She settled her civil case with him, which, if this were purely a civil matter, would be the end of it. But it isn't, because (as I think we can agree), drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl is a crime, and the state has an interest in seeing that it should be treated as such. And as a society, we have an interest in seeing that criminals are punished, right?
If I maliciously burn down your house, injuring you and/or your family in the process, should I be let off the hook if I give you money for the losses and pain I've caused you? Or IN ADDITION to civil penalties, does the state have an interest in punishing me for that crime? Go down the civil-only path, and it simply means rich people can get away with anything they're willing to pay for.
Also, think of it this way. If you were 13 and raped by a famous director, and you knew Polankski had managed to skip the country and escaped justice, would you go through all the pain of reporting the crime and testifying in court about your rape? Or would you believe that the director would get away with it anyway, so you should just keep quiet and save yourself a lot of pain? This kind of thing is one of the reasons rape is underreported. The question of how many other girls and women Polanski may have raped on photo shoots is a very, very valid one.
The biggest mistake the judge made in this case was allowing him to leave the country to work on a movie.
My main concern is the now-adult victim. Something that the judge clearly could have cared a lot more about rather than letting Polanski flee. This suggests that the judge hasn't the judgment to be a judge.
If he's a menace to society, then, sure arrest the hell out of him regardless.
I think your concern is misplaced. You don't think the trauma of being anally raped at 13, then having to go over it in court at 13 far outweighs anything she might suffer now? People have known her identity for years. It isn't like this is going to reveal any new information, even if she did need to testify again.
WHICH SHE DOES NOT. That part of the trial was completed thirty-plus years ago. He already pleaded guilty. He can't be retried for that crime: that's double jeopardy. He's being brought back to face sentencing AND deal with his flight charge, of which he is very very clearly extremely guilty.
BUT, even if it does harm her, IT IS POLANSKI'S FAULT. If he had done what he was supposed to do, this would have been resolved back in the 70s. You don't want to compound a crime by benefiting the criminal. And if POLANSKI was worried about her feelings, do you think he would have authorized that whitewash documentary from last year, or petitioned the court (from a safe distance) to dismiss the charges?
Even if he can argue the previous judge had it in for him, that's something you argue BEFORE THE COURT. Which he'll get to do, once he's back in California. Polanski brought this on himself multiple times: the first time by drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl, the second time by fleeing the jurisdiction and not returning, the third time with the whitewash documentary, and most recently by trying to get his charges dismissed so he could return to the US.
I don't think there's anything for her to testify about: he's already pleaded guilty. But I am not a lawyer! In this context I think the potential harm comes from her being repeatedly interviewed and having it all dredged back up again, rather than having to go back to court.
I can see that, but one would hope that pointing out to her the greater good, as well as friends/family simply helping to keep the vulturazzis at bay, would take care of any of that.
It seems that whenever RP releases a new film, or is in the media, then the vulturazzis chase down the victim for another interview. So it doesn't go away. Hopefully now he's caught, that might change.
If I maliciously burn down your house, injuring you and/or your family in the process, should I be let off the hook if I give you money for the losses and pain I've caused you? Or IN ADDITION to civil penalties, does the state have an interest in punishing me for that crime? Go down the civil-only path, and it simply means rich people can get away with anything they're willing to pay for.
Also, think of it this way. If you were 13 and raped by a famous director, and you knew Polankski had managed to skip the country and escaped justice, would you go through all the pain of reporting the crime and testifying in court about your rape? Or would you believe that the director would get away with it anyway, so you should just keep quiet and save yourself a lot of pain? This kind of thing is one of the reasons rape is underreported. The question of how many other girls and women Polanski may have raped on photo shoots is a very, very valid one.
The biggest mistake the judge made in this case was allowing him to leave the country to work on a movie.
Reply
My main concern is the now-adult victim. Something that the judge clearly could have cared a lot more about rather than letting Polanski flee. This suggests that the judge hasn't the judgment to be a judge.
If he's a menace to society, then, sure arrest the hell out of him regardless.
Reply
WHICH SHE DOES NOT. That part of the trial was completed thirty-plus years ago. He already pleaded guilty. He can't be retried for that crime: that's double jeopardy. He's being brought back to face sentencing AND deal with his flight charge, of which he is very very clearly extremely guilty.
BUT, even if it does harm her, IT IS POLANSKI'S FAULT. If he had done what he was supposed to do, this would have been resolved back in the 70s. You don't want to compound a crime by benefiting the criminal. And if POLANSKI was worried about her feelings, do you think he would have authorized that whitewash documentary from last year, or petitioned the court (from a safe distance) to dismiss the charges?
Even if he can argue the previous judge had it in for him, that's something you argue BEFORE THE COURT. Which he'll get to do, once he's back in California. Polanski brought this on himself multiple times: the first time by drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl, the second time by fleeing the jurisdiction and not returning, the third time with the whitewash documentary, and most recently by trying to get his charges dismissed so he could return to the US.
Well guess what? He's getting what he wanted.
Reply
And can't they just use the transcripts?
Reply
Reply
her the greater good, as well as friends/family simply
helping to keep the vulturazzis at bay, would take care
of any of that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment