His victim now says she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to serve jail time, but at this point, it's not really about her. We're doing this pour encourager les autres.
The French, too, have forgiven him of course:
"Seeing him alone, imprisoned while he was heading to an event that was due to offer him praise and recognition is awful. He was trapped," French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said at a news conference Sunday. "In the same way there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America, that has just shown its face."
You would think we'd busted him for unpaid parking tickets. The guy drugged a thirteen year old girl in order to rape her. Perhaps the French have some sophisticated, European point of view on these things that I, with my puritan ancestry, simply cannot rise to.
Don't get too far out in front of the story. Polanski may yet elude justice.
After all, the Washington Post came out over the weekend in support of the pedophile rapist of a 13-year-old girl. Polanski, it should be noted, anally raped the girl in Jack Nicholson's home, while his girlfriend, the actress Angelica Houston, was in the home.
Washington Post writer Ann Applebaum thinks Polanski should be let go by Swiss authorities - which would prevent his extradition back to California to serve time for the crime which he pled guilty to.
"He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee, writes the Posts' Applebaum. "But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment."
How sickening is it that the Washington Post would sully its name in support of a man who anally raped a 13-year-old child after drugging her with quaaludes?
What's next ... coming out in support of Phillip Garrido? Editorializing about how we should send Jaycee Dugard back into his clutches? Coming out for date rape?
It's just sickening that the Washington Post perverts are angling for Polanski's release.
How many charges is he facing? Sometimes when you list out just how disgusting a criminal is, the liberals shut up. They don't change their disgusting opinion, mind you, but at least they shut up.
So let's see...
He served liquor to a minor. To most liberals, this is A-OK, even when the minor is 13.
How about feeding her qaaludes? Does that qualify as atrocious to most libs? If not, at what age is it disgusting for an adult to give barbiturates to a child? 10? 6? 3? Inasmuch as physicians have to go to med school before they can prescribe the drugs that killed Hendrix to kids, do you think there's any risk here, with a Film Director giving enough downers and booze to a 13 year old to make her "compliant?" No? So you're still "good" with this?
How about undressing a 13 year old girl - are liberals OK with that? And moving her body "into position." Libs still on-board? You OK with a 40 year old man undressing a 13 year old child, and then moving her "into position?"
Etc.
Because THIS is what this animal CONFESSED to. He *confessed* to giving a potentially lethal cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates to a child, SPECIFICALLY so that he could then undress her, move her body to where he wanted it, and then penetrate her.
If by some Bizarro World fluke Polanski stands trial, is found guilty, and is sentenced to death, feel free to give me a call. I have *zero* issues with being his executioner.
Pedophiles are a cancer on society.
How many charges is he facing?
He's not facing any charges. He's already pled guilty to his crime.
Again, to recap: There is no question about Roman Polanski's guilt. His semen was found in her underpants and witnesses (including the actress Angelica Houston) put him in the bedroom at Jack Nicholson's house with his victim at the time of the rape.
He fled prior to his sentencing. Nothing strange about that. People abscond all the time when the time to pay the piper comes due.
But not everyone can then retire to the French Riviera in high style, while his apologists at the Washington Post advocate for his release.
Moverty,
Got it. I was just wondering if there are other charges that could now be leveled at him, aside from the various ones associated with his flight.
The wiki on him only mentions him being charged with "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor," but never mentions other charges. That's pretty common, particularly if someone pleads guilty. They didn't "throw the book" at him.
My question is, can they still?
If they can, the statutory rape could be expanded to include the forced aspects of it. There could be drug charges, alcohol charges, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc. He committed a LOT of crimes.
Again, not sure if there are statutes of limitation involved, etc. And given his age, I don't see him getting out of jail unless the UK asks that he be sent to Libya.
Even so, I'd love to see him humiliated by having to answer for EVERYTHING, in detail.
No, they can't add on new charges (except for fleeing justice) at this point. The statute of limitations on anything that isn't murder has long since expired.
Reaction to this pitiful story is NOT about being a liberal or conservative, a regular guy or a superstar, rich or poor, black or white, French, Swiss, or American - it's about being a HUMAN BEING. When this man was 40 years old he raped a 13 year old girl (a child), he admitted it, then he ran away - period, end of story. And now he's hopefully going to finally pay for what he did to that child. And for those who excuse him, they have to squint their eyes pretty close together to ignore the obvious - he admitted that did it. To defend him means that there is something seriously wrong w/ them and there's no saving them - and that's just as tragic.
Yeah, I'm a liberal and a woman and a mother and a professor and a whole bunch of other things. But in the end I am a human being.
If his name were Jack Polanski, steelworker born in Warsaw, there would be no support for him- not from the Washington Post, not from the French Government, not from anyone respectable.
Hollywood will likely raise a defense fund. After all, they gave this scumbag a standing ovation in 2003.
He paid her off - she's fine with it. Let it go.
If she wanted to prosecute by all means lock him up - if not and she's happy with her settlement - why drag her through it again?
That's irrelevant to the wheels of justice. However slowly the Wheel of Ka turns, it turns!
I'm not sure there's anything to drag her through. It's not that he's coming to face a trial - he's already been convicted, at least on that charge. So it should be just a quick sentencing and off to the pokey.
"If she wanted to prosecute by all means lock him up - if not and she's happy with her settlement - why drag her through it again?"
Because society has an interest that goes beyond the one victim. That interest is this: rich people can't be allowed to pay off their victims to avoid the prosecution that would befall poor people in similar situations.
Otherwise, we don't live in a democratic republic any longer. Our laws must apply equally to everyone - whether the victim wants it or not.
The state has a duty to protect even people who won't accept help themselves, or otherwise displaying symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.
Our laws must apply equally to everyone - whether the victim wants it or not.
They could - either pay off your victim or go to jail.
If someone made choices in life that prevented them from obtaining financial resources sufficient to compensate the victim, then they should be imprisoned. Everyone would have the option of compensating the victim - if they chose not to be in a position to do so - well then it's off to prison for them.
Our system of justice does not work on behalf of people.
It works on behalf of justice - and justice is blind to the riches one possesses.
jmo3, tell me you're joking.
jmo3, rich people everywhere love you. Lots.
Rich,
No, not at all.
They could - either pay off your victim or go to jail.
Ok, set down _Law's Order_ and let the fundamentalist libertarianism drain away. Your brain will thank you. There is more to life and to justice than transaction costs. Or should the United States go on a slave raid in the third world in order to get the ransom money from weaker African nations? That's a good Coasian solution too. Or maybe white people should decide to legalize slavery again. If blacks want their freedom they can buy it. That's another great Coase solution. Justice is not the outcome of a bargaining problem. When the parties involved are unequal that's oppression.
Hagios,
Well said.
Jmo3:
There are a couple of problems with this argument:
1. Polanski only paid her off because he got caught and convicted. This would be fine in a hypothetical world with no transaction costs and a perfect conviction rate, but that's not the world we live in. If we let people go around committing crimes and then only paying off their victims when they get caught, then that doesn't provide adequate disincentive to commit crimes.
2. That he paid her enough to drop the charges doesn't mean that he paid her enough to make her whole. Suppose someone steals my entire life's sayings. Then he offers to give me half of my money back to drop the charges. That's not enough to make me whole again, but if my options are to take the money and drop the charges, or press charges and get nothing, I'm probably going to take the money.
3. Given that she was 13 at the time of the crime, it's not clear that she's capable of adequately assessing the harm done to her (Stockholm syndrome and whatnot).
Hagios:
How is it that you're familiar enough with the topic of economic analysis of law to recognize themes from Law's Order but still manage to come up with such dead-wrong analogies?
Jmo3 said that we shouldn't prosecute if the perpetrator and victim come to a mutually agreeable settlement. There are some problems with this (see above), but none of them are illustrated by your analogy. Having the perpetrator pay off the victim in compensation for damages done is completely different from having the victim pay the perpetrator to stop victimizing him. The former is tort law; the latter is extortion. You see the difference, don't you?
What'd you do, read the sci-fi book Freehold?
If this is true, then California ought to be required to abide by the original deal they made with Mr. Polanski's lawyers. After all, it's not like he didn't pay the price for his side of the transaction: he admitted guilt to a sex crime -- and is now a convicted sex offender as a result -- and also spent six weeks in prison. IIRC in addition to that he was supposed to receive a suspended sentence and probation. If the state didn't want to make a deal, then fine -- but in that case the accused should have been free to plead innocent and mount a defense. It's entirely possible a jury might have found him not guilty. Anyway, I think the facts point not to special favorable treatment because of Polanski's celebrity status, but rather to special unfavorable treatment due to the heat the judge was feeling as a result of the high profile nature of the case.
To put it another way, how critical would we be of an American citizen who fled, say, France, because of pernicious misconduct on the part of the French legal system? I know the easy answer is "Not very -- French prisons are welcome to our sex-offenders!" But even the vilest criminals deserve fair treatment and equal justice. In this case I'm not sure Polanski got either of those things from America.
That's not what the law is. Any plea agreement has to be approved by the judge. The "deal" was always contingent on the judge signing off on it. He didn't, so no deal.
Brandon,
The comment system did not let me respond directly to you.
The point about economic analysis of the law if that it does not matter who has the initial property right. The slaves could have the right to be free or the United States could have the right to own slaves. Either way there is an irreducible conflict between what the United States wants and what the slaves want. There is no difference between the United States sending out the slavers and rounding up slaves then a factory setting up shop and polluting a river.
