Why Polanski Should Not Go to Prison
Posted: Wednesday, September 30, 2009
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
This past weekend, acclaimed movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old warrant issued against him by Los Angeles prosecutors. The warrant resulted from an incident in 1977, when Polanski allegedly drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at the home of actor Jack Nicholson.
After he was charged in 1978, the Los Angeles prosecutor at that time reached a plea bargain with Polanski. The agreement called for Polanski to submit to mandatory counseling and treatment, but no prison time was included. However, when the judge indicated that he was not bound by this agreement and that he would still consider imposing prison time, Polanski fled to France prior to his sentencing.
Most Americans believe Polanski should be sent back to the U.S. to face the music, i.e., spend time in prison, for his crime. I respectfully disagree. I believe he should either be let go or brought back to the U.S. with a guarantee that the outcome stipulated by his plea agreement will be honored. No, I'm no fan of a creep like Mr. Polanski, but there are several reasons why I feel that he should not spend time behind bars.
First, the victim, who is now 45, says the incident did not traumatize her nearly as much as the efforts to prosecute Polanski have. In addition, she says she cannot move on until or unless Polanski is off the hook. Should she be punished in order to punish Polanski? Hasn't she already suffered enough?
Second, she has long since forgiven Mr. Polanski.
Third, although he did flee after pleading guilty, he had good reason to believe the judge was going to renege on the plea deal and send him to prison for many years. What we need to realize is that the original plea agreement had been negotiated expressly for the purpose of making things easier on the victim, not out of any sympathy for Polanski.
Also, contrary to popular opinion, Polanski never admitted to rape (although there is little doubt in anyone's mind that this is the crime he actually committed) – he pleaded guilty to a single count of having sexual relations with a minor. Had he pleaded guilty to rape, he would not and should not have gotten a deal that included anything less than 20 years in prison.
But you may be thinking: Ah, but that constitutes statutory rape – isn't that technically the same thing as rape? Well, no. Statutory rape and actual rape are two different animals. Statutory rape is based on an arbitrary age of consent set by statute (hence the name), which can be different from country to country and state to state. For example, in most U.S. states, the age of consent ranges from 16 to 18, whereas it is 14 in Canada. Therefore, consensual sex with 14-year-old, which would be perfectly legal in Canada, would be a felony in most U.S. states.
Interestingly enough, in Biblical times, people were considered adults at the age of 12. Many theologians even surmise that Mary was around this age when she gave birth to Jesus and married Joseph (who was apparently much older) a short while later. Who would have the gall to accuse God of selecting a child to bear His Son? Should we call Joseph a pedophile? All the recent outrage about Polanski's 13-year-old victim being a "child" is totally foreign to Biblical teachings. Indeed the definition of age of consent has always been determined by culture.
Now actual rape, on the other hand, is almost universally recognized as the act of forcing someone (man, woman, or child – it doesn't matter) to engage in sex against their will. That doesn't vary a whole lot from culture to culture and has remained pretty much the same down through the centuries. Again, while no one doubts that Polanski committed actual rape, that is not what he pleaded guilty to.
Fourth, Polanski long ago reached an out-of-court settlement (for an undisclosed amount of money) with the young lady as a result of a lawsuit she filed against him.
Fifth and finally, this case is more than 30 years old. It's time to for all of us to move on. More importantly, though, it's time to let victim get on with her life.
This Article has been viewed 714 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)Terry,This is a very good, thoughtful article. And, I agree. Dredging this up is not fair to the victim; however, Polanski has gotten away with it. Many say that his punishment has been that he cannot return to the States. Are you kidding me? The man is wealthy. When you are wealthy, being 'subjected' to live in France is not the end of the world. I could have an estate in the French countryside and be more than content!NancyNancy, I agree. This case was botched from the beginning and, unfortunately, the victim has suffered additional pain because of it. Polanski should never have gotten such an easy plea bargain from the prosecutor, i.e., pleading guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for a sentence of 90 days of evaluation, treatment, or whatever. And he should have been held without bail. Like I said in the article, they did it in an attempt make things easier on the victim but, ironically, it backfired when the judge decided not to cooperate and spooked Polanski into skipping the country. The result has been more than 30 years of additional suffering for the victim. Like they say, hindsight is 20/20.
