Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Tommy Christopher can hardly believe this argument:

What I find much more disturbing is that, in that clip and another one that’s posted at Jezebel, the ladies of The View engage in some terrifying “debate” about what happened to then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then forced himself on her twice despite her protestations. Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the reduced charge for the plea agreement to make it into a Lolita situation, perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent rape and sodomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system. She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and values to a male director who victimized a child trying to break into the business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum (who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was pushing for Polanski’s release and the withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault — in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain, Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled … let the evidence be presented in a court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Exactly.

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5 6

Sorry. I’m curious. Please don’t hate me for it.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM

It’s fine to be curious, but that doesn’t mean you’re right there is more here. Perhaps there is, I don’t know. But the timing of the arrest is not the issue.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

The prosecutor made a deal. Going back is about like Obama going back on GITMO rulings.

Same nonsense.

Prosecute for fugitive.

BUT…IS that sane attitude possible in this day and age?

I doubt it.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

So, let’s see… he serves a 13 year old alcohol, then quaaludes. He performs “cuddliness” (stop laughing, she was a kid), he asks to penetrate her vaginally, she says no, he suggests “in the back”, she says no again, he does it anyway as she cries.

Hmm… so if that’s not “rape rape”, then what is?

rogersnowden on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:00 PM

And part of that deal involved prison time for the crime of statutory rape. Polanski has yet to serve that time.

Why shouldn’t he now? Just because she’s forgiven him? Criminal justice doesn’t work that way, friend.

And here I thought you were a friend of women…supporting them and all, and yet you’ve thrown this one under the feminazi bus.

Worse than that, though, is when a rape is “winked at”, it just makes it that much harder for the next woman to come forward.

Thanks.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I am not derailing anything. I agree with everything you said in your last post. There are a lot of discussions going on other than the facts of the case. Relax

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Just standard talk from this poster, dave.

She’s not capable of really tracking.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Whoopi is exactly correct!

There are countries and places in the world that do think drugging, raping and killing little girls is perfectly acceptable. There are places that the parents even kill the little girls after they are raped.

But what does the moral depravity of various countries around the world have to do with life here in the US? Whoopi needs to MOVE to one of those countries and live the life she is wishing upon others!

Freddy on September 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

And part of that deal involved prison time for the crime of statutory rape. Polanski has yet to serve that time.

Why shouldn’t he now? Just because she’s forgiven him? Criminal justice doesn’t work that way, friend.

And here I thought you were a friend of women…supporting them and all, and yet you’ve thrown this one under the feminazi bus.

Worse than that, though, is when a rape is “winked at”, it just makes it that much harder for the next woman to come forward.

Thanks.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

HE NEEDS TO DO THE TIME! I agree with you.
This is very elementary.

balkanmom2 on September 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM

How the hell do these dopes stay employed?

Oh, nevermind:

http://howobamagotelected.com/

They have a big pool of fools to draw their audience from.

:_(

RedNewEnglander on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Methinks AnninCA doesn’t quite get it.

anXdem on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

And part of that deal involved prison time for the crime of statutory rape. Polanski has yet to serve that time.

According to the stories I read, the judge reneged on the plea bargain, which is why he fled.

The bargain was pathetic. But, going back in time, I sort of get it. His wife had been murdered, yadda, yadda.

He never was American. Why should he abide?

I rather get that aspect. He’s obviously made a choice. He’s not into cleaning up this through jailtime.

I suspect he made real amends to the victim. I am guessing it is private, between the two of them.

JUST my guess, of course.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

ladyingray:

But the timing of the arrest is not the issue.

Actually, there is no issue, which is the point of my first post on this thread. Whoopi didn’t know the facts of the case, she said she didn’t, and if she did, I don’t think she would have a problem with Polanski going to jail for the statutory rape charge. I haven’t seen anyone on the thread defending statutory rape, so there is no discussion left. I think Ed should erase this thread and we all go back to work.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Going back and prosecuting people, other than murders that were undiscovered, is really odd to me.

I do agree with conviction about fugitive status.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

If Whoopi were a white male on TV who argued “rape rape”, he’d be fired today period. (I’m sure in 5 pages of comments, this obviousness has to have been pointed out)

Marcus on September 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Drug, rape, and sodomize a minor? Hey I think we just found Massachusetts its new replacement in the senate for Ted Kennedy. (I know, it’s too late now)

sawbuck on September 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM

I suspect he made real amends to the victim. I am guessing it is private, between the two of them.

