Posted by: Shola Akinnuso on September 28, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Roman Polanski…Caught Red-Handed.
Cat’s out of the bag. Director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on rape charges stemming from a case some 32 years ago where he was tried for raping a 13 year old girl. He fled to Europe before the case closed and has been living there since. He’s been bold enough to continue making movies since then (The Pianist was his most recent), and I’m guessing that he thought that either the world would forget his past transgressions, or that his incredible contributions to the world of cinema would dull our memories.
And that’s pretty much what almost happened.
After accepting a lifetime Achievement award, Los Angeles pushed to get him arrested on the spot, and he’s now facing extradition from the EU to return to the United States to face criminal charges and finally complete his day in court.
Open and shut, right? Well, It’s not so clear cut…
Hollywood luminaries from The Weinsteins to film columnist Patrick Goldstein, seem to not only question the timing of the arrest (why now after 30 years), but even if Roman Polanski should be extradited at all.
There’s no dispute that Polanski did, in fact, have sex (rape?) with Samantha Geimer, then a minor who, now in her mid 40’s simply wants to move on from that time in her life and has publicaly stated that she’d prefer the case dropped. More, Polanski had a financial settlement with the girl and her family years ago, and there’s argument that he has paid his debt – literally – and should be forgiven with respect to some level of statute of limitations. Weighing the man’s artistic contribution to the film world against the passage of time, Hollywood types are singing widely, “let bygones be bygones”.
Then there’s the sympathy card. Polanski barely escaped the Jewish Holocaust. His family decimated, he grew up only to have his wife and child brutally murdered by the Mason cult during the 70’s. Arguably, his crime of passion was made under duress.
That’s one side. Here’s the other: He raped a 13 year old girl. Wined her. Took advantage of her. Then, ran from his judgment.
Are there two justices depending on your societal status level? The famous afford freedom while the poor must bear the full gaze of our laws and all that come with it?
It’s a hot button issue, but I wonder what you guys think? Nobody’s disputing that Roman Polanski is an incredible director and has contributed greatly to the world of cinema. The question is: Should his rape and pedophilia go unpunished?
Chime in.
4 Responses to "Roman Polanski…Arrested 30 Years Too Late? Can Fame and Time Redeem a Rapist?"
1 | Ian Coleman
September 28th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Roman Polanski lured a thirteen year-old girl to a meeting where only he and the girl were present by presenting the meeting as a photography session that would further her career as an an actress and model. He pressured her to drink wine and gave her the drug Quaalude. Then, in the face of her repeated protests to stop he performed oral sex on her, penetrated her vaginally and anally, and climaxed. He pled guilty to statutory rape, even though the testimony of the girl would have resulted in a charge of first degree rape if it had been believed by a jury. He fled the United States for France before final sentencing, because he feared that the presiding judge might sentence him to a prison sentence commensurate with his crime. Either you think that he should be imprisoned for his crime or you don’t. I do, because I believe that human justice demands it.
2 | Shola Akinnuso
September 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I’m agree with you. it’s rape and pedophilia, clear cut. What’s amazing is the level of support he’s gotten from H-Town because of his artistic merit. The question now posed is two fold: if the criminal has a value to humanity, should his punishment be altered? That’s the bigger question. If Albert Einstein was a known murderer, should he be killed and thrown in jail or be placed into a life of mandatory servitude and shame, but not killed?
Ultimately, though, allowing Polanski to walk away unscathed (and no, paying money and living in exile is NOT considered punishment), makes me reconsider who benefits from justice in our society….
Clearly those that feel Polanski should be left alone don’t have little sisters or daughters.
3 | Kayode Kendall
September 29th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I guess I’ll play devil’s advocate and say that while it’s certainly despicable what he did, after 30 years and the victim expressing forgiveness for Polanski and a desire for the case to be dropped, any opinion on the matter that I’d have is irrelevant. I don’t think he should walk scott free, but if he’s to be charged and convicted of anything, it should probably be flight from prosecution or soemthing to that effect. I’d be more vocal in my opinion if not for Samantha Geimer. It’s her life and she was the one taken advantage of. If she truly has moved past this incident, and believes that Polanski shouldn’t have to go to jail for his crime at this point in time, what we think doesn’t really matter. At this point, it’s not about justice for the victim, it’s about satisfying people who had nothing to do with the rape. It’s not going to be for anyone’s benefit who really matters.
4 | Will Emmons
September 29th, 2009 at 10:22 am
if he’s to be charged and convicted of anything, it should probably be flight from prosecution or soemthing to that effect. I’d be more vocal in my opinion if not for Samantha Geimer. It’s her life and she was the one taken advantage of
But the thing is he was already CHARGED, PROSECUTED, and CONVICTED. Since he’s wealthy and famous, he’s been able to escape the law for 30 years. How do we know he hasn’t gone on to rape again? If he were someone with more modest means he would’ve been put away. That hardly seems fair.
So even if retroactively Ms. Geimer wanted to not press charges, it’s too late for that. If someone rapes a person and is put in jail and then 5 years later, the rape victim says, “Oh, btw, I don’t want him in jail anymore,” that’s not allowed.
Furthermore, there was probably some element of the cash agreement reached between her and Polanski that requires her to not seek criminal justice. That doesn’t mean that the criminal justice system is no longer required to uphold the law.
I’m not a very hardcore law and order guy. I would venture that most people in prison don’t belong there and I think the death penalty is immoral. But when it comes to a child rapist (or any rapist for that matter) being allowed to go free just because he’s wealthy and famous that makes me really upset.