First - Statutory rape victims don't get to decide whether or not to prosecute the guilty regardless of how they feel the crime affected them.Second - Statutory rape victims don't get to decide whether or not to prosecute the guilty based on forgiveness.Third - I don't care about biblical times, other countries or any other obfuscation you try to put forward - nor do most Americans.Fourth - Statutory rape victims don't get to decide whether or not to prosecute the guilty based on being paid off (BTW - she isn't bothered by the rape, but still sued? OH, so you mean it DID bother her, but it was just OK to pay financially and not criminally?Fifth - The time frame doesn't matter and the victim doesn't need to follow this story. She can turn off the TV or not read the paper just like anyone else. Furthermore no judge "reneged" on anything here. A prosecutor makes recomendations to a judge and a judge decides punishment. No judge ever agreed to not punish Polanski exactly as he deserves and hopefully will be.Sixth - Clearly it wasn't your daughter that was the victim here. Why don't you mention the drugs Polanski gave the minor too. Since you want to give so much weight to what the victim says and stress that Polanski didn't "admit rape" remember this:- according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.Dana, thanks for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts on this subject with me and the SearchWarp readers. I'll try to address your points one at a time.#1) Well, all I can say is that the original prosecutor obviously took her situation into account when agreeing to the plea bargain. Why else would he have given Polanski such a lenient deal? You or I would not have let him off the hook so easy.#2) See my answer to #1.#3) Your point about other countries is well taken. I can see why Americans wouldn't care about that -- and they probably shouldn't. But I'm afraid to say you are also right about Americans not caring about Biblical times. That's very troublesome to me. Perhaps that's why most Americans today see nothing wrong with homosexuality, fornication, or heterosexual couples shacking up without being married. Now that's shameful. And then Americans scream bloody murder when an older man has sex with a teen? Somehow that seems disengenuous to me.#4) Who said the victim wasn't bothered by the rape? Not I. Of course she was. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. You need to read what people actually say, not what you just think they say. Let me try this again, I said "... the victim, who is now 45, says the incident did not traumatize her nearly as much as the efforts to prosecute Polanski have." Yes, the rape traumatized her, but not as much as the prosecution effort have. Got it now? And I could understand why someone might seek a financial settlement as as opposed to a criminal prosecution. What's so hard to understand about that?#5) Yes, the victim could turn off the TV if she wanted to. But wouldn't it be difficult to prosecute Polanski without her involvement? Oh, you say he already pleaded guilty? Ah, but you can't have it both ways. If the judge is not obligated to honor the plea deal on the sentencing, then Polanski can say "just kidding" and back out of his guilty plea. Fair is fair. Wouldn't you agree?#6) Like I said in the article, I have no doubt that Polanski did all of the stuff you claim he did - drugs, rape, sodomy, the whole nine yards. You'll get no argument from me on that. However (you knew that was coming, didn't you?), Polanski pleaded guilty only to unlawful sex with a minor. That's all he admitted to. If you want to punish him for ALL the stuff he actually did, he must be prosecuted and found guilty of all of it. Are you familiar with the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? Perhaps you believe he should be tortured into a confession. Hey, I got an idea. There are unemployed former CIA employees who might be willing to ...
Can't say i agreed at all! Whilst there may have been questions about the judge, surely if those questions are legitimate, they could be contested in a court of law. Everyone should have their day in court - just becuase you're richj and famous, it doesn't mean you can just skip town and forget it.Ed, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with your point about the rich and famous, but that was not part of my argument.
Come on mate! Wake up and smell the coffee!I respectfully reject those points, consider these ones.1.Who is to say the "victim" is in fact over the matter?Although if I got given a few million I probably forgive anyone for anything!It is common knowledge that people who suffer at the hands of such animals, tend to minimize the affects. Denial is commonplace and sadly the ramifications of abuse are handed down generations, if they are not addressed early.2.Just because the "victim"has forgiven the perpetrator, does not mean that he should walk free. That would set a very dangerous precedent, would it not? It is foolish to think that other offenders would not be watching a case like this very carefully. What about "sex tourists"?If they commit a crime in a third world country,(where laws and policing are sometimes lax) and then get away to their home country, does that mean they should not be punished?3.The Bible? Mate, what year do we live in? Joseph was no peadophile in his time and culture, Polanski may well be, in our time and your American culture. Do you have daughters? Children at all?!Fair go, we live in an age where children have a voice and rights.Do you wish to split hairs of the law when it comes to a child?4.Civil law and Criminal law are two entirely different "animals" for a start.Out of court settlements, so, if your rich you are above the law?Gary Glitter is a fine example, he is not as acclaimed as Polanski, and he got caught! Other people respect and admire people in the spotlight, is there not any moral responibility?5.Yes, let her get on with her life, let us just all sweep it under the carpet, after all it was 30 years ago. While we're at it let us forget what Hitler has done, Stalin too, it was all so long ago! Do we not learn?Kian, thanks for reading and commenting. I'm always glad to have readers from the other side of the earth and specifically from Down Under!However, it's