The Sexist

Common Roman Polanski Defenses, Refuted

Roman Polanski, the 76-year-old filmmaker who was accused of drugging and raping 13-year-old Samantha Geimer in 1977, has been arrested in Switzerland. Polanski, who was convicted of having sex with a minor but fled to France before he could be sentenced, is currently facing extradition back to the United States, where he could finally be sentenced for his 32-year-old conviction. In the wake of Polanski's belated arrest, commentators have posed dozens of arguments in the Oscar-winning director's defense. Most of them are bullshit.

"But he's already paid his price, because everyone knows he's a rapist, and he can never work in Hollywood."

As Patrick Goldstein wrote in the LA Times, "I think Polanski has already paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions. The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn't enough."

Ahh: "the real tragedy." Some people may be under the impression that a 13-year-old being drugged and raped by a 44-year-old man constitutes a "real tragedy." Others may contend that both Polanski and his rape victim have suffered "real tragedies" in their lifetimes. But no, there can only be one the real tragedy, and it is that people have "snubbed" Roman Polanski because he raped someone and skipped town. If only the recognition of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs, the Berlin International Film Festival, Cannes, the Directors Guild of America, the Golden Globes, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Stokholm Film Festival, the Venice Film Festival, and dozens of other awards organizations could begin to heal that wound.

"But he escaped the Holocaust / his mother died at Auschwitz / His wife was killed by Charles Manson"

Talk about real tragedies: These, of course, are real tragedies. Upon hearing of Polanski's arrest, French Minister of Culture Frederic Mitterrand announced that he "strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them."

This is a fair argument—and one that can be made about many, many people convicted of crimes in the United States. A lot of the people who are locked up behind bars have endured unspeakable traumas in their own lives—sexual assault, poverty, drug addiction, gang life, homelessness, and mental illness. Why are they held accountable for their actions, while Polanski gets to be like, "Peace, I'm just going to chill in France for thirty years, try not to rape anybody else, and maybe win an Oscar. See you guys later"? It's not because of what he endured. It's because he makes movies.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that Polanski isn't getting a break because he's famous, but rather because he's had a hard life. When France decries "the ordeal" being "inflicted" on Polanski, what the country is really saying is that rape is not important because it's not as horrific as the Holocaust, and not as evil as Charles Manson. And that's a pretty fucked-up standard, oui?

"But he made The Pianist / Chinatown / Rosemary's Baby / Revulsion."

Congratulations, the Huffington Post's Kim Morgan: You win the prize of penning the most disgusting defense of Polanski I've read to date! Morgan prefaces her post by saying she is "not going to go into my Roman Polanski defense," but suffice to say she is "not happy about his arrest." Instead of getting bogged down by the legal gobbledygook, Morgan shoots off a blog post entitled "Roman Polanski Understands Women." Seriously.

"One should not," she writes, "take Polanski's films literally, for they are often heightened versions of what occurs naturally in our world: desire, perversion, repulsion." Okay, but how about his rape of a 13-year-old girl? Are we allowed to take that "natural occurrence" literally? Morgan doesn't directly address that question, but she does argue that Polanski's very brilliance is a product of his relationship with human "darkness":

Polanski's removed morality is exactly why he is often brilliant: He is so empathetic to his characters that, like a trauma victim floating above the pain, he is personally impersonal. He insightfully scrutinizes what is so frightening about being human, yet he doesn't feel the need to be resolute or sentimental about his cognizance. He is also, consciously or subconsciously, aware of the darkness he explores, especially in his female characters, who could be seen as extensions of himself.

You know what I find revolting? When a film critic prefaces her work with a disclaimer about how much it sucks that a rapist is getting arrested for raping someone, and then uses the rapiest imagery possible to applaud his film work. Nope! Sorry! Understanding Women is not a valid defense against rape. Similarly, being a really marvelous film director doesn't mean that you get to rape someone and not go to prison. Even if you made The Pianist.

Remember: making The Pianist and being a rapist are not mutually exclusive.

Read more at:"not happy about his arrest," and goes on to defend "Roman Polanski Understands Woman"

"But the girl's mother made him rape her."

