Quick Hit: Feminist Majority Founder Says Let Polanski Go
Some of the industry's most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed. "My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."
Okay, I agree that the government, not to mention the media, should spend resources on other things, but seriously?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Feminist Majority Founder Says Let Polanski Go.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16332
I am a better feminist than Peg Yorkin.
I don't know which feminist majority she's the leader of. She's not MY feminist majority leader. :(
I wrote about this today too, btw: It Doesn’t Matter
Yes you are. For christ sakes Palin is probably a better 'feminist' than her. And thats SAYING something.
Who cares how much the guy has been through in his life? What about how much the child he raped had to go through in her life?
If this wasn't Roman Polanski, if this was just some guy from the Midwest, people would be demanding he be strung up in the streets, but oh no, he's a famous person so let's just let it go...
Ha.
This sort of shit makes me so angry.
Of course we should let him go, he's an artiste (snark); he’s had a rough life, it was a long time ago, why bother? On that same note, let’s let Charles Manson out. Hasn’t the man suffered enough? It was such a long time ago, can’t everyone just get over it already? Sheesh.
And if I hear one more time that this man’s past tragedy somehow exonerates him from the FEDERAL CRIMES he committed, well then, I need to get busy writing some letters to governors, because I am pretty sure I could round up’ a rather large group of individuals who have had horrific and traumatic life experiences, and are doing jail time for things like stealing food and the like.
Feminist my ass. This woman’s statement is the epitome of the problem. Some of Hollywood has clearly demonstrated that they value children as much as, oh wait, nothing at all.
And need I bring up Michael Vick. How when he was caught dog fighting (A FEDERAL OFFENSE) the entire country went up in arms, and he most certainly served his time. And that was dog fighting, not RAPE (though it is horrible too). I wonder how it would have all gone over had he skipped town? Probably not the same way…
Excellent points all around. I am so tired of the celebrity worship in America. Just because a person can entertain does not make them any more important than "regular" people.
Roman Polanski raped a kid. Then he fled to Europe where he flaunted his freedom by continuing to make movies and attend fancy awards ceremonies. It is a slap in the face to the justice system of America, when a man can be so blatant about his lack of remorse for his crime and just flee to protect his own ass.
Screw you Roman Polanski, I look forward to seeing you get your comeuppance.
"Then he fled to Europe where he flaunted his freedom by continuing to make movies and attend fancy awards ceremonies"
Yeah, seems like he really suffered! What planet did this woman (Peg) drop from?
Dude, I hate dog-fighting with a passion and strongly dislike Vick, but had Vick raped a little white girl the nation would be up in arms about it, probably with pitch forks.
Right, but only because Vick isn't white himself and people love dogs way more than they love girls and women. It's okay to rape a white girl if you're a old white dude, especially if you are an artiste!
Um, I hate both Vick and Polanski. I fight against animal abuse as well as for victim's rights. Please don't create such a divide and group everyone into one camp or the other.
That said, I do agree that race and class play into both these crimes.
Bite your tongue! As we learned from earlier Vick threads, you can either care about dogfighting, or you can care about women's rights - not both. Never both. It simply isn't possible for anyone to care that much.
/snark
Vick has his defenders, who lo and behold tend to be black and football players or fans. Polanski's defenders seem to be white and involved in the film industry. Go fig.
Can we avoid the one or the other mentality? I hate both of them. I want to see both suffer endlessly for their crimes. I am a dog lover AND a feminist. And I am so fucking sick and tired of people acting like I can only be outraged over one crime at a time.
Funny you mention Manson. He was culpable in the murders of Tate and the others, but he never actually physically killed anyone himself, to my knowledge.
Polanski admitted to his crime and certainly DID hurt someone. Manson belongs where he is. Polanski also deserves to be in jail for his crimes. What kind of precedent does this set for people? You can make movies and evade authorities for 30 years and get off? You can do anything if you have enough rich friends and you are old? Sorry, but living in France for 30 years doesn't seem like a punishment to me.
HE IS A CHILD RAPIST.
Of course the victim "just wants it over with". She's been not only raped but hounded by the media anytime Polanski's name is mentioned so we can't know how many times she's had to re-live it.
BTW- just because the sentences for animal cruelty in this country are abysmal as far as "justice" goes doesn't mean Vick got what he deserved. He's back making money playing football. If you are rich or a sports hero, you can get away with a lot. Even murder.
Let's pretend something for a minute. Let's pretend Polanski's still world famous, extremely influencial, and has had a tragic life story. He still drugged and raped a 13 year old, and still evaded justice for decades. But instead of being a film maker, he's a Catholic priest. Now let's apply the same arguments against arresting him:
"It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."