apparent that you fail to comprehend the nuances of this case, and I'm not sure that I'm competent enough to explain them to you. But I'll give it a try anyway. :-)1. I did not say the victim was "over the matter." Here's what I said: "... the victim, who is now 45, says the incident did not traumatize her nearly as much as the efforts to prosecute Polanski have." In other words, as bad as the incident may have hurt her (or is hurting her), it pales in comparison to the trauma that is being caused to her by the efforts to prosecute Polanski.2. Your point would be valid if she were still a minor. However, she's now 45 years old and has had 32 years to think things over and still insists that she has forgiven him. I believe this should be taken into consideration along with the other criteria I listed.3. My point in bringing up the Bible and other cultures was to show that statutory rape of teenager, unlike sex with a small child or forcible rape of anyone, is an arbitrary concept, hence the term "statutory". There is no way you can convince me that someone who has consenual sex with a teenager is on the same level as someone who rapes a small child. In some cultures and times, the former is/was acceptable. The latter is/was always evil and unacceptable. The two just can't logically be grouped together. Now, did Polanski actually rape the girl? I'm 100% convinced that he did. But what he pleaded guilty to was "illegal sexual relations with a minor" - something far different in my mind.4. Yeah, I agree that civil and criminal law are totally different. That is, in isolation. Consideration of the fact that he reached and out-of-court settlement with her is valid in context with the other facts in this case.5. Surely you're not comparing Polanski to Hitler or Stalin? It sounds like you're lacking a bit of perspective.Thanks Terry,I apreciate your take on this subject and you're more than quaified to have an opinion, mine comes from being a father to 3 girls. I tend to be a little passionate. However, not being one to leave sleeping dogs be; my response to yours, as follows.1.I'm sure you realise "over it" is a common figure of speech, my fault, let me be more succinct. I'm sure the "alledged victim" is being traumatised by this, she may well have gotten on with her life, the last thing, I imagine, she would want, would be to relive her horror, as I believe she may well be. However, my point is, her suffering will be for nothing. Instead of a huge sacrifice, for the benifit of other victims, ensuring this kind of behaiviour is not trivalized or marginalized. I believe high profile celebrities, such as Polanski are not above the law, regardless of time Justice, should, indeed be done.2.Because she has long forgiven him, the law is irrelevant?Again, I refer to my point of denial, and large sums of money.3.Was it consenual? Were not drugs involved? Did she a no point say "no"?Illegal sexual relations is, still in fact, illegal, which suggests it is against the law.4.So we should just forget about it, he made amends financially and that is good enough. What is the statute of limitations? Does it matter?5.No, I do not compare, look closer. My point is, although time is a factor, it should not be forgotten, lessons are to be learnt from all crime. Lest we, or our children, again suffer.Kian, I'll just respond to point #3 this time. I'd just be rehashing what I said before if I responded to the other points again. Anyway, I do believe Polanski raped her. I do not belieive it was consensual sex. I do believe he drugged and took advantage of her against her will. However, the fact that the original prosecutor let him get by with pleading guilty to consensual sex complicates the case.
Great article Terry, with some thoughtful arguments and reponses to objections! I'm not really decided on the issue - initially I thought "lock him up", but on further reflection, and reading the victim's view on the matter, I'm leaning more towards the "drop it" side....right now the two options seem to be:a) Go ahead with the legal action and lock him up - this will cause him suffering (which may well be justifiable in itself), it will also cause the victim more suffering (which is unfair to her) and will cost the American tax-payers a lot of money (which isn't fair to them).b)drop it - this won't cause him any suffering, but won't cause the victim any more suffering either (she has stated this is the outcome that she wants) and won't cost the American tax-payers huge sums of moneyPolanksi is now 76 and as far as we know he hasn't committed any further crimes in the last 30 years.Is causing him a few years of suffering so important that the additional suffering also caused to the victim and to the taxpayer can be justified?I'm not at all sure it is.Ben, I'm glad you recognize the fact that this is not a cut-and-dried case. No one outside of the Hollywood elite has much sympathy for a guy like Polanski. Personally, I couldn't care less about his money and fame. My views on this issue would be the same even if he were a homeless person. Like you apparently do, I prefer to look at the big picture instead of jumping to a conclusion in a knee-jerk manner.
Terry, let's look at this from another angle: Polanski was 45, the girl, 13.Gregory, thanks for reading and commenting. If Polanski raped the girl, then the age difference is moot. Rape is a heinous crime, whether it's a 45-year-old man raping a 13-year-old girl or a 45-year-old man raping another 45-year-old man. Now, if Polanski had consensual sex with the girl -- the crime that he pleaded guilty to -- then what he did was still wrong, but not nearly as bad as rape.Terry, your point is not lost on me, and I'm not trying to be overly self-righteous. I am brother to two younger sisters (well into adulthood now) and the father of a teenage girl.How young must the girl be before her consenting to sex is no excuse? In Vietnam, 9 year old girls consent to prostitution. Not real rape, by your definition, because the 9-year old consented. At 13, our society deems the girl too young to make a fully informed decision about the consequences of having sex. Sure she consented, and children are sexual beings. That's why we protect them with statutory rape laws. This girl was unprotected, and Polanski victimized her.
