![[personal profile]](http://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I almost want to put up a quick query to find out if any of y'all are in the apparently loud sector of society that thinks the admitted 44-year-old rapist of a 13-year-old should get a pass because, after 30 years of fame and fortune living in multiple European mansions, he's "served his time". Such a shame he made a little mistake 32 years ago.
I just want to find out who these alien beings who feel this way are. (Besides everyone in Hollywood who's not Greg Grunberg, and the entire French nation.)
I just want to find out who these alien beings who feel this way are. (Besides everyone in Hollywood who's not Greg Grunberg, and the entire French nation.)
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!" --RP
I would still think he was a disgusting man if he had taken his sentence and therefore was now free. But he hasn't served his sentence - how does that mean he should now be free?
Now, back in the days they probably had a case to be made based on a psychiatric argument; PTSD from his pregnant wife's horrific and public murder, or whatever they called PTSD in those days. But then he fled town and proceeded to be famous and award winning and act in all ways as if he were not crazy, so.
1-3 years is still not enough for a guy who drugged and raped a child, though, and that's why he made the plea bargain: because he wanted to get away with it.
On the other hand I recently saw Whoopi Goldberg on The View talk about how they should let him go and it wasn't "rape-rape" and so on so... I don't even know anymore.
HOW did this become a possibility? From what the world knows about this:
- she was underage to consent
- on top of that, she was given alcohol and drugs
- on top of THAT, even impaired and underage she DIDN'T consent.
Where the heck does anyone get 'not rape-rape' from that?
But, come on, he had to live in exile in France. Isn't that punishment enough?
gah. The whole thing is sickening.
Where are the trigger warnings on reality?
I know, I know. "Get in line, Rat." Right on.
(Here through Network. *waves*)
he raped a thirteen-year-old girl and fled the country before he could be sentenced. that's generally called "getting away with it".
Most of the names I didn't recognize, or was pretty convinced they were sick puppies before now. I really would've hoped that Terry Gilliam of Monty Python would have more sense. I guess not. (They seem to be objecting more to the where of his being arrested than as to the "why". But "a question of morals"--a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL. I'm sorry, on what planet is that NOT wrong? I mean, for goodness' sake. (Seriously, I think I'm a prude for being against fanfic of that nature and then people react this way to reality and I feel WAY more justified.)
I take it Greg Grunberg is on record for saying something smart and sensible against all this crap?
I am shocked and astounded at people rushing to defend Polanski.
&hearts
(I gather Kevin Smith and Luc Besson have spoken out too.)
Also, &jade! Your pc arrived this morning and made me smile. Thank you.
Does it change anything that the woman is saying she just wants this to go away and doesn't want Polanski to be arrested or prosecuted now? According to the news I read (CNN.com), she just wants her life to consist of her life and not be hounded by people for something that happened 30 years ago. Additionally, in her opinion, the invasive reporting and media blitz did far more to wreck her life than he ever did.
And now, to answer your original question, 30 years of luxury in Europe does not an effective prison sentence make. Neither does 40-whatever days in a psychiatric ward. I think he should be brought back and sentenced appropriately for the crime committed -- rape. I don't care who you are, "you do the crime, you do the time".
That's not to mention that the victim herself did originally come forward and weather the original media frezy, and only when Polanski took upon himself to flee and the authorities failed to catch him for 30 years that those 30 years of this case not going away began to be too much. The first statement of this sort I saw her make was in 2006.
But yes, now she is an adult with a life of her own and she wants to live as an adult. And all of that being said, the prosecution is that of the state against Polanski, and he still needs to do his time, no matter how pathetic it is -- leaving aside the felony flight from justice, my understanding is he only ever could have served 1-3 years in the first place, because he plea-bargained it down to statutory.
Because unfortunately, there is something here that is more important than the adult peace of a child molestation/rape survivor, and I feel dirty even saying that. But what's more important is the fact that right now we are busy setting the precedent that if you are talented enough and famous enough and beloved by enough famous people, you can rape children and flee justice and continue to win the awards from the Academy and Cannes and nobody will care, because you are just so awesome.
