I emerge from my Fantastic Fest haze with word that Roman Polanski has just been arrested in the Zurich airport and faces extradition to the United States on his decades-old sex charges. I'm kind of stunned, really, that they went to the trouble ...
Indeed weird news, it's not like the guy has been keeping a low profile for the past 30 years. The question is indeed, Why Now?
You are only "stunned" because he's famous.
I with you, this is crazy.
As I see it - its payback for the reaction to "Wanted and Desire" which made the LA District attorney office seem like a bunch of fascist fucktards (which they are). One little look into the history of the LAPD and you will not be surprised at this insanity.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
It happen now because, France would not extradite him. But I could be wrong.
I have a problem with our resources being spent on arresting celebrities around the world instead of concentrating on actual threats and dangers to the US.
I might get totally destroyed by all you decent people, but I am torn by this. Of course raping a 13 year old girl is not just disturbingly fucked up but completely damaging to that 13 year old and her loved ones. On the other hand, though, if that damage dealt to that small part of the world is weighed against the artistic accomplishments and their beautiful effects on a much larger population of souls. Chinatown, Knife in the Water, and Repulsion (and if you want to be a little less picky even Rosemary's Baby and Fearless Vampire Killers). It might seem a little silly to constrict the mind of one who has enriched the lives of many for the damage dealt to the few.
Or you could also say he raped a 13 year old, which is totally fucked up.
I get what you're saying, but I'd have to go with the latter.
Yahoo/AP story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski;_ylt=AthVuTdm1wWj9rbWbYCkwRas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM1dWpybTZpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTI4L2V1X3N3aXR6ZXJsYW5kX3BvbGFuc2tpBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcG9sYW5za2lzYXJy
From BBC news: "The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped." So what does that mean for the case? Will they still try and crucify him or are they just going through the motions to save face?
She's been asking for the charges to be dropped for YEARS now, this is nothing new.
Just tell me when he reealeses another good movie, which i guess is not happening very soon.
She's been asking for the charges to be dropped because it was part of the terms of Polanski's multi-million dollar settlement with her. Do your fucking research Todd. The fact of the matter is that he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl both vaginally and anally. Not surprisingly Todd doesn't think this is a big deal and I can't say I'm surprised as he praises movies with similar themes (rape, misogyny, etc). Tell me Todd, if someone raped your daughter, would you be as indifferent as your are towards Polanski's rape?
He did the crime, pled guilty, and needs to do the time just as anyone convicted of the same offense regardless if he is a famous director who made a couple good movies.
I find this ridiculous. Don't they have some serious crooks and murderers to imprison? From where I stand this whole Polanski thing has always been blown out of proportion...and why Switzerland pulls this back out of the corner of the closet and why now just baffles me.
I wish George W. Bush would diddle a 13 year old...
Why? GWB's a Republican so he'd get away with it like everything else he did.
Our current President can't even speak to school children without ppl going all Polanski over it.
"raping a 13 year old girl"
It wasn't a rape. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but it wasn't a rape.
Slate, are you a insider? Were you there when the facts happened? Were you a part of the "deal"? No? So just shut the fuck up.
"who made a couple good movies"
You obviously know NOTHING about cinema (what the fuck are you doing on this site?) and you obviously have some issue about Polanski (he probably drugged and raped your dog, I presume).
I'm Swiss, and what makes me angry, is that they arrested him the day he was invited in Switzerland, to a film festival, when we all know he's got a "chalet" in Gstaad and has already spent some time in "my" country, without having any trouble. But hey, maybe it's something called politics (UB$ troubles with the USA?????)...
On the other hand, there's a treaty of extradition between the USA and the Switzerland, so they applied the law, like it or not.
The funniest thing? Retards who claim it's a scandal to be offended by this arrest of a "famous person", adding just after that that Polanski is an overrated director.
I would have preferred the USA to be much more concerned with the catholic church and the scandal of the pedophile priests (not one victim, THOUSANDS of victims: the fucking pope should be in jail right now, with a fucking bunch of bishops) than with a 30 year-old affair. I guess it's safer for them to go after a director than to go after the catholic mafia...
Funny you should mention the pope. Just to back up my previous statement about the Reps getting away with everything, In 2005, GWB granted the Pope immunity from any liability or investigation involving the cover-up of every church sexual abuse case in the US. Guess Polanski should have sought asylum in the Vatican instead of France.
Yes he's famous, and yes it is entirely possible that he could have been extradited before - as I understand it they did try to do it in 2007 when he visited Israel, but couldn't get the paperwork signed in time.
The question why wasn't it done sooner seems like a secondary question to me. I think the main question is what should be done with a guy who raped a 13 year old girl and pleaded gulty to it now that he is in custody. The argument that it was 30 years ago doesn't really hold much water - by that rationale, anyone that commits a crime and flees for a certain amount of time should not be punished. And I mean anyone, not just Roman Polanski. Would we honestly be making that argument if it was some unknown guy who got caught 30 years later? I really don't think we would.