How friggin Looney Tunes does that sound?
It's bad a person was raped.
Fucking REALLY? Yeah, that is BAD, isn't it, Peg Yorkin. If only we could figure how that person "was raped" and maybe do something to underscore our condemnation...
I swear, I am beginning to feel like I am secretly at the center of a reality show wherein seemingly decent human being turn on a dime, act totally sociopathic and then see how long it takes me to snap and set everyone on fire.
I'm glad you pointed out her choice of language. I can't believe someone calling herself a feminist is using the old trick of passive language to downplay the crime. Let's see: "a person was raped" vs. "Roman Polanski raped a person". It's amazing how much worse it looks when you present rape as an act committed by a person on the victim rather than something that just...happens... to the victim. I'm surprised she didn't just call it "the incident" or something equally vague.
Let's see: "a person was raped" vs. "Roman Polanski raped a person".
And even that is soft-soaping it. How about "Roman Polanski drugged and then repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl," just to be a bit more accurate.
The way the article was phrased irritated me. Especially the first few paragraphs. A small sample:
"From Michael Moore's politics to on-screen sex and violence, the movie business is constantly being assailed for not sharing the country's values. Rarely has the morality argument been as rancorous as with the Roman Polanski case."
I believe in freedom of expression and I have no problem with movies that are overtly violent or sexual (my favorite movie, The Evil Dead, is both). There's a difference in what's going on here. What an artist does on film and in their personal lives are two distinctly separate things. How is that unclear? You can admire an artist's work without supporting the actions in their personal life. This isn't a case of conservative mid-America vs. liberal Hollywood and I resent the implication that it is.
Excellent point. I completely agree. The way this whole thing is being played out is just disgusting.
And you know it's bad and totally fucked up (at least for me), when the only news agency whose coverage I agree with on this topic is FOX News. Hell froze over when I found myself agreeing and nodding furiously to their online article.
I agree. The idea that someone would compare a portrayal of sex or rape on screen to actual rape disgusts me.
I'm sorry, no.
Dude's a rapist. He needs to be punished. He ran from the law and took refuge in France. He's a fugitive and should be brought to justice.
Just because it's a well known and renown artist doesn't mean he's above the law.
I'm starting to feel like I haven't been let in on some vital detail here. This guy DID drug and rape a child and then skip out, right? There's not more to this story? Am I going crazy? The more statements of support from rational people I read for this man the more I feel like I must be missing something. I know that there is definitely a moral spectrum but this seems like one of those things that is all-around indefensible.
And we waste money and time in our judicial system ALL THE TIME! This seems like one of the FEW times when actually bringing someone to justice for doing something like this and acting unconscionable afterwards is absolutely appropriate. Am I losing my mind here? Am I totally off-base? Because people I respect seem to be looking at this differently. Do they know something I don't?
People do seem to have conspiracy theories. I heard some guy call in to NPR and say that the original judge in the case was corrupt and promised polanski a lower sentence that he reneged on, or something like that, and therefore we should be going after the judge (now dead) rather than polanski. This guy said that polanski and the girl he raped were both victims but the REAL victim was the american justice system-- not a victim of polanski, but of this dead judge. The wholet hing didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
It sounds like there may have been something sketchy with the plea bargain, but that doesn't mean he didn't confess to the crime. I think people just feel bad for him because his wife was murdered horribly and it made him a very sympathetic pulic figure for awhile. But I don't think that excuses him raping someone.
Let him direct from a small jail cell for the rest of his life, but to be fair beyond the ridiculous arguments that he's famous, he's had it rough and that it was a long time ago, there's also the matter that the victim of his crime thinks his arrest will affect her negatively. I think her interest in burying the past is outweighed by society's interest in not letting a rapist go free, but it's a legitimate point that I'm not seeing addressed here along with Oh, he's a fabulous artiste.
This topic has been touched on in the other thread related to Polanski, but I am going to throw my two cents in.
I stand by my thought that the American legal and justice system is not dictated by "victim's" or otherwise invested parties desires. I understand that this woman has suffered, and that she just wants to let it go, but if we did that for every person who didn't want to face their attacker, abuser, etc., we would have a stark problem on our hands. It's the other side of the coin for the very argument we are all making.I understand that this is traumatic for her, and I think the media should respect her wishes and leave her alone, but it's not for her to decide if he is extradited or not.
There is the quite significant matter that her statement of "Forgiveness" was brought and paid for by convicted child rapist fugitive Roman Polanski.
Convicted rapist Polanski paid the woman a large sum of money in an out of court settlement - in effect, he purchased her statement of forgiveness.
