty/pleads guilty, that cannot be undone unless the criminal was found to be wrongly convicted. you can't just change your mind and release a convicted person, as this, too, would encourage threats to victims even beyond the trial -- imagine if all it took was a scared victim saying, please, make this end because i'm suffering, just let him go to get a confessed criminal released?
11/28/09
also, prosecuting polanksi will help, and here's why. supporting his release is supporting inequality under the law. i am sure you know that rape is both personally reinforced and societally reinforced, and setting a precedent where a man is released after conviction AND after fleeing the country before sentencing FOR the admitted rape of a 13 year old 1) once again reinforces that rape, even of a child, is not a serious crime 2) shows the world that some people are more equal than others 3) sets up a dangerous, dangerous precedent for criminals justifying evasion of the law and punishment for their crimes based on their traumatic pasts. look at the statistics -- most serious criminals have a history of violence, rape, abuse, or neglect. that simply cannot become an excuse. it can't be a free pass to harming others.
11/28/09
11/28/09
When you say his punishment is not going to help anyone, I cannot agree with you. It may not help Ms Geimer, and that is certainly unfortunate, but part of the concept of punishment of crime is not merely that there is justice served to the victim, but also that the punishment serves to dissuade other potential offenders of committing such acts themselves.
Mr Polanski is a celebrity. So many of his defenders are citing his talent and his sufferings in life as being reasons to relieve him of paying his debt to society for his crimes. Crimes which he has actually confessed to.
We live in a cultural climate where the cult of celebrity has become all-consuming. Being convicted of a crime results in the reward of fame and celebrity. The balloon boy's family and the White House gatecrashers have achieved exactly what they set out to. They are now famous. The message is already being sent out to society that being a bad person or acting in a criminal fashion does not necessarily result in fitting punishment.
What message is being sent out to society then, if the criminal justice system does NOT persue Roman Polanski? That raping a 13 year old girl and then spending decades evading punishment is okay, as long you are famous, or have celebrities defending you?
So Polanski may be being used as an example here. Boo Hoo. It's not like he didn't do anything wrong. He's already on the record as admitting it.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
The intention is to punish Polanski, but I'm not exactly sure that's the effect. If it had been dropped before the arrest, would anyone be calling her at all? Obviously, the best option is Polanski shuts up and deals with whatever punishment he's given, tells his supporters he's accepting it, and the world moves on. But unfortunately that's just not going to happen.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Among many other things, private prosecution allows prosecution to be bought to paid to go away: would Ms. Geimer be saying the same thing if she hadn't received a cash settlement from Polanski? Prosecutors can be corrupt or misguided, but I am certain they are less so than a system in which it came down to mostly poor people (the poor being the commonest victims of crime) to weigh a cash payoff versus a prosecution. Down that road lies weregeld, the medieval system under which there were set prices to pay for killing people, varying according to social status (and gender).
11/28/09
While I understand your concern for Ms. Geimer, the crime that Polanski is being extradited for (hopefully, assuming he doesn't go free again) is evading his sentencing and thus the actual serving of time (I think I phrased that correctly).
The criminal trial and the civil trial are both concluded; Polanski is evading the sentence that he should serve to the State of California as befits all people who are found/plead guilty to a crime within that jurisdiction. I believe the civil suit has long since closed with him having paid financial damages to Ms. Geimer. She does not have to testify against him or be involved in any way in the sentencing portion so far as I know, and to be honest, the media and other organizations should leave her be if that's what she desires. The State of California, however, must be allowed to have its criminals serve the time that they are sentenced, or Polanski had and still has the right to an appeal. At this point, it isn't about the rape per se, but the evasion of sentencing that has the US and California wanting an extradition.
Please note that I am not minimizing either statutory rape or the rape itself, just clarifying that if any defendant who fled was guilty of murder and fled before the sentencing, the legal extradition goings-on would still be the same - the crime in the eyes of the state is evading sentencing and serving it for the 'original' crime.
(Sorry for the long-windedness, but the whole situation infuriates me, from the original crime to the continued confusion over why California wants to extradite him and his rape-apologist petition-signing friends. The point still stands that legally, one should not be allowed to avoid serving the sentence one is given - even if, in my opinion, this defendant, Polanski, got off extremely lightly, as do many rapists. Ugh.)