comment #1

Alida Vali says ...

Panem et Circensus

comment #2

Travis Crabtree says ...

In times like this a worried, confused nation looks to the one person who can somehow make sense of everything. And that person is Whoopi Goldberg.

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and when they let him out he was like 'You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail so I'm not staying'. So that's why he left."

Through Whoopi we shall heal.

And just remember all you haters... it was rape. NOT rape-rape.

comment #3

Phatang! says ...

Let's face it, there should be a statute of limitations on any crime. Even a child murderer should be let off the hook after 30 years as a fugitive. Even the arrest of those old Nazis in South America felt like a misuse of energy. I'm not even really kidding here. It's almost like putting someone in jail after they're dead. Keeping the corpse locked up in super-max just for the illusion that justice is being served.

comment #4

TL says ...

"... also wonders 'if this is the best use of everyone's time and energy.'"

Funny, I don't remember these same types lining up to let bygones be bygones when it was Catholic priests in the crosshairs. But then again, those were boys who were the victims, not trampy, ambitious girls.

"Let's face it, there should be a statute of limitations on any crime."

Even accepting your premise (which I don't), Polanski was convicted. He's been on the lam from sentencing. So a statute of limitations would not help him.

comment #5

Colin Miller says ...

Phatang!, statutes of limitation apply when the state or the victim waits too long to bring an action against a defendant. They don't apply when a person has been charged and flees the country.

comment #6

George Prager says ...

T(Totally)L(Lame) wins the Straw Man of the day award.

comment #7

ErrantElan says ...

Well said, TL. This whole case is about classism and sexism, pure and simple. Supporters of Polanski are blinded by virulent sexism (the little slut was asking for it, no matter her age), and insane celebrity-worship.

If he'd raped a boy, it'd be much different.

comment #8

Gogocrank says ...

Huffington is totally right about this being a big waste of time. But who has been prolonging the case, really? I just read Bill Wyman's great take-down of the Polanski doc in Salon from last February, and it starts with this useful news reminder:

"Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if Polanski, who fled on the eve of his sentencing, in March 1978, wanted to challenge his conviction, he could -- by coming back and turning himself in.

Espinoza was stating the obvious: Fugitives don't get to dictate the terms of their case. Polanski, who had pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, was welcome to return to America, surrender, and then petition the court as he wished. Indeed, the judge even gave Polanski more than he deserved, saying that he might actually have a case. "There was substantial, it seems to me, misconduct during the pendency of this case," he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Other than that, he just needs to submit to the jurisdiction of the court."

Polanski should just get this over with. The notion of a 76 year old man of his stature not getting some form of leniency at this point is nuts. He just needs to bite the bullet, deal with this directly and start dictating the terms rather than, er, playing the victim. They'll let him direct some PSAs for R.A.I.N. or something and that will be that.

comment #9

ErrantElan says ...

The phrase "philistine collusion" says all you need to know about Polanski supporters. The man's an acclaimed artist, and as such should be above the law.

comment #10

George Prager says ...

If he'd sodomized a collie, it would be even differenter. There's specieism at work here, my friends.

comment #11

JD says ...

I haven't had cable for years and this clip totally validates that choice. None of these pundits -- including Arianna Huffington -- has any knowledge of the case. They might as well just ask random pedestrians what they think about the case because these people have no idea where the real controversey in this case lies. And that "Wow" lady is astoundingly dumb. Is she actually the host of this terrible show?

comment #12

JD says ...

PS - In discussions of the legal issues, why do people keep using the term "rape"? That term was eliminated from the proceedings back in the 70s -- because they knew they'd never get a conviction -- and the charge was reduced to "sexual misconduct." It should also be noted that many of the initial charges (which are repeatedly quoted in these inflammatory reports) were cooked-up by authorities to embarrass Polanski into a plea bargain.

comment #13

Mowkeka says ...

They need to just leave this guy alone.

It wasn't rape-rape, people!

comment #14

George Prager says ...

And there's no telling what would've happened if he'd violated the Mann Act with Pippi Lingstocking. Probably would've been stoned to death by villagers.

comment #15

Phatang! says ...

I was trying to capture a sentiment, not actually proposing a law. Obviously they need to pursue criminals, but it's hard to escape the feeling that this is a misuse of resources. I agree there's a ton of classism at work here, but tend to think it's more on the side of punishing those who we can think of anonymously, rather than letting those we identify more with off the hook.

comment #16

hardlanding says ...

That term was eliminated from the proceedings back in the 70s -- because they knew they'd never get a conviction -- and the charge was reduced to "sexual misconduct."

Not exactly. The original charges did indeed include "rape". Polanski agreed to plead guilty (saving L.A. the cost & risk of a trial) if they would reduce the charge to "unlawful sex with a minor", which was a pretty sweet deal for Polanski. The reduced charge is only a part of the original plea deal, which he has since run away from; they are not an objective description of the actual crime. If the plea deal is invalidated, the prosecutors can try him on the original rape charges.

comment #17

Mark says ...

Is it sexist to admit that I don't want to see Debra Winger looking her age and using big words in a serious manner?

The only interesting aspect about this case now is how it's become a one-sided international incident in France. And how his supporters think they'll get Hilary to somehow intervene. As if anyone in our administration would touch this with a 10' pole.

comment #18

Gogocrank says ...

"a 10' pole"

Ha! "Where'd you get the midget?"

comment #19

hunterd says ...

The psychology of a rapist is fairly consistent in this type of behavior. Once you cross that line and drug, rape, and sodomize a child, it is much easier to do it a second time. In fact, considering the efficiency with with Polanski apparently worked, it probably wasn't the FIRST time it had happened.

Rapists are pretty much all serial rapists. It's a deep seeded psychological issue related to the need to control the world around oneself. It's not just that he saw the hottest piece of 13-year old ass of all time and made a bad call. The man planned this out. Premeditation. He knew damn well what he was doing. And if he had no problem doing it once, why would he have a problem doing it again? Especially if he knew he was being protected.

comment #20

hardlanding says ...

I don't think anyone's posted this yet here, so what the heck: Polanski transcripts

comment #21

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

You have to love the reveal today that it was Polanski's own lawyers who most probably made this happen by chiding the LA County prosecutor's office about not doing anything. Drunk teenagers poking at a sleeping bear comes to mind.

Well, bitches, you got ya wish...

comment #22

hardlanding says ...

Actually, my first thought when I heard he had been arrested in Switzerland was that this must be something that Polanski had arranged as part of a deal to clear everything up. He lets the LA folks "get their man" in a highly visible arrest, then they slap his wrist and let him go, and everyone walks away a winner. I still think that's what's ultimately going to come of all this.

comment #23

DeeZee says ...

Phatang: If those "retired" Nazis didn't give a fuck about the feeble, when they had the chance, why should they be cut any slack, themselves?

comment #24

Gordon27 says ...

"That term was eliminated from the proceedings back in the 70s -- because they knew they'd never get a conviction -- and the charge was reduced to "sexual misconduct.""

Close, it was "sexual misconduct with a minor". Which is a fancy word for "statutory rape". But Polanski didn't want to admit to "rape" because he was (and still is) denying the charge that it was non-consensual. Most prosecutors would go after the statutory rape charge, rather than the rape charge, because with statutory rape, all you have to do is prove that they had sex. A rape-rape case comes down to he said/she said, proving that it was non-consensual (which is difficult enough now, let alone back then), and opens up an unfortunate avenue of defense, where the defense lawyers essentially demonize the victim.

An adult having sex with a 13 year old is "rape" by any legal definition.