JUST my guess, of course.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

What possible “amends” could a pedophile make exactly? Rape is never amended, Ann. Never.

anXdem on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I disagree, but you have a principled stance and you use the same principles to judge everyone, whether they are a Democrat or Republican. This is very rare. Cool.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM

I don’t think it’s as rare as you might think.
And for the record here dave:
A principled stance is the most important stance for a human being to take.If you can’t stand on a set of good principles, then you are morally adrift in this world & will be able to justify all monstrosities.
Honestly, how in the hell are good people supposed to model their lives if but not after good principles?!

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM

So one is OK, greater than one is a deviant. Check.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Which is why you don’t get “sucked” into the debate…you don’t understand enough.
I was vague, thinking you would know the obvious…Here
Juanita is as sincere as they get, her story was an absolute embarrassment to the NOW organization, they believed her, she had all the facts right…but they had to ignore her.
However, a NOW organizer, and president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, finally took the bold step and she declared her disgust with Clinton and the rape charges…Tammy Bruce.
You may not be able to see a difference, but you can’t come up with a response to…conservatives purge, liberals promote outrageous (illicit) behavior

“I want you to do damage control over Bill’s philandering … Bill’s going to be president of the United States … I want you to get rid of these bitches he’s seeing … I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”
Hillary instructing Ivan Duda, a private detective, in the 1980s (The Truth About Hillary, pp. 98-99).

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Crime is not a private thing.
It becomes a public concern.
What stops a monster from doing the same thing again if they are not punished in some way?
The man is a public menace.
I don’t care what else he’s done in his life.
Only God can forgive him now.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Badger40:
Most people cannot break through their in-group/out-group thinking and see things impartially. This is exceedingly rare.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM

so you can hide from the law and then get off scot free? he needs to be made a example of just like they did with mike vick and Plaxico Burress. I dont care if he made the greatest movie of all time he did the crime and fled before he could be put in jail and hid in a country that protected him. he needs to serve the time thats it.

larry harris on September 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Badger:

Most people cannot break through their in-group/out-group thinking and see things impartially.

You did this with the Republican/Democrat ingroup/outgroup. Can you do it with the American/Muslim ingroup/outgroup? That one is harder.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I think Ed should erase this thread and we all go back to work.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Good try…the thread is important to remind us of the differences between liberals and conservatives.
It is the liberals who are promoting him to be re-instated without punishment…just one more of the puzzle.
They embrace Chavez, Che, Clinton, Kennedy, Franks, etc. It is a pattern.
This one single incidence may not be so important as a thread, except it is a thread that is woven into the fabric of liberals…conservatives purge these kind of guys, the Craigs, Foley’s, etc. We don’t honor them…and people like you don’t get that…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:20 PM

And part of that deal involved prison time for the crime of statutory rape. Polanski has yet to serve that time.

I am guessing that the victim and the rapist have had discussions.

That’s just a guess. I’m guessing he has totally admitted to her, which is huge, btw. That’s usually what is missing from rape. The victim is told she “asked for it.” She never even gets admission that it was rape.

I am just thinking that he has been in contact, and they made peace. He absolutely was violent, raped her, and there’s no question about that in my mind.

But…if she has received an admission, from the heart from him, then the rest of us really can debate. But that is authentically the only thing that could have helped her.

Now, if I’m wrong?

OK. She’s just apologizing. He’s still a pedophile.

But I’m guessing from her comments and from his, there has been some private discussions.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM

If Whoopi were a white male on TV who argued “rape rape”, he’d be fired today period. (I’m sure in 5 pages of comments, this obviousness has to have been pointed out)

Marcus on September 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Oh yeah, she’s way off base.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Crime is not a private thing.
It becomes a public concern.
What stops a monster from doing the same thing again if they are not punished in some way?
The man is a public menace.
I don’t care what else he’s done in his life.
Only God can forgive him now.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Really? He’s 76. Any other cases?

