On this newest installment of my video blog, I wanted to chime in and comment on what I’ve been seeing regarding the Roman Polanski issue now that it has reemerged.
It seems like a lot of people want to talk about Polanski’s tragic life, or the judge in his trial, or the little girl’s mother, or how long ago the incident happened, or how good of a filmmaker he is, or how good of a person he is. Seems like no one wants to talk about the actual issue. He drugged, sodomized, raped a child.
Comment with Facebook
I agree what he said!
AMEN!!!
he Raped someone he should be punish for what he freakin did…
just because hes some white dumb bitch who
makes GREAT movies dont mean SQUAT!!!!
hes still an american, hes going to be penalized like everyone gets when you commit a damn crime!!!!
Thanks John,
You’ve called it right.
Polanski, awesome filmmaker that he is, needs to do the time allotted him.
And remember, the Unibomber was a well-educated mathematician.
Darn I can’t see the video. My Collegue blocks Youtube.
But speaking of which, this is all very shocking.
But what confuses me the most is during these past years he continued to appear on countless movie festival throughtout Europe, being cheered on, shaking hands and of course, being very anti-Bush during these past years.
And has recived very little scrutiny over these past years both in the american and european media, even though Polanski was cleary indicted.
And stars like Johnny Depp and Adrian Brody still accepted to work on his movie.
He even had a minor role in Rush Hour 3.
How is it possible that someone gets this much of a free pass over something so serious as this?
Because even Michael Jackson’s carrer was damaged over child molestation allegations back in ’93. The allegations and the recent trial, which was in 2005, I think, alone almost killed his carrer.
Crime it still crime.
Hollywood need stop making excuses and should be shame themselves. There should be no haven for criminal. Roman Polanski needs to go jail and face punishment.
So the “drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act” part is off the table and the charge is ‘just’ the sexual intercourse with a minor? No charges for drugging the girl? No additional charges that he forced the girl into something?
Again: just asking…
Wait a minute, when was it actually proven that he raped, sodomized and drugged the girl? The judge completely messed up that trial. When was it actually proven 100%?
Just asking…
btw, not defending Polanksi, I was just curious about the crime. I don’t remember reading, other than him pleading guilty but that’s up for debate as well because god knows why he pleaded guilty. It could have been that he never would have been able to prove his innocence with the botched trial.
I’m sure he probably did those things to that girl.
Hey Erick,
The judge did not “botch” the trial, because there was no trial. Polanski confessed and agreed to a plea. None of the facts of the case were in dispute.
The judge was accused of messing up the plea agreement, nothing was done wrong with any trial. His guilt or innocence has never really been in question or in dispute.
A quote from the Wikipedia article:
“Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.”
Wait a second. I am wondering right now…
What are the charges against Polanski right now exactly? What is the exact reason for the warrent of arrest?
If I understand the Wikipedia article correct, then the charges for the rape were dismissed, right? Does that mean that the warrant is because of the lesser crime which he confessed and not because raping a child?
I am just asking.
The rape charges are not dismissed. The lesser crime is still statutory rape which he pleaded guilty to.
He did this as a plea bargain so he wouldnt be charged with rape, contributing to the deliquency of a minor and drug possession charges.
He was convicted of the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which the coward then skipped the country to avoid jail time.
HE’S A CHILD RAPIST, nuff said.
Emily,
What is the group of people to whom you refer? Who would be hurt exactly? I’m just trying to figure out your argument here. I’m honestly curious. I’ve got a couple of guesses, but I’d like to know exactly who’s offended. Could you tell me?
Jeff,
It’s cool. I realize now I didn’t explain myself well enough.
“Words that hurt a group of people” I meant in a general sense. To use words that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. won’t help your argument. The terms “pussy” and “bitch” are sexist. They’re hurtful not only for women but for men too, IMO. I think John’s argument would have been stronger had he not resorted to using them.
Emily,
Ok, I understand a little better now that you’ve clarified, but I would ask that you consider whether the words “pussy” and “bitch” are sexist/homophobic/hurtful in and of themselves. Lacking a sexist/homophobic/hurtful context, I would contend that they are not -implicitly- anything but simple “cuss” words, no worse than any of the others.