And more power to the survivor for moving on with her life, but that is just not okay. (The moving on is okay, of course.)
FWIW, to answer my own question, I completely agree with you. He needs to come back and do his time, and I hope that happens.
When I'm pondering the same thoughts, I like to think that "this is a place where intelligent people of all walks come together and can discuss things". I feel that's a huge part of it; Dreamwidth is small enough now that most people are reasonably connected and there are fairly high standards for interactions. (The very low volume of ToS complaints shows that well...)
Over time, I expect that will drift, as such things tend to. Personally I can only hope that, while we're still really tiny, I will meet enough people to always have interesting and contrasting viewpoints to challenge my assumptions and call me on it when I'm being dumb or showing my ass. :)
As is the case in so many media-event crime cases—and you know that this is of course a particular thing with me, and let me stress that I haven't been back to that website since quitting it cold turkey in May, not even to look to see if they're now reasonable or if they still invoke me as a kind of bogeyman—I kind of wish everyone would shut the hell up and let the professionals do their jobs. He's not any more or less guilty just because talking heads are yelling "Put him away!" or "Let him go!"; these are legal issues, and should be settled by legal professionals.
So the people I'm disgusted with aren't the usual people who are (either in defense or prosecution against the accused) speculating about facts they don't know. Instead, it's the people who KNOWING ALL OF THE ADMITTED FACTS, knowing perfectly well that he admits to having drugged and raped a protesting 13-year-old, say "it was a small thing" or "it wasn't rape-rape" (WTF Whoopi?) or call it "a moral crime" (thanks Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Tilda Swinton, et. al., for describing it as if it were a case of pre-Stonewall consensual adult sodomy).
This IS a legal issue. It was settled -- up to but not including sentencing -- by legal professionals. Now a bunch of talking heads are saying that because the criminal in question is talented, the way it was settled by legal professionals is unacceptable.
So actually, I'm going to keep talking about it. Not about Polanski himself, because honestly, I could care less, as long as he serves his time. But about the disgusting politicians and Hollywood stars who think that we should change our legal system to enable talented people to get away with CHILD RAPE.
Of course, for all that she annoyed me, it's true that it's nowhere near as annoying as an upstanding moral leader like Woody Allen says "oh well you know whatever". That's fairly horrible.
But on the proverbial third hand, bringing it back around: it'd be nice if the press stopped covering that. I might well care what happens to Polanski, but I don't care what Allen and Swinton and Willie Brown and Wendy Murphy think should happen. That's not news, that's yelling, and reporting on it doesn't help matters. (The media reporting on it, that is. You calling them out on it when they do it, that does help.)
But I do disagree with you that it's not news when Scorsese or Sarcozy (oh, Dragon NaturallySpeaking, I do love to challenge you) say that somebody who is talented enough should not be punished for rape, just as much as I think that it is news when Mel Gibson talks crazy talk about Jews. Public figures who make public statements about the atrocious lack of basic human decencyand respect for the law are, well, public figures, and their public statements are in fact news.
(Keep in mind that I don't watch news, because I can't cope with the way news network talking heads deal with any issue -- which is to say, shallow and sensationalist -- so I know I've had a different experience of absorbing this particular travesty from yours.)
What you forget, by not watching actual news, is that the report you'd get is one saying "Look at all these wonderful filmmakers saying Polanski should be freed! Everyone's saying 'Let him go, no big deal'! Alternate viewpoint: Wendy What'shername. And in the meantime, lots of people speaking in his favor. Back to you, Jim." And I think I'd rather have no report than have that report.
(Incidentally, I read the petition that Allen and Scorsese and Almodovar and so forth have signed, and it made me, well, ill. "A case of morals"? Seriously? "Hey, look, you know how it is; you say 'repeated rape of a drugged 13-year-old', we say 'party', what're you gonna do, you know?" Feel free to sign a petition expressing your continuing friendship and support, but for god's sake.)