Roman Polanski Finally Arrested.

[AniThyng]

Didn't Broomstick already use that term, pages ago?

This whole tangent has pretty much been about ephebophilia versus pedophillia.

It certainly hasn't been about "should he be punished", since no one here thinks otherwise.

Nor is it about "is it rape?" since no one disagrees on that either.

[Erik von Nein]

Did she? Oops. Er, sorry about that.

Anyway, I'll stop spamming it up now.

[ThomasP]

My mistake. I only skimmed over the last few pages, and didn't realize it had been mentioned since there still seemed to be some confusion.

[FSTargetDrone]

A bit about Besson, as was mentioned earlier, as well as other people who are critical of the calls of support for Polanski:

French fission: Not everyone on director Roman Polanski's side

By Peter O'Neil, Canwest News ServiceSeptember 29, 2009 5:13 PM

PARIS — Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski formally challenged Tuesday his extradition to the U.S. on child sex charges, although cracks are appearing in the initial rock-solid support he has received from France's political and cultural elite.

Several prominent figures said French politicians shouldn't be interfering in the American judicial system's attempt to extradite Polanski, who fled the United States in 1978 after facing charges that he plied a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and had sex with her. Polanski pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with the teen but left the country before sentencing.

"I have a 13-year-old daughter, and if she were raped I don't think that I would agree" with the French elite's position, said film director Luc Besson in explaining his refusal to join the majority denouncing American "puritanism."

Polanski's lawyer filed a complaint Tuesday challenging his client's arrest and detention in Switzerland pending a U.S. extradition request.

The lawyer also confirmed that he would seek bail for his 76-year-old client, whose roots in France and Poland have led to outrage in both countries over his arrest Saturday after he arrived to attend a film festival in Zurich that was honouring him.

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in a U.S. court in 1978 of having unlawful anal intercourse with a minor.

But he fled the country for France after concluding that the judge involved in his plea-bargain agreement was going to renege on an alleged commitment to shield him from a possible lengthy term in the U.S. prison system.

American, French and other international film icons united in denouncing the arrest, as did two prominent French political figures.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the case "sinister" and complained to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand, a prominent gay rights activist and the nephew of former president Francois Mitterrand, said Polanski had been "trapped and thrown to the lions" by the Americans and their Swiss collaborators.

"In the same way there is a generous America, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face," he said.

The left-wing daily newspaper Liberation added its voice to the protest Tuesday, even though the editorial stated off the top that an artist like Polanski shouldn't face immunity from his "inexcusable" offence against a young girl.

But editor Laurent Joffrin then went on to say Polanski should be freed because he admitted guilt, and settled financially with the woman who is no longer is pushing for criminal action.

Joffrin concluded that Polanski was a victimized by both a politically influenced American justice system and American "puritanism" about sexual matters.

But filmmaker Besson and other critics challenged France's elites.

"It's an issue for the judicial authorities, and I believe that the culture minister, even if his name is Mitterrand, should say 'I am waiting for the case to be examined,' " said Daniel "Danny the Red" Cohn-Bendit, a Green party co-leader in the European Parliament and a hero of the French left for his role in the 1968 student and worker uprising.

Among ordinary French citizens, views were mixed. One elderly woman at a newsstand Tuesday complained about Americans acting like children looking for trouble, but a French "hockey mom" at a rink in a Paris suburb disagreed.

"You can be a great artist, but if you rape somebody you should be judged in court for that," said Aurelie Majourau.

A Paris-based American author, meanwhile, said official protests over Polanski reflect French double-standards.

"They can't understand why a great man should be behind bars, because great men are not behind bars in France," Ted Stanger told Canwest News Service.

"If you are wealthy or influential or esteemed by the public, you have special rights, you are not an ordinary human being. They make a big show about equality in France, but in fact, they don't practise it in real life."

I just cannot see how any thinking person can support this clown. This has nothing to do with puritanism or any of the other nonsense.

[ThomasP]

Obviously being against drugging and raping 13-year old girls is a Puritanical mindset to (some of) the French.

I can't imagine why they'd feel that way, but that seems to be what it boils down to.

[Broomstick]

Well, at the time the crime occurred some European tabloids characterized the girl as a "Lolita" and accused her of "seducing" him! It's the usual bullshit of blame the rape victim that still crops up. Oh, the poor, poor, wealthy artist seduced by a 13 year old and her seductive "no, no, no please don't rape me!"



And him asking for bail... c'mon, he already fled once, he's a fucking flight risk. No bail for him.

[Erik von Nein]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, Broomstick. How can anyone think granting bail to someone who's fled already would be a good idea? Sure, the man has piles of cash so any bail figure would be something he could match. I'm still not even sure what they can even appeal on, either, not that it's going to stop any appeals process.