If members of the third world nation do not want to be enslaved then they can bargain with the United States in order to pay off their desire not to be enslaved. If they cannot afford to do this then clearly they are the least cost avoider and should be enslaved.
"He paid her off - she's fine with it. Let it go."
So, for the record, you think that the rapist Roman Polanski should be forgiven, but the victim's mother should be punished.
Interesting. We'll remember the quality of your critical thinking skills when you opine on other matters.
Yes, pimping out your children is a bigger crime, in my mind, than rape.
Yes, for the record, that is what I think.
No big surprise there.
It takes a village. And every village requires an idiot.
Do you know that the mother was pimping out her daughter? I don't think trying to launch the child's modeling career is a crime, and although I chaperone my children, 35 years ago the mother might have made the assumption that her child was safe with all those other grownups there.
I remember growing up in the 1970s and enjoying a degree of freedom in the neighborhood that I'd NEVER allow my children to have. It was a different time. Heck, back then, it was safe to hitchhike or to pick up hitchhikers.
Your "Blame the victim" mentality is disturbing. Did you think Katelyn Faber "Had it coming" for going up to Kobe Bryant's room? Or is it only because you find the 13-year old to be "stunningly hot"? I feel icky even writing those words.
Do you know that the mother was pimping out her daughter?
I can say without reservation that the mother was hopping to join the parents of many child celebrities who live a life of ease and luxury off the misappropriated income of their children.
See also:
Rooney, Andy
Culkin, Macaulay
Coleman,Gary
jmo3,
I believe you mean:
Rooney, Mickey.
Not Andy. I have no idea if Mickey Rooney was "pimped out," but I'm quite certain that Andy Rooney spent his younger years covering WWII as part of the Press Corps...
And re: "who is worse, the rapist, or the mother who 'pimped' her daughter out to be raped," I've rarely heard a line of "reasoning" with less substance.
If you can prove that the mother had a reasonable responsibility here, that she shirked, throw her in the same jail as Polanski.
I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Pedophiles, or accessoried to pedophilia, belong in prison - only because we can't legally feed them to hungry lions.
Rooney, Mickey.
Hah! Sorry about that.
I don't know if his parents stole his money. I had always that it was Mickey Rooney who was the impetus for the California Child Actors Bill - but I just checked and it turns out it was Jackie Coogan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Child_Actor's_Bill
John, it's as safe(or dangerous) to hitchhike now as it was then. You're just more concerned about it than your parents were.
Polanski is one my favorite directors. That said, it doesn't matter whether 'she is fine with it'. The victim of a criminal offense doesn't just get to say 'let it go' - there is a larger purpose served in prosecuting the offender. This is not a civil suit.
You let him go, it is like hanging up a sign saying if you are a wealthy, connected Hollywood type, all you have to do is run away to France if you get caught in a serious crime.
What's particularly disgusting about the European response, along with the responses of some of our own elites (Applebaum, I'm looking at your sorry interest-conflicted self), is that these people apparently believe that artistic or other acceptable forms of achievements should earn you the indulgence of right-thinking folk. I have little doubt that these same folks would be cheering if it were, say, a janitor or a Republican lawmaker faced with extradition for similar crimes. As one of Althouse's commenters put it, "[Applebaum's] argument comes down to the fact that the cretins who kept hiring the rapist to make movies also should have earned him a get-out-of-jail free card. It isn't just about a different standard for a big shot. It's about a different standard for the entire big shot club."
Hell, France didn't want to extradite Ira Einhorn, and he murdered a woman.
FWIW: A lot of civilized countries balk at extraditing criminals to countries where they're under threat of execution; this shouldn't be taken as proof that they condone the crime.
He's not facing the death penalty for this crime so their reticence cannot be defended on that basis.
I know; I was just pointing out about Einhorn...
Good for the Swiss - continuing their tradition of doing whatever they want, and to hell with Continental opinion.
I believe the French simply don't find pedophilia that abhorrent. They have plenty of films and novels portraying "ambivalent" relationships between adults and children. Ever see the original version of "The Professional"? That's pretty mild by French standards. So perhaps for them, they treat this case as if she were 16.
In the US, we have endless episodes of L&O:SVU, where child rapists are always the absolute scum of the earth, to be tracked down without mercy. Thank God for that.
This wasn't a mere "ambivalent relationship."
He took her far from her home. He then got her drunk. Then he drugged her. Then he raped her while another woman (Angelica Houston) was on the other side of the door to the bedroom - having interrupted his rape. After getting Houston to leave - he went back to continue the rape of the drugged 13-year-old.
That's not a "relationship."
It's a perverted child rape.
Calm down...we're on the same side. I agree with you, prosecute this pervert to within an inch of his life.
I just wanted to clarify the point.
You're right that there is a long French tradition of having sex with children. But there is no French tradition of drugging, then anally raping children.
Huge difference.
...that we know of.
That being said Samantha Geimer's mother should be executed if she isn't already dead.
Really - you have a stunningly hot 13yo daughter and you pimp her out for a Vogue photo shoot and you don't even bother to stay and keep an eye on her? What the f**k did you think was going to happen?
The rape occurred 35 years ago.
It's stunning that you would seek to place blame - not on the rapist - but on an innocent mother. You clearly do not have children (or been raped).
Of course today, we know that you can't trust authority figures such as clergy, or famous people. But that was not as true then as it is today.
innocent mother.
She was certainly not innocent - she was a pimp who pimped out her own 13yo daughter.
She was not a pimp.
Roman Polanski did not pay her to rape her child.
Roman Polanski did not pay her to rape her child.
That's not what a pimp does. You pay the girl the pimp gets a cut. I'm sure the mother was expecting a cut of revenue from the anticipated acting/modeling career of her daughter.
I'm sure the mother was expecting a cut of revenue from the anticipated acting/modeling career of her daughter.
Acting/modeling is a legal and legitimate career that a responsible parent could very well encourage and help their child promote. If all the mother expected was help with her daughter's acting/modeling career, then you have no point. In fact you only have a point if you make the completely unproven bit of wild ass conjecture the the mother expected Polanski to sleep with her daughter in exchange for help with the acting/modeling career.
In fact you only have a point if you make the completely unproven bit of wild ass conjecture the the mother expected Polanski to sleep with her daughter in exchange for help with the acting/modeling career.
It was 1970's Hollywood - it wasn't some 12yo boy going to see Father Flanagan in 1950's Boston.
Hmmm...interesting.
Her mother was obviously a pimp because she should have assumed a respected Hollywood director would drug and rape any child left alone in his presence.
We know that now. I'm don't think there is any evidence that she could have known that before.
Pimps are worse than rapists? Not a very libertarian position, but I hope you share this opinion with any mothers of young daughters lest they take their eyes off their child in your presence.
Pimps are worse than rapists?
Parent pimps are worse than rapists. Regular pimps may be providing valuable marketing and security services and therefore provide a valuable service.
Her mother was obviously a pimp because she should have assumed a respected Hollywood director would drug and rape any child left alone in his presence.
In Hollywood in 1977? Yes, she should have reasonably expected that.
Now I understand. You're a freak.
I'm sure the mother was expecting a cut of revenue from the anticipated acting/modeling career of her daughter.
With deductive skills like these, maybe you can help me find my missing car keys. I'm sure I set them down around here somewhere. What is your 900 number and per-minute rate?
jmo3: "In Hollywood in 1977? Yes, she should have reasonably expected that."
Just curious how far this line of reasoning goes. Lynchings in Louisiana in 1935? Clitoradectomies in sub-Saharan Africa in 2009? Blinding a young girl with sulfuric acid in Pakistan in 2009? Giving Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets in 1750? Beating a gay man to death in Wyoming in 1998? Dragging a Black man to death in Jasper, Texas in 1998?
The victims should all have expected that. Ergo, their survivors need to stop whining about it.
Sarcasm, for Rush Limbaugh listeners and humorless East Coast snobs.
I know there's lots of nasty commentary about the modeling industry, but if you're going to call her a pimp, you'd better have some pretty solid evidence that she knew what was going to happen, instead of thinking that that stuff wouldn't actually happen. Even if, for sake of argument, sex is the only way to get a career in the industry, the mother didn't necessarily know that - it's not exactly how they advertise themselves.
As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
This is going to be a tough one for the left, as they usually forgive rapists and then with the anti-American angle how can they resist forgiving the scumbag?
The Polish government is seeking the assistance of Barack Obama. They intend to ask him to grant clemency to the rapist of the 13-year-old.
I wonder ... what will Barack Obama do? Will he help the rapist.
Or not.
Poland seems to be one of those countries with no influence on the Obama administration, so I'm guessing their petition won't make any difference.
We'll see.
If Polanski gets free somehow, then we'll know that their influence paid off.
Eastern Europe is "flyover country".
I very much doubt the father of two young girls feels much sympathy for someone convicted of a sex crime against a minor. But even if he were so inclined, what would be the political benefit in getting involved with this case? I can't imagine France is going to make its help vis a vis Iran contingent upon dropping the extradition. And even if that were the case, there's no way a savvy politician like Barack Obama is going to get on the side of a convicted pederast.
I figured the right would find a way to attach an anti-Obama fantasy to this case. But that's all it's going to be: a fantasy.
But it'll score points with those big brained, big wallet creative types, who are a little more worldly than the rubes. And since he's not going to give them gay marriage or a peace czar, here's a bone he can toss.