Oops, nevermind, this one is actually an even more disgusting defense of Roman Polanski, also on the Huffington Post:

The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence. I met Polanski shortly after he fled America and was filming Tess in Normandy. I was working in the CBS News bureau in Paris, and I accompanied Mike Wallace for a Sixty Minutes interview with Polanski on the set. Mike thought he would be meeting the devil incarnate, but was utterly charmed by Roman's sobriety and intelligence.

So, Polanski is just a really special guy who was practically forced to have sex with that 13-year-old girl by her mother. It's almost as if Roman Polanski was raped by that 13-year-old girl. Also, no, the age of consent in California is not "13 by now," it is 16 18 (!!). By the by: the author of this little gem is Joan Z. Shore, co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality. Thanks, Joan, for your deft approach to women's issues!

"But he didn't know she was 13."

Please, Anne Applebaum. Polanski had to ask her mother for permission to shoot her for Vogue.

"But 13 is old enough to consent to sex"

Let's assume that, like Joan Shore and others have suggested, age 13 is old enough to consent to sex, and Polanski is merely a victim of the Puritanical sex laws of the U.S.A. If that's true, then surely 13 would be old enough to say no to sex, right? Because here's what Geimer said happened at the one-on-one Vogue shoots:

According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, "Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him." She added, "It didn't feel right, and I didn't want to go back to the second shoot."

Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there." She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. "I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!", and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated.

That's rape, whether you are 13 years old or 14 or 16 or 44 or 76.

"But the American justice system is fucked up."

Granted. But if we're going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I'm all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.

Excuse me while I play the world's tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France).

"But his victim has forgiven him"

From Applebaum's column: "The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children."

It's certainly a relief to hear that Geimer, after three decades and a settled civil suit against Polanski, has moved on from her childhood sexual assault. Of course, a victim's should always be considered over the course of a trial. At the same time, forgiveness, sympathy, and identification with one's attacker are fairly common in sexual assault cases, and these sentiments don't make sexual assault any less damaging—or any more legal. Again, you can argue that Polanski is an example of how the American legal system unduly punishes its criminals, but until you're willing to free all the nation's sex offenders and make them promise to just keep their cool until their victims get around to forgiving them, it's not a very solid argument.

"But his victim doesn't want to have to relive her assault again."

Now we're getting somewhere. Samantha Geimer, like many victims of sexual assault, is justified in holding a grudge against the criminal justice system. When a rape victim decides to report her assault to the police, she's looking at years of intense police, legal, and media scrutiny. She will have to relive her assault over and over again over the course of trial and investigation. She will have her sexual history dredged up and put on display. These are all big deterrents to reporting sexual assault. But while a sexual assault victim may never personally recover from the trauma, the public scrutiny, at least, usually ends with the sentencing.

Unless, of course, your attacker is a famous movie director who refuses to be sentenced, in which case you will be forced to relive your assault: a) every time your attacker attempts to cross another country's borders; b) every time your attacker releases a new film; c) every time your attacker attempts to have his conviction overturned; d) every time your attacker does anything noteworthy. The fact that Geimer's childhood sexual assault has haunted her in the press for 30 years is a real tragedy, and one man is responsible for that: Roman Polanski.


  1. #1

    My personal favorite Polanski defense is that Charles Manson drove him insane.

    Every written account of Roman Polanski should include the phrase "convicted child rapist" and "fugitive from justice". Thankfully the latter can be dropped now.

  2. #2

    Wow, Amanda - people really, really have twisted notions about rape. It constantly surprises me.

  3. #3

    Just in the interest of protecting the victim, couldn't they just find some way to charge him with being a fugative for all those years? I'm no legal expert but can't they get him in prison for that?

  4. #4

    This is the best point-by-point dissection of this case that I've seen. Thank you!

  5. #5

    He's already been convicted, and I see no need to retry him. A sentencing hearing based on the trial documents and attended by Polanski, his attorneys and the prosecution would seem appropriate. On the charges of fleeing lawful imprisonment and living as a fugitive, Ms. Geimer need not be a part of the trial, as she has had no part in his travel and real estate dealings.

  6. #6

    Polanski already did serve 42 days in prison as directed by the Judge in the original case, and when he was scheduled to go back to court they decided to reneg on the original aagreement and try to sentence him to more time.

    This is not fiction folks, this is fact. I see everyone complaining about this or that, but no one has stated any solid facts about the case other than he skipped town, yes he did skip, after the system tried to reneg on the original deal.