Which makes convicted rapist Polanski even more of a degenerate scumbag.
Bottom line, there are a LOT of people in American prisons who do not belong there.
Rapist Polanski is NOT one of those people.
Rapist Polanski deserves the maximum possible sentence for his crime of rape in a maximum security California state prison, he deserves to do every day of his time (no parole for this unrepentant and unapologetic child rapist) and then, the day he is scheduled for release, he should be arrested by the US marshals for the federal crime of interstate flight to avoid prosecution - and he should do every day of that time as well, in a maximum security federal prison.
but it's a legitimate point that I'm not seeing addressed here
That's because it isn't a point that the rape apologists are making. Which is because they could give a fuck about her, her feelings or her desires.
Yeah, and I'm the main one on this site who's been arguing for listening to her and letting it go, but I feel drowned out in the (internet-wide) discussion by the ones who want to let him go because of who HE is.
I could give a rat's ass what else this guy has done in his life and what he's been through and how long it's been. It's when the victim says it's actively hurting her that I get angry at the zealousness three decades later.
I don't believe this case can be compared to present day rape cases, where we have to make sure the victim isn't intimidated by the rapist and his family/friends into dropping charges, and where there is a real concern for deterrence and prevention of future crimes. From my criminal justice education, I firmly believe that any deterrence effect from capturing Polanski was lost years and years ago. I think that the justice system failed Polanski's victim by allowing him to flee (and I do believe that their own incompetence and lack of concern let him flee - for lordy sake, they let him have time to finish a movie!) and that every step of the way they've harmed the victim instead of helping her, up until the present day. I'm pissed at them. I'm pissed at Polanski.
I know I've said this before in other threads, but it's something that's been bothering me, and I do feel like my concern is just completely invalidated by the concerns from Polanksi's supporters, which makes me mad, too.
I totally agree. The victim was recently quoted talking about how unpleasant this current situation is for her and her family. It is difficult enough to heal and move on from a rape let alone have to have it brought up and thrown in your face almost constantly for thirty years. I feel awful for her and wish, for her sake, that Polanski could have been human enough to stand up and take care of this whole thing when it happened. He's off in Europe living his pleasant little life while she has to deal with the consequences. That, to me, is adding immense insult to injury and is incredibly wrong.
If only he could have respected her wishes when she said she didn't want to have sex with him in the first place. We wouldn't even have to have this debate then.
where there is a real concern for deterrence and prevention of future crimes
How exactly do you know that he won't do this again?
Or hasn't already done it again...
Or hasn't already done it again...
Even if one doesn't count the whole Kinski thing as doing it again, I would not be even a little surprised if he had. I was just mentioning future potential because the discussion was of deterrence.
Peg - wtf? Seriously.
Eve Ensler - hell yeah:
Being an artist does not make any of us exempt from the laws of humanity -- in fact, it actually makes us more responsible to them.
http://tinyurl.com/y93odpl
CNN quotes Ms. Geimer (the woman who was raped by Polansky) as saying, "The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 happens to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity." I think she makes a good point. There are many other victims who deserve far more attention than they are getting.
This case is receiving disproportionate attention and resources. And while Polanski should be jailed for the rest of his life, I'm not entirely sure that this arrest is actually going to do anything positive.
Arresting Polanksi would not only send a message to rape apologists, rapists, and potential rapists, it would also send a message to potential rape victims and rape survivors. Most rape survivors don't report their rapes. I for one did not report my rape because I did not want to be the one on trial. I did not want to be called a liar, that the rape was really consensual. I did not want to be told it was my fault. I did not want to be told that being raped was not that big of a deal. I did not want to go through the trial only to see the rapists not be punished. Reading about the Polanski fiasco makes me believe that my deepest fears were correct.
Here we have a rich and famous 40 year-old director drugging and orally, vaginally, and anally raping a 13 year-old girl, and people are arguing that she seduced him, it was not rape-rape, it was her mother's fault, she wasn't even a virgin, the judge was a meany when he was not going to approve of time-served + probation(!), Polanski was the victim because he couldn't come back to the U.S. after he raped a girl and then fled to escape sentencing, etc. If we let Polanski off the hook, how can we expect rape victims to report rapes? How can any of us have faith in the system and feel safe?
Actually, it will do something positive - it will get a child molester off the streets and into a prison cell.
And that's an unambiguously good thing.
Yes, if he goes to jail that would be a good thing. Not an unambiguously good thing because of the cost to the legal system, the victim's continued pain, and the fact that it's taken 32 years.
