Roman Polansky, acclaimed film director, has been living abroad for years to avoid arrest for charges stemming from ‘date rape’ of an underage girl. Now he’s been arrested by the Swiss, says an AP report this morning.
Polanksi’s horrible actions can’t be excused by his considerable talent. But, from a libertarian stance, I am not sure why the state needs to pursue him further, when the victim seems to have settled and wants the whole business over.
I say this, despite having very strong feelings about crimes of this nature, which – when the victims are not minors – are often dismissed as “consensual” – instead of what they really are – acquaintance or date rape. When you target a naive young man or woman, ply them with alcohol and slip drugs into their food, in order to make them compliant, you are raping them, as surely as if you’d knocked them over the head. [I know the victim’s surname has been given every where, but on principle, I think it should not be – so I am referring to her by initial. I also removed the link to her testimony to the grand jury which I’d placed here before. I hope other writers will do the same.].
But Polanski has paid his dues and made amends to the victim to her satisfaction. Why is the state baying for blood? Ambitious judge?
Here is what the victim, now married with three children, has said about the repeated publicizing of the case.
“My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing,” she said. “It is clear to me that because the district attorney’s office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney’s office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case.”
There is really no “public” good being served by rehashing this business when Polanski is in his 70’s and has never offended again, when there’s been evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and most importantly, when the victim is satisfied that justice has been done. All the rest is vanity, careerism, and titillation.
Next to the number of children whom governments and corporations routinely abuse when they starve, bomb, destroy, and impoverish whole countries, the damage Polanski did was relatively limited.
It seems as if the Swiss have become pretty compliant with demands from the US government.
What does this say about the new monetary regulatory regime, now headquartered in Switzerland?Could the government just be looking for a high-profile victim to lend legitimacy to its own intrusiveness.
“In 1977, he [Polansky] was accused of raping the teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson’s house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.
Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.
Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. Aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France.
The victim, Samantha G, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.”
Pingback: Ca. Criminal Attorney (888) 711-0131 » Blog Archive » sex crimes - California Criminal Defense Law Firm
Ah — one of my favorite cases. Polanski did absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever — the girl knew exactly what she was doing and wanted it and enjoyed it. The 42-day sentence itself was a travesty of justice. The case is a perfect example of the unchecked unethical and sexually repressed nature of The Mob. (Although, in fairness, I don’t hear lots of people actually supporting this absurdity — it seems to be mostly/only coming from the top mobsters, perhaps because of their own diseased psyches, or perhaps simply symbolically to show the herds there’s nowhere they can run. But they’re definitely not raising their voices against it, and so implicitly support it :|.)
HI Dennis –
Always happy to have you express your crazy views!
How do you “know” the girl wanted it?
The law states that minors can’t “consent” – so you are legally in the wrong on that.
Morally, I won’t even get into how repugnant that position is.
Also, I think it’s wrong to confuse this case with pedophilia – which is a complete preference for pre-pubescent children. Polanski’s tastes run closer to a more or less normal adult male preference – for early teens, but normal only in other societies and times.
It’s not “normal” or “normative” in modern American culture, and since the act was committed here, it’s certainly appropriate for people to feel outrage, and no – that’s not puritanism. You can be quite liberal and feel that what he did was wrong. It would be wrong if he’d manipulated her into just taking pictures.
He doesn’t sound particularly repentant to me, either ..nor do I think artistic genius excuses him. I don’t think he’s that much of a genius. An overrated practitioner of an overrated art. Ask me again when there’s a real genius involved.
I don’t care for the people hounding him OR for the people defending him. He’s got too much attention and the victim wants it over. That’s enough for me.
Don’t know why the state has to go after this 30 years later.
I’ve seen footage of her, and him, and relevant others, and am pretty good at spotting sincerity (and lack thereof). Moreover the surrounding circumstances of the case corroborate my suspicions — the girl had been doing provocative photoshoots for a while under the auspices of her mother (if anybody manipulated her into doing it (nobody really did!), it was her mother), and in fact was encouraged to work with Polanski who’s preference for younger women was not a secret. I would find it far more plausible that there was some kind of mother-daughter conspiracy to entrap rich Polanski and extort money, but that’s irrelevant.
Sexually repressed youth is by no means normative, and more importantly, it should never be. Polanski had lots of supporters, even in the US, but apparently not quite enough. Moreover, who are you (or anyone else) to feel outrage at what two consenting individuals do with their own lives? (The drugs, by the way, were also consentual and recreational.) (To further illustrate this absurdity, assume that she had been happier with the rendezvous and had publicly boasted of her satisfaction — would the outrage still be there? What are people /really/ outraged about — the alleged (bullshit) unconsensual nature of their relationship, or of the very idea of (consensual) sexuality?)
