Polanski’s Crimes: A Middle Ground Is Possible

by Little Miss Attila on October 1, 2009

One of the moral litmus tests we face in this time is that demonstrated by the recent arrest of Roman Polanski, who may finally be brought to justice after three decades on the lam; there seem to be two very different, opposite ways of seeing his likely extradition to the United States.

But first, as with all tragedies, one must look for a few turning points, a few pivotal incidents that got us all—Polanski, his fans, and defenders of teenage girls—where we are at this moment.

Original sin, of course, has to do with giving champagne to an underage girl, feeding her part of a Quaalude, and then pretending very very hard that when she stops saying “no,” that equals consent.

But another original sin—another turning point–would be the fact that Polanski went to Octoberfest while he was making his film in Europe, but had not yet been sentenced here in Los Angeles. That pissed off one of the prosecutors enough that a rumor got started: the judge might “throw the book” at Polanski—who promptly fled the U.S., taking advantage of his French citizenship to live in Europe for good. And that same prosecutor overstated his role in the drama few years ago in a documentary, in order to make a good story better–and implied prosecutorial misconduct. That led to a legal appeal by Polanski’s team, which in turn led to the filmmaker’s arrest this past weekend in Switzerland. And the tragedy unfolds: Next thing you know, Romeo and Juliet are there in the tomb with a dagger and a bottle of poison. I think you know the rest.

Roger Simon points out that this entire episode is not doing the cause of “Jews” any good, and that is absolutely true: I’ve yet to see a discussion of the Polanski situation in one of the major blogs that isn’t infested with at least one or two anti-Semitic comments—sometimes disguised as a remark about the ethnic composition of Hollywood. (Which is, of course, a valid point: celebrity has been of tremendous help to such Jews-in-hot-water as O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake. Oh. Wait.)

After taking a deep breath, though, I don’t think this will make a huge difference in ethnic relations on the whole–except to those who already had prejudices against Jews or Poles and wanted a peg to hang that hat on.

Let’s take a step back for a moment. There seem to be two schools of thought on the Polanski situation, and they might be expressed along the lines of 1) “it’s been 30 years; can we give it a rest, already?” and 2) “hang him high; we must act as if Polanski’s crime occurred last week, or justice cannot be served.”

The first group appears to want Polanski to continue making films, and would prefer it if he were able to pick up any future Academy awards in person. Many of these people see it as a sign of persecution that no magic wand has yet surfaced to make Polanski’s legal troubles go away.

The second group reads the grand jury transcripts with an eye toward what it must have been like to have experienced what young Samantha went through, and finds the reading very, very painful: for a girl on the cusp of womanhood to be betrayed by someone she thought was going to help her in her career, and then to endure the physical agony of an anal rape is truly disturbing.

And it does not matter that an adult can read young Samantha’s statements with a fully grown-up understanding of human sexuality and male-female interactions. The adult realizes where the whole thing was headed from the get-go, but that does not matter: Samantha was not an adult, and whatever erotic encounters she had had with her boyfriend did not, contra what the sexists imagine, equip her to deal with a rich, powerful man in his 40s who was accustomed to getting what he wanted from any female who showed signs of having passed puberty.

The fact is, there exists a middle ground between those who want to give Polanski a pass, and those whose attitude is “hang him high.” And that would be for Polanski to come back to Los Angeles and receive a reasonably light sentence. I know that saying this will get both sides mad at me, but it is the only way to balance justice against mercy—a need that Shakespeare expressed in The Merchant of Venice, which (ironically) featured a grasping Jewish character demanding justice in the form of capital punishment of a debtor via a “pound of flesh.” The ethnicities have switched, but the tension between justice and mercy remain the same, and both are critical to a humane society that nonetheless enjoys, for the most part, the freedom that goes along with “equality under the law.”

Polanski’s decision to flee justice three decades ago has led to him aging, and gaining perspective on his crimes, but without having actually paid his “debt to society.” So the situation is backward, but it can be redeemed—if Polanski comes back and serves a modest prison term. (Not jail. Not psychiatric evaluation. Prison. It can be a nice place, and I’ll be happy if there is a fence around the perimeter rather than bars on the windows, but it must be “prison.”)

I was thirteen years old in the 1970s, and I know what was like to attempt to develop a healthy female sexuality in that sex-drenched era. (In a word, it was impossible.) I also know what it’s like to be raped in that decade, at around that age, by someone who is caught up in the zeitgeist of the times, and simply does not want to hear that “no.”

I also know what it’s like to be an artist, and to need to be in touch with the evil side, the genuine brokenness, of human nature.

A light sentence here in Los Angeles, for Polanski, is the only way to honor both the needs of young women to allow their sexualities to develop without the “assistance” of lecherous middle-aged men, and the fact that Polanski is, at this point, an older man, more reflective, and with an awareness that he did something very very wrong three decades ago.