Now if John had fired the words “pussy” and “bitch” into a statement defaming women or gays, sure, the words could then be considered hurtful, but to be honest, if John went on a sexist, homophobic tirade, his language and word choice would be the least of my issues. Don’t let a little vulgarity fool your “offensive!” sensors. Actually, it becomes a lot harder to spot real-honest-to-God bigotry when we make a fuss about naughty words and political correctness – it hurts the very cause you stand for as a feminist.
I completely agree with your commentary on this issue. I think you made some really great points…
…However, it got ruined when you used sexist terms like “pussy” and “bitch”. I understand you’re passionate about this and you wanted to drive your point home, but just calling him a coward would have made it clear enough. I’m not trying to defend Polanski here either. He deserves to be called some horrible things, but I think it can be done in words that don’t hurt a group of people.
Other than those choice of words, it was well said.
So I’m guessing you are a feline and female-canine activist?
John, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you’re missing something important about the debate here, a little of the debate behind the debate, which is a debate about the importance and severity of rape itself. A lot of us can’t understand how the French are so up in arms about Polanski’s arrest when he, yes, “drugged and raped, and sodomized a child”, but you have to understand that the France that produced Michelle Foucault (he was a popular philosopher who made it his mission to re-define the culture of sexuality itself, exploding taboos and making people question why we treat a “sexual” touch so much differently than any other kind) is a France that believes the Puritian attitude toward sex -yes, even rape- could very well be wrong. That’s why when the victim comes forward and says, “let this go,” certain people say, “Than let it go! He makes great movies and it’s ancient history!”
Me, I don’t quite agree with Michelle Foucault, and I certainly don’t agree that in America, where we struggle so hard to keep up that most important cultural tenet of “equality”, that we should make legal exceptions because of social class. Polanski is Hollywood aristocracy, and if we were to let him go, it would be another giant leap away from what’s so beautiful about what the free world aspires to be. And I don’t think I could take another after OJ Simpson.
It’s sickening to hear arguments sympathetic to this guy, especially this petition. Who made this up that criminals should not be arrested on vacation or when they go to be honored for what they did.
Buttfuckanski.
” As always, I could be wrong…”
Perhaps, John—-but not this time.
Wow. You encapsulated my feelings perfectly. I’ve been surprised at how much I’ve actually had to defend myself over this issue over the past few days.
John, you are the man, thanks for standing up for what is right and saying it like it is!
Normally, I’d say he should rot in prison for a very, very long time. However, the victim doesn’t appear to want that. In cases like these, I think a lot of deference should be given to the victims’ wishes.
Bravo!
If this dude gets sentenced he’ll just be locked up in a white collar prison, which is a joke.
All I’m saying, is that the JUDGE himself, sentenced Polanski to 90 days in Chino, cut his sentence, THAT HE DID SERVE, to 42 days, and then let him off. THOSE are the undisputed facts.
I’ll agree with you that people move the argument, but while he did commit a horrible crime, he served his aloted time. This IS beating a dead horse. Don’t take the fact that he’s only served 42 days and put that on him, put that on the judicial system. Just saying.
And I don’t support rape in any sense. To me, child molestors are the rare case where no matter the extent, they should recieve the death penalty, so I’m just saying, the judicial system fucked up Polanski’s case.
amen! john i sent u my thoughts in a email =)
My second biggest gripe about this whole Polanski issue (after the disgusting act) is why France, a country that as forward thinking and “America-friendly” as it is, didn’t extradite Polanski back to the US as soon as they knew where he was. As fucked up as the French can be, that just boggles my mind!
BTW, John… I don’t think I could’ve said this argument any better than you did…Although I would’ve used A LOT more profanity!!!
Godfather,
I don’t know the details of the extradition treaties between France and the United States. But normally a country can not extradite it’s own inhabitants, right?
Is it possible in the United States to extradite US citizens?
As I understand it, yes.