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

If you insist on spotlighting Goldberg’s image could you please have the decency to blur her face? Some of us are prone to vomiting when presented with the images of hags.

oldleprechaun on September 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM

JUST my guess, of course.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

No the judge didn’t “renege” on the deal.
The prosecuter offered 40 days in jail, the judge thought that was way too lenient for raping an underage girl. It is the judges prerogative to not accept the suggestion from the attorney.
And if your guess is as accurate as you accusation that the judge reneged, then you may want to re-think your “guesses”.
If you do the crime, you do the time…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Really? He’s 76. Any other cases?

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

One rape of a child is not enough for you?
He has to serve his time, he should have served it before, he would have been out now for dozens of years…now he just has to serve it at the end, instead of the middle of his life.
The timing was in his hands, he had control of that…he could have come back 30 years ago.
Why can’t liberals understand personal responsibility. I will never understand, if you make a mistake, you make amends.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

No the judge didn’t “renege” on the deal.
The prosecuter offered 40 days in jail, the judge thought that was way too lenient for raping an underage girl. It is the judges prerogative to not accept the suggestion from the attorney.
And if your guess is as accurate as you accusation that the judge reneged, then you may want to re-think your “guesses”.
If you do the crime, you do the time…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Then, no plea bargains are worth the paper they are written on.

Let’s watch the judicial system shut down within 90 days.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Really? He’s 76. Any other cases?

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

And his age matters bcs?????
Seriously-WTF is up with that argument?
I don’t care if he’s going to die tomorrow of a serious terminal disease.
He deserves what the law has in store for him.
End of story.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

After 30 years, I wouldn’t want it dredged up either, just bring him back, put him in jail and leave me alone…but leave the girl/now woman out of it, she is the one who has suffered and has learned to block it out.
If he was truly sorry, he would hurry back, not fight it, not make a big deal and pay his price…if he was truly repentant. But he will fight it, drag her back in…it is in his hands how to treat this. If he was honorable he would surrender…if he thinks he is innocent, he will fight it.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM

No the judge didn’t “renege” on the deal.
The prosecuter offered 40 days in jail, the judge thought that was way too lenient for raping an underage girl. It is the judges prerogative to not accept the suggestion from the attorney.
And if your guess is as accurate as you accusation that the judge reneged, then you may want to re-think your “guesses”.
If you do the crime, you do the time…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Well, your post explains the defenses, too. You’d like him to serve time under today’s values.

That’s emotionalism, in my opinion.

I don’t honestly care. He’ll block extradition. He’ll probably die before this comes to a head.

His choice.

But I would say to conservatives on this issue, you think this witchhunt is OK, based on how you view rape today?

Then, the issue about waterboarding, torture, is way open for prosecution, too.

It’s a legal perspective. You can’t have it both ways.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM

In my conversations in which this issue get mentioned. I’m shocked by how uncharacteristically lenient how many people are about Polanski. The big issue for me isn’t what he did thirty years ago. In fact, after 30 years, I could care less. I’m bothered by how people want to give him a better deal for being famous.

thuja on September 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM

After 30 years, I wouldn’t want it dredged up either, just bring him back, put him in jail and leave me alone…but leave the girl/now woman out of it, she is the one who has suffered and has learned to block it out.

She even filed papers asking to let the charges go. This is an adult woman’s decision.

You can say that you don’t really believe it, but that’s disrespectful to her.

Her proactive stance is why I think they really reached a kind of peace on this.

The rest is public entertainment.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM

In my conversations in which this issue get mentioned. I’m shocked by how uncharacteristically lenient how many people are about Polanski. The big issue for me isn’t what he did thirty years ago. In fact, after 30 years, I could care less. I’m bothered by how people want to give him a better deal for being famous.

thuja on September 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Like to explore how many men killed their wives and got off with the “passion” defence?

Out in 7 years?

Let’s talk about THAT!

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM

But I would say to conservatives on this issue, you think this witchhunt is OK, based on how you view rape today?

I know, isn’t that wierd! Back in the seventies we used to rape children all the time and nobody thought a thing of it!

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Then, no plea bargains are worth the paper they are written on.

