Roman Polanski: Art trumps life?

I am slightly disappointed in the signers of the petition, though I understand the statement itself can't reflect their varying reasons.

I feel that some sort of justice has to take place, even if it's just whatever deal he would have gotten plus some punishment for fleeing the law. There ought to be some sort of penalty for the crime other than "having to live in France", which is only punishment if you hate France.

Whatever the penalty actually is, though, I hope it's agreed to quickly, and above all measures should be taken to prevent the victim from having to take the stand or, really, being obligated to involve herself at all. I hope a deal is made, and all parties abide by it.

I've always felt that Polanski got the raw end of the deal, and the documentary just seemed to prove that point. Yes, he should pay his dues, but at what point does one say, enough's enough? And shouldn't it be enough for people that the reneging on the deal by the judge, along with the constant please from the victim herself, should be cause for the charges being dropped?

Aside from that, Repulsion is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Having nothing to do with anything else I've just typed, I just felt the need to point that out, not as a reason to vindicate Polanski in his legal defense, but just because it's true, and needed to be said.

This thing is so murky that I really don't have an opinion, except to say that that petition is awfully odd, awfully out of touch, and awfully Hollywood. Nobody looks good here. Not Polanski, not the prosecutors, not Switzerland, not even David Lynch (he signed the petition). Dude rapes a 13 year old and jumps bail. That's not a cause I'm gonna get behind, genius or not. Imagine if he wasn't a great artist and just some rich French guy. Nobody would sign any petitions.

And he certainly raped her. He plead guilty to statutory rape (or whatever they call it in California), but the victim's description of the event makes it perfectly clear that it was real life, evil and awful "rape-rape." It wasn't just rape on an age related technicality. He drugged her. She repeatedly told him to stop. Let's call it what it is.

But of course, SHE want's to let the whole thing go too!!! So whatever. Whole thing is creepy. I have no opinion. It's just creepy.

In other news, Lynette Fromme got out of prison last month, and Sharon Atkins died the other day. . .

Creepy.

"And American audiences resist ambiguous, unresolved endings. We demand moral clarity, even when it's unlikely that any can ever be found."

Perfectly said.

Thank you Jim. This is one of the best, sanest, most human, non finger-wagging and balanced discussions of the case I've read.

JE: Thanks, Kim. I loved your "Repulsion" piece (and linked to it in the body of this post). I felt the way you did -- that I'd rather talk about the movies than the man. But (as you yourself found out) that's impossible for some people to do. So I thought that confusion/conflation was worth getting into...

If we are to follow the law blindly, there's no reason Roman Polanski should get away with what he did.

If we are to think about what the law exists for, though, I'm not so sure. Criminals go to prison not to be punished but rather to be quarantined in a place they won't be able to do any harm. If it had been intended as punishment, torture and the death penalty would be just as fine.

Serial murderers pose a serious danger to society. If they're not behind bars they'll go around smashing heads until they drop dead. They should, by all means, be quarantined.

Serial rapists, the same. They should be quarantined.

Those who have been connected to one criminal incident only, though, while connected to some serious anti-social behaviour, cannot be determined matter of factly to be of any further danger to society. They may receive serious jail time under present law but that doesn't make their imprisonment right.

Of course, many of those one time criminals would turn out to be serious threats were they left on the streets so I can understand that lawmakers overlook the fact that more often than not, it really just happens once.

Lawmakers should still note that in the 26 years that followed Roman's alleged rape, he's been of no danger to society and, indeed, has been of actual BENEFIT to society. Everybody liked the pianist.

I can't think of any reason to send him to jail now besides a barbaric need for punishment. That's wrong, the way I see it, but I will hold back indignation as long as those enforcing the law don't claim the arrest a benefit to society.

The weird thing is, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually claims that artistry excuses criminality, only those who protest that it does not.

What explains, then, past and present French culture ministers and Polish filmmakers denouncing the arrest? What explains the petition you linked to? What explains the French TV commentator, in the Susan Jane Gilman article, crying "The man is a world-renowned artist...respected and productive for over 30 years!"

If you're looking for someone to say out loud, "Artistry excuses criminality," you're not going to find it. Reading between the lines though....

JE: Exactly. The arguments are just below the surface. I intended an inverted parallel to this sentence: "Only a few came right out and openly accused Polanski of forging an alliance with satan..."

Continuing this case is a negative-sum game. Polanski comes off bad, obviously. The American authorities come off bad for just now nabbing a fugitive who's evaded them for three decades, based in the first place on a trial that couldn't be more ludicrous if the late night comedians made up the details for their monologues. The victim has her status in life reinforced as "that girl who got raped by Polanski." France, as usual, provides the generally impotent anti-American commentary. Even Switzerland looks bad, if that can be believed. They're feeling bad about harboring all those nasty little offshore accounts, and this is how they plan on making up for it? Thanks for the cooperation, guys. This really turns things around for us.

I guess that groups me in with the utilitarians, in that the current course of action is providing the maximum amount of stupidity for everybody involved.

In the UK Gary Glitter has had all of his music banned from sporting events and the radio (I think also in the US) because he was found with child pornography on his computer - he served his sentence and was released.

Yet Roman Polanski, who anally raped a 13 year old girl can flee the country without serving a day of his convicted jail-time and still get a standing ovation at the Oscars. I can't help but feel anyone who thinks he shouldn't have to serve time even on some sub-conscious level thinks this because his art has moved them (Glitter's 'You wanna be in my gang' obviously doesn't fall into the same category as it is gimmicky, fun music, not designed for quite the same emotional reaction). Unless someone can honestly offer me a better answer?

Yes you can discuss media intrusion, victimization, etc. Or anti-semitism if you like. But if a nobody anally raped a 13 year old girl and fell under the same conditions these excuses wouldn't be offered up. A sports star for instance? Or a politician? Why is it that art effects our decision so much?

For what it is worth the documentary you mention above is dangerously manipulative and in very subtle ways it belittles the testimony of the girl and tries to make Polanski's crime out to be something much less severe than it was, even though it clearly shows there were some fundamental problems with the case. Polanski still did what he did and he still admitted to it.

It doesn't matter what hubbub and media circus his life was before or after and how it effected the case, it doesn't matter what tragedy he has had to endure. Many criminals have had similar problems and no-one ever questions whether their incarceration is fair or not if they were abused as a child or witnessed their parents being killed. Surely if anyone raped your 13 year old daughter at the very least you would want justice? I can't see how anyone could debate this UNLESS they take into account his art. He has irrevocably hurt a persons life. It doesn't matter how much his art has helped other people.

On a semi-related side-note I have always found it interesting that when someone declares they have killed because they were inspired by a film or a computer game to do so many people are quick to defend the 'art' saying that it was not the 'art' but the person who killed, and that this person had psychological problems not related to the film which inspired them to commit such an atrocity.

Yet when we talk of films or games *helping* people, the opposite seems to rarely be the case. We don't say it was the person who helped themselves out of a psychological problem, we say the piece of art helped them see the light.

People have a very strange relation to art and I think this case shows that perfectly.

The interesting thing about this case from a libertarian standpoint is how it reveals the moral bankruptcy of the "justice system" employed by modern states. In modern justice systems Polanski has committed a crime against a non-existent abstraction -- "society" for example. The victim, the actual victim is irrelevant.
Everything in our "advanced" society gets thrown into a political meat grinder and when it comes out the other end it's grotesque and vile. The judge was a splendid example of a government officer up to his greasy neck in political deviltry. The victim of Polanski's crime long ago got her justice. She sued him and won a settlement through peaceful means.
The statist view is described perfectly in this piece:

But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice."
It works on behalf of the people...

As I wrote on my own site, I've had conflicting feelings on the whole matter. On the one hand, the man has gone through a lot of tragedy already. On the other, that should not exculpate someone from facing punishment, especially if he admitted to the crime.

Yes, he got the runaround from the original judge. But the fact that the courts were willing to look at his case again for judicial misconduct so long as he showed up to participate, and he failed to do so, keeps reminding me of the one thing that has always made me uncomfortable.

