art does not excuse rape

[rm]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-does-not-excuse-rape-polanski-must-face-justice

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The gall of this broad.

You ate my hand and live of of his media and I ate your entire being.

Sounds about even to me. Find a plastic dildo to get off on, you gushing cunt.

[6-bleen-7.livejournal.com]

^{[coherency needed]}

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

Why are the stupidest, sickest, and most pathetic comments always from those useless people who can't even sign their names?

At least the celebrities who have supported Polanski, as misguided as they are, have had the guts to do so publicly.

You have no name. Your words are nothing.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

Why? Because they are useless, stupid, pathetic, and craven.

[phaetonschariot.livejournal.com]

Er... what? If you're going to be an offensive troll, at least try to make a little sense.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

It'll be interesting to see who signs...!

[rm.livejournal.com]

I gotta do some work, but I should try to work some of my contacts on this (and get friends to work theirs).

[better-late24.livejournal.com]

Thanks for linking this.

[timberwolfoz.livejournal.com]

Signed.

[mlleglass.livejournal.com]

Signed. #259.

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

I want to see this get more signatures than that other failboat of a petition.

I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Signed.

A friend of mine is distressed about this story, not because he has any sympathy for rich famous rapists, but because he is not certain of the original validity of the court proceedings. He's appalled that everyone's arguing "Rapist" vs. "But he's an artist" if there are questions about the validity of the original trial or lack thereof.

[Yes. This means he is calling the 13 year old's statements into question. As there have been extortion cases in the history of ever, I'm taking it as a valid question, because I'm curious about the points that follow it. He is one of the biggest "rape is bad" allies I know and not an apologist.]

So this is what I know: Polanski was accused. There was physical evidence of semen (but not DNA evidence of whose) in the girl's underwear. He was charged with six counts of OMGWTF. He plea-bargained by pleading guilty to one much less serious count. The judge reneged on the plea bargain in some way (I can't get a clear non-contradictory answer on exactly how).

My friend says, "If I was looking at 40 years in prison, I'd sure as hell plea bargain. And if, having pleaded guilty in the plea bargain, I then had to face a trial where people would presume I really was guilty due to the plea bargain, I'd run if I could. Saying 'I'm innocent' at that point wouldn't help anything, so I'd just refuse to discuss it publicly."

So basically he's distressed that people are acting like there was a trial when there was only a plea bargain, and there's a long history of people confessing to all sorts of things they didn't do in plea bargains.

My personal reaction is that any time there's a scandal, there's a vocal camp of people saying he might not have actually done it. (See Michael Jackson.) I have not seen or heard from that camp on the Polanski case. Enter Occam's Razor. My first assumption is that there's more data, such as public evidence or statements from Polanski or his close associates, establishing that there's no question of innocence.

So I'm coming to you, rm, because you have been following this thing with much more attention than anyone else I know, and follow more entertainment and actor news (from the inside and the outside) than anyone I know.

You are clearly confident that Polanski did it. I trust and respect your opinion and knowledge on these things. Could you give me a little more information on where you draw your confidence from? My own personal Don Quixote settles right down if he's given some data.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[rm.livejournal.com]

Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge and fled before sentencing. He is guilty by his own admission. While we could theoretically debate whether the please was a sincere admission of guilt or a strategy, the plea remains. Therefore, having made that plea, he should return to the US for a sentencing proceeding to deal with the matter. If he gets no jail time for it, I'll be uncomfortable with that, but so be it -- part of our necessarily flawed process, and hey, I'm not part of the court proceedings. But there is no question here of an unfair conviction. The man pled guilty and despite having been given several opportunities to return to the US to resolve the matter without facing significant additional penalty for having fled, Polanski didn't take those opportunities.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Righto!

(Thanks for your patience, by the way. I wouldn't even bother you with what I saw as a pretty fine hair to split, but my friend is not neurotypical and gets very emotional about ambiguities where Justice might be involved.)

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[rm.livejournal.com]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html is the girl's deposition.

Sometimes our justice system does go awry, but I don't understand why in the case of a man who pled guilty, your friend thinks it's more likely that a 13-year-old girl made up 36 pages of that, than that Polanski actually committed the crime he pled guilty to.

(not venting at you, but why are women always liars)

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

That link is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thank you.

(Amen re: liars. It was... a challenge to have this conversation with him, because he is an absolutist. He would be the first to say, if he could get past the "wait a minute, there was never a trial so we will never know the evidence," that Polanski almost certainly did it and should be nailed for it. I hope that, with the explanations you, dsmoen, and tsarina have provided, I can get him onto the same page of the discussion as the rest of us are having.)

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[keestone.livejournal.com]

Here are a couple more links that might be useful:

Polanski in interview with Martin Amis is completely unrepentant (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100011795/roman-polanski-everyone-else-fancies-little-girls-too/): “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

Court transcript in which Polanski pleads guilty and states that he knew the age of the victim. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html)

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Success! (He had thought there had been an explicit sentence bargain the judge was reneging on, and the plea clearly refutes that.)

Quoth Don Quixote:
"Well, in that case, let the bastard hang. And the people saying, "Oh,
poor old rich famous white man, his victim has moved on, why can't the
law" are ridiculously full of shit.

Thanks for taking the time to find me links that clarify the situation
and assist in my peace of mind."

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[keestone.livejournal.com]

Glad I could help. The way people are carrying on as if Polanski is the victim disgusts me.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

FWIW, there was no such thing as DNA evidence used on semen at that time, that didn't happen until 2000 when DNA test kits became available. Even so, until PCR was readily available, it was a difficult proposition for a number of reasons.

Nevertheless, the point is that he fled. Let's have a trial already and go over the evidence and do the right thing, but to just let him go because he fled is the wrong thing to do.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. There wasn't DNA evidence because they couldn't do DNA evidence yet.

I am in complete agreement re: flight. The more I look at it, the more my Don Quixote's concern seems to hinge on the idea of the justice system pulling a fast one which, given the caliber of lawyers Polanski can afford, seems awfully unlikely.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

Even if the judge planned on reneging on a plea agreement with the DA's office, it is within his right to do so. A judge may refuse to honor a plea agreement they feel does not satisfy the requirements of the case or contravenes the law. A judge is also not legally bound to have to accept a deal made by the prosecution.

Re: I have a question! (Bear with me.)

[gement.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the clear and specific explanation.

[chaos-by-design.livejournal.com]

I tried to sign but for some reason it didn't go through on my computer, but I'll try it again when I'm on my windows machine.

[demotu.livejournal.com]

I had the same problem in Safari. I'll give firefox a try. (Edit: successful!)

[eandh99.livejournal.com]

Currently what's just making me sick to my stomach are the people using this discussion around the petitions to defend Woody Allen and to regret his signing the petition for Polanski because it might reflect on his (Allen's) reputation. No, I'm not kidding.

[elainasaunt.livejournal.com]

Signed. I appreciate very much the fact that the petition calls him 'an admittedly significant artist'. One of the many things bothering me about the whole affair is the inability, or refusal, of people to separate the issue from the art. This goes for both sides - the willingness of his defenders to handwave the crime because the art is great (some of it, anyway; I'll never be able to forgive him for Pirates), and the readiness of many of his critics to dismiss, often venomously, an entire oeuvre because of the crime. But then, that's far from unique to this case.

Robert Harris's recent op-ed piece in Tuesday's NYT, while hardly unbiased, nicely sums up one of the other issues bothering me: Why now? Finally, while I don't believe his relatively blameless later life in any way makes up for his excesses in the '70s, as someone who somehow managed to live through that terrible kidney stone of a decade I can't help remembering that Polanski wasn't alone in behaving very badly back then. Many of us did things in the '70s that we deeply regret now. I shudder to think that those actions, rather than the rest of our lives, should be held up as defining us.

[elainasaunt.livejournal.com]

I should make perfectly clear that I don't think Polanski's past 20 years as a respectable family man somehow erase his crime. And I do agree with those who have pointed out, on earlier posts here, that he dug his own grave when he ran.

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

To partially answer the "why now?" question:

A request was made to Interpol several years ago for assistance in apprehending Polanski. The State Department gave a statement on Monday (I think) that outlined their attempts over the years and some near misses.

In December 2008, Polanski attempted to have the case/plea/sentence dropped from the record. http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/roman-polanskis-arrest-his-own-fault?page=0,1
And for a while, it seemed as if Polanksi’s strategy might work. Earlier this year, a new judge was willing to consider dismissing the case against him. But first, he wanted Polanski to show up in court. Polanski, however, would not appear.

This is Polanski’s biggest problem: The judge’s terms were reasonable. He gave Polanski three months to surface in L.A. and even hinted that the director would probably not serve jail time if he appeared. And yet Polanski refused. From the point of view of prosecutors, Polanski practically dared them to act.

[elainasaunt.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Thanks for the link. A film crit friend, meanwhile, has sent me this. As my friend put it, 'It will be too strange for words if it turns out that Polanski's lawyers rubbed authorities the wrong way by making assertions based on info from the doc that was, uh, made up.' She also points out the anti-Semitic comments, and I've seen others elsewhere - yet another disturbing undercurrent to this case.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

I don't have any trouble with the "Why now?" question. It may have been a happy confluence of international politics, opportunism, renewed publicity from a documentary, and extra arrogance from Polanski (who had refused to enter countries when there were rumors he might be arrested for extradition before). Late is still better than never. And I'd rather justice be served late and maybe for the wrong reasons, still affirming that it is not okay to rape a child and that there is at least an ideal of equal justice for all to aspire to, than have justice not be served at all. I think it's pretty disingenuous to accuse people of "pornographic relish" when detailing what Polanski did. It's bloody well necessary when people start denying what he did was rape and try to age up a 13 year old girl by calling her a "young woman."

I don't have all that much trouble with separating art from artist. Artistic greatness doesn't equal moral greatness . . . as exemplified by Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, Ezra Pound, by ever so many others. It may be easier to come to terms with when the artist is dead and not profiting from people consuming their work, but Pound's poetry doesn't change his misogyny or fascism. Polanski is a great director. That does not negate the fact that he is an unrepentant pedophile, a predator and a rapist.

[weirdodragoncat.livejournal.com]

signed

[virginhuntress.livejournal.com]

AMEN. I am so tired of hearing people defend him and his actions. Being an artist can excuse certain behaviors, but this is NOT one of them. I'm shocked and disappointed to see some of the names on the petition that advocates his release.

::sigh::

I signed this petition. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

Over a thousand signatures in only a few hours. I'm number 100something.