Let’s watch the judicial system shut down within 90 days.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

A plea bargain is not worth anything unless the judge signs off on it…that is how they work.
No plea bargain is worth anything unless the judge signs off on it…and that is how it has been from the beginning.
You don’t spring these “surprises” on a judge, he should be informed on the matter.
40 days for raping a girl, any attorney would know that ain’t going to fly…especially in a high profile, and with the content of the evidence….sheeesh, I can’t believe I am arguing with a woman regarding punishing a pervert who drugged and multiple times rapped a child, what a bizarre world you live in. God have mercy none of your children are ever raped…then they run away to be safe.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM

She has 30yrs of persepctive looking back now.
So what.
It was a crime on her person back then.
Justice is not only for the victim.
It is for society.
Sometimes victims become hostile witnesses bcs they don’t want to prosecute.
People who commit crimes are to be prosecuted, whether the victim wishes it or not.
It is for SOCIETY.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Ed should start a thread about how the police should get the names of the first two and look them up. It shouldn’t be that hard to find them. Instead they are sitting around giving people speeding tickets. I’m outraged!

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM

As they were not charged, indicted, tried or convicted within 30 years of the sex crime, I’m pretty sure statute of limitations has expired.

M. le Dumbass PLEAD GUILTY and then ran to France before serving a sentence. No statute of limitations applies to that.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I know, isn’t that wierd! Back in the seventies we used to rape children all the time and nobody thought a thing of it!

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Don’t I know it!
/sarc

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM

As a former violent crimes detective I can assure you that any plea-bargain recommendation from the prosecutor is only a recommendation. The Judge is the final decider of fate, and if he doesnt feel the punishment is appropriate he can rule another sentence for the offender.
The reommended plea-bargain for Mr. Polanski was outrageous as it was not including any time at all except the 40+ days the pervert did while being evaluated for psychiatric issues.
The Judge was correct to think that the public may not condone his adjudicating the care that way. So he was not going to accept the mplea and Mr. Polanski fled the country.
Fast forward to today, Polanski still needs to be sentenced for the rape. He also should be charged with his flight from justice and tried on that charge as well.

I have a Whoopi Goldberg maks I wear at Halloween sometimes and it literally frightens the children worse than any monster costime we have.

ObamatheMessiah on September 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Like to explore how many men killed their wives and got off with the “passion” defence?

Out in 7 years?

Let’s talk about THAT!

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Irrelevant here.
But yeah.
Our justice system allows for compassion in some cases.
So what?
This guy fled from serving his sentence.
And he needs to fulfill what was meted out to him.
End of story.

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM

She even filed papers asking to let the charges go. This is an adult woman’s decision.
You can say that you don’t really believe it, but that’s disrespectful to her.
Her proactive stance is why I think they really reached a kind of peace on this.
The rest is public entertainment.
AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM

So what? I’m not obliged to respect a private arrangement with a rapist. Especially a rapist who buys off his victims. And if you think THAT ain’t a problem in California, you must live closer to Humboldt than Beverly Hills.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Well, your post explains the defenses, too. You’d like him to serve time under today’s values.

That’s emotionalism, in my opinion.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Are you honestly that insane…do you think that rapists were honored in the 70′s? I would say that rape was more severe in the 70′s then now. Women’s rights were of issue…now we have people like Clinton who raped and he remained president, Kennedy abused women and he is honored, I would say that rape is tolerated more today then in the 70′s…good grief, here I am arguing with someone who thinks a child rapist shouldn’t serve a day in jail. A grown adult man who persuaded a child to come over for pictures, then drugged her, and raped her multiple times…like I said, what a bizarre world you live in, not thinking a child rapist should serve even one day in jail.
Un—F’in—believable….

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Does anyone have a clue why after thirty years and numerous opportunities, why this arrest took place?

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I read somewhere today that Polanski’s attorneys had recently filed a motion asking for the criminal case to be dismissed, and included the fact that cali had not made any serious extradition efforts as support for why this issue was moot. If so, maybe they figured they ought to make a serious effort. They should have done so much earlier IMHO, but I don’t see why Polanski should profit from their incompetence.

alwaysfiredup on September 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Don’t I know it!
/sarc

Badger40 on September 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Those were the good ol days…running amok in the streets, raping young girls, knowing that society respected us…of course we had to stop in the 90′s when things changed and rapists were not tolerated anymore…what year was that? 1902 or 93?

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:46 PM

AnninCA:

This is an adult woman’s decision.

