Why the Polanski thing is provoking such violent discussion...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Crimes out-number prosecutions about a zillion to one.

So prosecutors decide who, from a vast pool of criminals, gets prosecuted.

This creates a situation where a strict liability approach (did the crime, must do the time) runs afoul of the fact that the criminal justice system is not mechanical, but is human and often political.


Since child rape is as hot-button as a topic can be, substitute drunk driving. (I assume drunk driving will not have many more defenders than child abuse, but it's a somewhat less emotional example.)

If police followed celebrities around 24/7 to nab them when they drove drunk it would be a serious abuse of the justice system.

Yet, each individual drunk-driving celebrity nabbed would be guilty of something serious. The arrests would, in the particular, be in furtherance of public safety.

It is possible to have an outrageous prosecutorial action against someone guilty of a serious crime because the two things do not even lie on the same axis. Murder is equally bad in a corrupt or honest system... the badness of a crime does not in itself confer legitimacy to the government. (Events post-9/11 notwithstanding.)

I think Michael Jackson was probably morally guilty of something criminal.
I think Michael Jackson's prosecution was a political stunt that represented a serious abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

The two statements are not contradictory and the second statement is not a personal defense of Jackson, let alone a defense of child abuse. It is about the criminal justice system, not whether child abuse is serious.

Paris Hilton was targeted for extraordinary punishment quite improperly, yet she was guilty and the judge acted within his power. No contradiction there.

Not all special treatment is equally dangerous. Giving a celebrity an undue break is a form of corruption. Targeting an individual for special prosecutorial attention (even when they are guilty) is a deeper affront to our system.

The reality or appearance of politically motivated or idiosyncratic prosecutorial action is always a valid cause for concern, even when the parties involved are guilty of bad crimes.

If attacks on aspects of the criminal justice system are seen as affirmative defense of criminality then it becomes impossible to talk about.

(This all refers to some heated disagreement involving people talking past each other. This does not refer to the handful of really weird posts that offer affirmative defenses of Polanski on the merits.)

[mike_c]

1. you've nailed it perfectly...

If attacks on aspects of the criminal justice system are seen as affirmative defense of criminality then it becomes impossible to talk about.

That is what I've been experiencing for criticizing what I see as a fixation upon "revenge" as effective "justice." In response, I've been accused of nearly everything but being a child rapist myself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. I think you miss out the evidence-gathering phase.

The biggest factor determining which crimes do and don't get prosecuted is the availability of evidence, and the real decision about whether or not to "target" someone lies in deciding whether or not to investigate a crime or accusation, not in deciding whether or not to prosecute once than investigation has been carried out.

I think your example of following around celebrities waiting to catch them out drunk-driving is an illuminative one - I don't think celebrities should be specifically targetted for investigation, but I do think that when evidence that one has committed a crime is available they should be prosecuted just the same as anyone else.

The only complexity arrises when it becomes apparent that someone has committed a crime that would have "slipped under the radar" were they not a celebrity, but of which their is clear evidence of their guilt.

But I don't think the Polanski case is such a one - the crime he was accused of was serious enough that it certainly should have, and almost certainly would have, been investigated and proscuted whether or not he was famous.

[NashVegas]

5. If Roman Polanski Wasn't Famous

Not only would he have been behind bars, but Angelica Houston might possibly have been arrested as an accessory.

[WonderGrunion]

10. And he would have been released decades ago

And if you're looking for accessories, don't forget the 13 year old's mother. And possibly Jack Nicholson.

[Coventina]

3. Very thoughtful post. K & R.

[NashVegas]

4. You Miss the Part Where Some of Us Have a Serious Fucking Problem

With the attitude that sexual crimes against the weakest members of society aren't worth the bother of prosecuting when the perpetrator has lots of money and/or can make EVEN MORE money for lots of other people.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. The fact you have a serious fucking problem is not really an argument

You just want to yell because you think it makes you virtuous to yell.

Cool. It's the internet. Go for it.

:party:

[NashVegas]

7. Forgot Your Own Thread's Title, Have You?

Or is it a matter of only one perspective having any right to engage in "violent discussion."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. The OP purports to explain your attitude, not defend it

I was commenting on why some highly emotional and/or unsophisticated people reduce complex issues of governance to simplistic binary constructions that pose as moral questions.

Saddam is a terrible dictator who tortures people, thus invading Iraq is a good thing to do. Any argument against invading Iraq is somehow pro-torture. QED.

But the war debate was not a referendum on torture.


The legitimacy of an action by an LA prosecutors office with a long history of bizarre grand-standing involving celebrities does not touch on the question of the seriousness of child rape as crime or social pathology.

And, while on the topic, the intensity of your feelings is not evidence of their merit.

[NashVegas]

15. Bull. It Explains Others' Dismissal Of the Seriousness

Of crimes committed against the weakest members of society.

It is that dismissal which provokes the violent reactions, mon ami.

[mike_c]

31. +10,000

[cliffordu]

9. Yep.

[grantcart]

19. Fine throw kerosine on the fire

We were having a civilized discussion and you had to come and start a flame war.


Newcomers may not be aware of it but for Cliffordu "Yep" really is a dog whistle code word for the most vile indescribable personal attack.


How do you sleep at night?


To your "Yep" I can only say "Aargh".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. It stands for "You Eat Poop"

[cliffordu]

23. Yerbetcha!!

[cliffordu]

22. I'm sorry, "civilized discussion" and "Aargh" should NEVER pass your lips,

you morally uncertain, intellectually swervy recalcitrant mumbler, you.

