JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

10/08/09 04:09 PM

You’ve outdone yourselves in attacking me.  Let’s remember that the points I made are essentially beyond dispute:

1) What Polanski did was sleazy and criminal.

2) There are mitigating factors weighing against Polanski’s arrest, including the passage of time and his age, as well as the desires of the victim.

3) In order to overcome the mitigating factors, those favoring Polanski’s arrest have tried to “gild the lily.” The only thing ever established legaly was that Polanski committed statutory rape.  Those now attacking him irresponsibly misuse language or assume as facts matters never established in court (e.g., “he drugged and raped a child") in order to demonize him and overcome the mitigating factors.

In reply to these reasonable points, here are the responses:

a) Ad hominem attacks: Because I believe Polanski should not have been arrested, this must mean that I’m sick, degenerate, an amoral pig, a crazy lefty who thinks Muslim women should have their sexual organs sliced off.

b) Continued confusion over the law or facts:

--Polanski fled “before he could be imprisoned.” Actually, Polanski was imprisoned for 42 days, At the conclusion of that imprisonment, all the authorities concluded that he was not a threat to society, was not a pedophile, and that he should be released.  Polanski then fled when he discovered the judge was prepared to renege on the plea bargain that had been arranged.

--"The victim said Polanski did a lot of bad things in her grand jury testimony.”

Yes, and Polanski and the probation officer and the psychiatrists said something different.  Grand jury testimony does not establish legal fact.

c) Appeal to empty abstraction:

--"Just because the victim doesn’t want Polanski prosecuted doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be prosecuted.”

Yes, but it’s certainly relevant, particularly where the criminalized offense (statutory rape) is designed above all to protect the victim.

--"There’s no statute of limitations on rape.”

Obviously, but passage of time is certainly relevant as a mitigating factor.

d) The double standard gambit

--"If he weren’t a Hollywood celebrity, no one would defend him.”

Actually, I believe it’s exactly the opposite.  If Polanski were a nobody, the prosecutors wouldn’t bother going after him.  The idea here is precisely to single out a celebrity to show that no one is above the law.  Moreover, the anti-Hollywood right-wingers are eating this up. 

e) Dishonest, disingenuous arguments:

--"She was a child.”

Anyone who thinks there’s no difference whether she’s a five-year-old child or a teenager is clearly being dishonest.  Yes, a teenager is not an adult, but neither is she
a child. 

--"He drugged her.”

They each took one-third of a quaalude, according to her.  To say that he drugged her obviously implies that he covertly or forcibly gave her drugs.

--"He raped her.”

No one disputes that Polanski committed statutory rape.  But—contrary to Leah’s article—there’s clearly a legal and ethical distinction between statutory rape and violent rape.

Statutory rape is a crime and a bad thing.  If Polanski violently forced himself on the victim, that is a much worse thing.  But those attacking Polanski deliberately fudge the two categories.  Again, I believe they do this because they’re afraid statutory rape would not be enough to warrant the current prosecution.

Oh, and one more thing.  Those who are outraged over rape (like Leah) should have serious reservations about sending Polanski to prison, where he’d likely be assaulted and, yes...raped.  (But I can just hear bloodthirsty types like Cheryl - he deserves to be raped!  let him reap what he sows!  blah, blah, blah...)

10/08/09 10:27 PM

W Ansp,

The fact that he drugged or her, or allowed a 13 year old to take the drug while he was the adult present, does not mean he did not force himself on her. Drugs are sometimes used in rape so that you do not have to use violence and therefore leave secondary evidence. When and adult takes a Qualude, it relaxes your muscles, makes you drowsy and increases your sexual desire. All these effects have been observed in adults and it is reasonable to expect the same for a 13 year old.
This does not make someone already legally incapable of consenting, more able to affect her behaviour. Not that it was her responsibility to do so in this case..
Also, the 42 days jail time you talk about was his psychiatric evaluation period, half of it anyway. He was told that his sentence would be determined at the end of this period. It was clearly not regarded as part of his sentence by either party at the time as the judge could not stop Polanski from working or travelling because he was not legally sentenced yet.

Neither party is questioning his guilt just whether he should serve his sentence and how much.

I cannot fully understand what you mean by time being a mitigating circumstance. Can you explain how the passing of time means he does not have to serve time?

10/10/09 02:19 PM

Mr. Polanski escaped prison and lifetime registration as a sex offender. She was under 14 which makes him what society calls a Child Molester. He would not be allowed to live in most cities due to current residency restrictions.

The question is, would you keep him from coming to Temple for services? Would you report his presence to the Rabbi?Nobody is saying he is a constant risk to molest other children.

What does this say about our humanity to treat Jewish men and women this way?