In classical Islamic law, the punishment was up to the victim, at least in respect to whether they wanted monetary compensation, punishment, or to forgive the person. It wasn’t until the colonial period that the West came in and said what Badger40 is saying, and that “it is for SOCIETY.” I don’t know which approach is better, but I think that States in general like to have control, and not allow citizens to have any input in situations like this. Because we are brought up thinking “it is for SOCIETY,” we cannot imagine anything else. I respect your view, though. It’s certainly something to consider.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Going back and prosecuting people, other than murders that were undiscovered, is really odd to me.

I do agree with conviction about fugitive status.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Ann, really, how dumb are you? He plead guilty to statutory rape and was convicted. At this point he won’t be prosecuted on that, he’ll simply finally receive the punishment he tried to run from after making a minimum admission of his crimes. What he should also be prosecuted for is running.

And why don’t you go away? You should know by now nobody here values your opinion on anything, yet you stick around. Please go away!

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 2:54 PM

AnnieCA:

nobody here values your opinion

I value your opinion.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM

She even filed papers asking to let the charges go. This is an adult woman’s decision.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM

It doesn’t matter! He was convicted already. Why can’t you understand that? Unless she’s now claiming she lied about the whole thing, it’s still a crime.

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Just as a follow up, Roman Polanski fled then started a relationship with Natasha Kinski, who was 15 at the time. So yeah, I say he fled for a reason…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I value your opinion.
dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM

AnninCA, you’re in good company. He values Achmedinejad’s also.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Didn’t you get the memo…every thing is changed now.
If a battered woman says not to arrest her husband, they won’t do that anymore.
If a child is raped, and she is afraid and says don’t prosecute him, “I love him”, then they won’t prosecute.
If a person is sexually abused and doesn’t want to relive that, then they won’t put the abuser in jail.
Get with it…it’s the “new” way of law. The victim determines the outcome….it worked with the mafia, no one hardly ever “ratted” on them.
Clinton had over 15 women accuse him of rape, and each one said “no thanks, I will be destroyed” it isn’t worth it…you are behind the times.
Rapists are okay, unless the victim says they aren’t…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Achmedinejad rapes goats regularly.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I value your opinion.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM

There you go Ann. You’re in good company.

Dave, are you still having doubts about whether or not the Holocaust actually happened?

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM

When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas…dave and ann…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

AnninCA, you’re totally effin insane. They weren’t dating. She was a child, and he is a monster.

alliebobbitt on September 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Like to explore how many men killed their wives and got off with the “passion” defence?

Out in 7 years?

Let’s talk about THAT!

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM

I didn’t really post so much to advance any agenda besides equal justice for the same crime. You may be right that spouse murder is under-punished, though I thought that had been changed. If you are right about that men are getting away with spousal murder (and with gay marriage in several states now we mustn’t presume the gender of the spouse), then we should make efforts both to educate the general population who will be on juries and to train judges about prejudices that may be causing the under-punishment. But, Ann, is here the right place to make these arguments? I mean, isn’t the problem people have here that Polanski wasn’t punished enough for the rape of a 13 year old, which is surely an atrocious crime. (I deliberately didn’t say minor, because I object to setting the age of consent over 16 years old. People are making their own decisions by then.)

thuja on September 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM

+100. I swear I didn’t peek at your answer! :-)

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I know you didn’t. We’ve all seen this guy in action around here.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Then, no plea bargains are worth the paper they are written on.

Let’s watch the judicial system shut down within 90 days.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Polanski made a “plea bargain” with the prosecutor, the judge rejected the deal which is the right of the ‘court’ (judge) to do.

Doorgunner on September 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM

We’ve all seen this guy in action around here.

I’m *blushing*

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM

I’m *blushing*
dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM…

Probably not…judging from your posts on other sites.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 3:12 PM

This is so sick…

The double standard by the left knows no bounds.

In a just world, every single person who is in support of Polanski, would enjoy the wonderful experience of being raped anally.

Seven Percent Solution on September 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM

wonder if this creature’s opinion would be different if we were talking about a Catholic Priest and a 13 year old boy….

Yeah, I know the answer already….

SDarchitect on September 29, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Doesn’t excusing his actions cheapen any other childs accusations of rape?

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

It is just outrageous.

Terrye on September 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM

AnninCA,

You are taking incoherence to a whole new level. I don’t think you have been cleared to that altitude.

Put your oxygen mask on, NOW!

