There is the obvious parallel to the cases in the Catholic Church, which have rightly scandalized the public and the media. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys have been dogged in pursuing these cases -- whether out of concern for their careers or for justice -- and the outrage was so widespread that the State of California created a one-year window in 2003 during which the statute of limitations on abuse crimes by Catholic priests was lifted. That meant the victims of men who were often long dead could finally get their day in court, or find some sense of justice and closure -- and for cases that were no more egregious than Polanski's abuse of Geimer. Polanski is alive, at least.You know what all those Hollywood glitterati would have said if he were a priest. The man is accused of giving liquor and quaaludes to a 13 year old girl and then raping her.
Comparisons are by their nature invidious. But what if Roman Polanksi were wearing a Roman collar? Would "Monsignor Polanksi" receive the same considerations? As Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit, writes at the Post's "On Faith" site, "Imagine if the Knights of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal." And rightly so, as Reese says. But Polanski gets an Oscar in absentia in 2003 and earns sympathy because he can't receive it in person.
Let him stand for the hearing on his sentencing and give him perhaps a reduced sentence based on the victim's stated wish for leniency for him. And let's stop hearing all about how sad this has all been for the poor child rapist. You wouldn't hear that sympathy if he were Father Roman, so let's not hear it for the celebrity.
UPDATE: Patterico quotes some of the testimony from the 13-year old girl about what Polanski did to her. See how much sympathy you have for him after reading that. And Patterico also links to this review of the highly biased documentary made about Polanski.
I think it's true to say that there are many people who survived the Holocaust who don't drug and rape children, for example. More apposite and logical questions, in turn, aren't explored. For example: Polanski was photographing the girl for a photo spread for a European edition of Vogue. Someone could have asked him, or his lawyer -- just for the record -- if he had drugged and raped any other of his photo subjects.Celebrities want special treatment that they wouldn't grant to any other man convicted of drugging and raping a teenage girl and then skipping out on his sentencing. Just ask yourself how much sympathy would be aroused for a priest who had done something similar. Would people be focused on all the good works that the priest had done over his lifetime or would they be thinking about the teenager abused so long ago?
The girl in the case is now in her 40s; she has said the case is behind her and that she has forgiven Polanski. (The documentary waits until the end to note that this came only after she settled a civil case against the director.) But the issue here isn't Polanski being left alone; he's the one trying to get his case dismissed.
The movie tries to drum up sympathy for Polanski by playing up the media firestorm he was at the center of; but that's Polanski's fault, too. (Before they rape children, celebrities should consider how the media attention sure to result will have adverse consequences for their victims, as well as themselves.) Celebrities complain about "the dishonesty of the media," as Polanski does repeatedly in the film, only when the dishonesty doesn't suit them. If the coverage helps you -- a portrayal as devoted husband, say -- then it's fine, true or not. But when it doesn't, they scream.
13 comments:
There is another key difference between Mr Polanski and "Monsignor" Polanski: Roman Polanski pled guilty, then jumped bail. He has effectively been tried. The dead priests had no opportunity to defend themselves. And there have been cases where the accusers of priests have later recanted, such as the late Cardinal in Chicago.
I don't know if there is any way to communicate the damage done to the innocent priests who had nothing to do with the scandals, were never accused and stood by helplessly as they were tarred with the same brush. Our own parish priest, a thoroughly fine person who would never have done any such thing, is still shaken by what the criminal element in the priesthood did. As for Polanski-once referred to as "The five foot Pole you wouldn't want to touch anyone with." I don't care what the outcome is. The victim doesn't want the thing brought up because people will ask about her mother's culpability in leaving her alone with this monster in a hot tub. And frankly, I think she's over it-she says she is.
Tell the cops to go after NAMBLA-there's a job that needs doing.
Didn't Polanski already plead guilty so a trial would be superfluous. The question is sentencing.
You may be correct, I don't remember. If so then of course it changes matters.I don't think the little weasel will spend any time behind bars in any case-he's a Hollywood icon and pervert of the first water.
Yes, check Patterico.
There is a lot of special pleading going on here, Hollywood's hypocrisy is in full bloom.
CDR J,
Excellent points.
As for the victim in the crime, I can understand her desire to leave this sad chapter of her life behind but that isn't the issue here.
Polanski skipped and justice was not served. It wasn't her call then or now.
Here is another point - the very important fact that she was a minor at the time does not remove the state's obligation to deal with Polanski but actually underscores that obligation. That she is a forgiving person only opens the door for Polanski to abuse her (again) for his legal purposes this time around.
Rapists and child abusers should be given no leniency and there should be no statute of limitations for the worst of them, those like Polanski. He should end his days in prison.
As tfhr said, he should end his days in prison, being passed around from one gang to the other.