    Imagine if it was you. THey tell you here is what you do and all will be forgiven, then you find out they decide otherwise, changing your fate only because a judge became starstruck.

    He should have come back last year and they would have thrown the case out on judicial misconduct, but now the Da and the state of CA is wasting money it doesn't have on a case that is 30 years old which is flawed from top to bottom. You guys complain about Roman... look deeper.

  7. #7

    @jake: I don't think you're allowed to flee the country during trial, but maybe I'm not looking deep enough?
    You know what's also not fiction? The fact that he raped a 13 yr old.
    Imagine if it was you? Why are you trying to be sympathetic to a dude you fucked some non-consenting 13 yr old in the ass and then fled the country?

  8. #8

    If it were me, I would listen to my lawyer and STAY IN THE FREAKING COUNTRY WHILE THE APPEAL GOES THROUGH. If the "facts" are as obvious as the Polanski rape apologists seem to think then an appeal would be quick and decisive and the matter would be dropped. I would not RUN TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND LIVE THE GOOD LIFE FOR 32 YEARS ALL THE WHILE PLAYING THE VICTIM. It is not up to the perpetrator of a crime to decide when and where he should serve his sentence, or if he has been "punished" enough. That is what we have a system of courts for. Mr Polanski choose to place himself above our system of justice and for that he should be extradited back and forced to comply with whatever sentence our courts decide.

  9. #9

    Polanski did not serve any time. He was in jail for evaluation. The fact that he jumped bail and flee takes out all his plea bargains, IMHO. So he should be now legally again facing rape and sodomy of the minor.

  10. #10

    you go amanda

  11. #11

    Thanks Amanda. I've been arguing with people about this all morning. Glad to see other people out there with their heads on straight.

  12. #12

    Hey, don't forget, "But she wasn't a virgin! She'd had sex before" Because obviously being a sexually active preson means you can't be raped.

  13. #13

    Ugh, your post actually opened up with a falsehood. He was not found guilty of drugging her and raping her, which he did in fact do. He found guilty of statutory rape or pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".

    That being said, he has yet to do his time for the crime and he needs to be brought to justice. Its just hard when facts and testimony get all muddled up here.

  14. #14

    Famous people are forgiven their faults by their fans. Polanski. Mike Vick. Bill Clinton. MJ. Whoever.

    "How dare you insist that someone i enjoy is a scummy shite!"

    Why can't he be both?

  15. #15

    this whole thing makes me feel dirty.

    Btw, let's say the age of consent is 14. or even 13. Okay, maybe its not a crime, but its still an f-ed up perverted thing to do. if it was legal, or almost legal, that isn't a defense to polanski, but an indictment of california which apparently was a f-ed up place to live even back then.

    DB don't forget R. Kelly. of course he is not only a scummy shite, but apparently... oh, no, not going there with that joke.

    but i find it amazing that some people are pretending he has been exhonerated. yeah, i can't say about the tape that went around, but what about when he married his 15 year old protege Aliyah (sp?). you know, the girl who also put out an album under his tutelige called "Age is nothing but a number."


  16. #16

    I apologize for the oversight, spielster. I've corrected the post.

  17. #17

    From the age of consent website:

    "During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen."

    So the age of consent in California had been eighteen for, oh, about fifty-four years at the time of the rape. That means it hadn't changed during Polanski's lifetime.

  18. #18

    Haha, here's another one by Jake (#6). Polanski shouldn't be tried because California doesn't have the money. So... what? We should wait another 10 years until it has the money? So we should let all criminals go free until courts come up with the money to convict them? Let's tell all the police to stop catching criminals and turn in their badges because as a nation we don't have the money to employ police. I mean we are trillions of dollars in debt so... we should be able to continue with trials and policing... in what, a few centuries??

  19. #19

    I am also utterly amazed at the excuses being presented for Mr. Polanski's defense: his early life escaping the Nazis, the violent death of his wife by the Manson Family, his supposed hard times in exile in France: living in Paris with his wife 33 years his junior whom he married when she was 20 (I guess some things never change), still traveling, winning awards, making films, etc.

    Given these "hard times" one would think that Mr. Polanski would instead be compassionate with people less able to defend themselves such as the 13 year old he drugged and raped (his act now being called 'seduced' by some, as if we're talking about being tempted to eat too much candy, not rape someone.)