Yoop on September 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

In classical Islamic law, the punishment was up to the victim, at least in respect to whether they wanted monetary compensation, punishment, or to forgive the person.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM

There you are Ann. Your Fellow Traveler dave cites Islamic Law. Aren’t you proud?

AsianGirlInTights on September 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I`m really getting tired of’The Way We See Things’crap,
sorry Whoopi,wether you live in USA,or Canada,its RAPE!

canopfor on September 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I knew I had seen a picture of Whoopi Goldberg recently that had bothered me. I remembered where when I found the Toys R Us catalog I got in the mail last week.

There on the back cover is Whoopi Goldberg playing with a young girl with Down Syndrome. It’s the cover photo for the Toys R Us “Toy Guide for Differently-Abled Kids”, available in stores.

The Toys R Us website describes Goldberg as a mother, grandmother and child advocate, and includes a “special video from Whoopi”, that thankfully I’m unable to watch due to a slow dial up connection (I’d probably do mortal damage to my computer screen if I watched it).

How truly disgusting that Goldberg thinks she qualifies as an advocate for children with special needs, while at the same time equivocating about whether drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is really rape. If someone drugged and had sex with the child in the photo, but the child was “aware”, would it still be rape? How about if the child was Goldberg’s grandchild? Or is it only rape if the perpetrator isn’t a famous Hollywood director?

As the mother of a child with a developmental disability, I take this pretty personally. When Goldberg implies that a child wasn’t “really” raped because she was drugged but “aware”, then Goldberg automatically becomes disqualified to ever represent the needs of any child again.

And slightly off the subject, does it honestly make it better that the girl was “aware”? Instead of at least being mercifully unconscious, she apparently understood every horrific thing that was being done to her, but was unable to stop it from happening. It’s impossible to imagine the terror she lived through, yet in Goldberg’s obscene mind, the fact that she was aware made it all okay. There aren’t words to express my disgust for the woman.

mcc4 on September 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM

I knew I had seen a picture of Whoopi Goldberg recently that had bothered me. I remembered where when I found the Toys R Us catalog I got in the mail last week.

There on the back cover is Whoopi Goldberg playing with a young girl with Down Syndrome. It’s the cover photo for the Toys R Us “Toy Guide for Differently-Abled Kids”, available in stores.

The Toys R Us website describes Goldberg as a mother, grandmother and child advocate, and includes a “special video from Whoopi”, that thankfully I’m unable to watch due to a slow dial up connection (I’d probably do mortal damage to my computer screen if I watched it).

How truly disgusting that Goldberg thinks she qualifies as an advocate for children with special needs, while at the same time equivocating about whether drugging and having sex with a 13 year old is really rape. If someone drugged and had sex with the child in the photo, but the child was “aware”, would it still be rape? How about if the child was Goldberg’s grandchild? Or is it only rape if the perpetrator isn’t a famous Hollywood director?

As the mother of a child with a developmental disability, I take this pretty personally. When Goldberg implies that a child wasn’t “really” raped because she was drugged but “aware”, then Goldberg automatically becomes disqualified to ever represent the needs of any child again.

And slightly off the subject, does it honestly make it better that the girl was “aware”? Instead of at least being mercifully unconscious, she apparently understood every horrific thing that was being done to her, but was unable to stop it from happening. It’s impossible to imagine the terror she lived through, yet in Goldberg’s obscene mind, the fact that she was aware made it all okay. There aren’t words to express my disgust for the woman.

mcc4 on September 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM

It’s unreal that someone like Goldberg has anything to do with being an advocate of special needs children.
Not only in this case, where I’d think no mother or grandmother could feel the need to excuse the actions of this scum, but also in her stand up comedy routines that are strongly pro abortion, which seems to be the preferred
final outcome of any child that might be considered special needs before birth. I’d say at the very least should be some strongly worded letters to Toys R Us

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

So why in the name of all that’s decent is Hot Air running the T-Mobile ad featuring this degenerate child rape apologist ? HMMMMMMMMMM?

Veritas on September 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Methinks AnninCA doesn’t quite get it.

anXdem on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Yeah. Stupid hurts.

ladyingray on September 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Why do we keep supporting these people? Going to their movies? Earning millions of dollars. This is disgusting, and American women defending rape? Never thought I would see the day.