By all indications, he might get all the sodomy he wants.
The Pyrrhic irony would be delicious.
I'm sorry, but I see no point in the torture of another human being as punishment. It is tempting sometimes to say "Oh I wish they'd let me in the room with him for 10 minutes, I'd show him justice!" But of course that isn't true. You're talking about stooping to the level of sub human behavior the criminal has achieved! What profit that? We have to look for better ways to make crime, sins against nature and utter depravity less of an attraction and let it go back to being what it is-sin. We have lost all sense of SHAME that's what's wrong. It's OK to be a pervert of any sort because there's a support group for it! Anarchists have support groups! Pedophiles, monsters of all stripes. They want to be understood, they want to be accepted, approved of and finally they want us to teach our children that their way is the right way. Well, bologna to that. They will all please to keep their misguided notions of morality to themselves and in particular-leave the youth of America alone. Incarceration should not include torture by rape but it should include shame. People should be ashamed to have committed awful crimes, sinful acts against others especially children, but no, I can't agree that he should be passed around or anything like it.
Reserve your ire and torture for those who want to fly planes into our buildings and dirty bomb our cities-trust me on this-they are just as bad as Polanski and mean us a good deal more harm.
mrsoc,
Classic line:
"It's OK to be a pervert of any sort because there's a support group for it!"
I think it's called Hollywood.
tfhr-I completely agree with you. Back in the day (as my older cousin always says) one very rich, very leftist tv character had a baby out of wedlock. One politician grumbled about it being "sinful" or some such, took a beating from the looney left in HOLLYWOOD!, and never said another word in reference to it. The love affair with bastardy had begun and otherwise normal households began sprouting children of indeterminate fathers (note the multiple there, it is intentional) all over the place. Families that would have at least made an excuse for their daughter's behavior started throwing baby showers for the little unwed mother's whelp and the "family" as we knew it circled the drain for a moment or two and disappeared. I can assure you that my mother would no more have thrown me a baby shower than she would have run screaming through the neighborhood of her joy that her daughter was about to have a child out of wedlock.
Of course, the average girl didn't have a nanny like Murphy Brown, or a zillion dollars, or anyone to watch the child while she finished school-so she dropped out. The child's father got in the wind as soon as he could, maybe to make more little bastards that he wouldn't support-who knows.
End of the story is that Roman Polanski should go to jail-I have no problem with that-he won't of course, but he should. Hollywood should starve to death for what its commie backed leftard minions have done to America-if we catch them, any of them, with their hands in the cookie jar again-we get to slap them silly and send them to the gulag-where in point of fact-they belong. After a while they will have their own little community there and they can all screw each other for all I care.
Perhaps Mr. Polanski to do time in public service, perhaps working as a advisor for small businesses at ACORN.
Unfortunately--Hollywood will continue to make money no matter what their behavior or how they degrade the culture.
I see that Whoopi Goldberg has figured out that what Polanski did was not really rape. Apparently there's "rape" and then there's "rape rape".
I had no idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0
I guess I'm pretty unsophisticated to believe that "No" means NO. I also thought that if a person was rendered incapable of saying "No", then that was rape too.
Rapist: "Uh, your honor, she didn't say "no" because she was gagged."
Judge Nifong: "Oh, OK then. Same for drugged, drunk, or passed out. You're good to go. Case dismissed...Next case! Bring me some frat boys - I've got to pin a rape case on somebody!"
Whoopi also has the "statutory" and "statutory statutory" thing figured out too but I'll cover that under "multiculturalism".
I did read the girl's testimony at www.thesmokinggun.com, and it sure sounded like rape, rape, and rape to me. Reading the testimony of Polanski's child victim reminded me of an investigation that came across my desk when we were out-processing a soldier that had been convicted for raping his two small step daughters. The girls were asked questions like, "What did it mean when your step dad would bring out the sleeping bags?" You cannot imagine how a six and eight year old will describe that kind of thing and it has stayed with me for more than 18 years.
I think Goldberg needs to read the girl's testimony. I think she would react to the girl's definition of "cuddliness" and abandon her claim that people from Europe and elsewhere may have a different view of "things" than less cultured Americans.
I suppose excusing criminal behavior is one of the worst aspects of "multiculturalism" and the idea that foreign laws could be used to guide our own Supreme Court's decisions on any number of Constitutional issues. Kind of makes me wonder if Jeffrey Dahmer might've garnered leniency if he had just entered a plea that stated he could not bring himself to eat chickens raised in cruel conditions. Or "No veal for me, please. I'll have the Cambodian."
If Goldberg has already read the 13 year-old's testimony and still excuses Polanski's crimes then she must have lost her soul somewhere along the way.
Post a Comment