Also, if it’s “normal” in other societies (ie. he was welcomed in France), what does that mean? Who is wrong; who is right? France or the US? Can they both be right? (By the way, it’s also considered “normal” in the US and elsewhere to still believe in the existence of super-natural zombies. I would hardly consider “normality” a laudable thing.) I thought we had more or less firm libertarian principles that can help steer us away from mob-mentality — against which our sexual prohibition laws are in violation.
I find the girl’s position absolutely repugnant — for allowing all this to happen. Even in the very beginning she wasn’t too keen on prosecuting Polanski — it was almost certainly not her idea, but that of her mother’s or her community’s. And still today she maintains the exact same feeble tone — that of a willingness to forget everything (I wonder why), but still an implicit acceptance of the system that so brutally and violently abused Polanski.
Dennis –
Yes, you make a good point there – if the mother pimped the daughter out, that gives it a different color, but I’m not sure of that, and that still doesn’t take away from Polanski’s culpability if he manipulated the girl.
I couldn’t care less what Polanski does in his rather tedious role as satyr. Really. Please get it into your head. Not puritanism. Boredom.
But if he forced her, it’s violent.
Let me ask you – Why is Polanski free to force young girls to have sex with him (if it was force) but I’m not free to turn up my nose at him? My nose is every bit as free an organ as his er..nether parts.
I’m not in favor of the state hounding people over things like this, but I don’t see why people can’t be offended if they want to be ..Just because you think everyone should applaud doesn’t mean everyone should..who’s being authoritarian and laying down the law here? I’m not taking sides on this..
Let Polanski have sex with minors and let people point and giggle if they want to. That’s libertarian..but you want to replace prudish authoritarianism with licentious authoritarianism.
But you can relax..I really don’t want the state pursuing the old man, if nothing else because he ain’t worth the money
It’s not your nose or offendedness or state hounding that I’m worried about — it’s the state’s big and REAL and deadly guns and abuse against Mr. Polanski. The case really was a most perfect example of corruption — from the fudged accusations, to the corrupt — all of it. And the abuse is still apparently ongoing. How can you be “bored” or “indifferent” to such absurd abuse against an innocent man? (Again, I assure you, the girl was and still is lying — the relationship was consensual. If you insist on raising your nose, raise it at her (and her mother) first.)
Polanki’s sins or his victimhood don’t trouble me because there are very very many more people right now in lots worse shape and facing far more dire consequences – malnourishment, bankruptcy, death – from what is going on in the financial world..
I’ll spend my energy on them, thanks.
I think Polanski has enough people to fight his battles.
Contrast the public support he gets with the vilification of Michael Jackson who never gave anyone drugs, so far as I know..and in any case, was treated far worse in the press and by the justice system
So – yes as a libertarian, I think there are abuses of government in both cases – but the victims are capable of fighting their own battles – I’ll waste time on those who can’t
I should add that I don’t think its prudishness that’s causing the uproar..
There’s a lot of child sex trafficking and violent child porn in this and other countries and many people see a link between that and the sexualizing of younger and younger children..
I don’t know enough to say if there is such a connection – but that’s the source of some of the reaction.
There are some other elements too – such as the anger a certain kind of feminist feels toward the older male – younger female pairing, which they find threatening to the one-on-one equality that they advocate.
Anger against “Hollywood elitism” – the sense that ordinary people wouldn’t be able to get away with that kind of behavior..
At least, that’s my perception.
Genuine puritanism is only a very small part of the anger over the case, I assure you.
The connection between the perceived increase in the sexualization of youth and violence against children is bogus and irrelevant.
The certain kind of feminist who would criticize another person’s consensual relationship is insane.
Those who might have suspected hollywood elitism might have had a point, if only an actual crime had been committed.
I’m sure the violent incarceration of innocent people does bother you, and that you aren’t really trying to justify the absurdity of the mobs in this case.
Hi dennis
I can feel anyway I want.
And so can anyone else.
And exactly what are your credentials as a defender of liberty, pray tell?
We’re not talking about feelings. We’re talking about real bloody violence; committed by the corrupt state/judge, in the name of the mobs. (Against a 100
% innocent man, from what I can see, unless you can show otherwise, hopefully using more than the feeble and inconsistent testimony of a highly dubious girl.)
(My credentials come from the School Of Objective Logic and Rationality; my professors were the greatest minds in history; I believe I graduated Cum Laude, unless you can show otherwise :D.)
I’ll let your response stand as it is. It’s damning enough!
Dennis evidently hasn’t heard or read the trial transcripts, in which the victim testified that she told Polanski “No” several times. When an adult female says “No” and the man has sex with her anyway, that’s considered to be rape. Why should it be considered different with a minor?
Yes, good point. And the victim’s history isn’t relevant either. You might like giving your money away, but if someone forces you to hand over your wallet – it’s still a theft