It IS possible, but the country of which the assailant is a citizen, usually never extradite their own citizens. France COULD have sent Polanski to the states, but not only is he considered a brilliant film maker with a horrible past, and not a guy convicted of unlawful sex (he was never actually convicted of rape, at least thats how Wanted and Desired described it), but countries as a whole never extradite their own citizens.
It’s true that we live in a society where people are punished for their crimes, but we also live in a society where people are entitled to a fair trial, and I don’t think that Polanski was going to get a fair trial in 1977. That’s not a distraction and it’s not irrelevant, there’s more to justice than mere retribution. Does that mean that he should be let free? No, but he certainly deserves a new trial and if he wasn’t going to get that I think fleeing was a legitimate choice. As such I think your characterization of him as a “pussy-bitch” is unfair. Hopefully he will now recieve a fair trial and can repay his debt in a fair enviroment.
If that had been my 13-year-old he had raped, this issue would be a dead horse today, because he would have not even had the chance to make it to the airport, because I would have fucking strangled and decapitated that guy for what he did, have his head made into a trophy for my mantlepiece, and let all other child-rapists know that there’s a lot more room on my mantlepiece if the want to join Mr. Polanski.
6:40-6:55, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen you get angry about ANYTHING before, and for a good reason, how are people still defending him when everyone in the world knows that he was found guilty of this before, he should be drugged and raped in the ass in prison.
Hi John,
I am answering directly to your post although I know that you are aware about the e-mail conversation I had with Rodney today. If you (or someone else) feel the desire to delete the comment because it is a little bit off-topic… cool. But I would appreciate if you could send me a short e-mail then cause I am really interested in your opinion about this.
My point is this one:
Does Polanski deserve to go to prision? Hell yes! What he did is not acceptable at any circumstance and he has to stand for it. No discussion here.
But: The criminal code does not work in a way that there is one exact penatly for a specific crime (e.g. murder = 50 years in prison; random figure, by the way). In most cases there is a range of different penatlies. A minimum penalty, a maximum penatly and a lot of possibilities in between.
And now here is my point: If you look at some events that happend to Polanski in his past which may are connected to what he did later (I don’t go into detail here, everyone can use Google and make his own opinion) and compare what he did with other child abusers (e.g. Garrido) then I would rather go for a penatly that is closer to the legal minimum than to the maximum.
Once more: This is not an attempt of talking Polanski out of jail. He absolutley deserves his time there. But there are some arguments that may justify a mitigation of punishment (again: not an exemption from punishment).
Do you see where I am coming from with my arguments and is this – out of you point of view – a comprehensible and argueable opinion?
Sorry man, I don’t see how his tragic past has ANYTHING to do with forgiving him for choices he made that lead to events that you yourself call “not acceptable at any circumstance”
Seems you have circumstances that you think are worth consideration in giving him a lighter sentence for his crime.
Just that I understand you correctly once and for all:
You are saying that the personal and social circumstances (forget Polanski here for a second; let’s talk about his in general) should not be considered at all in a court decision? So one “fix” penatly for every crime? No range, no minimum penatly, no maximum penalty?
Jurgen
You just explained yourself, why there is a difference in penalties (maximum and minimum and all the variances). That is decided by the judge, based on the evidence provided. It has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever if the convicted flees the country and avoids his penalty, or how much time passes since the conviction.
Further to that, Polanski will probably be sentenced for fleeing for 30 years, and will be sentenced another penalty to be served in conjunction with the previous conviction.
To answer your question about whether what causes someone to commit a crime should serve as some sort of scale to lighten or harden the penalty associated; that’s actually decided by the judge. He/she has the authority to accept/deny those circumstances as a plausible catalyst to the event, however, in many cases, it doesn’t have much bearing on whether the person is convicted or not.
Godfather,
I am well aware that nobody on this website will decide about about the future of Polanski. Of course this is the job of a judge. I just wanted to add to the discussion that there might be some facts (I am talking about the original crime, not the fleeing) that might justify a sentence closer to the minimum penalty than to the maximum penalty.