    He should be brought back for sentencing, and then he can have his day in court and plead his hardships as a reason for lighter sentencing, if he so chooses.

  20. #20

    What a lot of people don't realize: the 2 photo shoots he did of her wasn't just a simple Vogue photoshoot. If you read the official grand jury transcripts, the girl testified that he eventually had her posing topless the first shoot, and photographed her not only topless, but also nude, during the 2nd shoot. So, not only did he drug and rape her, he turned that Vogue shoot turned into child porn, once he had her naked in front of the camera.

    The man should not garner any sympathy for what he did to that child. And just because he is a big-name with a famous career and following, does not negate the fact that the man's acts were that of a pedophilic nature.

  21. #21

    I'm disgusted at people (including admitted feminists!) who try to argue that since there was judicial misconduct he should be freed. No, he should have stayed in the country while his lawyers appealed. He doesn't get to just decide to flee the country because he doesn't like his punishment!

  22. "Fair and Balanced" Dave

    If we take Kim Morgan's reasoning to its obvious conclusion, then Phil Spector should be released from prison--he produced some of the greatest rock 'n roll recordings of all time which more than makes up for the fact that he murdered actress Lana Clarkson.

  23. #23

    Excellent point by point rebuttal of all the claims, excuses, justifications and when all else fails - denials as to why Polanski, a convicted rapist should not be extradicted to the US.

    Polanski is responsible and accountable for his crime committed against a 13 year old girl and the fact he is a well-known film director is irrelevant. Many males who commit sexual violence against women and girls are 'respectable men' and sadly, all too often these 'respectable men' are acquitted of their crimes.

    Let's hope Polanski's crime is not dimissed as irrelevant because if that happens this will reinforce dominant perceptions that male violence against women and children is a trivial issue and only certain 'classes' of men commit such crimes. I will certainly direct any rape apologists to this article. However, given rape apologists are abundant it will take a huge amount of re-education before society in general accepts the reality of everyday, mundane male violence being committed against women and children is common rather than just individualised instances wherein the male perpetrators are powerful white men who have the financial means to flee one country and/or have powerful lawyers arguing the female rape survivor is responsible not the male perpetrator(s).

  24. #24

    The thing that really gets me here is that the French government is very excited about the prospect of undressing Muslim women who have the audacity to cover themselves up and is simultaneously aghast at the notion that a cineaste pedophile might get arrested and brought to justice.

  25. #25

    They should rename the Huffington Post; The Fluffington Post. You want to know why these Hollywood sycophants and derelicts are circling the wagons? They think common folk are scum. Yes,they do. Consider the Polanski child rapist affair an opportunity for these rats to reveal themselves. These are people who would not think twice to have someone fired if their coffee were to arrive at the set 30 seconds late. These are the people who believe folks should be jailed for lengthy prison terms if one were to make a copy of a film for your friend(s). But hey! Drugging a 13 year old girl with ludes and drink,taking nude photos of her, then anally penetrating her against her will is considered de riguer and oh so cool and sophisticated...Polanski has suffered enough living well off in France.

    He's not any different than those narcissistic Utah bigamists whom at middle age hook up and marry 13 year olds.You're right. Scum such as those listed above in the article, certainly come out of the woodwork like roaches to defend their man..And all because he directed some ephemera/entertainment known as a film.And what kind of man needs to drug a 13 year old girl at 44 years of age and then proceeds to have his way with her as if she's some kind of rag or inflatable doll? What kind of man then leaves the country after making a sweetheart deal? A coward. He's still a coward to this day. And, an extremely arrogant one at that.

  26. #26

    Oh,,,, Joan Shore and her organization have lost all credibility.

  27. #27

    By the way, hate to be the one who brings it up, but the facts of the story - that he orally and anally sodomized this 13 year old girl after giving her drugs and alcohol - make it even more horrific. When mainstream media won't even get into the details, it's pretty bad.

  28. #28

    Also, it doesn't surprise me that someone came up with a "but he was a victim of the Holocaust" defense: it works as the main defense of Israel's violations of human rights in Palestine, right?

  29. #29

    So there are 3 basic categories of people who can get away with child sexual abuse in the US: 1) Catholic priests, 2) 80's pop icons, and 3) hip movie directors.

