Jay Smooth on Polanski
You don't even have to watch, and you know it's going to be good.
Posted by Jessica - October 07, 2009, at 12:43PM
| in
Sexual Assault
,
Video
,
Violence Against Women
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jay Smooth on Polanski .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16438
Very nice. Tear it up.
Me personally, what gets to me is, if any working-class asshole had committed this crime and pled guilty, he'd have gotten smacked real good. But because this son of a bitch was rich, he's gotten to live in luxury and absolute impunity. When I hear any of Polanski's defenders mouthing off, all I hear is, "Rich people should get special privileges - specifically, the privilege to drug and rape sixth-grade girls - because they are ever so much better than you are."
There's no other way I can read this. If what Polanski's endured is "unjust," then his defenders should be frantic over the hundred-times worse "injustice" suffered by your ordinary convict who doesn't own a villa in France. So where, Whoopi Goldberg, are your pleas for mercy for Joe Redneck of Hicksville, Alabama, who's serving three-to-five in the state pen for banging that junior-hi-skool chick? Conversely, if you aren't defending Joe Redneck, then exactly which principle of justice do you uphold by defending Roman Polanski?
Unfortuantely, no. Too many working-class sex offenders do not get prosecuted, either. I have intimate experience with this situation, unfortunately. Keep an eye out for an essay on the topic that I will soon be posting to the feministing community board.
I hear you, and the difficulty of prosecuting the crime of rape is a known hard problem. But we're not talking about rapists who elude prosecution, but about a rapist who eluded sentencing after confession and conviction. Most other confessed and convicted rapists serve jail sentences, endure probation, etc., and Polanski's defenders apparently find their punishment unexceptionable, yet they seem to argue that the confessed and convicted rapist Polanski should be specially exempt from even the tiniest fraction of it. For hasn't he suffered enough? They made him miss the Oscars ceremony!
I'll be looking for your "community" post.
I officially love Jay Smooth.
Roman Polanski should be forced to face the legal consequences of what he did, even if some feel that a crime committed nearly thirty years ago is irrelevant. Also, the fact that he's refused to face sentencing gives one the idea that he's well aware of what he did (not just the "sexual misconduct" he pleaded guilty to, but the drugging and rape of an adolescent) and knows the consequences could be, and should be severe.
Great video!!! I still feel sorry for the accuser, I'm happy she's moving on
Exactly.
Omg, who IS this guy? I love him.
That was well thought out.
He posts little video blogs and such here: http://www.illdoctrine.com/ , pretty much every one is totally worth watching.
I believe Roman Polanski should be brought to justice here in the States, but taking an indictment at face value--ever--is just wrong. Its a one sided, prosecutorial only document, with a very low threshold for accuracy. As they say, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor told 'em to. Let's bring him back & render justice.
God have mercy on his soul if he's guilty of all the things that have been alleged.
But he wasn't simply indicted, he was convicted. Yes, he only plead guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, but that's how plea bargains work; taking charges off the table to guarantee a conviction and/or save the victim the pain of testifying. He never denied having oral, vaginal, and anal sex with a 13 year old. Even if he didn't drug her and lied about saying no (which I see no reason to believe), the fact remains that he plead guilty to a felony and fled in order to avoid his sentence. Rape aside, convicted felons should serve their time.
That should say "and she lied about saying no". I wish there was an edit button!
hell yes, Jay Smooth! Love, love, love, love, love!
I don't disagree with anything in this video. I have, ever since this case has come to light, wondered WHY efforts have been made thirty years after the fact to bring him to face the music but that doesn't detract from the fact that he committed a serious crime.
This is not the first time they've tried to arrest him. This is the first time they were successful.
A couple of things.
I absolutely agree with everyone in terms of Polanski getting off light because of his fame and privilege. The fact that it happened 30 years ago certainly does not make it any less of a crime.
However, Polanski did pay a substantial cash settlement to the family after it happened. The victim, who is now 40, is not involved in the prosecution. I don't know if I agree with the fact that he is essentially being punished twice for the same crime. Even if it could be argued that spending time in jail is a more appropriate and costly punishment for Polanski, the victim's family accepted the settlement as compensation.
Secondly, apparently the Swiss handed over Polanski in order to curry favour with the U.S. government, who have been pressuring them to reveal some kind of confidential banking information. This is why nothing had been done about it sooner.
Anyways, like I said, all the points everyone mentioned are super valid, I just wanted to play devil's advocate a little bit.
Civil trials are removed from criminal trials. One can have either or both. Just because the victim won the civil trial does not mean that California automatically shouldn't pursue the criminal one. The victim won her trial (although I think there is some debate, as was mentioned in the video, whether Polanski has paid up) and sought her justice. Now it's time for the state of CA to finish the prosecution.
Also, from what I've heard, the Swiss are not trying to curry favor with the US. Their banking policies are their own and shouldn't be subject to outside pressure.
The civil and criminal systems are separate so it's not getting punished twice for the same crime. Criminal trials are not really about the victim, it is the state vs. the accused. Yes, they often take the victim's feelings into consideration when sentencing but the intent of the criminal system is to look out for the state's interest. Civil lawsuits allow the victim to seek compensation for what they have suffered. For example, a friend of mine was assaulted and while the man served 2 years in prison, a lawsuit was necessary to cover ongoing medical bills and other costs that resulted from the attack. Civil suits in conjunction with a crime are valid for the same reasons they are valid when not tied to a criminal act. Criminal restitution does vary by state, but it's often limited.
Yes, the family accepted compensation... but that doesn't mean he's "paid" for his crime.
Imagine if all rich people could just pay their victims' families money and therefore not have to go to jail because they had "paid enough." It's already too close to the truth, when rich folks can hire the best lawyers and even flee the country to avoid justice... but out-of-court settlements between a criminal and victim have no bearing on what the state should decide as punishment.
He did NOT a pay substantial cash settlement. He was ordered to by the court and never did it. This guy has zero respect for the judicial system.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story
Actually, it's hard to say either way. There isn't any non-confidential court documentation showing he did, but the victim seems to suggest that it was resolved to her satisfaction.
What I would like to see Polanski be required to do is get schooled on what constitutes rape and how our culture contributes to it, and then be required to produce a series of PSAs and, heck, why not, a movie that educates young men and women about rape and its consequences to both victim and perpetrator. Why not add domestic violence PSAs to this assignment?
I'm not against his sentence also including some period of incarceration--perhaps in the education phase of his sentence.
I'd like to see some remorse and for goddess' sake, some closure for his accuser--and a public apology that clearly states his behavior and why it was wrong. He should also finish paying up for the civil judgment.
Rape prosecutions all too often work like this (without the fleeing the country part) and justice is in short supply. I hope this case draws attention to that.
WOW. I did NOT know about the civil suit (though admittedly have not been following this case very carefully). Thank you Jay Smooth for yet another AMAZING video. This guy should run for office.
Here is a good place to mention a petition in the form of a facebook group I started asking the signatories of the Free Polanski petition to take back their names. It's like an anti-petition petition. There's 137 members now, and we need more:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=167664386022&ref=mf
Hollywood today is FUCKED up. I can't believe how many people are signing these ridiculous petitions to "free Polanski!" Screw Polanski! Make him do the time like every other criminal. Hell, maybe subject HIM to a prison rape and see how it feels. Then maybe he'll at least sympathize with the girl he did it to and apologize. That's the least we can expect from a douchebag like him.
I sure hope actors with morals like Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson, Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood (some of the few really good actors left) haven't signed this nonsense. It's probably all the young, boring ones like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise. What a bunch of idiots.
Roman Polanski is a PERVERT! How any right-minded person can justify what he did, much less say that he doesn't belong in jail, is beyond me. To say otherwise about Polanski is to be a liar and have no moral compass.
It's not surprising that Hollywood signed the petition. After all, nowadays it's a big cesspool of crap, and I'm not even a conservative saying this. Most of the Hollywood elites are weirdos, hypocrites and extreme moral relativists.
Ah! So good!
jay smooth; will you marry me?