Again: I am not saying that he should be released. He deserves to be punished…
I also heard he ate a puppy once.
my position is that we shouldn’t let the quality of a person affect how we judge the art they make and that we shouldn’t let the quality of the art a person makes affect how we judge them.
in other words, I don’t think him being a criminal degrades the movies he made, but I don’t think him having made those movies excuses him for being a criminal
Good point.
Look at Victor Salva (director of Powder and Jeeper Creepers):
Molested the 12-year-old star of his first film Clownhouse. Based on the boy’s statement that the director had molested him on camera, Salva confessed and was found guilty of five felony child sex abuse charges in 1988.
He did his time and then came back to direct the previously mentioned movies. It’s not a matter of Polanski being too good for the crime because of his talent. It has to do with a person not ‘maning’ up to their criminal activity.
Exactly. An artist’s personal life doesn’t affect the quality of his art. Caravaggio was a drunk and a murderer, does that make his paintings any less beautiful?
He should be tried. I have always said that he is a pedophile.
Check out my site and click on movie tickets for 2003. Seriously. It’s been there since 2004.
You think he should pay his debt to society? Why John why? Why should be pay his debt to society? Because he did something naughty and now he needs to be punished? Why? I didn’t hear you say why once. What is the judicial system, what is it for? Is it to enforce some kind of archaic religious-style black and white, right and wrong moral system? To keep everything in its right place? Or is it actually a system designed to function, to keep people safe, happy, free? We must be objective, obviously child rape gets you all hot and bothered and you’re gagging for some of that sweet Polanski vengence, but I don’t think that justifies fuck all.
I’m not actually against your position, but your motivation for it is rather petty and shameful in my opinion. This man needs to be judged, to determine if he is dangerous, if such a conclusion can be reached that should influence further action.
None of this, debt to society, get his comeuppance trash.
The coward was judged and found guilty Oliver! Now it’s time to pay.
Hey Oliver,
So let me get this straight (and please honestly do correct me if I’m wrong here).
You’re saying, that if I break into your parents house and beat your mother… get arrested and found guilty for it but manage to flee the country before I do my sentence… then you’re ok with that? REALLY?
He raped a child. He was found guilty and fled the country to avoid his sentence. That’s “vengence”? That’s just justice.
And sorry man… but if CHILD RAPE doesn’t get you upset… then what does?
I’m saying that if thirty years later you where arrested, the only point of concern should be if you are still a dangerous person.
I may want to tie you to a chair and do nasty things to you but my primitive lust for retribution should have no place in a court room and no influence on a judicial system.
Justice should be as far removed from vengeance as possible, it should function to serve the greater good, to maintain the highest possible quality of life for the society it serves.
Right… so… if you can get away with it… and avoid your sentence for a certain period of time, then you should be rewarded by having everything let go.
You’re entitled to your opinion dude, I respect that, but I couldn’t disagree more.
sorry to go on but the simple fact is do you believe that everyone should have their day in court?
see i do and polanski was about to be sentenced to fifty years without a trial.
and as much as you hate the crime and the criminal that is not fair.
polanski cut a deal. the judge was going to screw him over.
sentence him to fifty years by all means but if that is the case then he has to be given a trial. he plead guilty on the grounds that the judge agreed to 42 days in a psychiatric facility. again i completely agree that is a lame sentence and a horrible result. but he plead guilty and those were the terms.
\the judge didn’t say ” you know what – forget this plea…we are going to have a proper trial and then if guilty I will give you fifty years”
the judge just decided to give him fifty years instead.
no trial. nothing.
say you committed a crime. You and your lawyers are approached by The prosecutor who says to you “look lets just avoid a circus. Plead guilty and we will give you a light punishment – 6 months minimum security and kept out of Gen.pop”
(like they say in the movies ;P)
You say o.k. and give up your day in court because you have been offered a sweet deal.
Then the judge, who also agreed to the deal the day before sentencing says “oh by the way fuck you I am locking you up for fifty years with no trial”
he could have plead not guilty had a lengthy trial and who knows…got an even smaller sentence then the 42 days…he could have been found not guilty…he could have got fifty years but the point is he would have had his day in court.
the prosecutor who was no fan of polanski agreed he was being screwed over.
and again no one is defending his disgusting crime. “yes he deserves to die and i hope he rots in hell” as sam jackson almost says in time to kill
but everyone should get their day in court.