  30. Morgan Shore Apologist

    That girl should be honored the artiste known as Roman Polanski would even consider raping her. Just like a slave should be honored that her master would consider inviting her into the plantation's mansion for a night of sex. Submit fair maidens to the men of distinction.....For they are soooo very charming and talented. White men of wealth are entitled to such frivolous displays of pleasure. It's a shame Roman must NOW be soooo inconvenienced for a little indiscretion that happened so many years ago. Why by shucks..his arrest was sooooo brutal and cruel. Just like Kim Morgan,I'm sooo depressed over his arrest. Do you know what it's like living the life of an aristocrat in France? Do you know what it's like to pursue your life's craft in France? To marry an actress? Why it's total hell. He's paid his dues. This rebel from the law---He's a man's man. The kind I'd like to have a glass of champagne with dontcha know.How brave it was of him to flee the country....Imagine the bravery involved to pick,choose and methodically rape a 13 year old girl. Too bad Roman didn't pick Utah for his indiscretion..He could've been the Grand Artistic PoohBah. But then some might consider the Quaalude and champagne thingy a bit...well, gauche.

  31. #31

    While I agree with all the points made in the article, I also agree, to an extent, with Jake. Ethically (and factually) Polanski is a rapist (at the very least statutory, if not moreso) who fled justice, and as someone said earlier, should face a sentencing hearing. But as Jake has a point, a lot of resources will be wasted on this guy that could, I don't know, be spent on targeting, arresting, and trying rapists who are currently out there raping people (not that I think they would be, but hey, anything's possible, California elected Kindergarden Cop their governor, after all). Is Polanski a threat to commit rape again? I highly doubt it, and if at least part of the point of our penal system is rehabilitation, then it's partially unnecessary in this case.

    Is it just? No. He should serve time, absolutely. But so should thousands of others whom the system has let off because of their wealth, many of whom go unnoticed (search through the number of questionable "pardons" under Bush Jr. and Clinton, just as a start) and continue to live freely in country. I guess the real question is "what is the benefit of putting the time and money into a new trial?", which to me seems minimal--he won't serve as any kind of example or deterrent, the victim is over it, and it's not like the US couldn't have negotiated with France in the past 30 years to try to extradite him or make an example of him when it made more sense (and when we had more time and money to focus on it).

    So ideally I agree and do think he should, at least, be tried and able to state his case as to the initial 42 days served and the change in the plea bargain, as well as be tried for the flight from justice. Practically I think it's pointless, it doesn't draw any attention to the thousands of rapes that go unsolved every year or the thousands on top of that that aren't even reported. I highly doubt there are rape victims whose reasoning for not reporting the crime is "but Polanski got away with it". I do agree that a lot of the defenses of him are pretty sickening, though, and if California wants to spend some of its few remaining dollars on the case, I don't really have a problem with it, especially since I don't live there and it won't be my tax dollars at work...

  32. #32

    Thank you Amanda for this clear and common sense rebuttal of points used to defend Polanski. Though it is obvious that there are some problems with the way in which Polanski was tried (which may mean that he never serves any more time for his actions), the way in which the actual crime is being dismissed is detrimental to rape survivors and with regard to cultural attitudes towards this kind of violence.

  33. #33

    THANK YOU. I cannot believe the amount of backwards rhetoric flowing through the dung fields right now. Has the whole world gone crazy? As one of those "liberal" types, I have to say I'm appalled at the completely ignorant words coming out of the mouths of people I previously liked or admired! To paraphrase Denzel Washington's character in "Philadelphia," could somebody please explain this to me like I'm a four year old? A forty-year-old man preys upon (THAT'S RIGHT, did we forget that part about him luring her to his house under false pretenses? It's like a vintage episode of "Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator," for gosh sakes) . . . anyway, that he preys upon, drugs, and rapes-- NOT STATUTORILY BUT RAPES, RAPES, RAPES a LITTLE GIRL, a MIDDLE SCHOOL AGE CHILD. My daughter will be 13 in a month, and she still plays with Barbies and Legos. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Then the guy pleads GUILTY and is unhappy that his "deal" is not going to be as sweet as he thought, and he skips out before sentencing. And we are supposed to feel sorry for HIM? I urge his victim to find one more small rock in her soul to stand up for victims everywhere. Not to "un-forgive" her attacker; I commend her for being kind, grounded, and strong enough to take such a noble step. But I also urge her to realize that this has become much more than a "simple" fugitive case--it is a symbol of all that is wrong with how we--in America and all over the world--view and treat children, especially girls. It is time for EVERYBODY to stop being hypocrites just because somebody is famous and/or talented. (BTW, I saw Rosemary's baby and Chinatown, and they are pathetic, hackneyed pieces of cinematic garbage, and I thought so YEARS ago, long before I ever knew what a twisted creep made the film. In fact, I may have thought something along the lines of "what twisted creep MADE this dreck, anyway?" when I saw Rosemary's baby. THANKS again, for saying in explicit terms what so many of us are not hearing on the news.

