According to CNN, legendary film director Roman Polanski was on his way to receive a lifetime achievement award in Switzerland when he was grabbed up by police on a warrant issued in 1978. Said the Zurich Film Festival that is now sans guest of honor:"Roman Polanski, who is one of the greatest film directors of all time, would have been honored for his life's work in Zurich today. However yesterday, on Saturday, he was taken into custody while attempting to enter Switzerland due to a request by U.S. authorities in connection with an arrest warrant from 1978."
Polanski had pleaded guilty to having unlawful sexual intercourse with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer back in '77, then fled the country to evade his sentence. There have been rumblings over the years that his case was mishandled, however. According to the Huffington Post's article, Polanski had "asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges' refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it."
And even his victim seems to wish the whole thing would just fade from memory. Says the CNN news article:
"Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.
Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."
Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She long ago came forward and made her identity public -- mainly, she said, because she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled."
But really, it's not only up to her, despite the sympathy we must feel for Ms. Geimer and the delicacy she deserves. The way I see it, Polanski committed a crime and it sets an awful precedent to allow him to skate free. All these years he's been making art, living it up in Europe, while being lauded and well compensated for his talent. Basically, he didn't like how his case was being handled, so he decided he was above the law -- an option the average person doesn't have the resources to take, much as they might wish to. Never did he have to face up to his actions -- until now.
I hear a lot of outcry that he's a special case -- so talented, so much tragedy in his life. As the Huffington Post reports, the French cultural minister responded to Polanski's arrest by saying he was "dumbfounded" by Polanski's arrest, adding that he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them." It's true, the man had had a lot to deal with before the incident with Geimer. Once upon a time, the whole world was agog at the news of his wife, actress Sharon Tate's grisly murder by Charles Manson's followers, and as a child, his mother perished in the Auschwitz concentration camp.
But I don't know. I don't see how the things done to you excuse the things you do to others -- particularly 13-year-old girls you ply with champagne and a sliver of quaalude.
So: be honest: did you watch any of the movies he's made over the years since he evaded justice? (He won the Oscar for "The Pianist" in 2002, most notably, though he was unable to enter the United States to accept it.) Do you feel he deserves to serve out his prison term now, or have some sort of deal cut for him? Do you think he's an example of an unrepentant Hollywood elitist? Or do you think he got a raw deal in the first place? Does talent excuse bad behavior? Do the tragedies of Polanski's past excuse his own misdeeds? Do the celebrities who've continued to flock to work with him in the years since his flight from justice bear some culpability as well? So many ethical questions attend this fascinating case...
Weigh in below!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hillary - In the specific circumstances of the case I believe the most ethical course for Polanski to have taken would be to stay in the US, and if the judge ruled unfairly to appeal that judgment with every resource he could muster, and to try and ensure the judge was disciplined appropriately. A bad judge does substantial damage to society; more perhaps than almost any other criminal, and their misbehaviour needs to be fought. That said, such behaviour would have been heroic, and I think expecting heroism is unreasonable. Therefore, I do not think it was unreasonable for Polanski to flee the country before he could be done an injustice. And while I don't like extending my judgment on the individual circumstances of a case to hypothethicals - in general terms, yes, if the non-existent 'average citizen' was about to be done a substantial injustice by the state I think it's reasonable for them to flee. Before forming this judgment, though, I would want to be convinced that there was a substantial injustice about to be done. The fact that the prosecutor, victim, victim's attorney and two other judges seem to have agreed this was the case is sufficient to convince me of this in this instance.
If Polanski goes free what kind of message does that send?? That's it is okay to rape a young girl, jump bail, run to a foreign country and hide from the law for thirty years!!! I don't care if he raped her thirty years or two days ago, it doesn't make any less guilty of the crime. And the fact that he has high Hollywood contacts or is a big name himself, he isn't above the law and should be held responsible for his actions.
What is this world coming to that a man can rape a thirteen year old and get away with it?? Lock him up and throw away the key.
This is a case of a 45 year old having sex with a 13 year old. This is not a case about two teenagers under the age of consent having sex, or an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old.
This is the definition of rape. It doesn't matter if the girl was "experienced." It doesn't matter if she had "consented" (since a minor cannot give consent). It doesn't matter if Polanski (or anyone else) thought she was over 18 at the time. It doesn't matter if Polanski had sex with her (raped her) previously. It doesn't matter if the victim or her family did not want to press charges at the time or even if the victim wants the case to be "tossed out" now.
This isn't about the charge he pled guilty to or even the sentence that was handed down. That is a discussion about the law. This is about ethics.
Are we as a society going to give him a pass because it was 30 years ago? Because he is a celebrity film director? Because of all the lame justifications many have proffered as a defense? Do we feel the same way about other (alleged?) sex crimes - R Kelly? MJ? What about Murder/Manslaughter - OJ? Stallworth? Why should it matter what this person does or how many fans or supporters trot out in front of a camera in support?
What does this say about our society, and the pedestal that we put these people on?
James, just a little legal technicality the lawyer should have maybe pointed out (and maybe you should have realized before you go copying and pasting the rhetoric) -- statute of limitations on the original allegations are not applicable in this matter. Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime and fled before he was sentenced. There is no time barr on the matter because it's still an active evasion. He was convicted, but not sentenced of a crime. In addition to that crime, he'll now be charged with fleeing justice. So no, sorry, it's not just some "minor" crime as you said. And frankly, I'm unsure as to why you would ever classify a 45 year old man having sex with a 13 year old girl as a "minor" crime.
If Polanski feels he was treated unjustly during the trail -- so be it. He can appeal his conviction just like everyone else in the American justice system. I don't care who he is or what movies he has made. He deserves no special treatment. As for your comment that staying here and battling the judge's supposed misconduct would have been heroic - I strongly disagree. It's called being an adult and facing consequences. With regard to the outcry over the judge's failure to adhere to the plea bargain -- judges are under absolutely no obligation to adhere to plea bargains that are struck between a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Just ask Bank of America, who as you'll know if you follow the news, had its settlement thrown out by a judge.
It's time to make him pay for his crimes. He has been FREE long enough. He shouldn't have ran away from this long ago. They need to throw the book at him. No matter what happen's, it's a longtime coming that's for sure!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.