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?

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?

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...)

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

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.