Whether the victim wants the charges dropped or not also isn't really relevant - it was statutory rape. You can't say it was 'consenting' sex between an adult and a 13 year old, because legally that doesn't exist. The decision isn't for the victim to make, but for the justice system - I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that that's how it is as it stands.
The guy did it, he admits he did it, he fled, he's been caught again. Why shouldn't he be punished like the criminal he is?
Ok! Polanski is a great director no doubt about it!! But he did rape a girl, and he did run from the law. And as slate said, if it was your daughter you wouldn't say "Oh it was Polanski that raped my daughter!! That all right!! Would you like to rape my Son!"
I have two friends that have been raped and its not a nice thing, it is a big blow to them and the people that surround them. I am just a friend and the rage and impotence you feel is something that goes with you for a very very long time. And I new that the rage that her family felt and the hurt that my friends went throu was more awful than what I felt.
Of curse there is more horrible people in the world, but if you hurt some one that way, even if you do it once, you must pay for your actions and if you live in a Country with laws you must accept them or assume the consequences.
I dont think that because your a great artist you can bend the law, and i dont think that because the Pope is a child molester you have to let Polasnki alone. The law should arrest them both.
And in response to slate: "Not surprisingly Todd doesn't think this is a big deal and I can't say I'm surprised as he praises movies with similar themes (rape, misogyny, etc)".
I am a big gore, horror fan I love movies with lots of violence and i enjoy the beauty of violence throw animation and film. But one can make the difference between reality and film. And i think Todd is one of them.
If it were a nobody or the clique dirty old man in a smelly pervert mac, you would applaud the police for not giving up.
It's fascinating and disturbing how peoples morals can be altered simply because they like the work they have done.
Hmm...
If it was as clear-cut as is now made out, I'd wholeheartedly agree with Polanski's arrest, whatever his victim says (although part of her story may be used in his defense eventually) or the case's age.
But I think we're getting only part of the story here. This has been covered so often already in the past thirty years, and the files of pro-LA DA and pro-Polanski people are getting thicker and thicker...
Good luck to the bunch of attorneys trying to sort out who did exactly what wrong, who spiked whose drink way back when, who said what to who, who did time for what (Polanski already did go to jail for this decades ago, albeit briefly) and what kind of punishment would fit the crime here.
Oh, and Slate?
Stop trying to assume what other people think.
I don't know you.
You may have done just as much community work as Todd, worked with rape victims as much as Todd, saved as many people as Todd and have as good an overview on both the Polanski case and the subject of rape in general as Todd.
I doubt it, but you could.
And of course you are entitled to an opinion, same as everyone else here.
But you have to prove you are entitled to actually judging him (or anyone else here) before you do so.
You know, I'd never cared much for Polanski and his films. After reading up on the case, I'd say that he is not a particularly pleasant individual. I'd say that he does deserve to do more time than the 42 days in jail. I'd also say he should not get a free pass after raping a 13-year-old girl regardless of how famous (or notorious) he is or how much he has contributed to cinema. That's my opinion on the matter. It is also obvious that the prosecutor's office does not need the victim's permission to prosecute a criminal charge.
However, it is the hypocrisy of people like Slate that I cannot stand. Aside from accusing the victim of being bought off with money like an referee at a boxing match, as though she does not have an entitlement to compensation and closure, he attempts to launch personal attacks on the moral composure of those who disagree. That puts him in the same 'scrapings from the bottom of boot heels' category of idiots as the fanatics who insist that parents MUST give birth to and raise their children regardless of how deformed or mentally-deficient they are. It is always very easy to criticise and demand when you do not have a presonal stake or responsibility in the matter.
Samantha Geimer wants to put a 30 year-old rape and the pain of it behind her and get on with her life with her husband and children. This is the kind of closure and acceptance that we wish all rape victims could eventually achieve. Yet all these people with no personal stake in the matter are coming out of the jungle to demand vengeance and indirectly force her to relive that day over and over again. She has repeatedly said that it is she despises the media even more than Polanski. I can see why. You're all about protecting the victim and their families, aren't you, slate?
I'm certainly not suggesting that Polanski gets a free card out of jail. That doesn't sit right with me. But it definitely does not do Geimer and her family any good to have him publicly arrested and put on trial 30 years later. Is Polanski a threat to others? I doubt it. So it's just about justice, then. To punish him for crimes committed. Because it sure as hell isn't to provide closure for the victim. I know it is difficult to accept, but sometimes doing the best thing for the victim may mean letting the guilty go.
And Panik, if it were a nobody instead of a famous director, they would not bother to spend the expenses and effort of having him arrested and extradited.