Whether because of the accumulation of tragedy in his life, or because of his star status as the enfant terrible of directors, there has always been this sense of entitlement he seems to exhibit that just puts me off; this sense that he was entitled to have sex with the girl; that he was entitled to take flight when there was a reversal in the proceedings.

And, coincidentally, that feeling of entitlement is the same thing that happens to be angering many in society right now vis-a-vis all the bailouts, government interventions, etc. I have a feeling Polanski is walking into a bigger hornet's nest than he would have 30-odd years ago.

The moralists on the Religious Right are already cackling with glee and ready to pounce. The Polanski case is tailor made for their tiny brains and diminished worldview of black and white morality.

To even think it was possible that Roman Polanski got a raw deal and that he deserves at least the same consideration these right wingers give to scumbags like Ted Haggard, Larry Craig or Mark Sanford is to believe that you approve of statutory rape.

Of course that is arrant nonsense, but you won't convince anyone wrapped in a flag and preaching from the bible.

Remember, these are people who believe that Ted Bundy is getting into heaven simply because he accepted Jesus at his execution. How bizarre and perverted is that? Eternal life for a demented serial killer, but constant, unforgiving scorn for a Polish filmmaker?

I would be embarrassed to be part of any religion that had such a confused and limited morality. And unlike most Christians (face the truth, they are the ones primarily hounding Polanski) I believe in real forgiveness.

I have seen the Polanski documentary and no reasonable person could come away from it thinking anything other than Polanski was gravely mistreated by our legal system because he was foreign born.

Unlike conservative creeps caught in sex scandals, Polanski openly admitted his crime and sought to make reparations and to pay whatever debt he may have owed to our society.

That his case was criminally mishandled by a preening, megalomaniac judge in ways that even a layman with no legal training could understand will bear no weight with the right wing mob that only wants to see Polanski's head on a pike outside their church. Hallelujah!

But if the shoe were on the other foot, believe me, they would soon change their mind very quickly about statutes of limitation and plea bargaining.

There's an old joke that a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. The other side of that is that a liberal is simply a conservative who has been arrested.

Amazing how conservatives are against all legal plea bargaining except when they are the ones in trouble.

Not really comforting for me.

But then I lean towards the utilitarian side.

If his victim wanted him back, I'd say bring him back.

But that's not the case.

What's gained by bringing him back: the justice system gets to parade around some illusionary image of how nobody is above the law. (Meanwhile Michael Moore and millions of others can't get their money back from the Wall Streeters.) And some closure is brought to those absolutists who think the law must always be upheld.

I think it should it usually be upheld... with a few exceptions. This being one of them. What we gain by him not coming back: the victim's wishes are honored and she doesn't have to deal with the trauma of another trial, Polanski still makes movies. And yes I think that should be a consideration when putting him in jail would hardly set any standard at this point in history.

And then there's the just how traumatic this guy's life has been. I wouldn't trade with him any day. I think most people wouldn't, even with all his artistic achievements, money and fame. You'd have to take the murders, the concentration camp (when he was a minor), this ongoing trial, all that with it.

The guy has had it rough. That doesn't excuse what he did but I think it does help explain it and is something you have to consider. Throwing this guy in prison back in the 70's would hardly have been justice. It would just be society's lame, barbaric 'solution' that it always uses to not have to deal with empathy or moral ambiguity.

So I hope his case is thrown out but I'll admit that the most honorable thing for Polanski, I think, would be if he just turns himself in and bites the bullet. Then there's really nothing to hold against him. He'll have paid any dues he might have owed to society.
Would that be right? Wrong? I don't know. But it'll shut people up and history will look more favorably upon him for giving himself up, even when it wasn't clear if that should be the answer.

(This is ported directly from my blog, but it says what I have to say about the arrest, and responds to people like the first poster who say things like "some sort of justice has to take place" almost as a reflex. I hope any readers will overlook the fact that in this I defend a child rapist, and Nazis. These things just happen!)

The arrest is immoral for the simple reason that it adds harm, adds hurt, to the world. To be more specific – the arrest harms Mr Polanski, harms him by doing something to him that it is very reasonable and just for him to feel harmed by. Whereas, if anyone feels harmed by his not being arrested – in his late 70s, never psychologically a pedophile or a predator, and altogether harmless – that person would not be justified or reasonable in his feeling harmed.

This is going to be funny in this context, because obviously Polanski is a famous Holocaust survivor, but his case is unjust in the exact same way the Israeli/international pursuit of elderly Nazis was unjust. When Wiesenthal hunted down some 80 year old who’d been a Nazi in a past life, kidnapped him, brought him to trial – or else just got some harmless old man deported from the country he’d lived in for 30+ years – it was a horrible, cruel, petty, highly immoral act. It harmed someone very greatly, and that person’s feeling harmed was very just and reasonable, while preventing no harm (reasonable harm, that the harmed party would have been truly justified in feeling) to anyone else.

Such acts, done on the behalf of ‘justice’, prove what an unholy notion our sort of justice really is. It is still Old Testament, eye for an eye, 2 wrongs make a right justice. Polanski harmed and violated a 13 year old, so now when he is no threat to anyone, in order for Justice to be served, he must be harmed and violated. Because it’s better, it’s more Just, that two people be harmed and violated than just one.

Of course this is an unpopular opinion. But it’s ethically and logically correct. And it shows compassion, and places the welfare of individual human beings above the requirements of a vast impersonal machine, Justice, and the desires of a thoughtless, vengeance-fueled mob. And it has the benefit of being truly, not just nominally, just.

I can say "enough's enough" at this point. I'm perfectly happy to have the legal problems of most other people, including celebrities in the entertainment world, worked out without feeling compelled to involve myself in any way.

Americans in particular are prone to place on the law a great deal of weight, sometimes more than it was really designed to handle. A good reason for this is that the United States is more diverse, in all sorts of ways, than most other countries. In the absence of custom and rigid social structures, the law helps the people of such a country get along with one another, whether they have a great deal in common with their neighbors or not.

The law, though, is ultimately a means, not an end. It is not the source of universal justice, only a way of approximating it as best we can. Justice is in no way done when a thief is not caught or when a murderer gets off; neither is it done when someone is wrongly convicted, or properly convicted and sent to a prison where he will suffer punishment through abuse out of all proportion to his crime. Any of these situations, and others as well, may call for changes in procedures intended to make specific abuses less likely; some may call for new trials before different judges.

And some injustices cannot be corrected -- they may be too trivial, or involve situations too confusing, for the legal process to sort out in a timely way and reach a resolution contenting everyone. This Polanski fellow was convicted of a crime, evaded sentence by fleeing abroad, and is now in custody under the warrant filed long ago. Responsible officials with expertise in the law and knowledge of the case are working on the case. I don't feel I have anything useful to contribute in the matter.

Perhaps Polanski's trial could have been conducted better; perhaps his sentence was inappropriate; and perhaps he'd have done better to serve it and not become a fugitive. Is there a good reason for me to investigate the question enough to form a strong opinion about it? There is not. Is there a reason for me to have a strong opinion about Polanski's case without investigating it? Not that I can see. When John Donne wrote about being "involved with mankind," proclaiming one's opinion about every piece of news one heard about was not what he had in mind.

Jim - thank you so much for your words on the topic. It is a relief to read after the couple of days of polarized hysteria. I agree that Polanski (from very early on) has been seen as "tainted" morally. Perhaps because of the disturbing subject matter of his films, the sexual content of them, and then the horrifying thing that happened to his wife and friends - for which his "lifestyle" was seen as somehow to blame. The rumors of it being an "orgy" up there that night that the Manson murderers interrupted, etc., none of which was true. But with Polanski, it seemed like it COULD be true. Who knows why all of this is. I just want to thank you for putting this complexity into words, because dammit, I sure have been unable to.