Hey Alfie,
The judge was NOT (nor would he be legally able to) going to hand him a 50 year sentence without a trial. 50 years would have been the maximum he face IF it ever went to trial.
I repeat, the judge was not just going to hand him 50 years, nor would he have been allowed to.
Just to follow up again Alfie, the Judge determined to send Polanski back to prison for 48 DAYS. Not 50 years.
MARRY ME JOHN. Seriously. You always tell it like it is. Like I said in the other post, if these people who were defending him had THEIR child drugged and raped, would they petition to let the guy go because he’s a TALENTED rapist?
Excuse me (and most others with common sense) for having ZERO sympathy for a child rapist. But is this even a legitimate “debate?”
Of course, Polanski should pay for his crimes against the child! No two ways around it.
Word!
Word x2!
I find it very telling of our society that this is even a debate.
what a society we live in
Amen! You’re not wrong at all in any way. I was chatting with my friend last night and said the same thing…if this was any other regular joe the world would give a standing ovation for the man’s capture. Polanski needs to serve his time, period. I have a 13 year old daughter and if this happened to her the man would be toast. All the excuses in the book doesn’t excuse what he did. If he was out of his mind with grief at the time it doesn’t matter – he still committed a crime – even the insane have to pay for their sins.
I would like say I have lost all respect for Debra Winger who has demanded his release. Way to go Debra – thanks for enabling women violence – you disgust me.
Hell yeah John! I have been saying this for years.
now all these famous ppl with their free polanski buttons.
what a message to all these pedophile rapists:
its ok! it is generally accepted, you can still be a hero! So you can do it, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL!!
You know what the sad thing is…. if he didn’t flee he probably only would have had 45 more days of jail and “served his time”
He should be punished twice, 1 time for the act, 2 times for the stupidity in trying to avoid such a paltry sentence.
(applause)
Also don’t forget, he was also involved with Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15. That, too is rape- but only of a different kind.
Who the fuck is Roman Polanski?
I’m glad they finally got him. Maybe someone should start a petition to get him locked up.
John, you are the man. I agree completely, and the fact that people are siding with him because he makes films is rediculous. I don’t care if your the president of the United States, if you commit that terrible of a crime, you should be punished based on societys standards. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up.
HIS A PIECE OF SHIT, AND I TOO DONT UNDERSTAND HOW SOME FUCKHEADS TRY TO JUSTIFY THIS INSANE ACT.
ALL THE PROPS GO TO U AND ALL THE ONES LIKE MYSELF WHO CAN SEE PAST ALL THE BULLSHIT AND SEE TRUTH
’bout time they got him. If it was my kid he raped he would be dead.
the petition to free polanski-
http://tinyurl.com/ydzbdsc
fu@ woody allen.
marty wtf.
VERY DISSAPOINTED THAT M.S WAS LISTED, MAKES U THINK WTF HAS HE DONE? BADFELLA :(
Just a clarification the petition is saying people shouldn’t use a film festival in a neutral country to arrest people, not that Polanski is innocent.
that’s very different, thanks for the clarification
the petition is worded accordingly.
it says polanski should be set free for ___ reasons.
it even emphasizes that he was attending it to be honored for his work and how great a fiilm maker he is.
its nice to know the swiss aren’t neutral to such a thing as what polanski was running from.
Good blog, John. Good blog.
Though I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word ‘sodomized’ so much in the same 5 minutes.
I’m sorry but rape (especially child rape) is one of those crimes where I’m all for locking them up and throwing away the key. If you are EVER in the state of mind to say “Hey, you know I think I’m going to go for some child rape today” and think it’s a good enough idea to go through with it- you should never see the light of day again.
I feel for the victim not wanting to rehash all this, but that man needs to be trialed. What he did was a crime and he needs to charged with it. Doesn’t matter if he is a brilliant filmmaker.
You’re the shit John!!!! My thoughts exactly, nothing more to add! :)
Can’t agree more. Thanks for calling it like it is. And calling out those apologists for who they are.