  34. #34


    I'm trying to organize a demonstration in front of the French Consulate in Los Angeles, CA. Please check out my blog at:

    Thank you.

  35. #35

    Bravo! I'm beyond disgusted that this clown got away with his crime for so long! And to see Debra Winger and other fools come out and support him is just ridiculous. His crime was not only against his poor victim, but it was against the People of the State of California, and even if his victim forgives him, he still needs to answer to the PEOPLE. He needs to suck it up and face the music. I feel literally ZERO empathy for him. I hope he spends the rest of his miserable life under the jail. P.S. Can you tell I'm a mom of two daughters? ;-)

  36. #36

    Thank you Amanda for presenting a clear rational voice amongst the BS. To the Hollywood stars who support this pervert, I say look in the mirror>

  37. #37

    Well done. You've knocked down every specious argument given by the impudent parasites quoted above defending Roman Polanski--an admitted deviant who drugs and rapes 13 year old girls. I'd like to add one more sentence about those defending him. When other director's et al step up to say Polanski should be freed they are also de facto commenting on how they view themselves - that they believe their art and spot in society gives them special privilege in our society. They are wrong.

  38. #38


    Thank GOD. I've been sitting here with my head spinning at people of my own political stripe somehow forgetting everything my mom and her generation taught me about feminism, and making excuses for this child rapist.

    For the record, guys: When a woman (no matter what her age and no matter whether her mommy dearest offers her up for the director nor not), when a woman (girl!) says "no, no no no no" -- or EVEN ONE 'no' -- that means stop, and if you keep going, if you advance the sexual act one single thrust further (or even just the tip) then you are a rapist scumbag.

    That my progressive friends are so enamored with the jet-setting Hollywood crowd that they are forgetting this is actually shaking me to the core of my belief system, frankly.

  39. #39

    I honestly don't believe he "raped" anyone. Looking at this case, this is hardly black and white. When Jake says "look deeper", I think he's right as regarding the muck of what human nature and human sexuality is. Biology is not governed by numbers like 13 or 14. If he's sentenced, I hope he's just forced to make more movies.

  40. #40


    You sicken me.

    You don't think that a woman who says "NO" and has a guy f*** her anyway after giving her alcohol and drugs is not a "rape" situation?

    What in the hell is, then? I don't have much excitement for my daughter in the brave new world you're advocating where any sort of acquaintance rape is not actionable because its just nature running its course.

    And, Amy dear... if the case was not black and white, why didn't Roman want to take his chance with the jury. As I understand it, if the judge sentenced him to more than the prosecutor was recommending, he could have withdrawn his plea. Why do you think he was worried about sitting before a jury with this "not black and white" case.


  41. #41

    @ amy; yea, drugging and anally fucking a non-consenting 7th grader is totally not "rape"

  42. #42


    Yeah, you're right. When a woman of any age says "no" to sex, she really means "YES YES YES" and should be forced into it for her own good. Why, that little slut was just asking for it, wasn't she? Being naked and drugged and drunk and thirteen. What a minx!

    Thank you for opening my eyes, Amy. Now that I know that having sex with a woman after she says "no" is not rape, I'm going to enjoy my Saturday nights so much more. Hey, what's your address?

  43. #43

    Woody Allen has been defending Polanski. No surprise there. I wonder what Mia Farrow has to say about this since of course she knows Polanski personally.

  44. #44

    Good job Amanda, but you left out one of the arguments people are making. "Doesn't the government have more important things to do in the face of all this crisis?". To which I would say, no absolutely not. The whole point of having a government, and our consent to be governed by it is that the laws are there to protect us while we go about our lives. If they fail to enforce the laws then what else is there? If the government will not bring to justice the monsters in our midst, then what use is a government what use are laws?