But last I heard Polanski's still in Switzerland fighting extradition. So celebrate when he's actually locked up in a U.S. prison - it's not a sure thing yet.
Last I heard, neither Feminist Majority nor its other leaders have said anything to rebut or clarify her statements. I'm thinking of contacting them to say that I don't appreciate the Chair of the Board of one of the biggest feminist organizations in the country (one which regularly sends me emails asking for donations or for action on feminist issues!) dismissing the seriousness of the rape of a child.
Check this comment and a couple of comments below for where to call and there reaction to calls: http://www.harpyness.com/2009/10/01/the-list-of-shame-or-rape-apologists-r-us/comment-page-1/#comment-15930
their*
I think the reaction the world is giving on Polinski's arrest reflects our society's blase attitude about rape, especially rape of children.
It makes me sick.
“Hollywood (where it's almost impossible to find anyone publicly condemning Polanski)…”
Nah.
I’m a union film/tv costume maker here in La La Land and I got more upset when I found out facts about the rape:
½ (or a sliver depending on which account) of a qualude and champagne to a 13 year old child. He was 43 years old.
What the hell is Peg referring to? The murder of his wife and friends by the Manson Family, 9 YEARS EARLIER?
The only reason Polanski escaped jailtime was because he had the ways and the means and (to borrow from Paul Muni) “the complexion for the protection.”
Yes, the victim wants the case done and over with, but he totally split the country. Who else would get away with this?
And Whoopi clarifies that “it was rape, but not rape-rape?”
Wow.
Fuck Hollywood.
I’m watching the news to see if Ah-nold plans to pardon Polanski…… trust me, it isn’t just “Middle America” that is pissed with the shit coming out of Hollywood.
I guess she means it like how poisoning someone is "murder, but not murder-murder"
Why is anyone surprised? Like Whoopi Goldberg, Peg Yorkin is clearly a star-fucker and she's sticking up for a child-fucker. I could say the same for Huffington Post: Star-Fucker Central. They ran four columns by Polanski apologists (including one moron who called for a boycott of Switzerland!) before the backlash against special pleading for this child molester began.
How many people supported Michael Vick? Oh that's right -he was just cruel to dogs, which in Hollywood is unforgivable. Drugging and raping a child? Well, nobody's perfect.
meh, after reading all these comments, I couldn't help but wonder where the outcry for punishment and justice dissapears to whenever I read about a female teacher raping some of her minor students. And all she gets is fired, with a slap on the wrist.
But yea, considering he was sentenced, he should do his time in jail.
Not to diminish statutory rape, whether the rapist was a male or female teacher, but this wasn't statutory rape.
She was drugged. She repeatedly said no. He forced anal, vaginal, and oral sex on her. Yes, she was 13...but that doesn't undo the rest of it. It is different.
But on that line, why is it we NEVER hear anything about male teachers that rape female students, but hear about the opposite all the time? It's not because it happens more...
I suspect the fact that female teachers far outnumber male teachers is the chief reason for the disparity. But perhaps some of these women (unfortunalty rightly) think they will be judged rather leniently if they get cought, while their male counterparts can expect no less than 20 years in jail for the same thing.
All I wanted to point out is that, in my experience, the outcry for justice and punishment is always far greater when we're dealing with a male criminal and a female victim. Whenever its the other way around, lenience suddenly seems the order of the day.
I dont disagree with the facts here though, this man was sentenced for his crime and should serve it in full.
Yes, I understood your point, but the thing is that I disagree with it entirely. Especially in your statuatory rape example. You don't even hear about male predators, yes female ones get more lenient punishment? Huh? Predators don't consider the possible lengths of their sentences when weighing whether or not to commit a crime. They don't think they'll get caught.
The reason why we hear about female predators with minor boys is because its surprising to our culture. Men are expected to lust after young women--catholic school girls, "barely legal" teens--but for a woman to lust after a younger man, why would he want her? Young girls obviously all have an oedipal complex, but young men with an electra complex--really??
I think its a little odd that you bring this up in this thread as well. If we were discussing consensual statuatory rape, that would be one thing. By making this point, you're diminishing what this woman went through as a girl.
My comment here was to point out how the outrage from all those posting here is in stark contrasts with the lack of any such outrage with, frankly, any crime committed by a female.
Also, In no way am I diminishing what the victim went through. I fully agree with the point that this man should be locked up and serve his sentence. Rather low of you to try to shut me up by flat out lying about what I'm saying.
But you're right that this is probably not the best place to discuss feminisms lack of objectivity when it comes to justice in general.
my bad.
I'm not lying. It was just really odd that you chose to make this post your outlet for an unrelated, off topic point, instead of focusing on the issue at hand for more than a blurb at the end.