I saw the film at Sundance and asked the filmakers about the obvious misconduct on the part of the D.A. Not Gunson who was above board and zealous but recognized a weak case. The chief D.A. was the one responsible as he had ex parte communication with the judge, convincing him that he was being made to look the fool. It was not Polanski's birth or faith but his fame and membership in the counterculter that did him in. THe judge was a disgraceful publicity hound that tried to twice pull of frauds until BOTH Gunson and Polanski's lawyers refused to be in on it. I am pretty conservative by nature but what happened here was embarrassing for Cal. legal system and that's saying a mouthful. You have to understand that Polanski's people signed off on the deal to get it over with and then after he had confessed, the judge changed the rules. Had Polanski fought, he would have won. That's why Gunson offered such a sweet deal.

Have you guys read that article by Kate Harding in Salon? Believe me, even the most fervent Polanski apologist will feel a little queasy after Harding's constant reminder that "Roman Polanski raped a child", not to mention her strangely pornographic description of the anal rape in the hot tub and all other things. In all fairness, she's right.

JE: It's linked to above in the phrase "... only those who protest that it does not." Harding's account of the sequence of events comes from the girl's grand jury testimony, which can be found at The Smoking Gun here: http://bit.ly/3uuEI . Just for the sake of accuracy (since people will use inaccurate details to fuzz other facts), the girl testified that the rape took place on a couch, not in the jacuzzi. Harding's column: http://bit.ly/tfctR .

Great piece Jim. I think this is the best thing written on the subject so far. I do believe that justice does need to be served but when everything is laid out and we see the original deal (agreed upon by all sides) it does make one wonder.

The questions of right and wrong, fame and justice, even what really happened are all interesting but are all moot points.

The case should have been over years ago and it isn't because of misconduct by a judge. That is why it should be thrown out-- not because of Polanski's fame, or contributions to cinema, or the years that have passed, or anything else. Everyone, even the prosecution, wanted it over, and the judge purposefully screwed it up because he was a glory hound.

If he wasn't talented he wouldn't have all the Hollywood supporters. If this was Victor Salva (who served his time btw) that fled the country he would have no one defending him, mostly because he's not important enough and his films suck.

Ah, sorry about that. Looks like I need to click on links more often. Haha.

That's somewhat odd that Harding got her facts mixed up, however. A friend of mine over on Facebook was impressed by the article so I may need to inform him how it *really* happened!

Actually, maybe I shouldn't go there...

JE: It's not that Harding is "wrong" -- but the way she lists the sequence of events leaves the impression that they occurred in the hot tub (an unlikely scenario, anyway). She just doesn't mention when they got out. The girl was trying to get away from him, get dressed, and persuade him to take her home.

How does the Judge's post-act misconduct in anyway redeem a child rapist? What kind of hideous moral inversion would lead people to stand up for this guy?

JE: Maybe a more precise and illuminating question would be: What, exactly, do they think they're standing up for?

Jim all this talk got me interested in the documentary "Wanted and Desired" which I just watched. I came out of it understanding better what went down. One sequence that was effective I thought was when some people were interviewed and seemed to be blaming the victim's mother for putting her in that environment in the first place. The victim flat out defends her mother saying it wasn't her fault. It seems there were so many people who feel like it's their right to judge even if they weren't the participants of the event.

The film left me with questions, but not qustions that the film should've answered for me, questions I had to ask myself.

I've been thinking about that some more and it's mind boggling for me to imagine myself feeling like "Oh, well, I raped somebody and it all seemed to work out so, shrug it off, life goes on." Not that prison would take away the guilt... But the other way would just seem unbearable to me.

Especially after making "The Pianist" I would feel like, well, I've told that story now, I could tell others but let's call it a life. Gotta bite the bullet sometime... But that's just me, I'm not Polanski, I wasn't in a concentration camp that raped away my childhood from me.

I wish we had some 'better' -- what's better? utilitarian? utopian? time traveling? -- solution to this but maybe Jim is right. Whatever solution they come to that frustrates everybody, will be the right solution precisely because it does. That's all us humans can muster I guess.

*Apologies if this is a double post!!*

It is interesting that the same industry that decries the loss of privacy for the children of celebrities and is willing to rub up against the 1st Amendment with respect to limiting the freedom of the press does not seem to be taking quite the same law and order stand with respect to the rights of 13 year olds not to be drugged and raped.

I just want to make one comment. Those who argue that if he wasn't a great or famous director, he wouldn't have support from other artists etc... an argument can be made that if he wasn't famous, he wouldn't have been treated the way the judge treated him. If a less famous person, with the same life story, did what he did, would the judge have reneged on the plea bargain?

I've sorted it..

Arnie should make Polanski direct the third part in the Chinatown trilogy and the director's entire take (including gross percentage) should go to a suitable charity.

Perfect solution to a messy problem. Nobody can object to that!

I have posted on this forum from time to time using the initials AG. I now notice someone else is posting here using the same initials. Obviously, I understand that lots of people have the same initials and that they are entitled to use them freely but I still wanted to clear that up. I realize that it's unlikely that anyone other than myself has kept track of what I have posted in the past using the initials AG and I don't even have issues with what the new AG posted. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some kind of virtual vanity to maintain the integrity of this Internet persona of mine.

I'm not sold on the argument that "too much time has passed" -- that's because Polanski is a fugitive. Giving him credit in this way is a little surreal.

Also, there are very good reasons why criminal justice is based on the damage to society and not the victim. First of all, there are many dubious reasons why a victim might not want to press charges, including fear or humiliation or simple bad judgment. (This is, sadly, common in sex abuse cases.) Second, if we did punish criminals based on the victim's wishes, that wouldn't be justice -- it would be revenge.

As for the argument (explicit or implicit) that Polanski has, in fact, benefited society over the past three decades as an artist, I find the idea a little bit skewed. Polanski's movies have brought my life a lot of enjoyment and even some richness. Would I have found a way to go on if he'd been in prison for some or all of the past three decades? I suspect I would have.

Paul, what do you purport to know about Polanski that makes him harmless? You do not know Polanski just because you know his films. He didn’t just have sex with a minor, he drugged and raped her! His moral compass is in serious need of repair considering those actions. Whether or not the passing of 30 years has corrected those issues is not for you to say and it isn’t for anyone to say. Where would you draw the line? Upon what age does someone become “harmless?” Polanski isn’t an invalid, ya know? If he was on his deathbed, I’d say leave well enough alone, but he is not. I’d also like to know how the arrest adds “hurt to the world.” Why? Because he’s a filmmaker? What if a Walmart employee raped a 13 year old girl 30 years ago, is now 76 years old and was never punished for his crime? Would you say that he is harmless because he’s a “poor old man?” Would this hypothetical man’s arrest add “hurt to the world?”

As far as being ethical and logical, there is nothing ethical about your argument because it lacks any semblance of logic

I was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the judge. It is unfortunate. My opinion isn’t that he should serve a long prison sentence. My opinion is just that the crime should be revisited and dealt with. Considering that he drugged and anally violated a young girl, I hardly think that whatever punishment is deemed appropriate will fall under the category of “an eye for eye.” .

You cannot just run away from your crimes and expect them to wash away with the passing of time. We’d have anarchy if society worked that way. One last thing… Nathan Leopold (Leopold & Loeb) made great contributions to society, but he also served time for his crime, not like this coward.

Dan,

Judges have no obligation to uphold a plea bargain. They are deals between defendants and prosecutors.

Maybe if he hadn't anally raped a thirteen year old, the judge wouldn't have treated him that way?

It's quite possible that the judge in this case broke a plea agreement with Roman Polanski. This does not change the fact that Polanski had proper and legal alternatives to deal with this--he could have changed his plea and taken the matter to court. The reason he didn't do this is obvious--he was very clearly guilty. Whether he pled guilty or innocent, he was going to spend time in jail.

So the reason he fled the country was not because the judge was unfair, but because Polanski did not think it was fair that he would face prison time for drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl. If Polanski has suffered all these years in exile, I don't think it's unfair to say that Samantha Gailey has suffered as well. By dragging this out, he's offered her no closure on the event. No wonder she just wants it to end.

I'm as utilitarian as can be, and there's one clear answer. Contra to what someone stated earlier, imprisonment does not exist just to keep dangerous people out of society. Punishment exists so that people can pay off a debt. Criminal behavior doesn't just harm its victims; it damages the trust that allows a lawful society to function. The reason we don't allow lawless behavior is because it would be bad for everybody.