"I very much doubt the father of two young girls feels much sympathy for someone convicted of a sex crime against a minor."
Well, we will have a chance to see about that. I'm sure Obama won't help the rapist in a public way.
But if Polanski goes free ... If the LA district attorney's office should start receiving subtle back-channel pressure not to extradite him, then we'll have a pretty good idea where it emanates from.
If Polanski does go free, it's not going to look good for Obama given that the Polish are being very public about the pressure they are bringing on the Obama Administration to release him.
As a former constitutional law professor (tm), Obama will probably explain that the president is not empowered to "grant clemency" to people convicted of violations of state law.
So what's the Governator's position on this? He's both Hollywood and term limited and, it seems, johnny on the spot for executive intervention. Who's been knocking on his door lately?
I agree that there can be no pardon for this, even if the girl has moved on a long time ago. The message here is too important: this sort of thing is unacceptable, no matter who you are and how much time is passes. The director of Death and the Maiden should understand this better than most.
OTOH, Megan, how tribal can you get? Does the French Culture Minister speak for the French? Which, in turn, have an "European point of view", so he is really speaking for Europeans?
I imagine Rocco Landesman, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, just may have a couple of opinions that fall outside the American mainstream. Or Mexican. Or Canadian.
No matter. Let the French bashing begin.
"Does the French Culture Minister speak for the French?"
Yes. He does. He was appointed to his position precisely to speak for the French in matters of the culture.
It should also be noted that when he made his statement, the French Culture Minister made plain that he was authorized to speak for the French President - Nicolas Sarkozy.
Financial Times: "Speaking on behalf of the French president, Frederic Mitterand, culture minister, said on Sunday he was “amazed” to hear that Mr Polanski was detained by Swiss police on Saturday night, at the request of US authorities."
So, yes ... he does speak for the French. Just for the record: Nicolas Sarkozy was also elected to speak for all French pedophile rapists.
He's the French culture minister, not a private citizen. Moreover, the French government has refused to extradite him, which seems to indicate that the French have forgiven him . . .
I doubt Obama '12 will be hiring you any time soon as a campaign strategist.
Who exactly are the "big wallet creative types" going to support in 2012, Sarah Palin? Obama doesn't have to worry about their votes (and there's zero chance of New York and California going red any time soon). Obama has to worry about the independents and persuadalbes in purple states -- people not likely to be big fans of clemency for Polanski.
Besides, they don't need to get gay marriage from Obama. They're steadily getting it from a growing number of states.
I don't get why this happened now. Has he never been to Switzerland? Is there a new Swiss gov't desperate to show its anti-child rape bonifides?
I suspect the Swiss are simply serving a warrant and extradition request given to them by the US government, which they are executing in accordance with their treaty law.
It's not like the Swiss are prosecuting Polanski themselves for a crime committed in the US to a US citizen. They're handing him over to US custody.
If Polanski has been to Switzerland without being arrested, it must be because the US did not ask for extradition that time.
The Swiss have been caving to the US Justice Department on tax matters recently; I wonder if this is part of the same new spirit of cooperation.
Incidentally, it's not just Applebaum; the Post's news story about the arrest repeats (without qualification) the canards about "judicial misconduct" that the Polanski team has been pushing for a while.
The other issue is if it was a 13 yo boy and a 44yo female - nearly everyone would agree, it's just not that big of a deal.
I suspect that if the boy was drugged and then sodomized, you'd be incorrect.
13 year old boy seduced by much older woman, you've got a point.
Really?
Mary Kay Letourneau? Debra LeFave? Pam Rogers? They (and lots of others) all went to prison, as should Polanski. As of today, it's a crime, a matter for the courts, and juries have said "This IS a big deal."
Don't like the law? Push for its repeal.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
Something being a crime does not mean that it's as "big a deal" as something else.
And I don't think that the law should treat drugging and raping a child and having "consensual" statutory rape sex with a child as the same thing (although it might, I don't know).
Something being a crime does not mean that it's as "big a deal" as something else.
Not sure what you're saying here - of course, all crimes (or other undesirable acts) fall somewhere on our societal acceptance scale. I guess, to me, calling something "not a big deal" declares it well away from being a crime. If "most everyone" agrees with jmo that the "older female/underage male" scenario is "just not that big of a deal", then prosecutors are making a lot of work for themselves, and juries are going along. Not that juries are perfect, but they are supposed to reflect our common conscience. If we (as a society) think tadpoling is just "not nice", we should be pushing to get the Statutory Rape laws amended, if not outright repealed. I don't happen to agree that it's just "not nice", and would oppose such a repeal, though I am willing to hear the arguments of the other side.
And I don't think that the law should treat drugging and raping a child and having "consensual" statutory rape sex with a child as the same thing (although it might, I don't know).
Didn't say that, and completely agree with you. Polanski was charged with the former, and pled to the latter.
Another good reason not to have a Culture Minister.
On the contrary: The French need a minister to explain to the world how its President - Nicolas Sarkozy - is working hard to get a child rapist freed.
That would appear to be a full-time job.
Liberals are evil. They couldn't care less about crime, and victims are supposed to shut up and quit complaining, especially because criminals are often from groups liberals love, such as the poor or minorities. European film directors don't often commit crimes but when they do they are sympathetic victims of the cruel criminal justice system.
The whole purpose of the hate crime legislation is so that the few crimes that are actually disturbing to liberals, white on minority, can be punished while letting the rest go.
"Liberal are evil" is just silly. Here's a post on Salon about the issue with the author reminding everyone that Polanski raped a child and how insane the European reaction is that Polanski is the victim.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
Here's a post on the Washington Post about how we should all just lay off the child rapist.
After all, he's suffered enough.
He's the real victim here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
And the Salon article rips Applebaum apart.
Sigh. Anne Aplebaum is a neo-con, movertyperguy.
Here's her Atlantic profile:
At home in Europe and in Washington, Applebaum is part neoconservative foreign-policy hawk and part free-trade globalization advocate. Her Reaganesque philosophy emerged from her experience covering Eastern Europe for several British publications, including The Economist. Confident in the powers of free markets and American military might, Applebaum frequently calls for more of both in all corners of the globe. She is wary of foreign regimes across Asia—from Moscow to Tehran to Beijing—and is an advocate for forceful American diplomacy there.
Sound like your type of gal. Now, notice how I refrain from concluding that all Reaganite war supporters endorse child rape. You should consider doing the same for the French.
Applebaum is pretty squishy, having voted for Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406_pf.html
"Liberals are evil."
What a load of BS.
I'm a liberal and do not feel evil at all thank you very much.
Not only that I'm glad someone FINALLY got one country to actually grab him and hand him over.
He needs to come back and serve his time.
I'm sick or people with some standing within society (and it is not just the rich and the famous or large defense contractors, it is the local Pastor or local football hero) getting away with crimes the rest of us would go to prison for.
I think Feminists are liberals too and from what I can tell, as a whole we are pretty happy to see this rapist go to prison.
Rape is rape, no matter who commits the rape.
and Anne Applebaum is an idiot.
Anne Applebaum is an idiot.>/i>
Ann Applebaum is, on the contrary, a celebrated journalist in one of the nation's premiere daily newspapers - The Washington Post.
She's appropriated their good name to advocate on behalf of her friend the child rapist - fugitive Roman Polanski.
I wonder if the owners of the Washington Post appreciate how she's used their brand to advocate for her buddy the rapist. I wonder how the advertisers on this page:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
feel about having their advertisements right next to the personal appeal on behalf of someone who anally raped a kid?
Does the advertiser Siemens support the rapist? (You can contact Siemens and ask them if they support child rapists by submitting this form, as I have):
http://www.usa.siemens.com/en/contact.htm
Does the Washington Post itself stand behind the rapist? Does the Washington Post stand behind Anne Applebaum? Does the Post support efforts to get the rapist freed? What other rapists have the Washington Post written editorials in support of?
Other advertisers who are appearing on the Posts' kiddie rapist promotional page:
IBM
http://www.ibm.com/scripts/contact/contact/us/en
Citibank
https://www.citibank.com/domain/contact/visitor_email/form.htm
They are probably unaware that their advertising is supporting someone who is advocating on behalf of a child rapist and might appreciate knowing that their advertising dollars could probably be better spent at some other newspaper ... or perhaps Salon.com
Maybe we should notify these companies that their advertising budgets are being misspent by the Post.
Ann Applebaum is a moderate neocon. She's made her name writing books about the evils of Communism and has taken a hawkish pro-interventionist stance on every war in the past 15 years. Her European politics are right-wing, laissez-faire, pro-American, anti-Russian, and generally militarist.
The editorial page of the Washington Post under Fred Hiatt is a redoubt of conservativism on every topic from continued laissez-faire economics to opposition to prosecuting torturers.
Where does anybody get off accusing LIBERALS of being forgiving of statutory rape, on the basis of the support of the Washington Post editorial page and Anne Applebaum for Roman Polanski?
Moderate neocons are stalwart conservatives now?
jules,
I pointed my own invective at liberals, too, and after I finished I realized that I had used an overly-wide brush.
Not all liberals support Polanski in this fiasco to "let him free."
OTOH, I cannot imagine any true conservative feeling that way, and darned few libertarians (other than anarchists).
I am an anarcho-libertarian, and I don't know of any that would approve the use of force against anyone, especially not a child, since we believe an adult has an obligation to provide for their own defense. If that had been my daughter (or a friend), I would have castrated him and broken several bones. The anarcho-libertarian position on coercion and defense (including retaliation) was best put by F Paul Wilson:
"Never intitate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you; retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming - you or yours again."
