Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #crisisonpolanskistreet more → 
Day Three: All Outraged Roads Lead to Roman
New York, 2:52 PM
Wed Dec 2
56 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
| posts about #crisisonpolanskistreet more → |
Day Three: All Outraged Roads Lead to Roman |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
What/Who's next? Maybe a "the terrorists were well intentioned - and very talented" speech?
10/01/09
10/01/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
When Ted Kennedy died last month, many wrote or said that while he never had any legal repercussions from Mary Jo's drowning, he went on to become such a great statesman who dedicated his life to helping the poor and the learning disabled that we should move on. Polanski did time--maybe not enough in our opinion, but he did time and what he was expected of him to do, and they released him. (He fled because the judge was going to renege on the plea bargain; he didn't escape from prison). He has been long-married and is a good father; he is not a repeat offender. He has continued to make movies, including collaborating with Spielberg on Schindler's List and directing the Pianist, both very important because they remind us as well as inform a new generation of the horrors of the Holocaust.
Here's the question: what's the difference?
And I mean besides the: he raped, he admitted guilt, he fled the country, etc. responses which we all know very well now.
I mean: why should we as a society forgive EMK for his crime--nobody pushed for his arrest 30 years later--because of his good works after the fact and not RP, who has been just as postive and redeeming, if not more so?
* This is a straight-forward question, not an opinion.
09/30/09
The question is reasonable, but the answer is people's trust in the justice system.
Kennedy did stay and face justice and its consequences, although he did not know for sure what they would be at the time.
Polanski did not. If Polanski had been senteced and had his restitution discharged, it is quite likely that people would have forgiven him and stopped talking about it by now, for all of the other analogies to Kennedy you cited.
09/30/09
As for Kennedy, he at least dealt with the repercussions (he fled the night of the scene but reported it to the authorities the next day.) Obviously, he received a very very lenient sentence for what he did but he did not flee the country to escape sentencing and it was accidental even if it was stupid and his responsibility for driving intoxicated. Polanski PURPOSELY drugged the girl and engaged in inappropriate and illegal sexual behavior with a 13 y.o. It's just not the same b/c he did not actually intend to kill Kopechne. Besides, as far as drunk driving is concerned, the sentencing is never as severe and strict as you might expect. While Kennedy got off super easy b/c of who he was, he wouldn't have served that much more time had he been a nobody.
09/30/09
I could be wrong and will stand corrected.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
The cliche is that getting sentenced, and doing any time allotted, pays your debt to society, but we allow the court to say what that debt is. This is why nobody's pushing for Donte Stallworth's or Kobe Bryant's arrest, either, even though both got off with little or no punishment: they stood up in court, heard the court's verdict, and lived with the consequences. Polanski skipped out on his sentencing and has been living the life of a rich Parisian ever since. If he'd stayed and the judge had upheld the plea bargain, there would have been a godawful outcry at the time - and justifiably so, for what it's worth - but 30 years later nobody would even remember.
Plus, there's the whole no-remorse "every man likes little girls" angle. That doesn't help.
09/30/09
09/30/09
He copped a plea bargain for a lesser charge, and then skipped the country. This is what happened, regardless of any back room deals or whatever. He plead guilty to rape and then left the country before he was sentenced.
I really don't get what the debate here is.
09/30/09
09/30/09
The man was 43 years old, and had sex (hell, for the argument's sake, let's say it WAS TOTALLY CONSENSUAL) with a 13 year old girl. On that piece of information alone, how can anyone in Hollywood or elsewhere be ok with having any relationship at all--personal, professional, whatever--with him?
Because he's an--allegedly--great director?
Who the fuck cares?
I have a really great dentist, but if I found out he had sex with a 13 year old girl, I'd probably stop going to him. My neighbor is a totally cool dude and has an AWESOME entertainment center, but if he had sex with a 13-year old girl, I'd probably stop going over there to watch football.
Wes Anderson, Martin Scorcese, Pedro Almodovar et al, I love your movies. But if you found out that the key grip was fucking a 13 year old girl in his spare time, would you be totally just cool with it?
I guess you would.