If Polanski is truly sorry for his crime, then he should be willing to pay off his debt to society.

I must be one of these philosophers Jim refers to because he's making this issue seem far more complicated than it is by introducing arguments that are irrelevant to the legal matters facing Roman Polanski. Furthermore, arguing that some facts can be both true and false at the same time is absurd when it comes to this case.

Some simple facts:
1. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor, a violation of the law of the state of California.
2. Before Polanski's case was legally complete, he fled the jurisdiction, a separate violation of the law of the state of California.
3. Roman Polanski broke the law of the state of California and to this date, has yet to pay the legal penalty for his crimes.

What is true AND false about these facts? There's nothing false about them. They are not subject to moral ambiguity or interpretation. It's simply an unresolved legal matter that has been pending for thirty years. Now, it looks like it may be resolved.

Who cares if it is resolved to anybody's "satisfaction"? There are two choices here: leave this legal matter open and unresolved, as it has been for thirty years, or bring Polanski back to the U.S. to finish these legal proceedings.

JE: You're misinterpreting and oversimplifying what I said, but your response perfectly illustrates my point. The case may or may not be legally resolved, but no matter what the resolution it will be decried by some as an injustice. I wasn't talking about FACTS that could all be true or all be false at the same time. I was referring specifically to what I had just said in the same paragraph (not the entire post) -- that "rape is rape" as far as the law is concerned, and that the case was prosecuted in the media because of Polanski's public image. Both those things are true in some respects. But in others they are false: under the law, Polanski pleaded guilty not to rape but to a reduced charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor"; and he also received some preferential treatment because of his fame. That's why I said: "Justice is never blind." Go back and look at the quote at the top of the post and what I say in the first paragraph. If this were just another rape case, few of us would even be aware of it. That it's Polanski makes all the difference in the world -- as to how he was treated (favorably and unfavorably) under the law, and how the legal case has been perceived and influenced by public opinion.

We know what he did in '77. We know that a few years later, a 50 year old Polanski had an "affair" with a 15 years old Nastassia Kinski. For those arguing for his release- how many of you would bet $100 of your own money that a PI couldn't find several other instances similar to the Cali case? There is a very good chance (I think likelihood) that Roman Polanski is one of the monsters that parents fear their children meeting.

The solution is a simple one-Close your eyes and envision Roman Polanski on top of your 13 year old daughter (sister, grandaughter, friend, neighbor, any 13 year old girl you know) raping her, after having given her drugs and alcohol...
What would you do?
If this was your child, grandaughter, neice or relative, would you really jump to the mans defense simply because he makes great movies?

"If a less famous person, with the same life story, did what he did, would the judge have reneged on the plea bargain?"

A less famous person would not be getting 90 days for raping a thirteen year old.

You know--this is not an ambiguous situation. Dude rapes a child. Doesn't like how his sentencing is going so he leaves the country, becomes a fugitive for decades and is now in far greater trouble than he would have been. That's basically it.

I'm not really out for blood from Polanski but the lengths the Hollywood establishment will go to defend him is a little ridiculous.

Anyway, they're clearly a little confused as to the legality of the situation:

The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

Do they understand that neutrality has nothing to do with extradition? Neutrality refers to warfare, whereas extradition is apart of international law, and we have an agreement with the Swiss Government that they'll extradite criminals within their borders upon request from our Government, though they're not obligated, as what goes on within their borders is their business. I refuse to accept that every person who signed the petition honestly doesn't know the difference.

"If a less famous person, with the same life story, did what he did, would the judge have reneged on the plea bargain?"

A less famous person would not be getting 90 days for raping a thirteen year old.

You know--this is not an ambiguous situation. Dude rapes a child. Doesn't like how his sentencing is going so he leaves the country, becomes a fugitive for decades and is now in far greater trouble than he would have been. That's basically it.

What, exactly, do they think they're standing up for?

I can't speak for any of the movie industry people (and I do think many/most of them are defending him on the basis of his being a colleague, and a great artist, which is offensive and stupid), but I think plenty of people are simply against this notion of justice. Society is not being protected in any way shape or form by Roman Polanski being in prison. No individual is safer with him in prison. He is hurt tremendously by being in prison.

Hence, it's unjust. Hence, don't do it.

JE: The reason I asked that question was because some are saying that those who are protesting Polanski's arrest are speaking out in favor of child rape. But people are saying different things for different reasons. The fledgling Zurich Film Festival, for example, seems to be mortified that they appear culpable -- as if they provided the "bait" that lured Polanski into the hands of Swiss officials for extradition to the U.S. They've got the artistic credibility of their festival at stake, so it's not surprising that they would condemn the arrest. As Jean Renoir said, everybody has his reasons...

He needs to come back and face the criminal justice system of the United States. There's no debate over whether he did it. He did. And frankly, for whatever reasons, he doesn't seem remorseful. (Not to mention he continued to have relationships with teenagers--the most famous being Natasha Kinski.)

He drugged and raped a thirteen year old child. The art doesn't matter, the past doesn't matter, in the context of the charges he pled guilty to. The legal circumstances he fled DO matter, since they may affect the legal outcome of this case. But he needs to hire a damn lawyer and argue his case in a California court of law. But the fact tht he freely confessed to RAPING A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD is going to, at the very least, count against him, is what's keeping him from doing that.

Not his past, not the tragedies in his life, not his artistic abilities. His guilt, and the fact he doesn't want to go to jail. That's why he fled and that's why he stayed in France. He, like every other criminal in history, doesn't want to get caught.

Not to mention he continued to have relationships with teenagers--the most famous being Natasha Kinski.

Who's that?

Some might say I am being glib. Others might feel it's only reasonable to get certain names right when tarring someone with the dirge brush.

JE: I heard it was with Boris AND Natasha Kinski.

He needs to come back and face the criminal justice system of the United States.

Why? I want one sensible, reasonable argument that explains what threat he poses, to anybody, that his being locked up can serve any purpose. And I won't accept the argument that his 'getting away with it' will encourage others to commit the crime he did, considering the unique circumstances and the particular players involved.

If you cannot say what threat he poses if he is not locked up, then you are obviously saying there needs to be vengeance, and that he needs to be incarcerated so the rest of society can have revenge on him.

Is that in fact what you're saying? I welcome a lengthier explanation of your logic.

By Paul on October 1, 2009 12:22 PM
What, exactly, do they think they're standing up for?

I can't speak for any of the movie industry people (and I do think many/most of them are defending him on the basis of his being a colleague, and a great artist, which is offensive and stupid), but I think plenty of people are simply against this notion of justice. Society is not being protected in any way shape or form by Roman Polanski being in prison. No individual is safer with him in prison. He is hurt tremendously by being in prison.

Hence, it's unjust. Hence, don't do it.

JE: The reason I asked that question was because some are saying that those who are protesting Polanski's arrest are speaking out in favor of child rape. But people are saying different things for different reasons.

I've been accused of condoning rape multiple times in my conversations with people already.

I try to explain it this way: I don't approve. But I'm not sure how to punish.

(If Polanski hadn't been through what he was, I'd have a lot less sympathy. As of now, I find it very difficult to believe he would have done the same without these things happening to him. I could just be hopelessly naive, I'll admit that.)

But people automatically see no punishment as condonment. That is, at least, not my intention. I'm as against rape as everybody else. But my feelings are in line with Paul's feeling that this doesn't change much if anything. I don't agree with Paul that it's offensive to suggesrt his art is (or was if it isn't anymore) of some value in weighing out a decision, as is the desire of the victim that this be let go, as is my perhaps naive and utopian empathy.

They of course tell me I'm cold and not empathizing with a rape victim and how this screwed up her life... but how can that be when the victim wants this let go? I've said mutliple times in my disussions with people (outside of here I mean) that if the victim wanted him back, I would honor that. That's not the case though. If it was, even his artistic talent is very irrelevant.

Yet, I'll also say this... If it's the tail end of the 1960's and Kubrick went crazy for some reason, I think I would let Kubrick kill me if it meant the world got "2001". That wouldn't be easy. I'd probably drug myself out of my mind beforehand... But, if him not getting off my trial meant that there would be no "2001", I wouldn't want that.

But then that's just me. Film *is* my life, more or less. I would die for it (or be raped for it provided I can walk away from it and move on, if people really want me to go there, there it is). I would do that. I'm crazy, I know. But I have more faith in film than the justice system. Film has let me down a lot less.

I hope this begins to explain where the reasoning comes from...

Paul,

From talking to people, it boils down to this: how the outcome of letting Polanski go would affect future trials for celebrities/rapists in the same situation.

That's everybody's concern... And it's a fair, important concern I'd say. Rationally, it's what should be everybody's...

On a deeper level, I honestly feel too pessimistic about what this actually accomplishes and/or proves... But that's a gut feeling, an opinion. It doesn't mean much. There's much more provable validity in what the other side is arguing.

Certainly there's a history of truth in what Jen S. wrote...

"He, like every other criminal in history, doesn't want to get caught."

I wish he'd face his charges, just to put an end to it all. I wish he'd realize that would look best on him at this point. He does look, if not cowardly, selfish right now.

But, again, I'm not him. If I was, I'm sure I'd do the same as he has and will...

"I want one sensible, reasonable argument that explains what threat he poses, to anybody, that his being locked up can serve any purpose."

I tend to agree with the argument that Roman Polanski, so far as I can tell, represents no threat to society. So the purpose of sentencing (not necessarily imprisonment) would not primarily be rehabilitation. But there is a punitive characteristic as well, which is to say, our justice system demands punishment paid for crimes. In this case, it may not convince others not to drug and rape minors, but would it not show that the rich or famous (or in this case both) are not above the law?

I agree that the zeal with which his most dogged pursuers demand his head is worrisome. We seem to have a problem with judicial relativism. But that doesn't mean justice should write off his punishment as bygones.

Me? I'm a layman, but I'd fine him heavily and move on. I'm not sure jail time serves anyone in this particular case.

Maybe I'm just being simple-minded (hint: I'm not), but as far as I'm concerned there really is no ambiguity here. I frankly am having a hard time understanding how people (including many of the commenters here) are able to convince themselves of the validity of a moral logic twisted enough to make Polanski seem like the victim.

Quoth Polanski: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!"

A 44-year old man drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl (and yes, it was rape-rape), and he doesn't seem to be particularly remorseful about it. I can't know for sure, but that quote suggests that he doesn't really even believe he did anything wrong (or at least that the seriousness of the crime has been overstated). Given his lack of understanding of the seriousness of the crime as well as the fact that he's had at least one other relationship with a minor in the ensuing years, it seems pretty clear that he DOES present a danger to society. So even if you won't accept the argument that his "getting away with it" will encourage others to commit the same crime (which would be idiotic; in utilitarian terms, the threat of punishment deters crime, making everyone's life safer, but if the threat of punishment is revealed as an empty one--say, if a great artist gets away with heinous crimes because he is a great artist--great artists everywhere become aware that the law does not apply to them, which eliminates the deterrent effect), there is still a perfectly sound utilitarian reason for incarcerating him.

I have a lot more to say, but I'm boring myself, so I'll stop here. If anyone thinks my logic is flawed, please let me know, and we can talk about it.

JE: We can argue about the degree of deterrence (capital punishment has been found to have very little deterrent value because people who commit those kinds of crimes tend not to be thinking long-term, or believe they won't face punishment because they're going to get away with it). On the one hand, I don't think there's much danger in the Polanski case itself making artists feel that they are above the law. But when celebrities are treated like deities, we've seen again and again that they can come to think of themselves as uber-mortals, cavorting with their fellow celebri-gods on Mt. Olympus. It's a familiar psychological pathology afflicting people who are so isolated and elevated by their own fame or riches that they live in their own world where mortal rules don't apply. (Michael Jackson anyone? Phil Spector?)

I think the hardest thing for some people to grasp (and the reason I finally wrote the piece above) is that this is true AND it's not an excuse. Polanski is an artist who has suffered great tragedy and who drugged and raped a young girl. He was mistreated by the judge AND he fled the country. Our tendency is to try to explain or excuse one thing with the other -- to make causal connections and put facts into either/or opposition, even when it's not appropriate. But reality isn't binary.

As I said above, there's nothing ambiguous about what Polanski did. Everything the culture warriors are pontificating about now is about rationalizations after the fact. The plea bargain, the publicity, the judge's conduct, the girl's feelings almost from the beginning that the legal process and notoriety were more traumatic to her than the crime itself -- they're all real, but they don't excuse anything Polanski did. Polanski is guilty (he PLEADED guilty), and the flawed behavior of others in his case does nothing to lessen his responsibility. Yet some people pretend that he's the only one involved. They dismiss other inconvenient realities as "irrelevant" because they will not see them as part of the bigger picture, or elements in a larger tragedy. Nobody's saying they should care, but I think they're looking for moral ambiguity in all the wrong places. Because this isn't about finding ambiguity. I guess you could say it's about pervasive, systematic moral failure -- or about trying to protect someone and winding up making sure that they get hurt. It's disturbing -- and it ought to be -- to acknowledge that there's wrong almost everywhere you look here, and nobody possesses the power or the wisdom to set it right. The damage and the culpability for that damage is widespread and cannot be undone or compensated for or rationalized away. There will be no "justice" no matter what the authorities choose to do about Polanski. That's not an argument for doing one thing or another; it's just a fact that we ought to be adult enough to face. I don't want to be glib (and if you know how deeply I feel about the movie, you'll know I'm not), but it's "Chinatown."

Brett, I *think* what Polanski was getting at in that statement is that we as a society indeed would have an easier time forgiving a murderer than a child molester. Why? I think it's because anyone can imagine killing someone, and most people could probably even imagine a scenario where they might technically "murder" someone and have to justify it. So there's some degree of empathy there. But few self respecting people would even allow themselves to imagine being a child molester. I think Polanski means "everyone wants someone young" to quote Notes on a Scandal, and while I don't buy this theory: some psychiatrists believe that there's a repressed pedophile in all of us, and we react with great indignation toward child molesters because we're projecting our own inner demon onto an external scapegoat. Like I said, I don't buy that, but I think it's what Polanski was getting at.

On a side note, Jacob Weisberg wrote an interesting article on Slate about Michael Jackson's alleged pedophilia, He writes that Jackson simply didn't fit the profile based on actual evidence, as opposed to innuendo based on his behavior. He observed that most people have an easier time understanding him if he was perverse than they would if he actually slept in the same bed with boys out of innocence.

If Polanski hadn't been through what he was, I'd have a lot less sympathy. As of now, I find it very difficult to believe he would have done the same without these things happening to him. I could just be hopelessly naive, I'll admit that.

Now my problem with THIS line of thinking is, consistency would require you apply it to every criminal. And I think you'd be shocked at how many have had things of comparable horror (especially criminals who've grown up in the ghetto environment) happen to them in their youth and into adulthood. Their lives are nightmares. But I doubt they get equal sympathetic understanding.

Of course my view is that all should get it, not that none should get it. No criminal comes from nowhere, no criminal is 'a criminal', ie a different type of human being. Give anyone certain circumstances, certain life experiences, a certain impetus, and he'll be a criminal too.

I'll say now I'm against our criminal justice system altogether. It's not for human beings, it's not for the benefit of human beings. It's unjust, and criminal, and a criminal justice system of all things can't afford to be that. Polanski is right to fight it. I only wish every other non-threat in prison, from pot smokers to tax evaders, had similar resources, and had made it to Europe and been allowed to stay there.