His current Repairman Jack series has been sliding downhill a bit, but are mostly excellent and a pretty good modern day introduction to libertarian anarchism (it's a supernatural horror series so it has some very unrealistic aspects). He also wrote a standalone novel that many here may find interesting, "Deep As the Marrow" about a president that starts working to end the War on Drugs. His primary enemies become the DEA and the Drug Cartels.
It's funny, there have been some pro-Polanski articles in liberal publications like Huffington Post and Salon, but if you look at the comments the reaction is pretty strongly anti-Polenski, at least 2-1 and really more like 3 or 4-1. Usually, and especially on Salon, you rarely see a lot of non-lefties commenting--whatever the positions are of the people paid to write, the rank and file seem pretty strongly in favor of the capture.
(Also there's plenty of anti-Polanski articles out there in the left media, and a big chunk of the pro-Polanski crowd's argument is based on granting the victim's wishes which I disagree with but is hardly 'evil')
I for one see no reason to give Polenski clemency. None of the liberals I know like seeing people buy their way out of the rule of law. Besides, if we're gonna send people to prison for growing pot, we damn well better send the child rapists there too.
(btw, minority on white hate crimes are reported and prosecuted regularly, and usually for good reason.)
While I'm horrified by what Polanski did, the misconduct and conspiracy between the prosecuting attorney and the judge is so egregious and so well-documented that I can't see any true libertarian standing behind a conviction.
He pled guilty.
How can you not stand behind the conviction? It's not like there was a trial. He admitted his crime - since there were plenty of unimpeachable witnesses to the crime (including the actress Angelica Houston) and lots of physical evidence - including his semen in her underwear.
There's no question of his guilt. His case was heard in a court of law; and he pleaded guilty to his crime.
He fled the sentencing.
So the defense for him basically adds up to it was a long time ago, and he's made good movies. I think people even know how stupid that sounds when they say it.
Thanks for coming down hard here
We'll see how it plays out, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if it is all part of a script to bring him here for sentencing, then overturn on appeal or have the sentence commuted (by a governor connected to the film industry?), after which he is free to move about the country.
But then, I have become cynical in my advancing age.
Schwarzenegger is unlikely to go along with a plan like that. He's pretty squishy on the budget, but he's got law-and-order tendencies.
No, David, you have it all wrong.
If they had both been 26, and he got her drunk and then had sex with her, it would be "date rape" and he should be tried and convicted and then forced to register as a sex offender on the internet with links to a google map to his home address.
But since he was forty-something, and she was 13, it was just good, clean fun.
Is it clear now?
You definitely need ot get your moral-o-meter calibrated!
"Perhaps the French have some sophisticated, European point of view on these things that I, with my puritan ancestry, simply cannot rise to"
I hope you meant this with a sense of humor here, because I'm not seeing what ancestry has to do with seeing this crime, as just that: a crime that needs to be prosecuted. And I'm sure there are few wrong-headed Americans out there, I'm sure, that think this should all be "let go of."
Hmmm, I wonder how I can twist my ancestry in such a way as to make an argument that Polanski should be prosecuted...being as I don't have any puritans in my background. Just conquistadors and the conquered...I'll get back to you.
If you don't see the irony, maybe you should try a different blog? I hear Elmo has a blog and he never uses irony to make a point.
Why didn't Polanski try to get a pardon from Bill Clinton in the closing days of the Clinton Administration? It worked for Mark Rich.
This isn't the first time I've heard of Europeans thinking that the American justice system doesn't apply to them. If they acknowledge that we have one at all. Vestiges of colonial thinking, perhaps? The native courts may be good enough for the natives (barbarians that they are), but certainly not for us!
The American justice system really doesn't apply to them. Neither their justice system to us. Either you have a extradition agreement or any country is sovereign within its borders.
We have many people living in the U.S. that have been condemned in foreign courts.
Is that really true? Not being snarky here - I'm just surprised. My impression was we had extradition treaties with all but a handful of countries.
I was referring to the initial case, which involved US penalties for actions taking place in the US. Saying that the sentence is illegitimate or should be dropped is a challenge to US courts imposing US penalties for crimes committed in the US. I would certainly expect to be tried and convicted in a French court if I committed a crime in France. This is a good reason for not committing crimes in France, just as avoiding US prosecution is a good reason for not committing crimes in the US.
The extradition component is separate and adds a level of complexity, but anyone who wants the US courts to give up on this is making a different argument.
I'm just curious....for the poeple who think that the crime's occurrence 35 years ago should have bearing.
Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Edwin Blanton were tried and convicted almost 40 years after the fact for the bombings at the 16th Street Baptist Church.
Do you think they should have enjoyed clemency? Or do artsy Hollywood types deserve consideration not normally given to Southern rednecks?
Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Edwin Blanton were tried and convicted almost 40 years after the fact for the bombings at the 16th Street Baptist Church.
Hum... killing four kids via a terrorist bombing seems a little worse than non-violent rape.
Sodomy of a virtually unconscious little girl sounds pretty violent...
Aw, lay off jmo3. He stated for the record that he thinks it's OK because the little girl was "scorchingly hot" and because her mother expected to skim profits from future acting roles.
I hope he never says that in public in Houston.
He stated for the record that he thinks it's OK because the little girl was "scorchingly hot"
When did I say it was ok? What I said, for the record, was that her mother's crime of pimping her own daughter is even worse than rape.
When I asked you, for the record, if you thought rapist Polanski should be forgiven and the victim's mother should be punished, you stated "Yes, pimping out your children is a bigger crime, in my mind, than rape. Yes, for the record, that is what I think."
You proceeded to state that no crime existed because the victim has forgiven the rapist Polanski and the mother acted as a pimp by implicitly trading her child's sexual favors in hopes of securing future acting/modeling fees on behalf of her child.
I'll ask the question again...do you think women deserve to be raped when they drink too much at a frathouse, or go to the hotel room of NBA players, or dress immodestly and walk through a bad part of town? Did she "deserve it"?
Excuse me, jmo3 said "stunningly hot," not "scorchingly hot." Apologies for the misquote.
Not to jmo3. He's into it.
Ahh...nihilism.
When you peel away the layers of a leftist's thinking, that's usually what's left exposed.
From my (limited to quick review of Wikipedia etc) it appears that what led to him going on the Lamb was that he had served 42 days of a 90 day sentence in a mental institution/prison and was concerned that he was going to have to suffer another 48 days in prison. It appears that there was a plea bargain on the charges to get this sentence and he ran half way through.
IMHO 90 days in prison/psychiatric hospital for raping a 13 year seems awfully lite - several years sounds fairer to me. In any event it seems that he didn't want to serve out his full sentance which led to him going on the run. To put this another way, he could have served the full 90 day sentence then, having paid his debt to society, walked away a free man.
Now I don't know what the penalty is for avoiding arrest etc but it seems this is a pretty easy case of the guy had a debt to pay society as ordered by the court, he refused, and now he should face the consequences.
Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried.
Frederic Mitterand, btw, is a celebrated left-wing media personality whom the center-right Sarkozy stuck in at Culture Minister over the summer as part of his strategy of plucking feathers from the Socialists' cap. Mitterand was looking for a chance to insert a jab at the US here because that's what his political career, such as it is, is based on. Him talking about a "scary America" doesn't reflect much more of a general point about French attitudes on this sex-with-drugged-13-year-olds question, I don't think; it's just a way to get a little attention.
I mean, at the margins, the French are less freaked out about pedophiles and sex offenders than Americans are. But at the margins, Americans are much too freaked out about pedophiles and sex offenders. But the questions at issue in this case aren't really relevant to that broader social issue I don't think.
The HBO documentary, IIRC, indicates he was facing the potential of a 20-year sentence. The judge was apparently under intense political pressure to set an example of Polanski, and that is what led him to renege on the original deal.
There was a lot of extremely disturbing sexualization of young teens going around in Hollywood in the late '70s. "Bugsy Malone", "The Little Girl who Lives Down the Lane", "Taxi Driver", "Blue Lagoon", actually pretty much everything with Brooke Shields, Nastassia Kinski, etc.
Course, some of those were great movies.
Oh - how could we forget "Pretty Baby"?
@jmo3 ANDY ROONEY? You mean Mickey Rooney.
And Joan Z. Shore hasn't worked for CBS for years. At most she was a local fixer, and hardly any decision-maker for the news division. She's just noisy.
Natassia Kinski was in Polanski's clutches as well.
Plenty of people in Hollywood find Polanski distasteful. As Beatty/Nicholson aren't the power players they once were, I'd guess that there's not going to be any fund-raising (and Polanski's rich, he can afford a lawyer).
"Perhaps the French have some sophisticated, European point of view on these things that I, with my puritan ancestry, simply cannot rise to."
Yawn.
While it's always a crowd pleaser in some circles to make halfwitted jokes about the morality of Europeans in general and the French in particular, the most vile defense of Polanski (which, par for the course, is wrong on several of the facts) comes from good old American freedom fighter Anne Applebaum in yesterday's WAPO.
Of course she defends him. Her husband, Radoslaw Sikorski, is Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and his work currently includes lobbying on Polanski's behalf. Anne's just carrying water for her hubby. (Not that there's any disclosure of this in her article. Naturally.)
