Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSun editorial:
Polanski’s return?
Famed director should come back to America and take responsibility for his actions in rape case
Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.
The arrest of renowned film director Roman Polanski, who was taken into custody by Swiss officials on Saturday, is long overdue.
The director of “Chinatown” and “The Pianist” has been on the run since 1978, after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles. Polanski fled the United States to avoid sentencing and since then has been living in France, which has refused to extradite him.
He has shown disdain for the United States, our justice system and our values.
In an infamous 1979 interview, he dismissed the crime, saying “everyone wants to” have sex with “young girls.”
Like his comments, Polanski’s actions are unconscionable. Polanski lured the girl to a photo shoot, supposedly to take pictures for a French magazine. Prosecutors say he gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude before raping her. Polanski told police the sex was consensual.
Polanski’s defenders have added to the offense by trying to minimize the crime. French officials have decried America’s “Puritan” justice system. They have implied that because Polanski is a famous director and the case is more than 30 years old, prosecutors should drop the charges.
Add to that a group of Hollywood luminaries calling for the director’s immediate release. Polanski’s supporters note that the victim, who received a settlement from Polanski, has said she forgives him and wants the case dropped. They also note that a recent documentary found evidence of judicial misconduct.
No matter what the victim said or what the judge did 30 years ago, the fact still remains that Polanski admitted guilt but never took full responsibility.
Polanski has scuttled several attempts to resolve the case over the years — including deals that would allow him to go free — because he refuses to return to the United States to attend a court hearing. Instead, he has waged an expensive court battle to have his case dropped and now promises to fight extradition.
Enough is enough. Polanski should drop his extradition fight, come to the United States and face justice.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
In an infamous 1979 interview, Polanski dismissed the crime, saying "everyone wants to" have sex with "young girls."
Hollywood loves Polanski and Obama but they reflect their views
Did anybody ever think of the victim of this crime, who wants it dropped? SHE should be the one who makes this decision, not these guys who want to prove something, and are ready to drag her through hell again, against her will. They make her a victim once again, and you support it? And waste how much taxpayer money doing this?
And then there's the other question: Will Las Vegas ever have a good newspaper?
French officials have decried America's "Puritian" justice system. They have inplied that because Polanski is a famous director and the case is more then 30 years old, prosecutors should just drop the charges. >>>>> YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME' THIS MAN IS A SEX OFFENDER! >>>>> If the French government would have just sent him back 30 years ago it would have been over then. We should have just left them under the NAZI BOOT! >>>>> JUST WAIT UNTIL THE MUSLIMS GET DONE WITH THEM.
Sun -- little of what you published here is either true or moral. Although you decry "Polanski admitted guilt but never took full responsibility," the admission, the settlement and the "victim's" forgiveness all contradict your opinion.
Sneering at his statement about everyone wanting to have sex with young girls shows your hypocrisy. Polanski just lifted the skirts on America's Puritan public face and gave us a glimpse of the sanctimonious attitude it hides. Start on Google with _ prostitots _. Then look around at the fashion industry for evidence of America's fascination with young girls. Don't forget to include those beauty pageants. Somewhere in there you'll find offerings of thong undies for tweens.
gunowers4o -- I gotta side with you on this one.
powerplay -- your gross ignorance, and a significant amount of bigotry, is showing here. Apparently you've spent little if any time abroad. The entire world resists U.S. moral tyranny.
He shouldnt have fled but the judge shouldnt have renegged on the plea agreement either.
Come back to the U.S., plead guilty and serve
90 days in jail and 5 years probation. problem solved.
"Thank 'heavan' for little girls."
an old French proverb
Roman Polanski [1] drugged, [2] raped, and [3] sodomized a then- [4] 13 yr old minor female. He subsequently [5] fled the criminal jurisdiction to escape incarceration. Those are five uncontested facts. What if YOU did such things? Would 100+ movieworld celebrities be arguing for YOUR absolution? Homie don't tink so.
mred -- actually it's from an old song from "Gigi" sung by Maurice Chevalier
BobbyG -- you left out too many material factors to make your post even remotely relevant to this Discussion. You should take your ignorance elsewhere.
@KillerB -
I'll be sure to run everything past you first in the future, Your Eminence. Here's some of my posted "ignorance" elsewhere:
___
When I say those facts were "uncontested," it simply means Polanski CHOSE not to contest the victim's Grand Jury detailed, graphic testimony, as was his right (to confront his accuser). He was the beneficiary of L.A. "celebrity justice" in any event, by way of his plea deal (on the one count of the six original). Given that the victim's family didn't want her to testify (and the court could not force her to testify), he could have opted to try to beat the rap totally in court. That he did not says everything we need to know.
I wil be perfectly OK with whatever a California court decides once he's brought back, but he needs to face the justice process he avoided for so long in such cowardly fashion.
KillerB Says >>>>> The entire world resists U.S. moral tyranny: Hey pal if it was not for the United States the Nazi's would own the entire continent of Europe today. MORAL TYRANNY MY A##!
LOS ANGELES [Associated Press] -- If Roman Polanski were charged with child rape today, DNA evidence, stiffer penalties, outcry over childhood sexual abuse and tougher scrutiny of celebrity justice would make prosecutors much less willing to cut the plea deal the director received more than 30 years ago, legal experts say.
For one thing, changes in state law since the 1970s would give prosecutors other options in pursuing charges, including a law that includes a mandatory 15 years to life in state prison for rape, sodomy or a lewd act with a child coupled with certain circumstances, such as the use of a controlled substance, said Robin Sax, a former sex crimes prosecutor with the district attorney's office.
"He should be shutting up and thanking goodness for his sentence," said Sax, who is also a victim's advocate. "There's one part of me that says, 'Bring it on, you want your trial? Let's let everyone here see what the evidence really is.'"...
___
Yep.
I cannot believe Polanski would get anything resembling a fair trial after thirty years. How many people could remember any details of what they were doing on September 30, 1979. It is just too difficult to prove.
Hey jlb101 >>>>> Thats what they said about Nazi war criminals but they still hunted them down anyway. RIGHT!
@jlb101
"I cannot believe Polanski would get anything resembling a fair trial after thirty years."
___
That's not the issue. He opted to not have a trial at all at the time, by pleading guilty to the "unlawful sex with a minor" charge (a.k.a. "statutory rape"). He COULD have withdrawn his guilty plea and opted to go to trial, but he chose to flee instead. You don't get to do that, lawfully. End of story.
BobbyG -- I see you conveniently left out any mention of the prosecutor's misconduct.
Ms. Geimer is fine -- "He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it" _ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polan... _ -- it's thirty years later, no true justice at all would be served by any further actions against Mr. Polanski. He should remain free instead of being grabbed overseas -- something the U.S. should be held accountable for in ALL its grabs in our name in this decade.
@KillerB -
Irrelevant. Let a court sort it all out. Geimer's wishes are also irrelevant. She was taken care of civilly in Geimer Vs. Polanki. This is California vs Polanksi. An entirely different matter. She has no standing in that whatsoever at this point.
Spare me the lame tu quoque and other red herrings, lightweight.
Where is Jerry Lee Lewis when you need him in underage issues?
BobbyG -- you have far too much respect for courts. And since she's the "victim" she has more standing than anyone else, including the state. Without a victim there is no crime.
"lightweight"? You and your ilk can only wish.
castle -- if he was still spry enough, looking for more cousins.
@KillerB -
Yes, I trust the courts to do the right thing in the aggregate. And, in particular, this case. And, you are simply wrong with respect to Geimer. The victim's grand jury testimony is a matter of record, one she has not recanted, irrespective of and irrelevant to her wish now that there be no further prosecution -- regarding which she has no say. He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate.
But, of course, keep it up. You are the Black Knight at the stream crossing in Monty Python's "Holy Grail." Good for laughs.
"Hey pal if it was not for the United States the Nazi's would own the entire continent of Europe today. MORAL TYRANNY MY A##!"
powerplay -- gee, almost didn't see you in this long, long list of posts.
You forget all about Russians, didn't you?
For those of you who are in favor of letting Polanski go free because his victim wants it all to go away, let me put thing in perspective.
This man was proven guilty of raping a 13 year old girl. Instead of facing charges for his crime, he fled. He fled long enough to drive his victim into wanting it all to end, so now he should go free?
It is admirable that some people want to keep the victim out of this. Keep the victim out of this, but Polanski still committed a crime against the state by running away and for that he can be severely punished. I am all for keeping the victim's privacy intact, but I am not ok with a man raping a 13 year old girl and dodging his punishment.
"Yes, I trust the courts to do the right thing in the aggregate."
BobbyG -- then you're either naive or a fool. My own experience and observations concur with the Honorable Edith Jones. Check it out _
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_...
Since you descended to the level of personal mocking, you are now irrelevant. Expect to be disrespected and ignored.
@KillerB -
Oh, no, you will continue to take the bait. Cats like you are easy. You simply gotta have the last word.
Your citations mean nothing. Notwithstanding your spurious abstract assertions, the focus here is on the Polanski case particulars.
"My own experience"? WHAT judicial experience, Vern?
Hmmmm...maybe you can get Orly Taitz to defend him, get the extradition thing quashed.
Yes, you are low hanging fruit for well-deserved mockery.
707!
@KillerB -
Stay after class and write on the chalkboard 100 times:
"He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." "He PLEADED GUILTY, and then fled the jurisdiction. THAT is the salient issue to now adjudicate." ....
Quote - Sun -- little of what you published here is either true or moral. Although you decry "Polanski admitted guilt but never took full responsibility," the admission, the settlement and the "victim's" forgiveness all contradict your opinion.
Outside of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, since when is a perpetrator permitted to settle a criminal case with the victim?
Your statement indicates you think the settlement and forgiveness are two different actions - but I'm sure you know the settlement is made to purchase the forgiveness.
An admission is certainly not taking responsibility - accepting the consequences of your actions is taking responsibility. He chose to skip town before he got to that point.