WyoMike on September 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Ann, dave, and all you ‘compassionate’ libs–are you reading with genuine concern what people here are writing? A lot of people have been hurt by rapists like Polanski, and others have matters that touch their lives in different ways.

Do you two libs, and the rest of your ilk, feel anything for THESE people?

I’m fortunate–my children didn’t have disabilities and my daughter has never been raped. But she was beaten up by the boy who got her pregnant the minute she told him she was going to be having their baby. Good thing for him I never got to him. If I had, I’d be writing this from prison for what I’d have done to him. If I meet him now, ten years after the fact, I’m at high risk of going to prison for what I’ll do to him for striking my daughter.

Where, Ann and dave, is your boasted compassion for these people here? Where is your compassion for a girl, who’s now a woman, who had to come to terms with what happened when she was but thirteen?

You have compassion for the downtrodden, but you define that term to your own definitions, as suits you and the particular moment you ‘need’.

Well, you two, and using your presumed definitions of the term ‘downtrodden’, there’s no way in the world Roman Polanski can be considered ‘downtrodden’.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 4:18 PM

According to the stories I read, the judge reneged on the plea bargain, which is why he fled.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Judges don’t make plea bargains, and aren’t bound by them. Prosecutors offer plea bargains and defendants accept or don’t accept them, but the judge still has the final say. Roman skipped town before it got that far. So there was no “reneging.”

I imagine that the reason this comes up now is that the grand jury records were unsealed four years ago, someone in the DA’s office read them, and decided that bastard had got off scot free for one of the worst crimes imaginable. How on earth a reasoning human being like Whoopi Goldberg could think that sex with a 13 year-old in any circumstance is something to wink at is beyond me. She seriously needs to go read the grand jury transcript before spouting off on TV about this. If she can read the words of a 13 year-old that she was begging to be taken home, said no repeatedly, was crying, tried to get up and put her clothes on when they were interrupted and had this animal come back and physically restrain her while he finished his business… if she can read all that and just say “hey but his films are cool,” then she needs to see the inside of a mental institution.

evergreen on September 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Good post, but they don’t care, they have an agenda and you are just a road bump to them.
Sorry about your daughter, and I can imagine the feeling of frustration as a father not to have revenge or the chance to defend your daughter.
I have a daughter (grown), and I feel your pain. She was never abused, but if she was, I would, like you. gladly spend years in jail to defend her honor.
Find peace that you are a good father…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

You’d like him to serve time under today’s values.

“Today’s Values”? I’m confused, was child rape somehow okay back in the 70′s?

Sharr on September 29, 2009 at 4:35 PM

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

My daughter later married well, and the man who isn’t my granddaughter’s dad has been a true dad to her in every sense of the word. In the end, it turned out well for my children. And my son-in-law is a second son to me.

No, those libs don’t care. Ann has a half a brain and it’s arguing with itself. Note how she keeps changing things, bouncing back and forth? She wants the right thing but has no clear definition of what is right. Consistency seems to be a quandary for her.

Libs complain about politics being injected into discussions like this, but according to Marx everything has a political facet. Libs just refuse to admit that. They have a filter, unlike how people who aren’t Marxist hold to solid values. How fast did the ‘Christian right’ abandon Jim Bakker for adultery? We didn’t excuse it. We basically ostracized him, which the Left won’t do to one of their own unless their ‘offender’ harms their movement.

They’re sick, those on the Left. And they don’t even know it.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

but also in her stand up comedy routines that are strongly pro abortion, which seems to be the preferred
final outcome of any child that might be considered special needs before birth

I haven’t watched any of Goldberg’s “comedy” routines, so I didn’t realize that she finds abortion to be a topic worthy of a few laughs. That makes her hypocrisy in appearing in a photo with a child with Down Syndrome even more appalling.

Over 90 percent of children diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome (correctly or not) are aborted in this country. If that isn’t eugenics in action, I certainly don’t know what is. For Goldberg to cynically pretend to advocate for the less than 10 percent that survive the killing field of the womb is beyond belief.

And for those who think that people with disabilities, such as Trig Palin, actually wish that their mothers had aborted them, because after all, they really are better off dead, you might want to check out the thoughts of those who really do have disabilities at the Not Dead Yet website.