[grantcart]

24. thank you and good morning to you too, Sir. How is the family?

The doctor reports that the new medication should have a positive impact on my schitzophrenia.

[cliffordu]

25. Are you talking to me,

or me???

Family's fine, the wife is about to get out on parole again, sure hope that counseling they gave her has curbed that unnatural attraction for other people's cars.....

[grantcart]

28. If they up the dosage enough maybe our two voices will finally merge and

I can stop sending messages to you (me) here.

[TheKentuckian]

8. I understand that. What puzzles me is the emothional outpouring

when nobody gave two craps a week ago. This case isn't new and Polanski has been in full public view the whole time. The emotional aspect seems overly reflexive and a little ginned up to me. If you weren't furious a month ago, if this wasn't a front burner issue a month ago then it would seem that that the fevered pitch of today is an overreaction or at least one that should have a little less vitriol.

I guess its not this situation but the overall ability of media stories to evoke such responses. If people cared as much about our jobs, air, purchasing power, and water as they do octomom or whatever the catnip of the day is then the reactions to these hot button style stories then we'd not be tittering on the brink.

[NashVegas]

12. There Have Been Several Occasional Discussions On DU

Like when "Wanted and Desired" first came out, when the grand jury testimony was made public and when he won the Oscar.

When I heard of the detainment this morning, my first thought was that Polanski's own people arranged it in some stupid play to get him to LA in such a way that he drums up the maximum amount of sympathy. LA DA's office responded to his camp's previous, well-publicized attempts to get the charges dropped with, "come see us and we'll talk about it."

The emotional reaction you see is less about Polanski's crime and more about those people who refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of it. "But she took drugs before ... " "But she wanted to be a movie star ..." "But she wasn't a virgin ..." "But she looked older than 13." (That last one, from Mia Farrow, herself, bless her heart.)

[Echo In Light]

14. Exactly. I'm amazed DU needs a billion threads dedicated to the emotional vitriol re this

[WonderGrunion]

11. And if he had been sentenced as the State perscribed

He would have been freed decades ago.

[NashVegas]

18. Yeah, How's That For Irony?

At any time in the past two decades he could have faced the LA courts and have had it done with. It's Polanski, more than anyone else, who keeps extending the saga.

[grantcart]

16. talking past each other is what we do

are you trying to upset the equlibrium and bring the site crashing down?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Hmmm... a particle collider model of the intertubes

If any two ideas actually collided strange new particles might emerge.

[TexasObserver]

21. I agree that discussion without hyperbole is preferred.

Some cannot discuss this topic without attempting to make it about how a person treats sexual abuse of children. There are many other issues involved.

In a situation such as this one, where there is some long ago crime for which someone was either sentenced or escaped from prison, I look first at the life the person has led since the long ago event. I also look at how the victim or their family responds to the news. If they want a pound of flesh, I'm more inclined to honor that. But if the victim is forgiving, so am I.

My approach on this is not affected by celebrity status. I feel the same whether it involves a celebrity or not. As a general proposition, any time any person has long been a fugitive from US justice, I do not wish prosecution or imprisonment upon them. Doesn't matter if they were 1960s radicals or 1970s bank robbers. I look at how they have lived in the 30-40 years since, and how their victims respond to their capture.

I do not offer any defense of Polanski, but I am more interested in what his victim wants than by anything said by anyone else.

[AuntPatsy]

26. I am sorry but it is not enticing me to be violent but more to throw up..and forced me to

do a bit of googling...again..nothing I found made me feel better...

[AuntPatsy]

27. Have to go but thought I would share this real quick...whether or not this is her

I am not sure but this is what is supposedly the victims thoughts..you can decide...and I had forgotten about Natasha Kinski

http://boards.hbo.com/topic/Hbo-Documentaries-Archives/Roman-Polanski-Wanted/1900006305?messageID=1900403978

I hope you all watched and enjoyed the movie. I think Marina did an excellent job in uncovering the facts. Since my mother did not participate, let me clarify a few things for you all.

She did not travel in the same social circles with Roman. She met him once, that meeting had nothing to do with my getting the modeling job. She did not send me off to be raped, or have some blackmail plot in mind. Calling the police pretty much rules blackmail out from the get go. Roman was not known as a pedophile in March of 1977, he was a influential and respected director. Even his relationship with Natasha Kinski did not occur until after my meeting with him, as far as I know.

The sex was not consentual and I have never said it was.

And last, I was not supposed to be alone with him, a friend was to come along with with us, but he talked me into going alone with him as the last minute, my mother was unaware of that until I called her later to check in. Even so, she would never have dreamed he would do what he did to me, just because we were alone. This was a long time ago, when child molestation did not immediately leap to the front of everyone's mind as is does today. I do find it strange that some of his friends say he couldn't have done it, while others say of course he would.

My mother has carried alot of guilt about this for many years, so I would appreciate it if people would stop blaming her. There is alot of blame to go around.


It was not the director's intention to exhonerate RP or cast blame on my mother. In hindsight, it would have been better if she participated, but that did not occur. I appreciate some of the thoughtful posts here, if the facts are questioned eventaully the facts do come out. The matter brings up such strong opinions, and a few very strange ones. I'm sure most of you can tell the difference between truth and well... I'm not sure what to call some of it.

[grantcart]

29. here is the grand jury testemony

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib12.html

I didn't know that it was at Jack Nicholson's house


According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.<32>

[AuntPatsy]

30. I cannot believe there are people finding excuses? I just don't get it..NO is NO

[wuushew]

32. K&R

:kick:

[Thickasabrick]

33. Your post was excellent. Thank you. NT