The deterrent element does exist, but then so might beating a child for doing something wrong deter him from doing it again, or deter his brothers and sisters from doing it. This would not justify the beating. For starters there can be no justice when the laws are unjust, as the drug ones are. Nor when the sentences are unjust - fine the tax cheats and let them go, they're no threat to anyone. That there ARE some crimes for which (though the crimes themselves are almost invariably products of circumstance, and would never have been committed had the person had a better upbringing and a life of financial security) one ought to be incarcerated, taken out of society, even I admit. But then there ought to be a true program of rehabilitation. And if there isn't, then don't even bother locking them up and releasing them over and over again. Kill them immediately or ship them to China or something. No half-measures. And if there are simply too many such criminals for the state to afford to rehabilitate them (as it pours ever more money into fruitless wars and bank bailouts), then that's on the state - create more economic justice, create a more economically just society, and you will have far fewer criminals. It's like magic.

Thus ends my only slightly on-topic rant about our criminal criminal justice system.

This notion that "He isn't a threat to anyone" is a reason not let him face the legal system for his crimes is poisonous. By the same logic we shouldn't imprison anyone who isn't a "threat" to anyone, no matter what they did. Bernie Madoff certainly shouldn't be in prison, no matter how many lives he ruined, because he's not a threat to anyone anymore.

We don't punish people for what they might do, or what they are capable of doing. We punish them for what they have already done. Roman Polanski has drugged and raped a girl. He fled the country rather than face the justice system. He must face justice. If a judge or jury decides that he is innocent, or that he has suffered enough, so be it. But Roman Polanski does not get to decide when he has been punished enough, yet he tried to take that decision into his own hands.

It's true, many people other than Roman Polanski were harmed by all these proceedings. And yet all this harm stems from Polanski's actions. If he hadn't raped a girl, there wouldn't be any need for her to go through the trauma of a trial. He caused that trauma too--his crime is not something that ended thirty years ago. It's one that has echoes even today.

Sure, you could make a shoddy utilitarian argument that since trials are painful to rape victims, we shouldn't put them through that. But any utilitarian who is thinking realizes that you have to take all the consequences of actions into account. Not punishing rape, or allowing wealthy individuals to decide their own punishments for crimes, have their own unjust consequences.

“I would let Kubrick kill me at the end of the 60’s if it meant that the world would get “2001.”” WHAT?!? Karlos/Paul – your argument is that Polanski is entitled to special treatment because he is an artist. Regarding logical explanation… Paul – the onus of logical explanation lies upon you. I would guess that Polanski is harmless, too, but that isn’t the point. Mark David Chapman and some of the Manson followers are probably harmless, too. I’d be willing to bet that O.J. never flips his lid again, too. Does being “harmless” protect them from punishment? That’s just ridiculous. Furthermore, his being deemed “harmless” is not successfully accomplished by fleeing the country and making a few movies that people liked.

..and please stop saying, “It harms Mr. Polanski.” That makes me want to vomit.

No, Whoopie, it wasn’t “rape, rape,” it was perhaps rape of the most sadistic kind. Drugging and anally raping a 13 YEAR OLD GIRL (!) makes the old surprise visit for a bit of the ol’ in out / in out look tame in comparison.

justinslot, you say that "a less famous person would not be getting 90 days for raping a thirteen year old." How do you know that? Considering that the prosecutors had access to all the evidence, and choose to allow Polanksi to serve time already served, how do you know that if he wasn't famous, he would have gotten a longer sentence.

Also, it is ambigurous. Not in terms of what he did, but as Jim pointed out, in terms of whether or not arresting him can actually see 'justice' be done.

Finally to Brendon who said 'Judges have no obligation to uphold a plea bargain. They are deals between defendants and prosecutors.

Maybe if he hadn't anally raped a thirteen year old, the judge wouldn't have treated him that way?' it's believed that the judge was running for reelection. If true, then he was motivated less by his sympathy for the girl and more for his desire to keep his job. In which case, I would argue that he did committ judicial misconduct.

I have to say, I'm not sure what to think of this. Part of me feels that, yes, he should be held accountable for what he did, another part feels that, putting him in prison for the rest of his life isn't in the best interests of anyone. What I'm reacting to is this absolutist idea that Polanski committed rape, he therefore deserves to be punished, end of story. In a situation like this, I can't imagine being so absolutist.

P.S. I'm calling myself Aussie Dan as to diffentiate myself from the other Dan.

Dan: Keep in mind that throughout most of human history, girls were married and started families in their early- to mid-teens, which is when, biologically speaking, girls become sexually mature. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong; I'm just trying to provide some insight about any sort of biologically-motivated desire that men may have for young females.

Most people aren't aware of this, but Muhammad (i.e. the founder of Islam) married his favorite wife when she was only ten years old. And yet over a billion Muslims today revere him and aren't allowed to criticize him.

The arguments laid out by his defenders are irrelevant to the rule of law. We live in a society bound by rules of law. When they are not applied uniformly we tear at the fabric of what we call a democracy. We start from the fact that he is guilty of a serious offense and is a fugitive from the law. It is alleged that he fled from the fear that the presiding judge was going back on a plea agreement. While that may be relatively uncommon it is by no means illegal. The court is not bound by the plea agreement and can determine on its own whether the deal is fair, to protect against potentially unfair deals. If there was misconduct, that is something that he can present to the appellate courts, just like anyone else.

Some complain of the timing an delay, but that is a separate issue. The delay was of his own making, and artificially rewards fugitives who are rich and influential to evade capture.

I can certainly understand why the victim would want to put this behind her, but this is a crime against the state and the community at large. There is a reason why victims of capital crimes aren't responsible for bringing charges. Imagine if you will
the scenario where a person commits a rape and threatens to emberass and humiliate the accuser in public. Or simply pays off the accuser to be quiet. The community would not be better off and the system again would be skewed towards the rich and popular.

In an Op Ed piece in the NY times Robert Harris asks who benefits? The judicial system. Polanski committed a crime an escaped punishment. If this stands it puts things backwards and rewards the successful fugitive and punishes the legal system. It is not the place of the general public or the entertainment industry to determine the proper punishmet. That is for a judge and jury to decide. His life, while tragic in many respects does not excuse his behavior. At best it can be taken into consideration into his sentencing, as it is for many others with tragic (but less public) histories.

I'm sorry. I'm no law and order uber-conservative who thinks every criminal should be thrown in a 4x4 cell and forced to eat mouldy cheerios, but let's come to our senses here. Polanski got a young girl (13) drunk, fed her drugs and despite her objections, performed multiple sexual acts on her.

Now we can go on all day about how his childhood was scarred, how his pregnant wife was butchered, and yes, these might all play some part in mitigating the crime so far as sentencing, but at the end of the day, a middle-aged man raped a girl.

What he did was evil, indefensible, and having a bunch of Hollywood types try to make it all sound so small and old and irrelevant is ludicrous. Could you imagine anything like this handwringing if it was some sort of Joe Average?

Polanski needs to face justice at long last, and people need to get a grip. Child rapists shouldn't get a pass simply because of their talents or artistic endeavors. By that standard, maybe every child-raping Catholic priest needs to be let off, because after all, I'm sure they've comforted many of their flock.

Colin R said:
"We don't punish people for what they might do, or what they are capable of doing. We punish them for what they have already done."

Yes, that's how America works. The minority that speaks for Polanski here isn't denying the existence of the law but rather questioning it.

First of all, we question the legitimacy of punishment. Earlier in this thread Paul characterized american justice as "It is still Old Testament, eye for an eye, 2 wrongs make a right justice." I was going for the same point, though I failed at it, when I wrote "If [prison] had been intended as punishment, torture and the death penalty would be just as fine."

I'll explain. Punishment claims moral justification for cold-blooded revenge. Give it enough thought and you'll easily find that there's no moral justification for cold-blooded revenge. That's why most places in the world have abolished torture and death sentencing and that's why prison took it's place. Prison was not intended as punishment but rather a moral alternative to it. It keeps dangerous people away from society, where they can do no harm, without violating their basic human rights. The flaw I see in american law is that it still sentences prison as if it WERE punishment and you're a very good example of that mindset. I could also go into how prison presently does violate fundamental human rights but I'll spare you the derail. Just know that one difference between punishment and prison is that you punish people for what they did (as if that would turn back time and somehow undo wrongdoings) while you imprison people for what they're capable of doing.

Colin R continued:
"Roman Polanski has drugged and raped a girl."

At the risk of losing all credibility with you people I'll contradict you: He didn't drug and rape the girl. If you read that he gave the girl champagne and quaaludes and proceeded to rape her your imagination will run wild and Polanski will emerge as some kind of monster. That's not necessarily the truth. I read the Smoking Gun transcript of the girl's testimony. Polanski didn't force drugs on her. He casually asked her if she wanted a third of a quaalude and she said yes. He facilitated access to the drug but he didn't actually DRUG HER. He didn't force himself on her either. He thought she was consenting to sex and he probably would have stopped if she hadn't been too nervous to say no. His sexual preference for teenage girls may be questionable but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't RAPE HER.

Colin R concluded:
"He fled the country rather than face the justice system. He must face justice. If a judge or jury decides that he is innocent, or that he has suffered enough, so be it. But Roman Polanski does not get to decide when he has been punished enough, yet he tried to take that decision into his own hands."

Here's an alternate scenario:

He fled Poland rather than face the nazi system. He must face justice. If a commander or the Führer himself decides that he is innocent, or that he has suffered enough, so be it. But Roman Polanksi does not get to decide when he has been punished enough, yet he tried to take that decision into his own hands.

Paul,

The purpose Polanski facing the justice system of the US serves is maintaining civilization. Yes, he's an old man now. Yes, the crime (to which he PLED GUILTY) is over thirty years old. Yes, the Swiss authorities look venal, at best, with their timing on extridition. But none of that matters as far as the law is concerned.

Here in the Seattle area (where Jim lives as well, so he may recall this) a man in his eighties was detained and charged with being an SS guard. Wow, that was over sixty years ago! I bet if I went to Polanski and said, "We finally found and charged this man with something the world agreed was wrong in the eyes of civilization, something he nearly got away with. But, hey, that was a long time ago, right? You're over the whole Holocaust thing by now, so surely you agree we should just let him go, move on with our lives."

Participating in the Holocaust may not be on a "level" as committing a rape, but just throwing up our hands because the perpetrator is old, or it was a long time ago, or he/she is artistically gifted--well, we do the unpleasant things, or the things we love decay. We drag a man back to California, open old wounds, find out that people we thought we trusted have opinions that appall us. The other choice is really no choice at all.

Jen, I think we have different notions of civilization.

By Brad W on October 2, 2009 8:26 AM
“I would let Kubrick kill me at the end of the 60’s if it meant that the world would get “2001.”” WHAT?!? Karlos/Paul – your argument is that Polanski is entitled to special treatment because he is an artist.

I, personally, *me*, just me, would rather the world have "2001" than Kubrick go to jail for my murder.

Of course, I'm only able to say that because of hindsight bias.
I would have had no way in this alternate 60's universe (where Kubrick randomly becomes murderous) of knowing how important "2001" is to be to mankind before he makes it and as I'm being murdered... (Haha... Why am I laughing?)

I think that's the flaw in my logic you should be attacking. The rest is a grey moral decision by me, ultimately tainted by it being made in hindsight... But please give some credit. There is some logic to it. And I'm not in support of special treatment as a principle.

He should be put on trial.
But sometimes what should happen has to be trumped by what needs to happen. (Evil must sometimes be done in order for the greater good.) That's what I was trying to communicate. But I think I was off base. (Seeing moral ambiguity in all the wrong places Jim says... And that makes it the second time in the last few months, after I did also in "Basterds"... Gah! I have much to learn...)

Again, as it dawns on me now, the problem is that the law simply can't see into the future to see what will be done either way and predict what will be best from a utilitarian perspective. Yesterday, I argued that. Today it seems silly. What I said there should be dismissed as irrelevant until man develops psychic powers.

By Paul on October 2, 2009 1:46 AM
"Of course my view is that all should get it, not that none should get it. No criminal comes from nowhere, no criminal is 'a criminal', ie a different type of human being. Give anyone certain circumstances, certain life experiences, a certain impetus, and he'll be a criminal too."

Paul, this is really what I meant to say. I just hate how the system operates in general. There is a cold and ruthless aspect to it that seems criminal. But perhaps it is not so much. Maybe the real higher level thinking is... "What else ya gonna do?" (Realistically, at this point in time.) That's the conclusion I see others have come to and I've been persuaded they're right.

a man with an unpronouncable name,

What you say about Polanski's testimony that is worthy of note. Indeed, she didn't put up a fight and said yes to the drinks. But she was so young that her response is completely understandable. She was afraid of escalating the situation to even more violent extremes, she did say no originally, she did ask to be taken home, she was still underage. Maybe if Polanski was a kid himself he wouldn't pick up on all that. But he was a man, formerly married even. And no means no. He pushed on. He raped her through and through.

By Ruleoflaw on October 2, 2009 9:39 AM
"The arguments laid out by his defenders are irrelevant to the rule of law. We live in a society bound by rules of law. When they are not applied uniformly we tear at the fabric of what we call a democracy. We start from the fact that he is guilty of a serious offense and is a fugitive from the law. It is alleged that he fled from the fear that the presiding judge was going back on a plea agreement. While that may be relatively uncommon it is by no means illegal. The court is not bound by the plea agreement and can determine on its own whether the deal is fair, to protect against potentially unfair deals. If there was misconduct, that is something that he can present to the appellate courts, just like anyone else."

I believe you are correct. And I don't want to tear at the fabric of what we call a democracy. I never wanted to be that guy... :(

JE: "There will be no "justice" no matter what the authorities choose to do about Polanski. That's not an argument for doing one thing or another; it's just a fact that we ought to be adult enough to face."

I'm 20... I'm still taking baby steps to true adulthood. The intelligent, articulate writing of the bloggers on this post helps considerably.

Paul, I don't mean to be harsh, but your notion of civilization is ridiculous.

There are two reasons for incarceration: 1) removal of a dangerous person from society, and 2) yes, punishment. Punishment, however, does not equal vengeance. A well-ordered society is dependent upon the THREAT of punishment, which deters anti-social behavior. But as I said in my first comment, in order for the threat to be an effective deterrent, actual punishment must exist. So if someone breaks a law, you actually have to punish that person. Otherwise order breaks down. If it were possible to make everyone believe that a lawbreaker has been punished without actually meting out the punishment, that would be a more beneficial arrangement. But such a thing is impossible, so punishment is necessary. (This also means that punishment is not for the benefit of the victim--although if the victim benefits psychically from the punishment, so much the better.)

Jim, on a related note, thanks for your reply. Yes, we can argue about the degree of deterrence--in relation to capital punishment. (For instance, I might argue that capital punishment has little deterrent effect in part because life in prison without the possibility of parole is not perceived to be particularly more valuable than death.) But it's not really arguable that I would speed more if I weren't worried about getting a ticket. Aside from that I think your comments are more or less accurate. No matter what happens here, things will not be "set right." However, as a person who self-identifies, morally speaking, as a consequentialist, I have to say that I think releasing Polanski would be ridiculous. You "don't think there's much danger in the Polanski case itself making artists feel that they are above the law." And you're probably right. This case alone wouldn't cause such a belief to come into being if it didn't already exist. But it could serve to reinforce that belief. (By the way, I'm not necessarily talking about a conscious belief; the "psychological pathology" you describe is more or less what I mean.)

My major problem, really, is the kind of argument put forth in that petition (as well as by many in these comments), which seems to reflect the belief I'm talking about: how dare they arrest the "renown and international artist" Roman Polanski at a film festival where was due to receive an award! Over "a case of morals!" After all, "film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this." The logic is absurd. Polanski is not a political prisoner, nor is child rape accurately described as "a case of morals." This tactic of emphasizing the sacredness film festival tradition and the artistic stature of Polanski as an argument against his incarceration (and of minimizing his crime) is bewildering and angering. Maybe the signers of the petition have an actual argument for his release, but it's certainly not present in the petition itself.

And I'm boring myself again.

I come late to this conversation, but I just want to add this: Jim's post and comments here are all about what Brian Eno called "axis thinking." If you've never come across the following diary excerpt, Jim, I truly recommend it. It's very much up your alley.

http://tinyurl.com/y9s5vca

JE: Thanks, Peet!