@ Steinglass
"The editorial page of the Washington Post under Fred Hiatt is a redoubt of conservativism on every topic from continued laissez-faire economics to opposition to prosecuting torturers."
I've notified the following advertisers that their ads are appearing on the rapist redoubt that is the Washington Post editorial page.
IBM
Seimens
Citigroup
Lockheed Martin
It will be interesting to see whether the advertising agencies associated with these companies will agree with you that this is a great place for the advertising dollars to be spent.
I somehow doubt that they will be as gung ho as you in support of Anne Applebaum ... but I'll let you know how they respond.
I don't see how we can really complain about the French wanting to "let a rapist go." So did the US, when we gave him a plea bargain for a charge lesser than rape. (You want to talk about class privilege, you ought to start there). Anyway, unless there's some evidence of another victim, he is not a rapist as far as the law's concerned. He's an escaped prisoner, a fugitive, which is a separate crime than the one he was originally in for. He ought to stand trial for that (no bail) and go to jail if he's convicted.
From reading about the case, the prosecutor offered a plea bargain, because Polanski's defense would include bringing up the victim's sexual and drug use history, which would make it difficult to get a conviction for rape. (That was legal in 1977.) The judge, presumably under political pressure, decided to reject the plea bargain. Rather than withdraw the plea and fight the case, or accept harsher (than 90 days) sentencing on the statutory rape charge, Polanski fled.
"Rather than withdraw the plea ..."
You have been misinformed.
Polanski pled guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."
He did so because he was, in fact, knowingly guilty of that crime. Had he not agreed to plead guilty and save the victim from being raped again by him in court, he would have faced numerous other charges including drugging her prior to raping her.
He fled prior to his sentencing (he agreed to a psychiatric examination at a prison lasting 42 days, but was not yet sentenced for his crime).
He fled because he could live a live of luxury if he went to France, where raping young kids is no biggie, according to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Hermann Goring while a prisoner at Nuremberg, on finding that he had purchased a fake Vermeer during WWII, was reported to look "as if for the first time he had discovered evil in the world."1(p209). The French Culture Minister seems to be having a similar experience.
Wynne F I was Vermeer.. Bloomsbury 2006 (cited in Archives of General Psychiatry, March 2009)
lawl, seriously. After listening to liberals go on and on and on about sex crimes over the years, their defense of this somewhat artistic child rapist is just to much fun.
If liberals can defend an organization that conspires to bring in a group of illegal 13-year-old aliens for a brothel, then there's no reason to be shocked they would rise to the defense of an "artiste" who only raped a single 13-year-old girl.
I think you mean décourager...I hope
It's an allusion.
From Voltaire's Candide, where it does indeed mean severe punishment for someone in order for others to take notice.
"If the girl had been 15 or 16, I think many of us would rightly say, "let it go, already"."
Wow. Perhaps Ms. McArdle has some sophisticated, Libertarian point of view on these things.
If statutory rape was the only charge then that point might make more sense - 15-16 is a normal age of consent around the world, and 13-14 aren't unheard of. The US being age 18 is deeply weird. However, the non-statutory rape can't be ignored based on the age of the victim, and I don't think most people would be cutting him any more slack for raping a 19 year old than a 13 year old.
This is utterly bizarre. Where are all these liberals who are supposedly defending Polanski? Do lumpenjerk NRO readers just automatically that whatever offending behavior has crossed their fuzzy, stupidity-obscured radar screen lately, liberals must be approving of it? "LOL, too funny watching all these liberals defending the tsunami." WTH?
A quick glance at HuffPost reveals the following headlines:
Joan Z. Shore
Co-founder, Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium)
Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss
John Farr
Writer, editor and lecturer on timeless film
Leniency for Polanski
Presumably Ms. Shore's organization believes that equality for women means equal opportunity to get anally raped by Mr. Polanski.
Ms. Shore writes:
Yes, the girl's wicked mother "thrust" the girl's rectum onto Mr. Polanski's hapless cock.
Is this a game for you StanB?
From the very liberal Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon):
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/good_news1/
StanB and movertyperguy hear about Polanski's arrest and immediately start collecting (hilariously misguided, in the case of moverty) "evidence" of libruls supporting pedophile rapists. Partisan knee-jerk stupidity is limitless.
Uhh, what? Matt asked:
I'm not try to prove that all liberals are defending Polanski, just that some do, in fact, exist.
You'll have to forgive me for being appalled by the egregious hypocrisy in one of these examples.
Fair nuff. Looks like there are a couple of liberals, at least, defending Polanski, along with the conservative Applebaum. But there are also a hell of a lot of liberals supporting the arrest. It's absurd to say "liberals" want Polanski released.
A quick glance at the major liberal papers finds the Washington Post agitating for the rapist's release:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
It's trivial to find liberals defending the right of rich artists to rape kids with impunity.
movertyperguy, twice now it was pointed out to you what you should have checked by yourself before posting that link all over the thread - Anne Applebaum is a neo-conservative and a long time Reagan admirer.
Kindly stop polluting the thread by posting the same false allegation over and over again.
Neo-cons ARE leftist/liberals. Just because they are called "conservatives" by their marketers and political opponents doesn't make them conservative. Actually, a much more accurate name would be "Judeo-Christian Socialists".
I'm aware of the distinction you draw, but we haven't been living in that world for a while. Don't get me wrong, I'm much more sympathetic to the "true conservatives" you're talking about, but they are either dead or comatose (in the sense that they almost don't have any political representation).
The fact of the matter is, when most of the people today talk about liberals and conservatives, they don't use the terms in that sense.
More Huff Post insanity:
Kim Morgan
Film and culture writer
Roman Polanski Understands Women: Repulsion
Just to be clear, and to agree with Freddie for the first time since I've been reading his comments, the trial was a sham. Yes, he pled guilty as part of a plea bargain, and it was the notion that the judge was going to renege on the plea bargain (as is his right, of course, but it it doesn't make it right). Now there no doubt that Polanski is guilty, and that it could have been proven if he hadnt pled guilty (though a payment to the mother and victim might have made prosecution somewhat tougher) but Freddie is right that the trial was not American justice at anywhere near its best. That said, I have no sympathy for the acts and no uncertainty about the identity of the criminal, so I agree with most of the comments here. But, for once, Freddie has a point.
There was no trial, so it couldn't be a "sham." He pleaded guilty.
I don't understand why some people are confused on this point. Even if you take Polanski's side, the only issue was the length of his sentence, not his guilt.
I don't understand how you can say there was no trial. Trials consist of two parts. The first part determines guilt, and if guilt is found, the second part determines sentencing. The first part of the trial was completed, when Polanski pled guilty and the judge accepted his plea. The second part hasn't finished yet, because Polanski got cold feet and vamoosed.
"though a payment to the mother and victim might have made prosecution somewhat tougher"
Actually, this would have been opened him up to a charge of Obstruction of Justice. You're not allowed to buy off witnesses.
Then how did Michael Jackson pull it off? As I understand it he paid the kid $20 million and he refused to testify.
Because he beat the criminal prosecution.
Jackson paid a settlement rather than take the case to civil trial.
Megan McArdle said (in comment above)
Most countries usually are not keen on extraditing their own citizens to be judged in foreign courts. The French refused to extradite him because he doesn't have American citizenship. He has French and Polish dual citizenship.
The U.S. has refused to extradite Americans in the past for crimes in foreign countries. And the U.S. never requested for Polanski to be judged in France for his crimes (and he would certainly be condemned by the French courts. Pedophilia and rape is a crime there too, believe it or not).
The French Cultural Minister is not a private citizen, but this is not exactly his turf. Sarkozy, a personal friend of Polanski, has been so far pretty ambiguous on his official declarations.
But what annoys me most is this:
Great generalizations about "the French". So I guess you would have to agree if foreign bloggers accused "the Americans" of torturing and murdering people without a trial. Not the Bush Administration. Not the American leaders. The Americans are the torturers and murderers.
Doesn't sound so great, does it? Really, all it take to avoid engaging in this sort of crude tribal thought is a simple effort to put ourselves in other people's shoes.
"Most countries usually are not keen on extraditing their own citizens to be judged in foreign courts. The French refused to extradite him because he doesn't have American citizenship. He has French and Polish dual citizenship."
The US does extradite US citizens to other countries. That's what an extradition treaty is for. Yes, there are complications of justice that cause countries to NOT extradite citizens.
Polanski was a confessed child rapist. His special circumstance was being a rich and famous Hollywood director.
No. An extradition treaty, in general, "is for" surrendering criminals or criminal suspects, and treaties can vary quite a lot.
France is required, under the current extradition treaty with the U.S., to comply with extradition requests for Americans in France, not French citizens.
I'm sure you're right, Nimed. Of course it is the policy of the US government to refuse any requests of the French government to hand over US citizens no matter what they have done in France. It never happens. Never ever. Frances refusal to return Polanski to the US had nothing to do with him being a famous Hollywood director. They would have shielded any child rapist.
Look, countries are, in general, very resistant to extraditing their own citizens. I'm not denying that Polanski's fame didn't help him.
You seem certain of it. Ok. Do you have anything to support the claim that, as a rule, France extradites French citizens who commited crimes in American soil to the U.S. and an exception was made for Polanski?
As it happens, I believe, to my great shame, that we, the American people did these things. We are responsible for the actions of our elected officials.
