Thursday, October 01, 2009
Political Mayhem Thursday: Roman Polanski
In 1974, Roman Polanski made Chinatown, which is widely considered to be one of the best films ever made. There is little doubt that he is a talented filmmaker.
A refuge from Communist Poland (first to France and then to the U.S.), Polanski suffered a fair amount of tragedy in his life. In 1969 his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family.
Polanski was convicted, by his own guilty plea, of the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977. He was released pending sentencing, and fled the country. For the past 31 years, he has avoided the charges in France.
On September 26, Polanski traveled to Switzerland and was arrested at the Zurich airport on the U.S. warrant. The next question is whether or not he will actually be extradited. Many in France and Switzerland are opposed to his being sent to the U.S. to serve his sentence.
Perhaps it is the prosecutor in me, but I am baffled that this is a matter of debate, and that France gave him sanctuary. Am I missing something? And, at a deeper level, are we just more judgmental in the U.S. than the residents of Europe?
A refuge from Communist Poland (first to France and then to the U.S.), Polanski suffered a fair amount of tragedy in his life. In 1969 his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family.
Polanski was convicted, by his own guilty plea, of the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977. He was released pending sentencing, and fled the country. For the past 31 years, he has avoided the charges in France.
On September 26, Polanski traveled to Switzerland and was arrested at the Zurich airport on the U.S. warrant. The next question is whether or not he will actually be extradited. Many in France and Switzerland are opposed to his being sent to the U.S. to serve his sentence.
Perhaps it is the prosecutor in me, but I am baffled that this is a matter of debate, and that France gave him sanctuary. Am I missing something? And, at a deeper level, are we just more judgmental in the U.S. than the residents of Europe?
Comments:
<< Home
No, I don't think you're missing something. I suppose sometimes we are more judgmental than Europeans (about politicians' sexual exploits, or about the drinking age) although the French can be judgmental when they want to, too. Now that I work with them, I can see they have a pronounced reflex to take pretty much always the opposite side in anything.
Yes, what Polanski did was horrible and he should come back and deal with it. Maybe what the French are reacting against was that the authorities waited so long: why now, when Polanski is 76 years old? What's the utility in extraditing a 76-year-old man for a 30-year-old crime when they knew where he was all along? It wasn't as though he hid in a cave all that time.
So I think he should face justice, and I don't think that a victim's desires should have anything to do with this or any other case.
BUT: I also think his case--and Ted Kennedy's crime at Chappaquiddick--bring to the forefront the issue of mercy. Here are two guys who did something awful when they were young. Both of them got off very lightly for it, because of who they are. Both of them went on to contribute to society in positive ways, and didn't repeat their crimes. Would it have been any better for society if they had stayed in prison for 40-50 years? It makes you wonder what all those people in prison have the potential to do. OF course, some people are just messed up and will always be messed up--but Polanski's and Kennedy's cases are enough to make me wonder about the efficacy, and morality, of putting millions of people in prison for a long time for lesser crimes than theirs.
Yes, what Polanski did was horrible and he should come back and deal with it. Maybe what the French are reacting against was that the authorities waited so long: why now, when Polanski is 76 years old? What's the utility in extraditing a 76-year-old man for a 30-year-old crime when they knew where he was all along? It wasn't as though he hid in a cave all that time.
So I think he should face justice, and I don't think that a victim's desires should have anything to do with this or any other case.
BUT: I also think his case--and Ted Kennedy's crime at Chappaquiddick--bring to the forefront the issue of mercy. Here are two guys who did something awful when they were young. Both of them got off very lightly for it, because of who they are. Both of them went on to contribute to society in positive ways, and didn't repeat their crimes. Would it have been any better for society if they had stayed in prison for 40-50 years? It makes you wonder what all those people in prison have the potential to do. OF course, some people are just messed up and will always be messed up--but Polanski's and Kennedy's cases are enough to make me wonder about the efficacy, and morality, of putting millions of people in prison for a long time for lesser crimes than theirs.
# posted by 
: 5:55 AM
: 5:55 AM
His movie Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite movies of all time. That said, he committed a very serious crime--he raped a child. He's run from it long enough. His age at the time, his talent, his wife's murder--none of that should make a difference.
The criminal justice system ought to treat all people equually without regard for status or artistic talent. To dismiss the consequences that Polanski accepted so many years ago sends a horrifying message: "If you commit a rape and run to another country willing to hide you, then we will forget about the whole thing as long as you hide for a really long time."
As for mercy... Polanski received a substantial amount of mercy during the plea bargaining process. The state promised to hit him with a much smaller stick if he admitted his crime and accepted his licking. He was facing decades in prison; his plea resulted in a 90 day sentence. This agreement certainly took into account Polanski's contributions to society (as addressed by Swissgirl) and his tragic circumstances (as addressed by Osler). We can infer, at the very least, that his tragic circumstances were considered because of the pychiatric evaluations that were ordered by the court before sentencing.
The state fulfilled its part, and Polanski left them holding the bill.
It's not unreasonable to ask Roman to pay the comparatively meager pennance that awaits him.
As for mercy... Polanski received a substantial amount of mercy during the plea bargaining process. The state promised to hit him with a much smaller stick if he admitted his crime and accepted his licking. He was facing decades in prison; his plea resulted in a 90 day sentence. This agreement certainly took into account Polanski's contributions to society (as addressed by Swissgirl) and his tragic circumstances (as addressed by Osler). We can infer, at the very least, that his tragic circumstances were considered because of the pychiatric evaluations that were ordered by the court before sentencing.
The state fulfilled its part, and Polanski left them holding the bill.
It's not unreasonable to ask Roman to pay the comparatively meager pennance that awaits him.
I think Ted Kennedy's crime is different, because he faced the music, accepted the responsibility (at least judicially), and the case was resolved. Polanski, on the other hand, pleaded guilty and then fled the country to avoid sentencing (it's my understanding that he was concerned the judge would reject the plea arrangement). If the US doesn't push for his extradition and punishment, it sends the message that rich foreigners are not held to the same standard as US citizens. Let's turn it around and ask: if this were an illegal immigrant from Mexico who raped a 13 year old and then fled the country, would anyone be asking whether or not we should punish him? I doubt it.
As for his artistic talents, I've never seen a Roman Polanski film on the grounds that I refuse to support, financially or otherwise, those who evade justice. I realize this position has many logical holes, but I can at least rest easy knowing that none of my money or time has ever gone to support this child rapist.
As for his artistic talents, I've never seen a Roman Polanski film on the grounds that I refuse to support, financially or otherwise, those who evade justice. I realize this position has many logical holes, but I can at least rest easy knowing that none of my money or time has ever gone to support this child rapist.
Alright, I'll wade in on this one. Since I'm a prosecutor that is charged with prosecuting child sex crimes and I'm 100% Polish, I think I have the background necessary.
If he had been before me, he would have received a much tougher sentence than what the judge in the case would have ever given him.
I suggest you all watch the HBO documentary on the man that came out this year and is now getting constantly aired.
Based on the facts of the case itself, he SHOULD have spent years in prison. Based on what the judge in the case did, the case will most likely be thrown out on appeal. You know it's bad when the former prosecutor and the victim want the case dismissed. However, the man has to be punished not just for what he pled guilty to, but for running.
I can tell you that most in Poland and Poles living here stateside are on his side and make excuses for his actions, I'm not one of them.
I say America should do everything in its power to make sure he's brought to justice and waits for his due process behind bars. Lead by example...because we haven't been doing enough of it late.
If he had been before me, he would have received a much tougher sentence than what the judge in the case would have ever given him.
I suggest you all watch the HBO documentary on the man that came out this year and is now getting constantly aired.
Based on the facts of the case itself, he SHOULD have spent years in prison. Based on what the judge in the case did, the case will most likely be thrown out on appeal. You know it's bad when the former prosecutor and the victim want the case dismissed. However, the man has to be punished not just for what he pled guilty to, but for running.
I can tell you that most in Poland and Poles living here stateside are on his side and make excuses for his actions, I'm not one of them.
I say America should do everything in its power to make sure he's brought to justice and waits for his due process behind bars. Lead by example...because we haven't been doing enough of it late.
# posted by : 12:42 AM
: 12:42 AM
IANAL...
I think SG has it right. Not only the French, but an awful lot of Euros "reflexively" go bonkers at various US policies, often enough just because they're "ours." I also agree that they think we're too judgmental (of mores, particularly).
I'm actually more aghast at "Hollywood's" reaction to this... how much would all those directors and actors if some high-ranking Republican office-holder, or some prominent (Catholic?) clergyman been convicted of this crime, or even "just" accused?
Personally, I'd like to see Polanski dragged back here and humiliated, whether that means jail or being forced to deal with a public lens that's much more glaring and intrusive than it would've been back in the day.
He should've gone to jail back in the 70's. He may not, now, but he needs to be punished for his CRIMES in some way, and the paparazzi and internet hounding he'll get will go somewhere towards justice.