{ 1 trackback }

Evil & Formation » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog
October 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

georgeh October 1, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Polanski’s friends should think of this as his chance to make the ultimate prison film.

Reply

Keith D October 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Sorry, I tend to disagree. I am not a lawyer nor do I play on on TV (not that I play anything on TV).

The crime was henious, no doubt. If the judge was going to sentence him to 90 days or 90 months makes no difference to me. That’s why we either elect judges and DA (or appoint according to the local laws) to make those decisions in the case of California v Polanski (or whatever the name of the case was). As long as he served the time.

But he took the coward’s way out – he skipped when the government chose to trust his word. We now know what that was worth – absolutely nothing. But what he did – running – was a crime against the State (as all criminal matters are). And the state wants its pound of flesh.

So, if he comes back and is sentenced to “time served” for the pled charge, I’m OK with that.

What I’m not OK with is that he took the good faith gesture that he would behave like an adult (and not like a 13 year old) and face the music. A new charge of felony flight should be leveled and a trial held on the facts of the flight ONLY. If he is found not guilty, fine – justice is served. If not, then throw his sorry ass in jail pour encourager les autres.

Society must demonstrate that running to avoid legal unpleasantness is unacceptable and will be dealt with harshly.

Reply

Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian October 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm

No.

No middle ground.

He does not have a conscience, which is part of the definition of a sociopath. The world and everyone in it exist for his pleasure.

He has never even faked remorse. In fact, he did about as obnoxious a victory dance between his plea bargain and sentencing as he could manage, deliberately enraging the prosecutor and judge.

He is in this mess first because he did it, second because he fled sentencing, and third because the documentary made him think he could get his record expunged, or whatever, and come back to the U.S.

No. No. No. A thousand times — NO!

Reply

David October 1, 2009 at 6:44 pm

OK, Cynthia, I am sensing a little ambivalence here. Are you sure you can’t tell us what you REALLY think?

Reply

Gregory October 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm

Sorry, Attila, you’re really way off course on this one.

What Cynthia said. That.

And a bit more. If you threw Polanski into a standard prison and told the inmates he was in there because of what he did, 45 days is more than enough. Hell, 4.5 days is more than enough… because he will not live through the third day. Even evil has standards.

God can forgive Roman Polanski. The (now) woman he raped can forgive Roman Polanski. The state had better nail his ass to the wall, because HE RAN. I’ve got no skin in this game, because he did not rape me. But I can state my stance on this matter.

By the way, I had my own creepy encounter with a teacher who – when I was 11 – really liked fondling my balls. Once was enough; I was a sexually aware person by the time I was 8, and I blew the whistle. His wife came over to my house to plead for mercy from my parents – who the hell gave them the address? The damned school didn’t even suspend the bastard. And he’s been doing it to others as well; presumably they either liked it or didn’t know what it was all about. But me? I knew what he was doing, and I didn’t like it, and you betcha I wanted the wall to fall on him.

So I’m just a wee bit biased towards this kind of stuff. Although, granted, that teacher was a crap teacher. Not that talent or worldly success should excuse this.

So, Roman, come on down to the USA. Serve your time for your statutory rape charge. And then stand trial for being a fugitive from the law. That’s all I’m asking for. In fact, that’s all most people are asking for.

Speaking for myself, I can relate very well indeed to the inherent evil of human nature. I have on more than one occasion contemplated cold-blooded, premeditated torture, assault, battery, yes even rape and murder of several persons. Certain people and their actions turn my vision red, and then it’s all Greg Mad! Greg SMASH!

But my thoughts never did turn themselves into actions. By the grace of God, somehow. If I of all people could do it, there’s no reason why Roman Polanski couldn’t think with his brain instead of his dick. And for that he gets sentenced to a month and a half, and he ran from that. Hell, pissing in the street gets you 60 days and sex offender status!

Reply

Darrell October 1, 2009 at 8:07 pm

” Polanski is, at this point, an older man, more reflective, and with an awareness that he did something very very wrong three decades ago.”

I agree with Cynthia. There is absolutely no evidence to support that statement whatsoever. In fact, he has repeated stated that he has done nothing wrong. And lived true to his words by being seen with girls of a similar age. Like Germaine Greer, he believes that consent knows no age and children are sexual creatures by nature. Who doesn’t want to fuck young girls? (As Polanski actually stated his case.) Probably guys who no longer can. And that may be the source of his new-found views on the subject. That is if he no longer agrees with his younger self.

Lost in the current discussion is the result from the psychiatric exams that were performed when he was under observation after his arrest: He was found to be mentally ill. Now, the APA standards and definitions have changed since then and I don’t know if that diagnosis would hold, but that was definitely a factor in his decision to leave the country. I don’t know if the judge that will handle this case can ignore that.

Maybe if he just gives a complete account of every single instance of similar behavior that he has witnessed since he left the country, naming names—as a condition of a reduced sentence or probation? Perhaps Hollywood would suddenly decide that hard time is more appropriate after all. Hard time in total seclusion, with multiple gag orders.