"what should be done with a guy who raped a 13 year old girl and pleaded gulty to it now that he is in custody"
He hasn't pleaded guilty of RAPE, can't you fuckin' get it?????? Open a book of law before opening your mouth!!!!!!!
There's a HUGE difference, not only legally speaking, between a RAPE and CONSENSUAL sex between a 13 year-old girl and an adult. I only know Swiss law (I'm a jurist), I don't know the American law, but I think that in the USA a rape is probably punished harder than consensual sex between a person not having the sexual majority and one having it.
In Switzerland, the sexual majority (the civil majority is 18 years old: to vote, etc.) is 16 years old. If a person of 16 years of age has had a sexual relationship with a person under 16 years old, he can be condemned with this article of law:
Art. 187 (CP, Code pénal aka Criminal law):
1. Mise en danger du développement de mineurs.
Actes d’ordre sexuel avec des enfants (sexual act with children)
1. Celui qui aura commis un acte d’ordre sexuel sur un enfant de moins de 16 ans,
celui qui aura entraîné un enfant de cet âge à commettre un acte d’ordre sexuel,
celui qui aura mêlé un enfant de cet âge à un acte d’ordre sexuel,
sera puni d’une peine privative de liberté de cinq ans au plus ou d’une peine pécuniaire.
= Five years at most OR financial penalty
2. L’acte n’est pas punissable si la différence d’âge entre les participants ne dépasse pas trois ans.
=no punishment if the difference of age between the adult and the minor is less than 3 years (a 17 year-old guy and a 15 year-old girl for example)
3.1 Si, au moment de l’acte, l’auteur avait moins de 20 ans et en cas de circonstances particulières ou si la victime a contracté mariage ou conclu un partenariat enregistré avec l’auteur, l’autorité compétente pourra renoncer à le poursuivre, à le renvoyer devant le tribunal ou à lui infliger une peine.
4. La peine sera une peine privative de liberté de trois ans au plus ou une peine pécuniaire si l’auteur a agi en admettant par erreur que sa victime était âgée de 16 ans au moins alors qu’en usant des précautions voulues il aurait pu éviter l’erreur.
= 3 years at most OR financial penalty if the adult has acted by error, thinking his victim was at least 16 year-old, if he could have known the age of the victim using some precautions.
Here's the Swiss article about rape:
Art. 190 CP (Criminal law)
Viol (rape)
1 Celui qui, notamment en usant de menace ou de violence, en exerçant sur sa victime des pressions d’ordre psychique ou en la mettant hors d’état de résister, aura contraint une personne de sexe féminin à subir l’acte sexuel, sera puni d’une peine privative de liberté de un à dix ans.
Prison from one to 10 years.
2 …1
3 Si l’auteur a agi avec cruauté, notamment s’il a fait usage d’une arme dangereuse ou d’un autre objet dangereux, la peine sera la peine privative de liberté de trois ans au moins.2
Prison for at least 3 years if cruelty (a weapon,...) has been used.
You're not Polansky, you're not the victim, Polanski had pleaded guilty of sexual relationship with a minor, not of a rape. So, legally speaking, it wasn't a rape and it still isn't a rape. And by the way, no, Polanski is not a pedophile (unless you have proof of the contrary, which I highly doubt). Before opening your big mouths about rape and pedophilia, learn first what those terms mean legally. Learn that consensual sexual relationship with a person not having the sexual majority isn't either rape nor pedophilia. Then think about that: you weren't there when it happened. And then, maybe, in the great USA, learn about one simple and crucial principle: the presumption of innocence.
Panik,
Before you start accusing Plissken2013 of being a pedophile and a rapist, try and understand what he is writing.
What Plissken is trying to tell you is that Polanski pleaded guilty not to rape but to consensual sex.
No, the story you quote is definitely NOT about consensual sex. In fact, that is the very description of a daterape if I've ever heard one and if that is actually what happened Polanski is a total bastard.
But that story is also not what Polanski was initially charged with, nor what he pleaded guilty to, nor what he did time for.
Getting mad at Plissken2013 because he looks at the case from a legal point of view is pretty useless. Imply once more that Plissken2013 (or anyone else who happens to disagree with you) wants to do the same thing that you are accusing Polanski of, and you're banned.
Plissken2013,
Don't ask people if they cannot "fucking get it". Let's all try to stay civil here, as I think the discussionis a truly interesting one.
And thanks for informing us about the legal side, as this is going to be decisive in the months to come. Do you happen to know what crime Polanski is exactly going to be extradited for? This must be a huuuuge case in Switzerland...
By the way, just out of curiosity, is Swiss law always practiced in French? I can assume it must be a right terror to have to do it in four languages...
And believe it or not, out of over a thousand mastheads the one appearing above this article as I am writing this is "Rosemary's Baby"...
LOL I'm getting FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS as my masthead. Are they tied to page content via keyword matching or something?