Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Roman Polanski's crime

I simply cannot get my head around the outrage some very prominent people in the film industry and some politicians in France are expressing about the arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski as he arrived in Switzerland to attend a film festival.

Let's review.

These are the facts that Polanski himself has admitted:

In March 1977 Roman Polanski invited a 13-year-old girl to come to Jack Nicholson's house, where Polanski was staying. Nicholson was not there.

Polanski, who then 46, told the girl he wanted her to pose for photos for a magazine for which he was acting as a guest editor. He gave her Champagne and a Quaalude.

He knew she was only 13. He even called the child's mother to tell her they were delayed. The frightened girl asked to leave. Polanski photographed her naked in a hot tub. He then had oral and vaginal sex with the girl. Later he penetrated her anally.

The girl testified before a grand jury that she repeatedly asked him to stop, that she was afraid and that they were alone in the house.

Polanski pled guilty to sex with a minor in a plea bargain that was struck to spare the girl public exposure. The plea bargain dropped the rape and sodomy charges, something I find outrageous still. But Polanski feared he might have to spend time in jail. Even though he had pled guilty to a felony, he was allowed to remain free pending sentencing. During that time, a judge gave permission for him to travel abroad for some film work, and so in 1977, he left the country and never came back.

He has been living in France since then, traveling the world, getting on with his nice life, continuing his film work, winning awards and accolades.

The girl, now a woman, has long since identified herself -- her name is Samatha Griemer -- and has said that she has forgiven Polanski and that she wants the criminal case to go away.

"I have survived , indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child."

I applaud her for that. But while she may have prevailed over Polanski, he has not paid for his crime against her.

Let's be clear what that crime was. A grown man lured a child to a house with lies, drugged her, photographed her naked, and then raped and sodomized her. Then he fled the country to avoid punishment.

I don't care how rich he is, how famous he is, how talented he is, this is despicable behavior. What's more, it's criminal behavior.

And it gets worse. Soon after Polanski's arrest, his lawyer, Douglas Dalton, according to the New York Times, said "he wanted to explore the 13-year-old's sexual history."

Dalton said, "We want to know who was involved, when; we want to know why those other people were not prosecuted."

You know, if other people were involved in sexually molesting this child, they should be prosecuted. But let's explore THEIR sexual history, not her's.

Exploring her "sexual history" smacks of the old "blame the victim" defense in rape cases. According to this reasoning, if a girl or woman ever said yes to ANY man, she can never say no again. She is fair game to any man who decides he wants her.

See anything wrong with that reasoning?

What Polanski did was not about sex. Rape never is. It's a crime, not of passion, but of power and control. When it's an adult raping a child, it is even more so a crime of power and control.

The passage of time and Polanski's career do not mitigate the horror of his crime. It's time he paid for it.

5 comments:

Wormwood's Doxy said...

Thank you, Katie!!!

I am just horrified that supposedly sane people don't "get" this.

It doesn't matter how long ago it was.

It doesn't matter that the victim has "forgiven" Polanski.

It doesn't matter that Polanski has had a lot of bad things happen to him. I can feel for him (and I do), but plenty of people endure horrible things and do not rape children and then run away to avoid punishment.

This is about justice, and the integrity of the judicial system. This is about ensuring that no one--no matter how rich or talented they are--is above the law. This is about protecting children, who do not have the capacity to "consent" to sex.

I wonder how many of the people who are supporting Roman Polanski would feel the same way if it were THEIR 13-year-old daughters he had drugged, raped, and sodomized?

Doxy

Elizabeth said...

I keep hearing that he is such a wonderful director and has done such wonderful work as if that excuses him from what he did. A 13 year old being raped by a 46 year old man is NOT consentual sex. Besides the girl stated she asked several times to go home. The man needs to be tried no matter who he is.

Wormwood's Doxy said...

It is important to note that Polanski pled GUILTY to the charges. He has already been "tried"--this is about his running away to avoid his punishment for the crime he ADMITTED committing.

airedale said...

Maybe it would help those supporting Polanski to ask themselves this simple question.
Suppose it was your daughter that he drugged, raped and sodomized?

John I. said...

Lots of commentary among Victim's groups out there. Would Mr. Polanski's Hollywood friends be so quick to jump to his defense were he a Catholic priest? I don't think so.

The molestation of minors and vulnerable adults is despicable under any circumstance. The effects are horrible and can be life-threatening. My wife and I ought to know. If only my Avatar could talk.

thank you!

John Iliff