I do feel badly for his children, though. They probably haven't known the man who raped a 13-year-old, just known and loved their father. They are innocent, but it sure seems to me a shame that their father's sins are visiting them.
I think SG has it right. Not only the French, but an awful lot of Euros "reflexively" go bonkers at various US policies, often enough just because they're "ours." I also agree that they think we're too judgmental (of mores, particularly).
I'm actually more aghast at "Hollywood's" reaction to this... how much would all those directors and actors if some high-ranking Republican office-holder, or some prominent (Catholic?) clergyman been convicted of this crime, or even "just" accused?
Personally, I'd like to see Polanski dragged back here and humiliated, whether that means jail or being forced to deal with a public lens that's much more glaring and intrusive than it would've been back in the day.
He should've gone to jail back in the 70's. He may not, now, but he needs to be punished for his CRIMES in some way, and the paparazzi and internet hounding he'll get will go somewhere towards justice.
I do feel badly for his children, though. They probably haven't known the man who raped a 13-year-old, just known and loved their father. They are innocent, but it sure seems to me a shame that their father's sins are visiting them.
To play devils advocate for a second:
From the information I can glean, Polanski WAS prepared to face the music under his fairly negotiated plea bargain. Instead, the judge expressed his intention to wholly reject the plea. Now, I understand and believe in the arguments for the equal application of justice. However, there seems to be something fundamentally unequal about a jurist deciding to reject a plea in a high profile case that is acceptable to both state and defendant. The prosecutors motivation to serve harsh punishment is especially strong in a high profile case. What about THIS plea causes a judge to use his plea-rejection power, reserved for the most patently unjust bargains (and usually in light of the state's unparalleled bargaining position), to reject a Defendant-friendly plea. Certainly there are plenty of poor, drug-addicted, minorities that consistently plea to spend the rest of their lives in a cage that could benefit from such a liberal use of judicial discretion. The state already has one advocate, it certainly doesn't need another behind the bench.
Also, in a way, Polanski has served a 30 year sentence. No one can say that his commission of this heinous crime hasn't affected his life. Sipping wine in France is certainly no American prison, but 30 years a fugitive in host of countries is no walk in the park either.
Finally, and on a more theoretical level, should justice in its blindness take heed of the benefit an individual demonstrably provides society. Our punishment system is very one-size-fits-all. The question is not: what punishment is best for you and society? Rather, the question is: how long will your prison sentence be? If our greatest minds commit stupid crimes when they are young, and we lock them in prison, are we really doing what's best for society? Certainly our creativity can think of punishment that is both just and beneficial for society. Polanski is a fantastic artist. His crime was unforgivable. But should we all pay the price for his crime?
Love,
Matt
From the information I can glean, Polanski WAS prepared to face the music under his fairly negotiated plea bargain. Instead, the judge expressed his intention to wholly reject the plea. Now, I understand and believe in the arguments for the equal application of justice. However, there seems to be something fundamentally unequal about a jurist deciding to reject a plea in a high profile case that is acceptable to both state and defendant. The prosecutors motivation to serve harsh punishment is especially strong in a high profile case. What about THIS plea causes a judge to use his plea-rejection power, reserved for the most patently unjust bargains (and usually in light of the state's unparalleled bargaining position), to reject a Defendant-friendly plea. Certainly there are plenty of poor, drug-addicted, minorities that consistently plea to spend the rest of their lives in a cage that could benefit from such a liberal use of judicial discretion. The state already has one advocate, it certainly doesn't need another behind the bench.
Also, in a way, Polanski has served a 30 year sentence. No one can say that his commission of this heinous crime hasn't affected his life. Sipping wine in France is certainly no American prison, but 30 years a fugitive in host of countries is no walk in the park either.
Finally, and on a more theoretical level, should justice in its blindness take heed of the benefit an individual demonstrably provides society. Our punishment system is very one-size-fits-all. The question is not: what punishment is best for you and society? Rather, the question is: how long will your prison sentence be? If our greatest minds commit stupid crimes when they are young, and we lock them in prison, are we really doing what's best for society? Certainly our creativity can think of punishment that is both just and beneficial for society. Polanski is a fantastic artist. His crime was unforgivable. But should we all pay the price for his crime?
Love,
Matt
# posted by : 1:18 PM
: 1:18 PM
Has anyone considered that the Swiss picked up Polansky now because the US made the Swiss Banks out US citizens that were hiding assets in Switzerland?
Just a non-legal thought...
Post a Comment
Just a non-legal thought...
<< Home