While they are adults who don’t wish to be prematurely shuffled off this mortal coil through euthanasia, the concept also applies to those who appreciate that they were given a chance to at least start life.

If that doesn’t convince you, then find your nearest ARC, Special Olympics or therapeutic riding program and get to know real human beings that happen to have disabilities. You’ll find they love life, and have just as much right to it, as you do.

Okay, getting off the soapbox now! I hope I’m preaching to the choir here, but this is an issue very near and dear to my heart.

mcc4 on September 29, 2009 at 4:44 PM

What a disgraceful woman.

marklmail on September 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM

mcc4 on September 29, 2009 at 4:44 PM

You’re among friends. As the proud father of a special daughter (22), nothing chaps me worse than the individuals you alluded to. With her “value system”, Whoopi is an inappropriate choice to represent America’s special children.

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

You have compassion for the downtrodden

Libs don’t have compassion, they express “feelings” and if their “feelings” tell them that a rapist who happens to be a director who the cool kids tell them should be let off of the hook, then they rationalize the behavior.

Libs who aren’t among the lib elites who think this crap up, are led around by the nose by these people.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Really? He’s 76. Any other cases?

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM

With pedophiles there are always “other cases”. That is why we lock them up and put posters with their faces on telephone polls when they get out…

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Whoppie is so whacked!

I have a simple question Whoopie–Can you drop off your 13 year old child at my house and can I sell him/her to an adult for anal sex? After applying booze and drugs of course.

Any rational person would say No.
Conclusion your not rational you’re whacked!

SFTech on September 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

kingsjester on September 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Thank you for your support. Our daughter is ten, and we are so thankful for her just the way she is!

mcc4 on September 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Then, the issue about waterboarding, torture, is way open for prosecution, too.

It’s a legal perspective. You can’t have it both ways.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM

1 RAPE is RAPE

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

If that doesn’t convince you, then find your nearest ARC, Special Olympics or therapeutic riding program and get to know real human beings that happen to have disabilities. You’ll find they love life, and have just as much right to it, as you do.

Say, those Special Olympics kids make for good one-liners. Just ask me about it. I’m bargaining for them in Copenhagen now.

—B. Hussein Obama

George Orwell on September 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Constancy and a solid moral base are the worst things in the world for libs like Ann and dave. They need to be right on all counts, depending on which way the wind blows. You’re right–they want to go with the flow. Having a personal mind and identity requires that sometimes that person will be wrong, and those people can’t stand being wrong. They’re basically sociopaths, who find their correctness in what they consider being the ‘majority view’ rather than in a rock of genuine moral and societal standards. In effect, they’re weak.

Just like all those Germans who followed Hitler and made excuses later like, “I was just following orders!”

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

With pedophiles there are always “other cases”. That is why we lock them up and put posters with their faces on telephone polls when they get out…

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

I posted above, he hooked up with a 15 year old actress…who later said (at 18) that he was a better director then lover.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM

They’re sick, those on the Left. And they don’t even know it.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM

The main difference with conservatives and liberals, since we both have our “bottom feeders”…
We purge, liberals promote.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Agreed, and proven time and times again.

Liam on September 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Then, the issue about waterboarding, torture, is way open for prosecution, too.

It’s a legal perspective. You can’t have it both ways.

AnninCA on September 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Woops I hit the wrong button I wasn’t done
Let’s try again
Rape is Rape. We know this, this is settled
We are not settled on enhanced interrogation. Many laws protect our men who work in the CIA and military who interrogate these terrorist within the limits of their official capacity, some have gone beyond this and been prosecuted some have gone beyond this and have turned themselves in.
Some of us feel that the laws here do not give them enough leeway to fully protect us. Some of us feel that the international laws do not apply because our enemy doesn’t respect them and international law voids those protections for them.
Our President (Bush) knew this and said we would follow international law regardless, and we have. Only the left has used and twisted every letter of the law for the sole purposes of undermining our effort! This is their crime, your crime, treason, they should be prosecuted!
You AnninCA should be prosecuted!

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

The main difference with conservatives and liberals, since we both have our “bottom feeders”…
We purge, liberals promote.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

That simply is not true. If conservatives purged their bottom feeders, there wouldn’t have been enough teabaggers left to fill a cocktail lounge, nevermind the National Mall.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6