Roman Polanski and the definition of rape
Whoopi Goldberg says Polanski's crime wasn't 'rape rape'—and the debate begins anew.
Roman Polanski: Disagreement over what to call his crime
(INA Fassbender/Reuters/Corbis)
"How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. Whoopi Goldberg said on The View that film director Polanski's crime 32 years ago wasn't "rape rape," which makes it sound like she thinks that drugging and forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old girl was some kind of "Lolita situation." It's true that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, under a plea deal, but parsing the word doesn't change the crime(watch Whoopi Goldberg discuss Polanski and "rape rape").
"The reason we can all be on Polanski's side over this is not to do with what happened in 1977," said film studio executive Harvey Weinstein in Britain's Independent. "It's to do with the fact that the punishment for what happened so many years ago had already been decided" when Polanski agreed to spend time in prison in exchange for pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor. Polanski spent time in prison pre-sentencing but fled when the sentencing judge went back on the deal—that's why this his arrest in Switzerland was a "miscarriage of justice."
Anyone who thinks "Roman Polanski's rape trial was an open-and-shut case" should think again, said Elizabeth Snead in the Los Angeles Times. The HBO documentary film Wanted and Desired reveals the "sordid truth" behind the corrupt case against Polanski for the crime of "having sex with an underage girl." Watch the documentary and you'll see why even the victim says the trial was an injustice (watch the Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired trailer).
"Roman Polanski raped a child," said Kate Harding in Salon. "That's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in 'exile.'" Any legal misconduct revealed in a documentary doesn't change the fact that even Polanski admitted that he had unlawful sex with a minor. Rushing past that point to find reasons to forgive Polanski now is "twisted."
Show: Oldest | Newest
23 Comments
Posted by yoyo, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 3:55 pm what does harvey think we should do with the Nazi SS guards that the U.S. is extraditing to spain right now?so many years ago...fry the rapist Polanski, fry the SS guards.Break the law, do the time. he admitted it. her testamony sounds like she was raped hard anally.Oh but thats different...HOW?
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 4:35 pm Defenders and aplogists of Polanski are simply another in a loooong series of examples of how liberalism is a mental disorder...
Posted by WTF, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:22 pm Mr. Weistein's logic would hav one believe that since the rapist disagreed with the judge's latter decision, then he was well within his right to flee to another country. Another apologist claimed that the rapist had suffered enough already....... Perhaps life in Europe is much harder than advertised?
Posted by theviewneedstofixthis, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 8:19 pm I think Ms. Goldberg is exhibiting either a misunderstanding that the child was saying no the entire time or a nasty mental problem. The View needs to show her apologizing or remove her.Plea bargains are not legally binding.And, the judge they found to try to the case ,who offered the plea bargain, had the same sexual issues as Polanski.So the French government call Polanski's act a youthful mistake it occured when he was 43! On a positive note, it is heartwarming to see people speak up about child and personal safety.
Posted by Kristine, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 11:55 pm How can people still speak of the victim as a child? It smacks of infanilization of women. She is 44 years old and wants the case dropped. She has claimed that the ongoing court fight due to the judge suddenly changing his mind and threatening to sentence Polanski to LIFE IN PRISON has hurt her far worse than Polanski. So it seems that she is one of your liberals, Aaron, for she is now a Polanski defender. If liberalism is a disease, Aaron, what do you call dissing the victim?Squeaky Fromme is out and he is in jail. This benefits whom?
Posted by Reader from New Jersey, Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 11:55 pm The real issue is the time lapse since Polanski's crime, and judicial misconduct at the first trial. It seems vindictive to want to jail someone thirty years later when the victim wants the case dropped. Furthermore, the rule of law mandates a fair trial and fair sentencing practices irrespective of the crime. Although US law may allow a judge to renege on a plea bargain, and recognizes no statute of limitation since Polanski was sentenced already, these injustices will offend European jurists, likely leading to Polanski's release.
Posted by WTF, Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 1:02 am Amazing! I suppose the point some of the above bloggers are attempting to make is that, 1 if you disagree with the direction a legal proceeding is taking, its completely reasonable to evade justice by leaving the country, 2 if you manage to evade justice for long enough period of time even if the statue of limitation hasn't expired, this automatically renders the crime a moot point and 3 if the victim, who was 13 at the time she was raped, wants the case dropped, all should be forgiven. Good grief...........
Posted by I'm just sayin'..., Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 9:57 am Thank you, WTF, for pointing this out. Read elsewhere that other Hollywood elites have petitioned for Polanski's release. Somehow, having Woody Allen in your corner on pedophile charges doesn't seem helpful...
Post a Comment