If you want to continue to make your point, it might be best to back up what you're saying with examples and facts. But this is a derail, so maybe you should save it for a thread that actually addresses the topic you're speaking of instead of hijacking this one, or even create that post yourself instead. You could have a very good point that would be interesting to explore, but this isn't the post for it.
The quotes from Harvey Weinstein near the end of the article are especially puke-worthy ("...so-called crime," "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion...", etc. gag puke barf), but this bit from exec Bo Zenga was good to hear:
"It irritates me that people around the world think that all of Hollywood is saying that the rapist is the victim. Because I don't feel that way, and neither do most of the people I talk with."
I think the more appropriate thing would be for him to pay for Samantha's lost modeling and acting wages, including future wages she would have earned had he not touched her. His influence in her life wrecked her career. Sending him away for a slap on the wrist won't change that.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the court system. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:
"Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[45] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States."
Paying off the victim is a matter for civil cases. Violent acts like rape are considered crimes against the community as well as the individual.
But what if I want to blame the rapist?
Read the second post. The first one wasn't supposed to go through. It wasn't completed, and I thought I stopped it from posting, but didn't. Obviously, Polanski should be blamed for the rape, but the court needs to take the blame for letting him go in the first place.
Judges are within their rights to not accept a plea agreement. It's not illegal and everyone suggesting that the system "betrayed" him doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, Ms. Geimer did settle a civil suit with Polanski already. That doesn't mean Polanski shouldn't have to face his criminal charges.
Actually, I put 100% of the blame on confessed child rapist Roman Polanski
He chose to drug, rape and forcibly anally sodomize a 13 year old child he'd hired for a modeling job.
Rapist Polanski is 100% at fault here for his decision to become a child rapist.
All of the whining and blubbering by rapist Polanski lawyers about the judge being "unfair" are total bullshit - if rapist Polanski had not decided to become a rapist, he wouldn't have to worry about being tried for rape!
Rapist Polanski belongs in prison - period.
I think the more appropriate thing would be for him to pay for Samantha's lost modeling and acting wages, including future wages she would have earned had he not touched her. His influence in her life wrecked her career. Sending him away with a slap on the wrist won't change that.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the court system, as well as the sexist world we live in. Polanski was way skeezy back then. He's not the same person now, and I think that part of the reason so many peoples' POV on this is unexpected to many of us is because Samantha forgave him very publicly. Aside from that, he chose to flee only after the court let him go. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:
"Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[45] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States."
"He's not the same person now,"
...how in the world would you know this?
"the court let him go"
No. He was released from psychological evaluation. He had not yet been sentenced and he ran. That's not "letting" him go. That's evading the law.
I won't go into my personal life here, but how in the world can YOU assume know I WOULDN'T know this without having met me? Hm? Have you worked beside me, lived beside me, or met the same people I have? Do we travel in the same circles? Perhaps assumptions are just fine if they're done without having personally met a person as long as you're miles away, on the internet, surrounded by people who agree with you.
Aside from that -- on the off-chance that I wasn't who I am knowing the people that I do know -- if Roman were indeed the same person today, wouldn't a lot more women (or even one more woman) have come forward? When I think of people who haven't changed -- especially ones I've met over the decades -- I think of the scores of women who say "me too" when opportunity arises to put away a rapist. I think of class action lawsuits and my own molestation by a creepy, serial molester as a child. I don't think of someone who has spent years apologizing to a victim, but a crazed, unrepentant maniac.
....which is why I asked HOW. Not an assumption. A question. Do you care to answer it?
Most women don't report their rapes. Doesn't mean they don't happen. Most rapists do it more than once as well. One victim coming forward doesn't mean they all will. Especially when one does come forward, he flees the country and is never brought to justice. Doesn't really send a message that other victims can get justice too, does it?
Spent years apologizing to a victim. Please elaborate on this with quotes. Because I can't get past these:
"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!”
"I don't see why I should be punished for my taste for very young girls..."
That clearly shows pedophilia to me and also suggests that while the forcible rape may have (and i doubt this) been a one time thing, the statutory part probably wasn't.
Regarding the plea agreement, I wasn't thinking that the courts were to blame for plea agreements themselves, but rather for allowing someone who committed a sex crime to plea out in the first place.
Then you should be arguing and fighting to have DA offices not plead out offenders to much smaller charges and bring longer sentences to rapists, not saying that criminals shouldn't be brought to justice at all.
But the victim and her family agreed to the plea, so I'm not sure you can blame the DA's office entirely for their leniency. I understand them not wanting to put her through a trial, I probably would've accepted the plea too just to avoid having to go through that.
