Celebrities, diplomats unite behind convicted child-raping degenerate

posted at 8:50 pm on September 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

Note well: No matter what the LA Times would have you believe, he’s not an “accused” child-rapist. He pled guilty. The conviction’s on the books. All that’s left to settle is the sentence.

But Hollywood knows a good cause when it sees it.

The surprise detention of Roman Polanski has been met with indignation in Hollywood and sparked a flurry of media speculation over the real reason behind Saturday night’s arrest in Zurich.

Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has got behind a campaign by French film-makers calling on US authorities not to extradite the Oscar-winning Polish director in connection with a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor dating back more than three decades…

“We’re calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation,” Weinstein said, reviving a theme he adopted earlier in the year after he bought international distribution rights at Sundance to the HBO documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

The film uncovered flaws in the legal case against the director, prompting Weinstein to allude to a possible campaign to get the charges against Polanski dropped. At a hearing this year a Los Angeles superior court judge agreed there was “substantial misconduct” in the original hearing.

If there was substantial misconduct, why not come back to LA and litigate the matter at an appellate level? Answer: Because Polanski and his cretinous supporters don’t care if he’s guilty or not. They want him to walk free, in the name of “art,” without another word spoken on the subject. More at the Daily Mail:

French culture minister Frederic Mitterand said he was ‘deeply shocked’ by the sudden arrest, and had already discussed the matter with President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In a statement, Mr Mitterand, a nephew of former President Francois Mitterand, said he learned of the arrest ‘with astonishment’ and that he regretted ‘in the strongest way that a new ordeal has been inflicted on someone who has already gone through so much’.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the arrest was a ‘bit sinister’

The Zurich Film Festival jury accused Switzerland of ‘philistine collusion’.

‘The case is three decades old and is all but dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by and wait for his release and his next masterwork,’ said jury president Debra Winger.

Other members of the film industry, including Italian actress Monica Bellucci, French actress Fanny Ardant, president of the Cannes film festival Gilles Jacob and Hong Kong director Wong Kar Wai issued a petition demanding his immediate release.

Again: Convicted child-rapist and fugitive from justice. Magically transformed, by Hollywood libertinism and douchebaggery, into an honest-to-goodness victim who’s being persecuted by the evil empire for, um, forcibly sodomizing a 13-year-old and then skipping bail. I can’t do any better than this righteous Salon piece. Go ye and read, right now.

Update: Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused for shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently the film’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Someone needs a dictionary…

exception on September 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Roman had a relationship with the then 15 year old Natasha Kinski. It did continue.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Oh, I know. These guys never stop at just one. Like I said, just because he wasn’t caught, or arrested when caught in France, doesn’t mean he didn’t continue. Once a pedophile, always one.

4shoes on September 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

As far a Polanski goes, he actually performed the act and admitted it!

This guy only discussed doing the act, got caught, and went to JAIL!

What’s fair (more importantly, what’s to become case law)???

FloridaBill on September 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Roman had a relationship with the then 15 year old Natasha Kinski. It did continue.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Or Nastassja Kinski.

I_C on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

exception on September 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Not that I’ve seen. Far as I know, they’re silent on this one but there’s a French actor, whose name I forget, they want to lynch from some years ago.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

As my favorite talking head, Andrew Wilkow, says: Liberal Moral Algebra.

Dopavash on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM

I don’t know Steve. I was expressing my opinion as a father is all. A childs innocence was stolen. I wouldn’t roll the dice that someone like that could be rehabilitated.

Sam_I_Am on September 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Y’all sure Polanski ain’t a good Muslim? Multi-culti rules!

/

Tom

marinetbryant on September 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Hollywood what a joke. if this was about a plumber or a priest for that matter, would we even be having this conversation. the man raped a 13 year old girl, get him back here for sentencing, end of story.

redfred on September 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM

I rather see him stabbed to death. A pig like that doesn’t deserve to see America’s Grand Canyon, even on the way down a mile to the bottom.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

or a priest for that matter,

redfred on September 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Maybe if it was a female priest from some whacked spin off of the Roman Catholic religion….then maybe.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

I read the report at the smoking gun, and it made me absolutely sick! There is nothing worse than knowing someone raped you and got away with it. Nothing. Maybe the victim just didn’t want to dredge it all up again.

But on behalf of rape victims who never got justice, I say you take justice wherever you can find it!

Sekhmet on September 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM

I know places where he would have to live with his crimes as the end crept up on him and the carrion eaters and scavengers waited.

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

LOL. All uses of the word “douchebaggery” have been posted to this blog by AllahPundit. There was a three year gap between 2006 and 2009 where Allah never used the word, but it is back in full force for 2k9. Nice!

And yeah, it applies in this case.

BelchSpeak on September 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM

I don’t blame Polanski for blowing town. He confessed only after he had a plea deal worked out and then the prosecutor and judge backed out at the last minute. What’s a guy to do when dealing with such a crooked prosecution? Besides, speaking as a film buff, I think the man who directed classics like Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby can contribute a lot more to society as a free man than a prisoner serving a sentence for a crime whose victim has already come to terms with and forgiven.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Celebrate Perversity.

Kenosha Kid on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Wasn’t there an Outer Limits episode where a bad guy fell off a hill and was paralyzed, and got eaten alive by vultures, starting with his eyes?

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM

Couple days ago I hit feministing and a couple other of the cranky chicks. They were even ragging on him back when he got the oscar. I didn’t go too deep into it.

I just checked and they have a roundup.

It’s the Hollywood people I’m watching for. This is a club/clique thing.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

read thesmokinggun.com

then get back to me

there are lots of people who could do more outside of jail than inside. that is a silly silly argument.

also, as stated earlier victims sometimes act that way . she does not want to relive it for sure. His crime was terrible and your argument lame.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

Weak.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Besides, speaking as a film buff, I think the man who directed classics like Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby can contribute a lot more to society as a free man than a prisoner serving a sentence for a crime whose victim has already come to terms with and forgiven.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

This HAS to be sarcasm

I don’t blame Polanski for blowing town. He confessed only after he had a plea deal worked out and then the prosecutor and judge backed out at the last minute.

.

So he admitted to doing something he did not do?

Again read the smokinggun.com. He drugged and raped a 13 year old.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM

The State prosecutes, not the victim. Her feelings don’t rate.

It doesn’t matter what he has done before or since his crime, which is proven. Should a person who killed five people be let out because he became ‘religious’?

What contribution to ‘society’ do movies make, other than entertaining us?

And I have yet to see the victim say anywhere Romie should be let off.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Anyone who thinks that ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ was a contribution to society is a troubled soul.

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Anyone who thinks that ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ was a contribution to society is a troubled soul.

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM

I had that thought myself. It had to be sarcasm

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I remember being 13, and what a child I was. I wasn’t a fraction of the woman I am today, or even the woman I was eight years ago. I had to spend most of my second pregnancy having flashbacks to something that happened when I was a grown woman. I can’t imagine having had happen to me at thirteen what happened to this poor little girl. I don’t give a hot flying phukk what kind of an artist someone was, or how great a politician they would be or whatever. Rapists should be driven to bloody suicide, and their victims should have the satisfaction of knowing they are dead!

Sekhmet on September 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I am wondering does anybody back up Romans story that any deal was made? Or that the DA would renege?

Lot’s of assumptions there.

I know he admitted it and I have read what the victim said he did. He raped her and used drugs to do it.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM

It’s the Hollywood people I’m watching for. This is a club/clique thing.
exception on September 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Yes it is; you get it! It’s like a variation on “my country right or wrong” which the libs decry but seem to be following here.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM

there are lots of people who could do more outside of jail than inside.

I agree. Perhaps it’s time we re-think our criminal justice system? Especially in the case of someone like Roman Polanski who, in the 30 years since his crime, has kept a clean slate and stayed out of trouble.

also, as stated earlier victims sometimes act that way . she does not want to relive it for sure. His crime was terrible and your argument lame.

She has remarked on several occasions that she has forgiven Polanski and moved on. There is no danger of her being forced to relive what happened, especially considering the fact-finding aspect of the case itself is long-finished and the only thing remaining is disposition of the sentence. The only way she could be legally compelled to relive or revisit what happened would be if a mistrial was declared and she was cross-examined again by the defense.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Rapists should be driven to bloody suicide hanged.

Sekhmet on September 28, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I had to change that. It could have happened to my daughter, and if it ever does that bastard better pray to God the cops get him before I do. I can make anyone confess to killing Lincoln if I want.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM

I wonder what Polanski thinks of that movie “Taken“.

Guardian on September 28, 2009 at 10:57 PM

He pled guilty. The conviction’s on the books. All that’s left to settle is the sentence.

I’m very sad for the daughters of these idiots who defend this monster. Sad. Who will defend the children?

TN Mom on September 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

You are naive. You don’t think she does not want to see this rehashed? you did not read the smokinggun.com did you?
No we should not rethink the legal system for that reason .
He can make movies in prison for all I care. There ya go problem fixed. The reality is such crimes are not only against the victim but against society. He raped a 13 year old. Your thickness is truly scary and mind boggling.

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM

…Especially in the case of someone like Roman Polanski who, in the 30 years since his crime, has kept a clean slate and stayed out of trouble…
mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Except for F-ing a 15-year-old later on, you mean?

Get some moral standards, will you? Who the F cares what he has done or ‘avoided; doing. He forcibly raped a 13-year-old, using drugs, alcohol, and abusing trust that girl and her family gave him.

It was forcible rape, you twit! If I did that to yuor daughter you’d want my head on a pike. Get a clue: there is NO moral equivalency here!

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Who will defend the children?

TN Mom on September 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM

To my last breath. As my mom was wont to say “He’d better give his soul to the Lord ’cause his @$$ is mine”.

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

I’m very sad for the daughters of these idiots who defend this monster. Sad. Who will defend the children?

TN Mom on September 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

The only way she could be legally compelled to relive or revisit what happened would be if a mistrial was declared and she was cross-examined again by the defense.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

yep no websites or news outlets would pick up on it if he was arrested again

big sarc

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=roman+polanski+arrested&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=fptb-cclean-832

Just a few hits

CWforFreedom on September 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

I say throw him in with Manson, give them both plastic sporks, and tell them only one is coming out alive. And whichever one makes it, tell him, “we lied….BLABLAMBLAM”

Sekhmet on September 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM

To my last breath. As my mom was wont to say “He’d better give his soul to the Lord ’cause his @$$ is mine”.

thomasaur on September 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM

+10000000000

TN Mom on September 28, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence.

Orwell’s essay “Benefit of Clergy”, which I’ve referenced here before. Timely reading and highly recommended.

<emIt will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of BENEFIT OF CLERGY. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word ‘Art’, and everything is O.K.: kicking little girls in the head is O.K.; even a film like L’Age d’Or is O.K. It is also O.K. that Dali should batten on France for years and then scuttle off like a rat as soon as France is in danger. So long as you can paint well enough to pass the test, all shall be forgiven you. …

Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should
be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another KING LEAR.

ddrintn on September 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM

I don’t blame Polanski for blowing town. He confessed only after he had a plea deal worked out and then the prosecutor and judge backed out at the last minute. What’s a guy to do when dealing with such a crooked prosecution?

Gee, I don’t know; that’s a real stumper. The only think I can think of is…

NOT RAPE CHILDREN!

Kensington on September 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Gee, I don’t know; that’s a real stumper. The only think I can think of is…

NOT RAPE CHILDREN!

Kensington on September 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Well in that case… done, and done. He hasn’t raped any more children since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

I haven’t even started to read the comments yet, but have one simple question-have any cinema people or elite Euro critters come out and actually condemned what Romo did?

Del Dolemonte on September 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Del Dolemonte on September 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Not a one the MSM has carried.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Going to be interesting to see how the pervert does inside the walls….. snark, snark.

ultracon on September 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Polanski should have just shown up at an ACORN office. They would have TOTALLY taken care of him. ACORN hearts child sex slaves.

Mojave Mark on September 28, 2009 at 11:20 PM

Well in that case… done, and done. He hasn’t raped any more children since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

You know that how?

mockmook on September 28, 2009 at 11:20 PM

Well in that case… done, and done. He hasn’t raped any more children since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Specious argument because you have no way of knowing that. Besides Charles Manson hasn’t killed anyone since the 60′s you wanna let him out?

Oldnuke on September 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Ya gotta love the tsk-tsking by the Europeans and Hollywood: Jeez, all he did was rape a 13-year-old girl. What’s the big deal?

Next thing you know, those crazy Americans will be outraged by some community-organizer group dispensing advice on how to enslave 13-year-old girls for prostitution! How gauche!

Paul_in_NJ on September 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Well in that case… done, and done. He hasn’t raped any more children since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Recheck your history, like Natasha Kinski at age 15.

That’s statutory rape, even if she consented. You can keep nitpicking, but the guy used alcohol and Quaaludes to assault and analy screw a 13-year-old. Lemme guess–you’re cool with that, aren’t you?

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Specious argument because you have no way of knowing that. Besides Charles Manson hasn’t killed anyone since the 60’s you wanna let him out?

Oldnuke on September 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Innocent until proven guilty. As far as the law is concerned, he hasn’t committed any further crimes. And speaking of specious argument… Charles Manson has been incarcerated in a maximum security prison since the 60′s. Of course he hasn’t killed anyone. Polanski has been a free man who would have had plenty of opportunities to commit more crimes.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

You keep reaching.

He’s not free. He’s an escapee. Big difference that you can’t grasp.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:34 PM

I agree. Perhaps it’s time we re-think our criminal justice system? Especially in the case of someone like Roman Polanski who, in the 30 years since his crime, has kept a clean slate and stayed out of trouble.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

In the 30 years since he raped the girl he has been a fugitive from justice, and therefore, not a law abiding.

Sorry, pal. But there is no prize for evading the law for so many years. Why should he benefit from it? Shouldn’t all defendants have a chance to run for 32 years and then argue that they should be treated more leniently? Don’t you sound silly even to yourself?

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Recheck your history, like Natasha Kinski at age 15.

That’s statutory rape, even if she consented. You can keep nitpicking, but the guy used alcohol and Quaaludes to assault and analy screw a 13-year-old. Lemme guess–you’re cool with that, aren’t you?

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM

I’m not so much “cool with it” as I simply feel it’s time to move on. It was a single crime that happened 30 years ago, perpetrated by a man who had recently lost his family to a violent, highly-publicized murder and could not possibly have been in a stable frame of mind at the time. Further mitigating factors include his contributions to cinema and his otherwise lack of any obvious criminal disposition in the years since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM

law abiding citizen.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM

You keep reaching.

He’s not free. He’s an escapee. Big difference that you can’t grasp.

No, he is (or was, up until a few days ago anyway) free, legally abiding in a country (France) in good standing with the law there.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM

…As far as the law is concerned, he hasn’t committed any further crimes.
mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Sweet, and thank you! You admitted, while trying to defend a child rapist, he committed a crime! And for that he needs to pay.

Polanski claims he’s a ‘victim’, yet no one backs his story about a judge reneging on some deal. Not even his defenders, like you and those better than you, have evidence to back that claim.

You’re killing your own case, you know.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM

But a convicted criminal all the same, here in the US. Devalue that all you want but the fact he’s convicted in a sovereign Nation cannot be denied even in The Hague.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Would Mr B support such leniency against someone who was not a famous Hollywood guy? I doubt it.

Sekhmet on September 28, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Innocent until proven guilty. As far as the law is concerned, he hasn’t committed any further crimes. And speaking of specious argument… Charles Manson has been incarcerated in a maximum security prison since the 60’s. Of course he hasn’t killed anyone. Polanski has been a free man who would have had plenty of opportunities to commit more crimes.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I see logic is not your strong suit. He is guilty, he plead guilty just before he jumped bail and fled the country. Now all the law has to do is sentence him. You said “He hasn’t raped any more children since.” you did not reference any guilt or innocence you stated flatly that he had not raped any children since. I, and others merely pointed out that there is absolutely no way you could know that. If you propose forgiving and forgetting with Polanski because you ‘Think’ he may not have committed similar crimes since jumping bail then it stands to reason that a person who can definitively prove that he hasn’t re-offended should get the same treatment. Of course that argument is absurd…just as absurd as yours that all should be forgiven with Polanski because ‘He hasn’t raped any little girls in a long time….I think’.

Oldnuke on September 28, 2009 at 11:42 PM

I’m not so much “cool with it” as I simply feel it’s time to move on. It was a single crime that happened 30 years ago, perpetrated by a man who had recently lost his family to a violent, highly-publicized murder and could not possibly have been in a stable frame of mind at the time. Further mitigating factors include his contributions to cinema and his otherwise lack of any obvious criminal disposition in the years since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM

The Tate family lost their daughter and grandson and didn’t use it as an excuse to commit crimes. Instead they worked tirelessly for victim’s rights.

And Polanski broke the law by not returning to court. His contributions to the cinema, as you call it, are not mitigation.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:42 PM

mr B. believes in a different kind of justice for the rich and famous.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:44 PM

The bottom line is that you are not supposed to rape children, period. The fact that he didn’t rape any more children, something we are all expected to do, does not make him a better human being. These arguments are nuts!

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM

mr_B,

My older sister was molested about 35 years ago by someone who escaped justice. She can “live” with the tremendous pain that man inflicted upon her but only because she has spent years in therapy. Most people who have been through such a trauma really have no interest in reliving it years later to satisfy the purient intersts of the press and public.

In addition, Roman Polanski admitted to the crime and acknowledged under oath that he understood the judge had no obligation to accept and honor his plea agreement. Indeed, no judge is legally bound by a plea agreement entered into by a prosecutor and a defendant. This is not a “crooked prosecution;” it is an independent judiciary that is sworn to administer the law blindly based upon the facts and not a person’s celebrity.

Bru on September 28, 2009 at 11:47 PM

I’m not so much “cool with it” as I simply feel it’s time to move on. It was a single crime that happened 30 years ago, perpetrated by a man who had recently lost his family to a violent, highly-publicized murder and could not possibly have been in a stable frame of mind at the time. Further mitigating factors include his contributions to cinema and his otherwise lack of any obvious criminal disposition in the years since.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM

You’re really fucked in the head, you know that? What happened to you, to make you excuse a child rapist? Oh, yeah–your underaged kid was never raped!

You show yourself by having the ‘mr’ part of your name in lower case.

You’re pitiable.

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Roman P. and David Letterman were seen holding hands.

Dhuka on September 28, 2009 at 11:48 PM

First off, don’t get me wrong, I believe Mr. Polanski should pay his debt to society and to his victim. However, there is an interesting aspect to this case that I thought I would mention. I’ve watched a lot of films in my years and I have always felt that The Pianist is one of the most deeply moral and moving films ever made about human suffering and the will to survive. IMHO, It truly is a lasting contribution to society and has most likely given incalculable comfort to victims of the Holocaust (and other atrocities, big and small, by example). I’m simply pointing out that within the same person, we can find a capacity for both the worst and best in human nature. Again, this is not to excuse his crime. He made an incalculable debit in the sin column when he did what he did, and the only way to justly pay the debt is through the court system, jail time etc. BUT, if there ever was a film that would begin balance the scales of his sins, it would be the Pianist. This makes the whole episode a true tragedy.

pleaseandthankyou on September 28, 2009 at 11:48 PM

No, he is (or was, up until a few days ago anyway) free, legally abiding in a country (France) in good standing with the law there.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM

mr_B, that is what we call a technicality. Polanski purposely fled to France because the crime for which he was convicted was not covered by the extradition treaty between the U.S. and France. Whenever he left France for a country with a different extadition treaty, Polanski did so at his own peril.

Bru on September 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM

pleaseandthankyou on September 28, 2009 at 11:48 PM

Really?

What’s the ‘right’ price to pay for forever destroying a life–making a movie?

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Just think, if he hadn’t forcibly rammed his penis up a child’s backside, causing excruciating pain, he wouldn’t be in the pickle he’s in now. Oh, free choice…..it’s a fickle mistress.

Sharke on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

You’re really fucked in the head, you know that? What happened to you, to make you excuse a child rapist? Oh, yeah–your underaged kid was never raped!

30 incident-free years and numerous quality contributions to the art of cinema happened. To dredge up this ancient case in the interest of “administering justice” would result in nothing good for the victim or for society. And so I entreat others to do as the victim herself has done and let the past remain behind us.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Having no God, the left can only worship artists and art, of whom and which everything is forgiven. I do recognize that some worship the earth and are always accusing of raping the earth, but raping a child is okay because of his movies. Tell that to the ghost of Fatty Arbuckle,

Dhuka on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Just think, if he hadn’t rammed his pen*s up a child’s backside, causing her excruciating pain and mental trauma, he wouldn’t be in the pickle he’s in now. Oh, free will….it’s a fickle mistress.

Sharke on September 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Allahpundit seems right in supposing that the Swiss intend to embarrass Obama. I can almost imagine that the Europeans speaking out on Polanski’s behalf are doing so in order to egg on the Hollywood left. If this is a plot and a concerted effort, it’s clever enough to have been devised by the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont. In any case, Obama seems to be in an exquisite trap.

Kralizec on September 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Having no God, the left can only worship artists and art, of whom and which everything is forgiven. I do recognize that some worship the earth and are always accusing of raping the earth, but raping a child is okay because of his movies. Tell that to the ghost of Fatty Arbuckle,

Dhuka on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

I have no god, yet funnily enough I don’t worship art, artists, the earth or pedophiles. Riddle me that!

Sharke on September 28, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Allahpundit seems right in supposing that the Swiss intend to embarrass Obama. I can almost imagine that the Europeans speaking out on Polanski’s behalf are doing so in order to egg on the Hollywood left. If this is a plot and a concerted effort, it’s clever enough to have been devised by the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont. In any case, Obama seems to be in an exquisite trap.

Kralizec on September 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM

Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, expects Obama to intervene in these proceedings in any way. He is a politician and so he will do what politicians do best: waffle, equivocate, and generally try to avoid doing or saying anything that could reflect poorly on him.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM

W

hat’s the ‘right’ price to pay for forever destroying a life–making a movie?

Liam on September 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM

I didn’t say the movie makes up for it, or could. In other words, he could make 100 movies like the Pianist and I would say he still needs to do his time. My point is that the case of Mr. Polanski presents a tragic moral conundrum.

pleaseandthankyou on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

30 incident-free years and numerous quality contributions to the art of cinema happened. To dredge up this ancient case in the interest of “administering justice” would result in nothing good for the victim or for society. And so I entreat others to do as the victim herself has done and let the past remain behind us.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Some of us think his movies sucked. So, spare us. You also keep wanting to apply a double standard which is repulsive.

What’s truly good for society is to treat the rich and the poor equally in the justice system. You want to treat them different. It’s not going to happen.

Blake on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

30 incident-free years and numerous quality contributions to the art of cinema happened. To dredge up this ancient case in the interest of “administering justice” would result in nothing good for the victim or for society. And so I entreat others to do as the victim herself has done and let the past remain behind us.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

‘Quality’ by whose standard–yours? Get over yourself.

In case you haven’t figured this out, we’re a Nation of maws and the laws must prevail. Would you let Hitler off for what he did? How about letting Manson walk free? After all, Chuck knew a lot of famous Hollywood types and singers, didn’t he? Sure, it’s ancient history, as you put it, that he killed Sharon Tate–Mrs Polanski and her baby. Let’s just let him out now. It’s ancient history, as you say about RP.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:00 AM

My point is that the case of Mr. Polanski presents a tragic moral conundrum.

pleaseandthankyou on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Uh, no. Most of us know that it is immoral to rape a kid, no conundrum about it.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Other commenters are handling the matter of justice well enough to satisfy me. So my part is to add that seeing a spectacular example made of a high Hollywood leftist will sweetly satisfy my malice.

Kralizec on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 AM

pleaseandthankyou on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Maybe you have a moral conundrum but I don’t. He forcibly raped a girl and has to do his time as the law allows. End of story.

I’m totally clear here and clean of conscience. Too bad your conscience is limited and wracked by a conundrum. I’m glad I’m not you, or as ‘enlightened’ as you.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Wonder if Hollywood celeb Jodie Foster is in Polanski’s corner?

Erich66 on September 29, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Polanski the rapist could share a cell with Ira Einhorn.

Both slimeballs could swap long tales of how they
beat the system . . . .For a while.

Texyank on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Some of us think his movies sucked. So, spare us. You also keep wanting to apply a double standard which is repulsive.

What’s truly good for society is to treat the rich and the poor equally in the justice system. You want to treat them different. It’s not going to happen.

I’m not advocating or applying a double standard. I don’t like digging up things that have been and should stay buried in the interests of the hollow pursuit of belated “justice.” If someone manages to evade punishment for so many years, I think a point comes when it’s time to let go and move on. Of course, there are exceptions: if somebody is still an active threat to society, for example.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

I’m not advocating or applying a double standard.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Is that a joke or are you really that dense?

Oldnuke on September 29, 2009 at 12:09 AM

if someone manages to evade punishment for so many years, I think a point comes when it’s time to let go and move on.

Wow…just friggin wow.

Rocks on September 29, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Other commenters are handling the matter of justice well enough to satisfy me. So my part is to add that seeing a spectacular example made of a high Hollywood leftist will sweetly satisfy my malice.

I’m glad you brought up the partisan political dimension of this situation. It reminds me of the Scooter Libby incident; I would wager a guess that many of the people here, in this very forum, calling for Roman Polanski’s head on a platter, desperately wanted President Bush to issue a full pardon to Scooter Libby despite the fact that he too was lawfully convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, expects Obama to intervene in these proceedings in any way. He is a politician and so he will do what politicians do best: waffle, equivocate, and generally try to avoid doing or saying anything that could reflect poorly on him.

mr_B on September 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Non-intervention seems to be one of the trap’s jaws, because I do think the left in Hollywood expect their man to act.

Kralizec on September 29, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Of course, there are exceptions: if somebody is still an active threat to society, for example.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

OK, so all those former Nazis Israel got should have been left alone, right?

You’re so insane you don’t even know how nuts you are. And how grossly immoral. I’ll bet that if someone rapes a little girl you love you’ll be screaming at police for not getting the guy in ten seconds.

You’re seriously ill, you know that?

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:12 AM

Uh, no. Most of us know that it is immoral to rape a kid, no conundrum about it.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 12:01 AM

No kidding? Did you think I meant otherwise? Try employing some more brain cells in your simplistic analysis.

OK, maybe it would help you if I used the word “paradox”. I mean to say that in his life he has committed an act of unquestionable immorality, and he’s made a film that is unquestionably moral. I just think it’s interesting to point that out. Again, I’m not excusing his crime.

pleaseandthankyou on September 29, 2009 at 12:12 AM

This argument by the Left is the best set up to explain Christianity….the formula to which you refer, Allah, is one based on good works overruling sin. In the context of Polanski’s story, the argument is absurd. What can wash away our sin?

Linnea on September 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM

Maybe you have a moral conundrum but I don’t. He forcibly raped a girl and has to do his time as the law allows. End of story.

I’m totally clear here and clean of conscience. Too bad your conscience is limited and wracked by a conundrum. I’m glad I’m not you, or as ‘enlightened’ as you.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 AM

I don’t have a conundrum. The case, taken as a whole, represents one. Or a paradox, if you prefer. I’m clear that he should do his time too, so we are in agreement.

pleaseandthankyou on September 29, 2009 at 12:16 AM

I’m glad you brought up the partisan political dimension of this situation. It reminds me of the Scooter

Libby incident; I would wager a guess that many of the people here, in this very forum, calling for Roman Polanski’s head on a platter, desperately wanted President Bush to issue a full pardon to Scooter Libby despite the fact that he too was lawfully convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:10 AM

So you see some form of moral equivalence between obstruction of justice and rape? Nice.

Erich66 on September 29, 2009 at 12:16 AM

What’s all this about a moral condom? What’s all this about a pair of ducks.
Did Roman P. screw ducks without a condom?

Dhuka on September 29, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Of course, there are exceptions: if somebody is still an active threat to society, for example.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

Do you seriously believe that someone who has a proven disposition for sex with very young females, having documented multiple sessions will suddenly lose that interest?

Oldnuke on September 29, 2009 at 12:17 AM

if someone manages to evade punishment for so many years, I think a point comes when it’s time to let go and move on.

You’re screwed; there is no statute of limitations on stupidity.

Erich66 on September 29, 2009 at 12:17 AM

if someone manages to evade punishment for so many years, I think a point comes when it’s time to let go and move on.

BTW does that apply to Bin Laden?

Erich66 on September 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Hey, I know! Let’s give up finding the killer of Jon Benet Ramsey, too! It’s old hat, after all, and is really a conundrum at this point.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM

BTW does that apply to Bin Laden?

Erich66 on September 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM

It doesn’t so all the more reason to leave him alone. /sarc

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 12:20 AM

I’m starting a list of all Hollywood people who say they don’t support him.

exception on September 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Be sure to check it twice (what with Obama-mas coming up and all)

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5