"I'll explain. Punishment claims moral justification for cold-blooded revenge."

You are wrong. Just punishment exists to PREVENT revenge. People refer to Lex talionis, "An Eye for an Eye etc.", as if it was harsh or unfair. This misses the point of it though--at the time that Lex Talionis was first put into law, it basically meant "The punishment must fit the crime." If someone took your eye, you could take their eye--but you could not take both eyes, because that punishment exceeds the damage that they had done to you. This was a very enlightened viewpoint at the time--without a justice system, small slights could easily escalate into blood feuds and vendettas that lasted for generations.

Obviously we live in a more just time now; our legal system is based on the enlightened notion that a bloody eye isn't very useful to someone who has lost an eye. A much more fitting punishment is some other, less barbaric punishment, like fines or prison time.

Thanks, Jim. It's nice to hear someone who actually recognizes that more than one law was broken here. What I have witnessed on other blog sites is people wanting to appease their anger by seeing Polanki suffer. They seem far less interested in the fact that our justice system failed. What happened in this case was that Polanki was denied his right to serve the proper sentence for his crime. It may not be what anyone wants to hear, but the only reason this continues is, not because Polanski refused to serve time, but because we had a corrupt judge who took the law into his own hands. Samantha Geimer continues to live with this and suffer, not as much for what Polanski did, but as a result of what the judge and media did. Had the law not failed here, this would be ancient history and Samantha Geimer would have been free to move on with her life and deal with what happened to her in an appropriate and humanitarian manner. And Polanski would have as well. As it stands, they are both forced to relive it now for over 30 years and counting. As Geimer herself stated, she feels as if they both received life sentences.

One crime does not excuse another. If people are going to scream for justice, then they need to scream for Polanski's as well as their own.

JE, you seem to misunderstand utilitarianism. U-ism assigns moral value to something (an action, a rule, an institution, a character trait ... ) solely according to how much happiness and unhappiness the thing produces (or -- on some versions of u-ism -- how much happiness and unhappiness such a thing TENDS to produce). But any specific calculation about the production of happiness could be made by a non-utilitarian just as well as by a utilitarian.

For example, the calculation that "the solution that would bring the greatest happiness to all concerned would be to drop the charges and let Polanski come and go freely to the U.S. whenever he likes" is a calculation that could be made by a non-utilitarian just as well as by a utilitarian. The non-utilitarian, however, would disagree with the utilitarian about whether people should always bring about the greatest happiness.

Moreover, some utilitarians might DENY that "the solution that would bring the greatest happiness to all concerned would be to drop the charges and let Polanski come and go freely to the U.S. whenever he likes." These utilitarians might argue that in the long run, the best way to maximize happiness is to strictly follow the law.

JE: Yes, it was a generalization, and no doubt an oversimplification. Just pointing out that both the plaintiff and the defendant in the case want the charges dropped. I meant it as a tip of the hat, as I said in my footnote, to the Harvard intro class "Justice" that I've just started watching on YouTube. Thanks for the clarification, though.

There are two reasons for incarceration: 1) removal of a dangerous person from society, and 2) yes, punishment. Punishment, however, does not equal vengeance. A well-ordered society is dependent upon the THREAT of punishment, which deters anti-social behavior.

Our notions of a well-ordered society are different.

And just to anticipate your thoughtful counter-argument: no, yours is ridiculous.

Note: I could have actually responded to this, by pointing out that I explicitly mentioned that due to the unique circumstances of the Polanski case, his 'getting away with it' could hardly encourage other possible offenders. But if you skipped over it the first time, I'm sure you could skip over it the second time, too.

Maybe the petition's signatories should rewatch Polanski's "Death and the Maiden."

This is really a simple matter. It doesn't matter one bit who he is.

1) He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.
2) He agreed to a plea bargain (which judges are not bound to accept - it isn't judges who make the deals, its the prosecutors).
3) He skipped the country when he *thought* the judge was not going to accept the agreement and give him more jail time.

If he had any sense of morality he would long ago have turned himself in. Even now, choosing not to fight extradition would make him a much more sympathetic figure. As it stands now he appears nothing more than coward who refuses to take any responsibility for his own actions.

And, by the way, those who believe everything they see in a 'documentary' are doomed to be proven fools.

JE: No question that what you say about "nonfiction" filmmaking is true (and one of the prosecutors, though not Gunson, just admitted last week that he lied to the filmmakers about approaching the judge). But documentaries often contain plenty of incontestable facts, too. You can't dismiss everything, one way or the other. Even "Bowling for Columbine" has a few solid facts in it. The three things you mention are among the ones outlined very clearly in "Wanted and Desired." That's not all there is to it, but those facts are not in dispute.

Paul,

OK, given the tone of my comment, I probably deserved the flippant response. But you do seem to misunderstand me. When I said that "your notion of civilization is ridiculous," that wasn't an argument, thoughtful or otherwise; it was an assertion which I then attempted to support using the argument you quoted.

You seem in general to conflate assertion and argument. For example, when I ignored your claim about the uniqueness of Polanski's situation, it was because it was an unsupported assertion and not an argument. Every defendant's case is unique, so why is the uniqueness of Polanski's case more important than the uniqueness of all the others? Similarly, when you say that "our notions of a well-ordered society are different," you speak accurately (clearly we don't agree), but you don't give a reason why you think my notion is incorrect. It is, I think, uncontroversial that the threat of punishment provides a disincentive to commit crime, thereby making society safer for everyone. If you think that's false, I'd like to hear your reasons.

You need to replace 'everyone' in your second to last sentence with 'people middle class and above'.

JE: I actually thought about that, and smiled, when I used the phrase, which I associate with the chattering classes -- as in "Everybody's talking about..."

While I appreciate the pithiness, I don't think it's accurate. I do realize that the justice system is flawed, that the poor often get the short end of the stick (to say the least), and that this is a serious problem that is embarrassingly overdue to be addressed. However, (1) none of that has anything to do with Polanski's case, and (2) the system's flaws do not suggest that the idea of the threat of punishment as a disincentive is necessarily unfair, but only that it is possible, if one wishes, to execute that idea unfairly. I have a question: do you honestly think that the poorest communities would be safer with no way at all to disincentivize objectionable acts?

Let me try to focus on the bottom line here: what are the odds that he's actually going to be extradited back to the US, and in that event what are the odds of him getting a real punishment. Everyone keeps talking about his crime, the immorality of it, the controversy over his supporters, etc. going around and around ad nauseum. But let's take it back into the real world for a moment. He's been arrested, what's going to happen next? If the odds are he'll be freed and it'll be like nothing happened, then all this discussion is for nothing.

Roman Polanski forcefully raped a frightened 13 year old girl, whom he had drugged to the point that all she could do was say no. Since then he has made exclusively disappointing films, with one notable exception. If he had never made a movie, cinema today would look exactly the same.

Rational::::::I am sure No One Can be rational when it comes to child rape!! Come Now people let us all let our children down by allowing this child rapist to contnue living a life of luxury. You people have told the world how you think by signing the petition. Is there no shame among men ??

I'll admit that I've not watched any Polanski documentries. I'll also admit that I'm a "Christian" (although I'm not sure WHAT that has to do with anything lol). I HAVE actually read the court documents concerning the original case though. Lastly, I'll admit that I did NOT read all of the comments - they started to get kind of "vapid" for want of another word...

Here's where I get a bit "confused"; according to the plea agreement on record, Polanski swore under oath (as did his attorney, the prosecutor, AND the judge) that his plea agreement did not hold the court to anything, that the judge could in fact make a recommendation to INS to have him deoported, that no one had promised him a reduced or "no" jail sentence in return for the reduced pleading, etc... Soooo, how is it that ANYONE could have gone back on a deal that would not have been legally binding anyway (nor one that "everyone" swore had not even been made)?

It seems to me that the bottom line in all of this is that he ran because he could; he's been caught because he thought he had been "forgotten", and now it's "time to pay the piper."