Reply

Little Miss Attila October 1, 2009 at 11:08 pm

D–

You did see the ABC News segment I linked yesterday-ish, right? Neo-neocon and I are arguing about whether Polanski’s statement that what he did “was not right” was the least big sincere. She thought she heard a little dismissive laugh, which I didn’t catch after two watchings.

We are having the sociopathy debate, and the narcissism debate. (Well, that one may not be much of a debate; I think I’ll give her that one.)

And she has a few links for me that may cause me to strike through the word “months” above, and write “years” instead. I’m glad the sentencing won’t be up to me–or, one hopes, any very-moody person.

Reply

Darrell October 2, 2009 at 1:48 am

Yes I did. And ABC’s KY commercial was a nice touch! One that I had to watch several times before I could see the actual tape, as I had to allow pop-ups and then change the size of the video, etc. Who says these people have no heart? What goes better with a rape story than a sexual lubricant, especially given the details of this story?

His laughing change-of-heart (specifically that he had a change of heart without saying any words admitting guilt or specifically saying what has changed) does not convince me either. Especially since he follows that with an immediate claim that there was no premeditation. They were “caught in the moment.” How lovely! Given the actual facts as given in the Grand Jury Testimony, with that break between rapes when Anjelica Huston actually spoke to Polanski at the door, after which Polanski proceeded to remove the panties that she had put on in the interim–hoping to leave during the distraction–the crime appeared to have occurred over a period of time and change of locations (hot tub/ bedroom). Would those subsequent acts be covered by the same “in the moment” spontaneity? How about that first photo session that she left (separated by what? Days?). The one she left because she knew that changing in front of the photographer wasn’t part of a normal Vogue shoot? (And it was supposed to be a Vogue shoot. Notice how they never say which magazine. As if she thought it was for “Barely Not-Legal” or some such that would have given her or her mother a clue.) Was that first shoot separated in time part of the moment? Rather than continue, let’s just say that I don’t see evidence that he is truly sorry for any of his actions. And that is the first step for forgiveness, is it not?

I would guess that many people about to finally be brought to account for their actions have similar changes of heart. Sadly, their biggest regrets center around being caught and finally having to pay that piper. His lifetime of similar behavior is not really a part of this case, nor should it be. But I do not believe, for a second, that he would do anything other than pursue the same path if he were sent back in time. That’s what I see in his smile: Memories.

Reply

Peter October 2, 2009 at 2:22 am

I don’t know what the penalty for fleeing and contempt of court is in California. Assuming that it is some term of years I would be happy to just charge him with that to take him off the street.

Pedophiles do not recover. Even after their um, wedding tackle quit working they still attack children. In Polanski’s case it seems to be girls in their early teens. If he’s loose and gets too run down for Viagra to work he’d poke them with a cucumber or suchlike because that is what they do.

It would be one thing, maybe, if he had been a kid, he was in his forties, she was thirteen, leaving me to wonder how many others, before and after.

Reply

I R A Darth Aggie October 2, 2009 at 5:29 am

Polanski’s decision to flee justice three decades ago has led to him aging, and gaining perspective on his crimes, but without having actually paid his “debt to society.”

Ah, but what about the 30 years of interest on that debt? or do we just bail him out on that? is Roman Polanski too big to fail?

Reply

I R A Darth Aggie October 2, 2009 at 5:36 am

Peter brings up a good point: he’s got a history of diddling underaged girls. It wasn’t just a one-time thing. I suspect if we beat the bushes, more will turn up, even in the last 5 years.

Reply

Penny October 2, 2009 at 8:51 am

Sorry Attila, I have to disagree. I don’t think that he is remorseful. I see in his actions during and after the rape aspects of a narcissitic personality. As such, he is really incapable of feeling remorse. A narcissist is also incapable of empathy which is what would make him capable of raping a 13 year old girl and having no thought as to what effect this would have on her and even being able to tell himself that it really wasn’t that big of a deal.

Reply

david foster October 2, 2009 at 11:07 am

“I also know what it’s like to be an artist, and to need to be in touch with the evil side, the genuine brokenness, of human nature”…but aren’t cops and soldiers also in touch with this evil/brokenness, and in a more direct and personal way than artists are? Should they get easier treatment because of this? How about priests/ministers/rabbis?

Reply

Foxfier October 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Given that
1) he fled,
2) he’s got a pattern of sex with barely-teen-girls,
3) he’s shown zero signs of learning any sort of thing, let alone shown solid attempts to make amends;
I’m more of a “kill the bastard that horribly violated a 13 year old, and morn that it took so very long.”

Reply

John October 2, 2009 at 5:34 pm

For me, the “middle ground” is tossing him into the clink for a long time. My end of the scale involves techniques known to the Inquisitors.

There is no “middle ground” between punishment and non-punishment.

A punishment that the perpetrator is willing to accept is not a punishment.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: