JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

10/07/09 04:13 PM

Can’t we at least get the facts straight?

Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape.  He was never convicted of non-statutory rape.  To assert that “he raped a girl” clearly implies that he forcibly raped her (as opposed to statutory rape), and is something that is in dispute.  It violates a not obscure principle in the U.S. that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Moreover, as part of the plea bargain, Polanski was in fact imprisoned.  He spent 42 days under psychiatric evaluation at Chino.  At the conclusion of his imprisonment, the psychiatrists and probation officer recommended that he serve no more time; Polanski then fled when he heard that the authorities were looking to renege on the plea bargain.

Polanski undoubtedly did something sleazy and even criminal.  However, the circumstances are murky, and the girl (now a woman) does not want the case to go to trial, which means we’ll never know exactly what happened. 

To compare Polanski to a Nazi war criminal is preposterous, and shows a desperation to justify his arrest 30 years after the crime and against the wishes of the victim.

10/07/09 04:38 PM

W ANSP - why don’t you follow your own advice and get the facts straight. Just read the testimony of Samantha before the Grand Jury transcript published on the web - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0610081polanski1.html
And why don’t you read the transcript of the proceedings, etc. - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
You will then fairly well informed about the pedophile and criminal side of Polanski.

10/07/09 05:44 PM

In response to Cathy, you still don’t get it.

I read all the relevant documents, but maybe you didn’t.  Maybe you didn’t read the probation report in SmokingGun, in which it is stated that the victim and her mother “have requested the defendant not be incarcerated.” Moreover, the report states that “the present offense was neither an aggressive nor forceful sexual act.”

Now, the grand jury testimony is obviously more damning.  But grant jury testimony does not establish culpability, but rather is used to determine if a case should go to trial.

Accordingly, everyone asserting that Polanski forcibly raped the victim is simply wrong - that was never established legally.  And it never will be, as the victim still is pleading that the matter not go to trial.

Now do you get it?

10/07/09 08:57 PM

In the United States, the victim doesn’t get to decide whether the perpetrator is pardoned, and the victim doesn’t determine the punishment. Perhaps some would prefer a more “eye-for-an-eye” form of punishment (perhaps hacking off limbs, etc.), but this is the way we do it in the good ole USA.

That said, the COURTS determined that Mr. Polanski should pay for his rape conviction. 42 days was apparently enough for him, and he fled the country.

So while some of you look for excuses for this pathetic, perverted, Polish pedophile, it’s good that FINALLY someone arrested the perp so that he could be extradited and serve a more reasonable sentence for the rape of a child.

10/07/09 11:06 PM

You’ve got to be one sick, degenerate puppy to advocate for Polanski. You’re an amoral pig to grovel around for legal and moral loopholes in order to somehow exonorate this convicted statutory rapist who plied his 13-year-old victim with drugs and alcohol in order to feast on a vaginal and anal debauchery. What has our society become?!

10/08/09 01:56 AM

In response to blackie, I’ve tried my best to knock some sense into your thick skulls, and I’ll give up after this.

Blackie, setting aside your own apparent excitement over the prospect of a “feast on a vaginal and anal debauchery” (sounds like writing from bad porno), do you honestly think the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty is a “legal loophole”?  God help the defendant if you’re ever on a jury.

Obviously, the mitigating factors all weigh against Polanski’s arrest, including his age, the amount of time passed since the crime, and
-- above all—the desire of the victim.  (And, David, read up a bit on plea bargains before you spout off again.)

In order to overcome these mitigating factors, the lynch mob is desperate to distort the underlying circumstances.  Not content to point to statutory rape, they claim Polanski “raped and drugged a child.” Except that she wasn’t a child (a teenager is not a child, and not an adult).  And except that he didn’t drug her (which claim obviously implies that he covertly or forcibly gave her drugs). 

And except that it’s never been established that he raped her.  She says he did (although in her grand jury testimony she also says that she can’t really remember what happened, an obvious problem for the prosecution).  Polanski and the probation officer and the psychiatrists claims that he didn’t.  Oh, sorry, that’s just a legal loophole. 

Oh, I give up.  Carry on, lynch mob!

10/08/09 10:00 AM

A man in his forties who has to give a thirteen year old girl drugs and alcohol to have sex with her has raped her. She was underage. He plead guilty to all of these offenses.

The victim wants this to end so she can escape the shame and scrutiny that accompanies this incident. This is not uncommon; who wnats to be the poster girl for being assaulted at 13 by a man who could have killed you mixing alcohol and drugs in a child.  That alone is a chargeL serving alcohol and drugs to a minor.

No wonder she could not remember all the details, she was drugged. he remembered enough to plead guilty. And a drugged, drunk 13 year old cannot put up a fuss so it would not be a “forced” assault. But an assault nonetheless. Ask Andrew Luster I believe his name is, the “roofie” rapist..

Were the probation officer--check on the Jaycee Duggard case and se how thorough and knowledgeable they can be: not- and the psychiatrists were not there the night it happened so when did they become the final word over and above his confession.

This lynch mob member wonders if you would elt Uncle Roman babysit your 13 yer old in a house filled with drugs and alcohol while you went away for the evening since you trust him so much.  I doubt it. And if you would, then you will see for yourself what a wonderful man he is. Not.

10/08/09 10:02 AM

Excuse the typos, I was so irate I could not see straight.

10/08/09 02:29 PM

This is not about the crime against the girl, as bad as that was. This is about a person fleeing to escape the justice system. There is no statute of limitations on that. It is a separate crime, above and beyond the “rape”.  I don’t care who you are, when you flee to a foreign country to escape justice you should be brought back.

10/08/09 02:36 PM

Wow.  These comments are really interesting, and I have to say that those from “W Ansp” cite all of the completely bullshit reasons to defend Polanski debunked in this blog post:  http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/28/common-roman-polanski-defenses-refuted/.

But like others have said, it doesn’t matter how long ago the crime was committed (there’s not statute of limitations on rape), or whether the girl wishes to press charges (justice is not decided by the victim), or whether the girl consented (a 13 year old CANNOT LEGALLY give consent to sex with a 44 year old, nevermind the testimony which pretty clearly describes a textbook rape case).

Clearly, this case, and Polanski supporters like W Ansp, have gotten to me.  Why are so many Jews defending him?  Is there a double standard because he is Jewish?  Because he is a celebrated Jewish filmmaker?

These are some of the questions I mull over in my post at Jewesses with Attitude, “Roman Polanski and Jewish ‘anti-heroes.’”

Check it out! http://jwablog.jwa.org/anti-heroes