[Broomstick]

The only thing I can think he could appeal on is the notion that the judge was going to ignore the plea deal or possibly judicial misconduct, of which there seems to be some evidence (though it is not conclusive) - but one does not appeal that by running away for 30 years.

Either way, it's pretty flimsy, especially 30 years down the road after fleeing the country.

[Fire Fly]

After having read several opinion pieces and lay commentary in various foreign newspapers as well as within my own country, I can only conclude that Polanski's supporters have no idea about the seriousness of his crime or consider him to be some sort of modern day Da Vinci and immune to laws and standards. I would recommend people read the court transcript of the victim's testimony to understand how bizarre it is to see European politicians and the film/media elite come to Polanski's defense. At this point, I'm not sure which is the worse, Polanski drugging and raping a 13 year old girl or the people who are trying to defend/mitigate the actions of a person who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl.

[Vympel]

The arguments deployed in defence of this ratbag are truly disgusting. Heck, one of them is "the girl's mother wanted it". (she fucking didn't, nor is it at all relevant).

Another thing - the whole "judge was going to reject the a plea bargain" bullshit. Judge's aren't bound to honor a plea bargain. They can - and do - reject them. Polanski's no fucking victim.

[Elfdart]

Exactly. As Wendy Murphy pointed out yesterday on MSNBC, if your plea agreement falls through, you withdraw your plea and go to trial, you don't go to France.

[The Yosemite Bear]

also if I recall correctly his wife puts limits on his vists to their daughters....

[Axis Kast]

While I think Polanski has definitely benefited from "Great Man Syndrome" -- the aversion to believing that persons of great creative genius can be culpable of heinous crime -- it seems that his support derives from the following major misconceptions:

1. That it is somehow against the spirit of "fair play" to take "sudden" legal action if delayed by so many decades, by which time the crime is "old news" and the value of the life sacrificed (or spoiled) to/by the punishment, all the greater;

2. That the administration of justice is less important when the victim expresses disinterest (a development that is sure to help Polanski's admirers reconcile themselves to the idea that he is still an admirable fellow);

3. That the payment of a private settlement satisfies any outstanding obligation Polanski may have had to his victim, and is in that sense as good as time served;

4. That, this being a sex case, it probably reflects an American fetishization of sexual behavior as much as moral failings on Polanski's part, the facts of the case notwithstanding.

5. That Americans in general have a distinctly underdeveloped appreciation for cultural accomplishment, which is testified to by their violation of #1.

All of these misconceptions are, of course, very tragic. Justice follows no timetable in matters this serious, and whether sudden or not, the arrest was fully warranted. As Vympel said, the justice system works on behalf of the greater good, rather than the victim's personal convictions. A private settlement is a civil matter, as far as I understand it, with no bearing on what may be owed in criminal court. As the facts line up, there is nothing in the least for which Polanski can be excused. The sex was non-consensual. Even if she were 18, it would have been rape.

It seems to me that the only way to support Polanski is to close one's eyes to the facts -- or not to know them in the first place.

[K. A. Pital]

It seems to me that the only way to support Polanski is to close one's eyes to the facts

Or to excuse his crimes for his apparent "greatness". I fully agree.

[Stofsk]

Another thing - the whole "judge was going to reject the a plea bargain" bullshit. Judge's aren't bound to honor a plea bargain. They can - and do - reject them.

What was Polanski expecting to get from his plea deal, and why did the judge in his case give signs he wasn't going to honour it?

[salm]

It seems to me that the only way to support Polanski is to close one's eyes to the facts -- or not to know them in the first place.

There´s one way to support him (or anyone else facing extradition to the US) in a rational way. That´s the situation American prisons are in. US prisons tend to be very inhuman places so i could understand how people could be reluctant to hand over anybody to places like that. We allready don´t hand over anybody if they might face the death penalty. Why not extrapolate that and not hand anyone over who has good chances of being raped, mistreated or even killed in prison?

I´m inclined to say that they should hand him over anyway, the harsher the better, but then i´d be basing my morals on emotion, just like these people who signed that petition.

[Broomstick]

Another thing - the whole "judge was going to reject the a plea bargain" bullshit. Judge's aren't bound to honor a plea bargain. They can - and do - reject them.

What was Polanski expecting to get from his plea deal, and why did the judge in his case give signs he wasn't going to honour it?

In exchange for pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (basically, statutory rape which at the time was considered less serious than coercive rape as the latter implied assault and the former did not include issues of consent or force) and sparing the state the time and cost of a full trial the state of California would drop charges of drugged rape, perversion, sodomy, sexual act on a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (quaaludes - they never brought up giving alcohol to a minor, it just wasn't seen as seriously back then as it is now).

Polanski did report to prison in California for psychiatric evaluation and was released after a couple months. After that, Polanski and legal team apparently expected him to get probation, and some credit for time already served. Supposedly, the judge said something to Polanski's attorneys that suggested he'd throw out the plea agreement, basically throw the book at Polanski, and afterward have him deported from the US.

The US did request extradition from France, which refused, which is entirely permissible under the extradition treaty between those two countries (the key thing here being Polanski's French citizenship).

There is no statute of limitations in California for sex crimes or for failing to appear at one's sentencing hearing. Hence, 30+ years later Polanski is arrested on the old warrant.

[Darth Hoth]

Ironically, some of the people here that now think "too long has passed, it's not fair to attack the guy now, let's move on" are part of the very same crowd who were burning for "justice to be served at last" when the question of John Demjanjuk was raised. No doublethink, there . . .

[fgalkin]

It seems to me that the only way to support Polanski is to close one's eyes to the facts -- or not to know them in the first place.

There´s one way to support him (or anyone else facing extradition to the US) in a rational way. That´s the situation American prisons are in. US prisons tend to be very inhuman places so i could understand how people could be reluctant to hand over anybody to places like that. We allready don´t hand over anybody if they might face the death penalty. Why not extrapolate that and not hand anyone over who has good chances of being raped, mistreated or even killed in prison?

I´m inclined to say that they should hand him over anyway, the harsher the better, but then i´d be basing my morals on emotion, just like these people who signed that petition.

Yes, because so many American celebrities go to real, "pound-me-in-the-ass" prisons, as opposed to rich+famous "hotel" prisons. Although in his case, I think he should go to real prison.

I also don't consider American prisons to be inhuman, just substandard, but whatever.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Broomstick]

There´s one way to support him (or anyone else facing extradition to the US) in a rational way. That´s the situation American prisons are in. US prisons tend to be very inhuman places so i could understand how people could be reluctant to hand over anybody to places like that. We allready don´t hand over anybody if they might face the death penalty. Why not extrapolate that and not hand anyone over who has good chances of being raped, mistreated or even killed in prison?

Yes, because so many American celebrities go to real, "pound-me-in-the-ass" prisons, as opposed to rich+famous "hotel" prisons. Although in his case, I think he should go to real prison.

Based solely on his age alone, Polanski would not be placed in any prison's general population. He'd be in the wing for old farts, cripples, and gays. It's still not a nice place to be, but far less dangerous than general population.

[Tolya]

Ironically, some of the people here that now think "too long has passed, it's not fair to attack the guy now, let's move on" are part of the very same crowd who were burning for "justice to be served at last" when the question of John Demjanjuk was raised. No doublethink, there . . .

I also don't recall any "old crime" arguments being raised when they finally got Radovan Karadzic. Of course their crimes cannot be compared, but the principle stands.

This is just disgusting. Im really glad Luc Besson took a stance with it.

But what is especially sad is that even Andrzej Wajda and Jerzy Skolimowski (a polish camera operator quite famous in US) signed the letter to "Free Polanski".

I mean, I never expected any brain-time from a floozie like Monica Bellucci... but from Wajda I would expect so much more.

I found other names that signed that petition: Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese... David Lynch? Whoopi Goldberg? Wtf?

Im starting to think that my hard earned money will not land in these pockets anymore. Elitist childrapeenabling bastards.

[Azazal]

I also don't recall any "old crime" arguments being raised when they finally got Radovan Karadzic. Of course their crimes cannot be compared, but the principle stands.

This is just disgusting. Im really glad Luc Besson took a stance with it.

But what is especially sad is that even Andrzej Wajda and Jerzy Skolimowski (a polish camera operator quite famous in US) signed the letter to "Free Polanski".

I mean, I never expected any brain-time from a floozie like Monica Bellucci... but from Wajda I would expect so much more.

I found other names that signed that petition: Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese... David Lynch? Whoopi Goldberg? Wtf?

Im starting to think that my hard earned money will not land in these pockets anymore. Elitist childrapeenabling bastards.

Agreed, yet I am not surprised by the lack of Hollywood condemning Polanski. It would be nice if some one like Eastwood, Lucas, Spielberg, or anyone else that is very well known came out and lambasted Polanski publicly with the simple truth of "He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl!" and when any one started to argue in support of Polanski, just kept repeating it.

[CaiusWickersham]

Prepare to add Quentin Tarantino to that list. The two worked together on some films and I seem to recall him defending Polanski on the Howard Stern show in 2003-04, telling Howard to read Polanski's book where he describes the whole thing as a consensual affair. Damn if I can find a source after all these years.

[Broomstick]

If it's a consensual affair you don't have to feed the woman champagne and quaaludes to get into her body orifices.

[[R_H]]

I'm not terribly surprised that Woody Allen has signed the petition, what he did was pretty weird too.