Rapist Polanski is a fugitive felon, who likes to sodomize little girls, after drugging them into submission.
He belongs in prison.
Period.
Agreed. And he obviously shows no remorse or change as is common among sexual criminals who prey on the underage. I hate his smugness. I want to see him behind bars, then maybe the prison population will give him some karma, aka, like he did to the victim?
"The guy has been through so much in his life."
We don't allow this to be used as an excuse in other crimes, why should it apply here? Plenty of people go through a lot in their lives and many of them experience trauma that is more significantly related to the crimes they go on to commit. I'd argue that the child molester who was habitually victimized when he himself was a child has a better case than Roman Polanski. Surviving the holocaust and experiencing the murder of his pregnant wife (along with the media circus surrounding it) was undoubtedly traumatizing, but why should he be exempt from punishment when he inflicts trauma on others?
Fame and money and those with both are held to a different legal and ethical standard than we are. That's all this is.
Disclaimer: I fully expect to be torn apart for this, but I think it needs saying.
The nation appears to be conflicted here because Polanski has supposedly done some valuable things with his life, and many people seem to think that he's a nice guy. We're all assuming that the rape he committed was an isolated incident. If he were raping 13 year olds across the world I don't think that we'd be having this debate. I think that the supposition is that he's not presently a danger to others. Theoretically we throw people in jail for periods of time to make them repent their evil ways and hopefully reform. So, if we have a guy who's already ashamed of what he's done and is already supposedly reformed, as in he hasn't continued to commit crimes, throwing him in jail would seem to be a moot point. I'm sure that we throw other repentant non-repeat offenders in prison because they're not famous enough to get a public debate going, but maybe that doesn't look like such a good idea when you look at it up close and personal like we're doing with Polanski.
I'm not a big vengeance person. If Polanski is reformed, then throwing him is jail is all about vengeance. I don't think that putting him in prison will do society any good. Despite not being a vengeance person, he's been fleeing justice, locked out of the best state of the best country for many years, and while that may be punishment, I still personally feel that he needs to spend a year's worth of weekends picking up trash by the side of the freeway or some similar form of community service, because he shouldn't get off free for committing a crime and evading justice. I just don't feel like my tax dollars should be spent keeping him in prison, when there are so many better uses for them right now.
Really though I think that we should all let our justice system deal with it, and look at what's wrong with our legal system that we as a nation do seem to be so conflicted over this case.
Roman Polanski raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
And freely admitted to being a rapist in a court of law.
He also fled justice, when he figured - correctly - that he was going to have to do time for his vile crimes.
Far from "suffering" in "exile", the rapist Polanski lived a life of luxury in France and Switzerland - mansions, limousines, expensive vacations, fame, fortune and lots and lots of critical praise for his movies.
Oh, and he even got to keep having sex with children - he actually MARRIED A 15 YEAR OLD while he was living in France!
And rapist Polanski has repeatedly bragged of his filthy sexual desires for prepubescent children in media interviews.
Polanski has not suffered at all.
Rapist Polanski belongs in prison - he deserves to spend the next 20 years in a cellblock, with no access to first run movies, champagne or quaaludes, and where his cellmates punch him in the face every day because, even by the moral standards of violent convicted felons, people like rapist Polanski are scum.
Is that vengeance?
Uh - yeah, it is.
And a little bit of vengeance is a good thing!
Especially if it convinces the next perverted cretin hollywood director to not become a rapist, lest he follow down the same road.
I am not going to tear you apart, but I am going to disagree with you. A lot.
The thing is, and this point was made earlier in the post, he did something wrong, and he deserves to be punished for it. His conviction and punishment would be a statement against other instances of rape. If we don't tolerate this guy (a celebrity and a "really nice guy") raping a 13 year old girl, then we won't tolerate anybody else doing it, either. Saying he should be left alone because he feels bad about what he did is akin to you telling me to get over my own rape because my rapist feels bad. It's telling me that it's okay for people to do things like that to me and to other people as long as they feel bad about it later.
Well, guess what? Feeling bad doesn't change what he did, and it will never help his victim. He, and all rapists, need to be sentenced appropriately so that their victims know they matter and that rape will not be tolerated. Ever.
This whole case speaks to the larger issue of rape culture--if he feels bad about raping someone, then that magically makes it okay, opens the door for rape to become even more acceptable. Rapists, and I would argue most criminals, shouldn't get away with what they did just because they are remorseful. They chose to take an action--consciously harming someone, and in this case forcibly subjecting a child to oral, vaginal, and anal sex--and they are fully responsible for said action NO MATTER WHAT.
We're all assuming that the rape he committed was an isolated incident.
No, you are assuming that. And why are you assuming that, again?
So, if we have a guy who's already ashamed of what he's done
Uh, what evidence is there of this?
and is already supposedly reformed, as in he hasn't continued to commit crimes
That we know of.
he's been fleeing justice, locked out of the best state of the best country for many years, and while that may be punishment
Nice arbitrary supremacy there. NB: That is not punishment.
I still personally feel that he needs to spend a year's worth of weekends picking up trash by the side of the freeway or some similar form of community service
Is that what kid-rape is going for these days?
I just don't feel like my tax dollars should be spent keeping him in prison
Listen, if raping a little girl is not the kind of crime that you would deign to spend your tax dollars punishing ("avenging," if you prefer), then what is?!
look at what's wrong with our legal system that we as a nation do seem to be so conflicted over this case
The problem here is not with the legal system (though it is vastly problematic, to be sure), but with societal attitudes towards women, children, rape and celebrity. (We like to call it the patriarchy.)
I think its pretty clear that he didnt change his ways nor ever felt or communicated authentic remorse. You cant change sexual predators who prey on the underage.
I usually sympathize with the lone dissenter standing in front of the tank, but buddy you've got it coming.
I think it's particularly important that the prominent cases be prosecuted. Whatever route we take towards dealing with this sends out a huge message to society. What sort of a message do we want to send?
conservatism?
conservatism.
You are undoubedly going to be kicked off at some point. A bloggist who writes :
"There is no such thing as a safe abortion.
An operation in which 50% of the people involved die is never safe"
aint gonna last long here. 50% death? Oh, no. But this isnt the place, just sayin.
You are undoubedly going to be kicked off at some point.
That's liberal tolerance for you. :P
Probably, but lets play nice until they do. ;)
In TFOC's defense, he's about 10 years old and doesn't really understand the lines he's repeating.
the prominent cases be prosecuted.
You missed that whole thing where we was prosecuted, but fled sentencing. He's been convicted which means prosecution took place already.
I know it's legal terminology and you argue from moralism a lot, but you need to know these terms to participate in our conversation on this.
That's obviously what I meant...
Did anyone else call the Beverly Hills FMF office? I did, and received an apology from an intern. They don't know what they're going to do about this yet, but they took my name and number.
Really? We're engaging in dialog with someone calling himself Sex Toy James? James, Polanski's "relationship" with Nasstasja Kinski began when she was 15. He'd done it before this girl and there's little reason to suppose he hasn't or wouldn't do it again.
Polanski is a serial child rapist and he needs to face the music. I don't give a rat's ass whether he's rehabilitated himself or not, and I submit to you that if he had done this to a 13-year-old boy, you wouldn't care either. The "special" here is not just that Polanski is a famous director but that rape is a crime that we as a society don't take very seriously. I can't think of any other crime for which we bend over so far backward to blame the victim and absolve the perp.
Looks like I learn new stuff all the time. Thanks for better informing me. I'm not up on my celebrity biographies. Given the history I've been caught up on, I am quite surprised that Polanski has his defenders. Clearly my assumptions about this case were wrong, and any conclusions I may have drawn were similarly misinformed. I hold by my statement regarding it being a waste of money to throw reformed criminals in prison, but I can see how that viewpoint may not apply here. I clearly incorrectly assumed that Europe wouldn't put up with Polanski for so long if he were creepily pursuing minors.
I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I perceive rape to be some sort of trivial offense. I was speaking to crimes and punishment in general, and not saying that rape is some sort of special case that deserves extra forgiveness.
Look, PixieCorpse, I appreciate all of the corrections and I'm fine being proven wrong, but please don't try to make me out to be more than the poorly informed and insensitive guy that I am. I don't really see how it being a boy or girl whom he egregiously assaulted makes a difference, but maybe I'm a minority in holding that view. I'd also rather that you didn't try to discredit me based on my nickname. Still, thanks for correcting me.
Sex Toy James, I like your username. I disagreed with you on this post but you presented your perspective in a thoughtful and reflective (albeit somewhat uninformed) manner. You convinced me that you were a thoughtful commenter in the discussion of sexism on Wikipedia. I think it's healthy to have a few users who challenge the discussion a little bit.
Thanks, for making me feel welcome. I really do like Feministing. I will try to be better informed in the future. I like the nickname too. As nicknames given to you by your friends go, I think that I really won out big.
Have a wonderful day.
It was rude and uncalled-for of me to accuse you of a hypothetical, and I apologize.
As I'm the only one annoyed by it, I can only conclude that I was overreacting to your nick, and I apologize for that too.
The hundreds if not thousand of people defending this guy have got me in a lather. (That's not an excuse. Just a reason.)
Thank you very much. I understand your being worked into a lather. I thought that there must be a reason that people are defending him, and a better reason than him being famous. It's looking like I was wrong.
I can't really wrap my head around someone that I know, respect, and consider a friend drugging and raping anyone. Seriously, I don't have any idea how I'd deal with something like that. I suppose that years of friendship, good will, and sincere convincing repentance could get them to the police station without it being preceded by a stay in the hospital. Really, I wouldn't want to ever get to know a person again after they'd done something like that. That's my feelings based on my nice little corner of the world where I haven't had to deal with situations like that. I don't know how Polanski managed to find forgiveness and have people treat him like a real person again, so I assume that there's something to the situation that I don't understand. Of course, that isn't a good reason for lenience.
I'm sorry that the nickname irks you. I assure you that it's not some lame boast about my skills in the bedroom if that's what you were thinking.
Hi. Two things:
"I can't really wrap my head around someone that I know, respect, and consider a friend drugging and raping anyone."
I think that's why rape is a crime in which belief for the victim is so much harder to find than for most other crimes. No one can fathom one of their friends doing something like this. But for things to change, (meaning victim's rights and the amount of people who tell, report, bring charges, etc) everyone has to accept that one of their friends could. Not only does it happen to those in all different circumstances, the people who commit rape run in all social circles, all classes, all backgrounds. People expect rapists to all be really obviously shitty people, and sadly, its rarely that easy to see. Most of the time, a rapist is generally regarded as a pretty nice person, making it easy to write off the victim as a liar rather than shaking up their view of humanity and challenging how they see their friends vs rapists.
"Really, I wouldn't want to ever get to know a person again after they'd done something like that. That's my feelings based on my nice little corner of the world where I haven't had to deal with situations like that."
You're already pretty damn far ahead of a lot of the people who I knew in my nice little corner of the world, then. I hope that you'll never have to deal with this personally, but if a friend ever comes to you and tells you someone you both know raped her, remember you said this once.
Disclaimer: by "done it before," I mean "engaged in relations with an underage girl before." AFAIK he didn't drug Ms. Kinski, get her drunk, refuse to take her home when she asked, and then force his way into her mouth, vagina, and rectum while ignoring her please for him to stop.
Lock him up and throw away the key. That's all.
Looks like Feminist Majority & Ellie Smeal have released a statement saying that Yorkin was not speaking for the organization and that it is FMF's position that Polanski should "face the consequences."
To which I say, a) WELL THANK GOODNESS, and b) too little too late?
I have made this comment elsewhere, but I want to make it here, too. I agree with alixana and Alexis above. Far too little weight has been given to the wishes of the victim herself.
Certainly she has no legal authority to have the charges dropped, but prosecutors make decisions all the time about which cases to prosecute. I doubt that any prosecutor's office has the manpower to try every single case that might reasonably result in a conviction. Somewhere, a decision was made to go after Polanski instead of someone else. Given the victim's stated opinions on pursuing this matter further, I think that was a bad call.
Furthermore, turning the much-heard celebrity argument on its head, I think no prosecutor would have shown any interest in Polanski at this late date if he were not so famous. Ms. Geimer is right to foresee this as a media circus in the making.
Gordon, the fact that somebody may be out to Get Famous Polanski in no way mitigates what Polanski did. Neither does the fact that the victim wants to put it behind her, for which I don't blame her at all. Since he's already copped to this, I hope it means she won't have to be involved very much.
There are kidnapping victims who get Stockholm Syndrome. They don't want the perps prosecuted. There are domestic abuse victims who change their minds about putting their man in jail. There are people whose relatives are murdered who find it in their hearts to forgive the murderer later. Do we fling all the doors open?
No, you say, case by case. But the door you argue for opening is the door with the fugitive child rapist behind it.
Peter Fonda said it "better."
Put. That. Bastard. In. Jail.
Are we still saying that anyone who identifies as feminist IS one? Because I don't care what this person is the leader of, anyone who thinks a confessed rapist should walk in NO feminist.
Peg Yorkin, please step down! And by the way, Chris Rock is a better feminist than you. What he said on the Jay Leno show about Polanski was amazing! I blogged earlier this week on Polanski the cockroach at http://redheadedfeminism.blogspot.com
I highly doubt this woman would be so cavalier if HER daughter was sodomized and assaulted. There is no such thing as a rape-apologist feminist.
Can I give a Monday FUCK YOU to this lady?