"Many theologians even surmise that Mary was around this age when she gave birth to Jesus and married Joseph" - This means nothing. Theologians surmising, on what evidence? Those theologians making such a preposterous suggestion might very well be concealing their own pedophilia tendencies. Twelve was pre-pubescent then, as it is now. This should rightfully be discussed under another subject, but since you brought it up: If Mary was 12 when she gave birth to Jesus, then I'm strongly suspicious of the virgin birth mythology. Sounds like a cover up, the poor girl was probably molested, but it's just as likely the theologians are making things up to fit their vision of how society worked 2,000 years ago.
Thank you for allowing my reply, I will say no more.-GGregory, I can see where you're coming from, and that I may have inadvertantly misled you about my views on this issue. In my opinion, sex with anyone under 13 should be counted as actual rape, not statutory rape. There is no such thing as consensual sex (legal or illegal) with someone that age. Consensual sex with a teen 13-15 should be counted as statutory rape which, like I've previously said, is wrong and should indeed be illegal, but is not on a par with actual rape. I believe the age of legal and lawful consent should be 16, as it is in many states. Someone who is mature enough to drive a car should also be mature enough to make a decision about sex (which ideally would be abstinance until marriage). Of course, I realize that not everyone is wise enough and moral enough to make that decision. Many adults obviously aren't.As far as the theologians are concerned, I didn't say I agreed with them. I believe Mary was closer to 16. BTW, I hope that one day you will come to accept the truth of the virgin birth of Jesus. That's one thing that's not a matter of opinion.
Beyond argument. He is guilty and he fled! Its good to know thta justice does not bow down to the right ans powerfull elites. I'll be looking fw to see him in jail.Taylor, thanks for reading and expressing your views on this issue. Polanski's status as a "rich and powerful elite" has not influenced my opinion this case. Yes, he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor back in 1977 and should have served the one or two years he probably would have gotten from the judge as a result. Yes, I believe that's all he would have gotten. People weren't as fanatical about this issue back then as they are now. If you will remember, political correctness was still unheard of back in the 1970's. But you must also keep in mind that, although he did apparently rape the girl, he has not pleaded guilty to rape nor has he been proven guilty of it in a court of law. If they had the goods on him back in 1977, then they should have vigorously prosecuted him and convinced a jury to find him guilty of rape. However, they chose not to, they gave him a lenient plea deal, they let him slip away, and they missed opportunities to bring him back decades ago. I just think it's a little too late now, i.e., it will cause more harm than good at this point.
The man remains guilty of a crime for which he has never served time because he chose to flee, fearing to test the court's veracity and refusing to use legal means if the courts did in any way "betray" him as he feared. There is too little protection of children; child predators and abusers should not get a pass. He did give a plea of guilty.
He is now in a Swiss jail, and they are not pleasant; they recently denied him bail; for now he is serving some time. This is not a matter of retribution but of following laws established to deal with criminal behavior including against children. Switzerland still will not look the other way when the guilty behave in cowardly ways and run, trying to be a law unto themselves. If a criminal will submit to the courts, victims would not have to go through more pain decades later. There are lawyers to defend criminals if courts try to ignore the law. The legal way is the way to go, and now this man must submit to a law higher than himself. There is hubris in Hollywood that leads to attempts to garner sympathy for a famous artiste and thereby override laws and justice regarding crime, especially heinous crimes. No parents of sexually abused sons or daughters could see, in my view, any justification for letting this kind of crime slide or for sending sympathy signals to other sex criminals.Jean, thanks for reading and expressing your views on this issue. I have great respect for your opinion. Like I told Taylor, I disagree with Hollywood's rationale for defending Polanski. His status as a "rich and powerful elite" has not influenced my opinion this case. Yes, he pleaded guilty to sex with a minor back in 1977 and should have served the one or two years he probably would have gotten from the judge as a result. But you must also keep in mind that, although he did apparently rape the girl, he has not pleaded guilty to rape nor has he been proven guilty of it in a court of law. If they had the goods on him back in 1977, then they should have vigorously prosecuted him and convinced a jury to find him guilty of rape. However, they chose not to, they gave him a lenient plea deal, they let him slip away, and -- seemingly unconcerned -- they missed opportunities to bring him back decades ago. I just think it's a little too late now, i.e., it will cause more harm than good at this point.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.