There are different uses of "the French" or "the Americans". There is the American state, the American nation, and all American citizens--three different meanings. When actors in World War II dramas speak of "The Americans" wanting something, they obviously do not mean that every single American wants to, say, position soldiers in such and such a location. Rather, they mean that "the Americans", as represented by their duly authorized officials, want something.
Do I think all French citizens supported harboring Polanski? No, the law of large numbers being what it is. Perhaps even a majority of them did not. But the French nation harbored this child rapist for 32 years.
But the French nation harbored this child rapist for 32 years.
And their President is today hard at work on their behalf attempting to get him out of Switzerland and back to freedom in Paris.
If the French wish to not be viewed as providing succor to the rapist of a 13-year-old child, then they are free to march against their government.
Until then, their President is condemning all of them to the fate of just criticism.
"...the trial was a sham."
There was no trial - so exactly how was the trial a sham?
You seem to think there is some doubt about Polanski's guilt. But there isn't any doubt. He pleaded guilty in order to avoid a trial.
Witnesses, including the actress Angelica Houston, put Polanski in the bedroom with the 13-year-old girl; and his semen was found in her underpants, which the police gathered as evidence.
There was no trial because he knew he couldn't beat the rap. He knew he was guilty.
So how again was the trial a sham?
Fair enough... the "court proceedings" were a sham. I dont know how you take my comment to think there's a doubt about his guilt, though. But you're just wrong that that there was no trial because he knew he couldn't beat the rap. There was a plea bargain in the case, the same as there is in about 90 percent of criminal cases. The reasons for the plea bargain are many, including testimony (then allowed in court) to smear the victim with lascivious inclinations. So they meade a deal. Judges are free to ignore the plea bargain, however, but they do so very rarely because they know it sets a terrible precedent for future plea bargains. The judge here was, we suspect, about to take Poalnski's deal off the tableand he fled. And he should go to jail for what he confessed to, which was statutory rape, not sodomy or forcible rape. The judge was a publicity-hogging creep. Much less of a creep than Polanski, but he had a job as a judge.
"Fair enough... the "court proceedings" were a sham. I dont know how you take my comment to think there's a doubt about his guilt, though."
Since you agree that he is guilty of plying a child with drugs and then raping her when she was barely concious, it is frankly quite moot whether or not you consider the proceedings to be a sham. Punish the judge or punish the prosecutor, but punish Polanski first.
The judge is dead. The prosecutor made a judgement call that I don't think you can second-guess unless you were there, and your "moot" could be used to justify lynching. Again, this is where I think Freddie was right... There are no legal facts until they're proved in a legal trial, or admitted to. And lots of scum go free because of it. It really doesn't matter what i think about Polanski's guilt, or what punishement I would exact ten minutes after I'm made dictator of the world. And I believe Polanski should indeed be punished for what he confessed to, and for skipping out, or alternatively, put on trial for the things we both believe are true. But i you think the OJ trial was a circus... and the result wasn't too good either.
And since he ran, the prosecutor's decision is open to being reconsidered. In fact, his flight is in itself additional information that ought to be considered as to what other crimes he should be charged with. It certainly would if his name were Jack Polanski.
"your "moot" could be used to justify lynching."
He confessed, without duress and in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, to doping a 13 year old girl with downers & champagne, and then @$$-raping her. I see no problem with holding a necktie party for Mr. Polanski to celebrate his return. Granted, my views on the subject may be colored by the fact that I have a niece who's the same age currently as his victim was then. I assure you that if someone did the same to her, they'd never make it to trial.
"The reasons for the plea bargain are many ..."
You forgot to mention the actual reason Polanski agreed to plead guilty: he was guilty.
Some criminals are actually guilty of their crimes; and plead out because what's the point? They know they're just going to get a longer sentence. And that was the case with Polanski.
Polanski negotiated a plea agreement to avoid more serious charges of rape. He was allowed to plead to a lessor charge because the state saves a ton of money that way and gets him into prison much, much faster that way.
Saves everyone the trouble.
So remember: the best indicator of someone's guilt is when they admit that they are guilty, as Polanski did. In fact, after they do that, there can be no further debate on that point.
So he plead guilty to statutory rape:
Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
That's the current law in California - I'm not sure what it was back in 1977.
Were are people getting this 20 year number?
The only way he could of been convicted of rape of a child would be if he changed his plea and they went to trial - right? I could easily be missing something.
Since he ran, the statute of limitations was frozen that moment (in my state anyway). He could still be tried for a significant list of crimes based on his confession.
Correct. No statute of limitations runs while you are on the lam.
What did Polanski say in his confession? Reading the grand jury testimony, I find large portions of the girl's story not credible.
First, I should say that I think it's beyond question that he committed statutory rape. He should be punished for that. We can't allow people to flee the jurisdiction and benefit by having the punishment go away. That was what bothered so many people, rightly, about the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton.
But as for the forcible rape charges, this is what I see in the testimony:
1. The girl willingly drank the champagne and took the quaalude.
2. She had taken quaaludes on previous occasions, on her own, as young as 10 or 11 years old. She had also had champagne before.
3. She says she was barely conscious when Polanski was having sex with her. But for being barely conscious and having no real memory of what happened, she certainly offered some odd details. About how Polanski asked her if she was on the pill. And since the answer was no, he then asked if he could take her from the back.
4. What there physical evidence of anal penetration? I think it unlikely that a non-consenting 13 year old could be anally penetrated without any bleeding, but she did not mention the presence of any blood. But I don't know anything about anal sex.
To me, it seems that conservatives are exaggerating the nature of the proof about against Polanski on the forcible rape charges in order to make liberals who support Polanski look bad. It's certainly odd to see conservatives take at face value the grand jury testimony, not cross-examined, of a womena claiming to be raped. There's hypocrisy on both sides here.
"What did Polanski say in his confession?"
He admitted his guilt. What more do you need to know?
1) He wasn't charged with forcible rape - so that's not an issue.
2) He pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Since his semen was in the hands of prosecutors, it was going to be kind of hard for him to explain how it got into the 13-year-old girl's panties. Also, famous people witnessed him in the bedroom of Jack Nicholson's house with the girl.
He drugged and raped her. There is no debate about his guilt.
As part of that plea agreement, he was required to agree to a stipulation of the facts; namely, that he had sex with the child. What you fail to comprehend is that a 13-year-old cannot consent to sex; and cannot consent to much of anything else legally either. She was clearly starstruck - and that's why we have laws protecting little children from pedophiles.
Because it's too easy for predators like Roman Polanski to star-strike them. So it's irrelevant the question of whether the child "willingly" did anything. They are not competent to make those decisions, legally.
What gets me is that we are supposed to think anal rape puts the crime over the top. I read the allegedly disturbing account of anal rape and I don't think it would sound less disturbing if you substituted anus for vagina in the description. The reason to bring Polanski back is not because he needs to be punished to make right some natural order, it is because the rule of law is important.
"If the girl had been 15 or 16, I think many of us would rightly say, "let it go, already"."
Jeezus! I still can't get over this sentence.
Read this please.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
I just want to clarify here, are you saying that if Roman Polanski had given drugs and alcohol to a fifteen or sixteen year old girl and then proceeded to have sex with her without her consent (putting aside the issue of whether someone that young can legally even consent), you’d say "let it go, already"?
Or did you mean to say if that if Roman Polanski had otherwise consensual sex (again putting aside the issue of whether someone that young can legally consent) with a fifteen or sixteen year old and the only issue was statutory rape, you’d say "let it go, already"?
I really hope you meant the latter.
So, assuming the judge WAS going to renege on the plea deal (a renege which I wouldn't have shed a tear over, if the deal was for 42 days time served).
What were Polanski's recourses then? Plead guilty, judge doesn't accept bargain - can you withdraw your plea?
Is there an appeals process?
Did it really all begin and end with one judge in the 70s?
So, assuming the judge WAS going to renege on the plea deal ...
You're confused (and rightly so) because the liberal media is deliberately mis-reporting facts in this case and leaving out substantial facts in their reporting.
Polanski agreed to the plea bargain knowing that the judge had not decided yet on a sentence. This is less common in plea bargains, but it happens all the time.
He agreed to the plea bargain in return for not being charged with rape. The rape charge would have carried with it a far greater potential for a much long prison sentence; so he pleaded guilty without knowing exactly what his sentence would be; and knowing full well that the judge could sentence him for a long period of time. But it was a better deal than losing a rape case - which would likely have happened.
A sentence was never part of the plea bargain with prosecutors. That's the part the press is deliberately omitting from their reporting.
Thanks Mover - so it doesn't sound like there was much 'appealability' here? I imagine he'd have to blame his lawyers for poor representation or something?
Well, anyone can appeal anything they want ... and Polanski is currently appealing his extradition.
It is far from certain that he will ever spend a single day in jail for this rape. I highly doubt that he will.
The fix has always been in for Polanski. He has successfully parlayed his past (Holocaust survivor, wife killed by Manson) in such a way that he has many friends in high places who make allowances for his pedophilia. People such as Anne Applebaum and the executive editors of the Washington Post who favor allowing the rapist to escape justice.
He will never, ever be transferred back to the United States to satisfy justice is my bet.
Answer to Megan McArdle 4:53 comment:
Grumble. All you wrote is true, but only up to a point.
The people share the responsibility of their elected officials also up to a point. They share it most when the elected officials are executing their electoral program and doing what they promised to do. If government officials start to do stuff out of the blue as in Guantanamo, it doesn't become an American cultural trait.