This whole thing is just so warped that I feel like I must be missing something. Some key piece of information that might give Polanski supporters some legal, moral, or logical leg to stand on. Like, I don't know, maybe that there was the slightest shred of doubt that he HAD SEX WITH A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHEN HE WAS 43. Then maybe I could understand a little.
BUT THERE'S NOT.
09/30/09
09/30/09
Would your mother allow you to visit a dentist who's known all over town as a "skirt chaser," who parties hearty and pals around with men of a similar reputation like Jack Nicholson?
I say the answer to that would be a big fat NO.
Taking sexual advantage of a 13-year-old girl is abhorrent. But who sent this child into the wolf’s den...her mother did.
What did the woman think, they were going to sit around the pool, wear paper party hats and have milk and cookies???
09/30/09
But this makes the crime even worse. The poor kid can't even depend on her mother to take care of her -- so she ends up cast to whatever immediate physical desire the nearest middle-aged troll happens to be harboring. Children aren't things, where you can say, while, the lady didn't watch her purse, so she can't really complain that it was stolen.
09/30/09
You say "Children aren't things," then go ahead and compare this child to a purse! The analogy you are trying to make is ineffective and begs to be expanded towards some logical progression.
Okay...then,
Let’s say… if you have a purse, which you treasure and contains those things close to your heart, do you willingly hand it over to a purse snatcher?
It's wisdom to put that which you value only into the hands of those you trust. Whatever the mother's motives were, she demonstrated bad judgment or at the least naivety, which placed, her child in jeopardy. She made a bad decision and her child became a victim of a sex crime.
It's a tragedy all the way around.
10/01/09
10/01/09
Paddington doesn't know what an "analogy" is...and neither do you. That was my point.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
1. what if it was your child?
2. what if it was you?
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
So, probably not the best argument you've ever made.
09/30/09
Plus, second on the Woody Allen.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Wiford Brimley comes to mind:
[2.bp.blogspot.com]
Or Eddie Mekka who played Carmine 'The Big Ragoo' Ragusa on Laverne and Shirley:
[www.judithgeiger.com]
I like to think that neither of these guys ever stuck it in 13 year old's chocolate pudding factory. But who knows really?
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
And what makes it even better is that pretty much everything written about this case uses her married name, not her maiden, so her kids and everything she has done as an adult has been colored by this event.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
and if she was 13yrs and a non-virgin, does that mean she was an acceptable target? if she had been raped previously, would that also mean it was okay to rape her?
but truly, we realize that many people who consider themselves celebrities believe they are endowed by the creator with talents that allow them to do whatever they want, therefore they must uphold the right of Polanski's 'brilliance' to exempt him the charge of rape. let's ponder what kind of people excuse the drugging and rape of a 13 year old girl?
and as for the statements from Sharon Tate's sister about Polanski's talent - I offer that Charles Manson and his crew may have some artistic and musical talents that need to be exposed to the world for us to appreciate them. Release them, what they did to her sister was bad, but maybe she had been stabbed before? But hey, they have talent!
09/30/09
It is not sarcasm though.
I've seen similar comments in other threads, and the fact is this, there is no way on Earth that what Roman Polanski did is even vaguely comparable to what happened to his 8 months pregnant wife.
People who've been traumatized (say by living through the Holocaust and then the brutal murder of your family at the hands of a cult of deranged psychopaths), rarely behave in a linear, TV Network Drama way in response to that trauma.
The tone of high moral dudgeon that gets directed at Mr. Polanski in comments like this is frankly, offensive. You can't discount the tragedy of this man's life when taking this event into consideration. And if you do, then you're being far worse than those you accuse of being apologists.
In the outrage I've seen directed at this man in the comments I've read, I see a whole lot rendering judgment out of their asses.
09/30/09
Legally, it doesn't matter what his life's experiences was before he DRUGGED and RAPED a 13-year-old child. Had he stuck around and not fled the country like the giant pussy he is, these experiences could maybe go to mitigating factors of his crime and influence the sentencing, but they are not a defense of his crime.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
By the way, my moral compass stopped guiding me to absolutist judgments along about the time I became a grown-up.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
I never said his past excused his actions. I was merely critiquing the heated (and sometimes fanciful) invective used in discussing this issue.
Personally, I don't think anyone (myself included), and especially on an internet comment thread, is qualified to render any sort of judgment on this issue.