And I would be pretty furious if I found a headline in a foreign newspaper simply stating that "The Americans torture and kill people". We didn't vote on it, and the majority of American people are for closing Guantanamo.
I lived for some time in France. Stating that the French (or, worse yet, all the Europeans) have "some sophisticated, European point of view" which is lenient towards rape and pedophilia is simply not true.
Not to say there aren't some positions that you can attribute to a people. Americans really are culturally more protective of freedom of speech rights. The EU countries, generally, tend to look at health care as a basic right. Saudis really don't believe in equality of right for both genders. So in these cases there is justification for talking about "The Americans", "The Europeans", "The Saudis".
But this is not the case here. We are talking about the statements of a Minister of Culture expressing an opinion about a matter outside his official responsibilities. Furthermore, both Mitterrand and Sarkozy have personal relationships with Polanski. The French people didn't vote on this (I doubt it came up in the Presidential campaign) and didn' express their views on the whole Polanski affair. Don't you think it's unfair to depict their positions as characteristic of French values and cultural inclinations?
Concurring: The last conversation I had with a Western European about sex crimes began with him stating that he thinks all pedophiles should be castrated.
I think it's pretty easy to make mistaken generalizations on this topic. One should also take into account that Europeans generally have much lower rates of imprisonment for all crimes. So it's not necessarily about any particular leniency on non-consensual or underage sex. I often feel that European countries are far too reluctant to put people away for a long time, but on the other hand France has, what, about 50,000 people in jail, and it's still safer than the US. So they must be doing something right. (Though I don't know whether it's safer to be an attractive 13-year-old alone with a 42-year-old lech in France.)
I think there are several issues being confused here.
1. Should Polanski be punished so many years after the crime? I think that he should. I don't think that depends very much on the severity of the crime. We can't have people thinking they can get off scot free by fleeing the jurisdiction. Obviously, there's some limit to this -- no need to be running around chasing parking tickets for decades. But if significant jail time could have been imposed but for the flight, then it should be imposed after re-capture.
2. Was what Polanski did all that bad? This isn't particularly relevant to the issue of whether he should be re-sentenced. But it's become an important part of the debate because of the atmospherics. It makes liberals look bad if they are defending a guy who did a really bad thing, and less bad if he did a less bad thing. Which is why you are seeing so much emphasis from conservatives on the nature of his crime.
3. There are degrees of wrongdoing. Statutory rape is a crime, and at age 13, it's a problem and it's wrong. I don't put it near the category of forcible or violent rape, however. The idea that 13 year olds don't ever know what they are doing has always seemed a little bit like BS to me. Especially if they are, you know, already experienced in sex, alcohol and drugs. And especially if we are going to be trying 13 year olds as adults when they commit crimes.
Taking advantage of an impaired girl is another category. It's worse. But still, I think, not as bad as forcible rape. I think it's clear that this happened. Was it against the law in 1977 in California? I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.
4. Forcible rape is a completely different category. This is where I am not sure I trust the girl's story that much. I'm not saying I don't believe her. It just seems riddled with inconsistencies. It does appear that she took the quaaludes voluntarily, and without very much pressure. Was she really unable to do anything at all? In her testimoney, she claimed to be conscious enough to remember some details, but not conscious enough to scream for help?
Was Polanski giving her the drugs in order to incapacitate her so that he would then have his way with her? That's what conservatives would have you believe, and what Roman's friends are denying. I don't really know the answer to this question.
1). I'm pretty sure most women (particularly non-virgins) want the "slut" rape defense reinstated.
2). A 13-year old is not capable of giving consent..just as in contract law, a minor is not capable of entering a binding contract (binding on the minor). Further, the insane and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol are not considered competant, so even if she were 43, Polanski might be charged with rape.
3). Can you explain to me how drugging someone is less coercive than holding a gun to their head?
4). The victim stated in her testimony that she was afraid of her rapist, Polanski. He was probably larger than she was, and he had also probably consumed alcohol. She may have had as reasonable a fear as any woman who gets dragged into an alley by a 6' 5", 280# man.
5). What part of "no means no" did you manage to escape college without understanding? The woman can withdraw consent at any time during the sexual encounter. The victim stated in her testimony that she asked Polanski not to rape and sodomize her.
#1 should read "Most women probably do NOT want the 'slut' defense reinstated."
1. I'm not advocating the "slut" rape defense.
2. You say that drugging someone is no less coercive. True, but I'm questioning whether he "drugged" her. If she took the quaaludes willingly, and Polanski was not giving them to her to incapacitate her, then there is no way of describing his conduct as "drugging" her.
3. Yes, a 13 year old is not capable of giving consent. That's why the crime of statutory rape is on the books. Everyone has admitted that he committed that. The question is whether he did something more severe.
4. What was the state of the law in California at the time in terms of consent by those under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
5. The victim stated a lot of things in her testimony. Unfortunately, I find that testimony to be not credible in certain aspects. That's why I want to know what Polanski admitted to and what was confirmed by other evidence. She might have been telling the truth about saying no. On the other hand, her testimony is subject to inconsistency on this point.
Muzzybelly: "The idea that 13 year olds don't ever know what they are doing has always seemed a little bit like BS to me. Especially if they are, you know, already experienced in sex, alcohol and drugs."
If that isn't the "slut" defense, I can't read English.
Muzzybelly: "If she took the quaaludes willingly, and Polanski was not giving them to her to incapacitate her, then there is no way of describing his conduct as "drugging" her."
So if I get my date wasted (she willingly drinks, I weigh twice what she does so if we go drink-by-drink, she's 8 sheets to the wind while I'm merely buzzing), and I have my way with her, it's not rape? That is not what the feminists have been saying for the past several years.
A cautionary tale.
Now, if he had to gone to ACORN for advice, he not only could have avoided extradition, but made some money on the girl as well, without even paying taxes.
Knowing is half the battle!
(shrug) no sympathy for him at all. He should have been locked up decades ago.
"What were Polanski's recourses then? Plead guilty, judge doesn't accept bargain - can you withdraw your plea?"
Normally you get the judge to sign off on the deal before appearing in court to plead out. It's written as a legally binding contract all around: if the judge changes his mind after agreeing to it he can even be booted out of office for misconduct and the deal reinstated by a higher court. What probably really happened is the DA agreed to RECOMMEND leniency if Polanski copped. The court wouldn't have been bound by such a deal, however.
"Was Polanski giving her the drugs in order to incapacitate her so that he would then have his way with her? That's what conservatives would have you believe, and what Roman's friends are denying. I don't really know the answer to this question."
Doesn't matter. Administering a controlled substance to a minor w/o a medical license and parental consent is a felony, period. At age 13 the girl could not give legal consent even if she hired a skywriter to paint it across the afternoon sky. He knew her age, he knew what he was doing was wrong. There's absolutely no excuse for what he did and precious little for skipping the country.
The nature of the crime is really almost irrelevant, other than that it was a serious one. The point is he skipped out on sentencing for a felony conviction. The US is (attempting to be) a country ruled by laws. You don't waive the Interpol warrant just because "The Pianist" was really good. Which it was.
The guy should do his time. It probably won't be too long, considering how low his risk is to society. And then he should take advantage of the excellent publicity and of the artistic input of the jail experience, and go make another great movie out of it.
He not only owes time for the rape; but now we have to have a new trial, so that Polanski can also be sentenced for escaping.
Jumping bail is a crime; a very serious crime. The United States Justice Department has had to spend 30+ years finding Mr. Polanski and returning him to justice (assuming it can before forces intercede on his behalf and get him freed from his Swiss prison).
So, while Polanski's sentencing for the rape should proceed with all due speed ... his next trial on the absconding charges should be an interesting spectacle.
And since he's a known flight risk, I doubt he'll be let out on bond again.
@Steinglass:
"Where does anybody get off accusing LIBERALS of being forgiving of statutory rape ..."
Whoopie Goldberg is forgiving. On The View, she explained that Polanski didn't really rape the 13-year-old girl, who Polanski drugged first.
"It wasn't rape rape," Golberg explained to her audience of mostly women. "It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
You see Matt ... liberals such as Whoopi Goldberg believe that there's "something else" besides rape ... and then there's something they call "rape rape."
To liberals like Whoopie Goldberg, "rape" should be OK. Rape is good. But we should punish "rape rape."
Or something.
Noted liberal Harvey Weinstein joined Goldberg in demanding that the rapist (or is it rape rapist?) be set free: "“We’re calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation,” Weinstein said."
Are you noticing a pattern here? Breitbart is keeping a handy list of the aiders and abetters of the rapist Roman Polanski:
Inform yourself here: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/28/round-up-of-hollywoods-polanski-supporters/#more-237042
Speaking as a liberal " Do justice, whoever falls" is a modest and essential standard for any legitimate state to apply. If the perpetrator has paid damages to compensate the victim, that may be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentence. But we gave up thinking that blood money was a way to escape from justice a millenium ago. Pace some libertarian nuts, justice is not a matter of private contract.
Republican aide Alan David Berlin was arrested on charges that he wanted to engage in sex acts with a 15-year-old boy while dressed in a panda costume.
Republican news producer Aaron Bruns was arrested on charges of possessing child pornography.
Republican activist and former presidential campaign chairman Jeffrey Claude Bartleson was arrested on charges of sexually molesting a 5-year old boy.
Republican activist and former chairman of the Christian County Republicans Royce Fessenden pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree statutory sodomy.
Republican parole board officer and former legislator George C. (Chris) Ortloff pleaded guilty to attempting to lure 11- and 12-year-old girls to have sex with him.
Republican legislative aide Robert R. Groezinger was arrested for possessing child pornography.
Republican legislator Robert A. McKee pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.
Republican legislator Scott Muschany was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl.
Republican chief of staff Eric Feltner pleaded guilty to showing pornography to a 13-year old girl.
Republican presidential campaign official Matthew Joseph Elliott was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.
Republican Party Chairman Donald Fleischman was charged with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child.
Republican prosecutor John David Roy Atchison was arrested for soliciting sex from a 5-year old girl, then killed himself three weeks later. At the time of his arrest, Atchison was an "assistant U.S. attorney" appointed by President Bush's attorney general.
Republican city councilman John Bryan killed himself after police began investigating allegations that he had molested three girls, including two of his adopted daughters, ages 12 and 15.
Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.
Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.
Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.
Republican prosecutor Larry Corrigan was arrested for soliciting sex from 13-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Jeffrey Kyle Randall was sentenced to 275 days in jail for molesting two boys -- ages ten and 12 -- during a six-year period.
Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged with molesting a 14-year old girl and killed himself three days later.
Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.
Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.
Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.
Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano pleaded guilty to fondling a 14-year-old girl.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtin was convicted of molesting an underage teenage boy and sentenced to serve six to 18 months in prison.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Yes, a group of millions of fairly random people has a whole lot of nasty things that can be attributed to its members. If you can find me a group the size of "Republican activists" that doesn't have a rap sheet as long as the above, I'll eat my hat.
The point isn't who does it - some people are big enough assholes to say "All members of group X are evil because one of their members did something evil"(e.g., see above), but I'm not. The complaints about "liberals" as a group are based on the idea that said liberals are defending a rapist because he made good movies, which is obviously an appalling position to take. I think that tarring all "liberals" with that brush is silly, but the people defending Polanski here really are bringing themselves pretty thoroughly into disrepute.
I haven't check all these out, just a few. That's all I could take. But I think it's safe to say that this sickness is a human problem, not a liberal problem.
No, the liberal problem is that they make excuses for short-eyes who are their sort of person. If the folks you've listed have been found guilty (or, like Mr. Polanski have so pled), they also deserve a long drop on a short rope.
No, that's not a liberal problem either. There are many liberals, and their links have been posted in this thread, who vehemently condemn Polanski. And, apparently, at least one notorious neo-con who would like to let Polanski go.
But I'm glad to see you guys so concerned about consent, saying stuff like "no means no", and so on. It wasn't always like that.
One of the dearest causes of the Left in the 20th century has been definitely won.
Nimed: "One of the dearest causes of the Left in the 20th century has been definitely won."
Many of the dearest causes of the Left in the 20th century have been won. Sadly, many on the Left have tried to make rules that are as unfair as those they railed against in the past.
Martin Luther King, '60s leftist: People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Many modern leftists: Any criticism of Obama's policies is racist!
1960s leftist: Women and people of color should get a level playing field.
Many modern leftists: Women and people of color should get advantages to make up for past discrimination.
1960s leftists: No means no!
Many modern leftists: Yes means no, if she changed her mind after the fact or didn't articulate no.
1960s leftists: There should be no sexual double standard.
Many modern leftists: There should be no sexual double standard, but women should have the exclusive right to keep the baby and compel the man to support it for 18 years.
You right-wingers need to get over the sixties. Most of us were little kids or not even alive then. Sorry you were so tramatized by the dirty hippies, but the closest we got to dirty hippies was watching Hair.
And if you're reliving your parents' trauma, that's just pathetic.
This is a joke, right? Here is a quote from Bruce Bawer's "Tolerating Intolerance" in the Partisan Review for 2002:
Then, in September 2001 ... the Norwegian newspaper "Dagbladet" reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants -- a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo ... as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." (pp. 344-5).
When I read this back in 2002, I waited for righteous rage from the feminists. I'm still waiting. You may have won, but I suspect it is only a temporary win.
You've just accused me of condoning child rape. You should be very, very, very glad you're hiding behind a keyboard right now, you gutless coward.
He did nothing of the kind. He said that liberals are defending Polanski becuase they agree with his politics or he makes good movies. Or something. You should be very, very, very glad ther isn't a reading comprehension test on Megan's blog, you illiterate moron.
He said liberals. Not a few liberals--liberals. Not Hollywood liberals--liberals. Not Debra Winger and Woopie Goldberg--liberals.
No wonder your party is being taken over by Palin fanboys and Michele Bachmann mouthbreathing fools.
He said "liberals," not "all liberals," and not "a few liberals." It's open to interpretation.
Another example of your lack of reading comprehension was when I agreed that the 60s ideals were laudable (and I'm a 60s leftist, a Hippie if you will, by that metric) but that modern leftists favor some objectively ludicrous if not egregious things. you seem to think that '60s leftism is a term of oppobrium.
You should consider reading comprehension before you get your panties in a twist. I honestly don't know how you can post idiotic things like that and then get upset when people point out that you're a moron. That's just pathetic.
BTW...what exactly would you have done if you and cyberludite weren't both hiding behind keyboards, Internet Tough Grrrrrl?
You're right, I let my extreme anger at the other person blind me to what you were saying. I don't take such accusations lightly. His remark is only open to interpretation if someone is trying to excuse away what he said, but that has little to do with you. Although it doesn't seem like you could understand what he said either. ("Or something.")
Insults aside, I can't believe intellegent people aren't up in arms about what is happening to the Republican party. They used to be the party of discipline and responsibility. Now they're letting themselves become laughingstocks. Why don't you guys with reading comprehension do something about it?
I'm hardly hiding behind a keyboard, as my on-line handle is fairly well linked to my real-world self. I was not accusing you personally of condoning child rape. Merely noting that as a general rule that when someone on the left gets caught diddling a kid, fairly big name folks tend to come out of the woodwork to make excuses. Someone on the right gets caught doing that, and we're ready to lend a hand with the rope to string them up. In this comment thread you've seen us excoriate Ms. Applebaum for siding with Mr. Polanski and for hiding her conflicts of interest in the case. Are you going to do the same to the likes of Whoopi Goldberg for her calls for Polanski to be freed? How about the rest of the Hollywood glitterati who've been doing the same? The apperent extent of your outrage over Mr. Polanski's crime is to post a list of folks who have an R after their name who commited similar crimes in a blatent tu quoque, and then have a hissy fit when I called you on it.
I'll go one further in agreeing with Cyberludite.
Remember the amount of press coverage that was spilled when Larry Craig was caught cruising for anonymous gay bathroom sex in the MSP airport? I think most liberals and many conservatives would agree that a grown man has a right to have sex with any consenting adult he wants...but Hollywood thinks that Polanski has the right to have sex with a non-consenting, non-adult.
Remember the flap when Trent Lott praised Stron Thurmond on his birthday in 2002, becuase Thurmond had favored segregation 40 years earlier? But no one criticizes the Hollywood types (overwhelmingly liberal) who defend someone who raped a semi-concious child?
Remember the hand wringing that the Tea Party protesters were the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler, compared to the silence when anti-G20 protesters smashed windows and attacked police cars?
And you have the nerve to lose it when someone calls you out on your hypocrisy? I'm irritated not just with YOUR hypocrisy, but the State media's studious refusal to cover anything not flattering to the left, or embarrassing to the right.
To answer your other question, some of us with reading comprehension are trying to do something about the GOP. After voting Democratic in 2006 and 2008 as an attempted rebuke of the GOP, I'm now a supporter of the Tea Party movement. I think the GOP is too far gone (Judeo-Christian Socialists, as someone put it) and the Tea Party is the future...assuming they don't get co-opted. I think if someone would run against Hollywood, the East Coast, and the "Blame America First" movement, they would win elections. "Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool, you bet that Tommy sees."
BTW...your scorn for Sarah Palin is telling. Many in the Establishment had the same things to say about Ronald Reagan...he was common. He had minimal experience. He was not very smart. All he had was "folksy charm" and some outdated ideas.
I can see how she might terrify you, especially as we head through the 1970s again with Barack "Jimmy Carter" Obama at the helm.
Do you seriously believe that Polanski's crimes - anally raping a woman and plying her with Quaaludes - would somehow be less morally and legally egregious had the woman been 16 and not 13?
I wouldn't "let go" of Polanski for raping a 16 year old, and I don't think (I hope) that the government would, either.
Rape is a crime, and it does not matter what age the victim is. We prosecute the crime of rape regardless of the victim's age.
Age comes into play in statutory rape cases (which also happened here), but even if this wasn't statutory rape, THE WOMAN DID NOT CONSENT. Non-consent = rape. Period. The end. Nada.
Ms. McArdle,
I too raised an eyebrow at your assumption that we would all be sanguine about this if it had been a 15 or 16 year old girl. Surely, you wrote that in haste?
As a former 15 year old and the mother of two teens, let me tell you, it's a daily exercise in guiding them to wise choices and impulse control. Just as I do not support trying that age group as adults in the courts, I know they rarely have the ability to grasp that the decisions they make now may sometimes resonate through the rest of their lives.
But really, I'm even more puzzled at the implication that what was rape at 13 years of age wasn't rape at 15 or 16 years old? Once more, I hope that you just wrote too quickly.
If creative talent justifies a Get Out of Jail Free card, what level of misdeed should other directors' talent let them get away with? Directors' Get Out of Jail Free Card survey