  45. #45

    i feel really conflicted about this situation. i am actually having a hard time reconciling my understanding that what he did was wrong - completely, undeniably, unjustifiabley WRONG - with a feeling of confusion as to what benefit, and to whom, sentencing Polanski will actually result in.

    i guess i think that the law is black + white, but human situation - human folly - is many shades of grey.

    i also have a hard time, ethically, with individuals assuming that *they* should make the call as to what Polanski DESERVES, and how he should be PUNISHED and how he should be made to SUFFER b/c obviously he has not SUFFERED. i do not understand making these presumptions about another human being.

    also - and this is not to defend Polanski's behaviour AT ALL - but ALSO, there is always more to the situation than the media can descirbe. when you say 'he raped a 13-yr-old' which is true, there are many other truths being left out, some of them that we cannot even be aware of.

    being drunk + high + young + cocky + arrogant + an asshole at a pool party at Jack Nicholson's in the 70s with a young, pretty girl whose mother has allowed you to photograph her was probably speckled with a lot more depth, variables, unpredictable thoughts + weirdness than 'i am going to rape this girl no matter what.' people are not monsters. they are people. fucked up + prone to violent acts of incongruity, yes. arrogant weirdoes who want to get what they want out of every situation? yes.

    but i genuinely do not know, nor do i understand how anyone else can "know" what Polanski deserves, how he has suffered, or what benefit sentecing + imprisoning him will have.

    i find it all confusing and hard to process.

  46. #46

    It is at least plausible that, as Roman says, he found that the judge was going to reneg on his deal. Guess what? Tough. That happens every day and any Joe Burglar who had a deal for lesser charges who failed to appear for ANY reason would be right in the hopper, no questions. It may be wrong but the point is that this weasel is not being treated like anyone else.

    One thing no one is mentioning though is that the Polanski camp in expecting and relying on Hollywood/Dem/Left support for his cause were relying on recent history. Didn't half this nation declare that, since Bill Clinton was such a Great President TM that we should all forget his rapes and sexual assaults and... ahem.... MoveOn? Yes, yes they did. The whole oevure of the Polanksi Defense was calculated and honed on cable TV as the Clinton Defense. If one fails should not the other? Only if it is a "principle". Is it?

    Heck no.

  47. #47

    Nice to see he is on trial all over again.. and in the media: who says the ppl are biased? or that guilty until proven innocent is not an established judicial method??
    Go people~! you are more ignorant than DAs judges and politicians combined

  48. #48

    irvnrynn, read before you comment. Yes, he's being tried again. He was tried and plead guilty. So, there is no presumption innocence because guilt has already been proven in a court of law. He fled the punishment that comes with the guilt.

  49. #49

    WC, what you are saying is that even though what Roman Polanski did was wrong, so much time has gone by and the "circumstances" were such that maybe we should just let bygones be bygones and just forget about the whole thing?

    The only thing confusing is your thought process. Polanski found out that the sweetheart deal he was offered wasn't being accepted and he decided to run. Just because 30 years have gone by doesn't mean we should just drop things. Thinking like yours is a major reason people believe the law doesn't apply to them because they're in a "special situation" or they are a "special person". One of the beautiful things about living in the United States is the belief that no man or woman is above the law.

  50. #50

    Nice try at the strawman, but it's not the US justice system in general that's f'd up, it's Polanski's trial specifically. Yes, the crime was heinous, but Polanski went to court. He submitted to American Justice. There was serious police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct throughout. Polanski got a plea deal that the judge immediately reneged on. Polanski did not flee the country until his plea bargain was f'd up by American Justice. American Justice wouldn't let him make appeals unless he "submitted" (that word alone should tell you something about American Justice) to the VERY SAME COURT that hosed him in the first place. Who would be stupid enough to do that? Not me.

  51. #51

    Hi Jane,

    You don't know jack about the plea bargain system, apparently.

    See, a judge is never EVER a party to a plea bargain.

    The judge is not a party to the bargain, but either approves or disapproves, and in any case, retains absolute discretion on sentencing. The judge does not "reneg" -- rather, (s)he gets the final word.

    Defendants across America, every single day, hear their judge say "NO WAY" to a bargain their attorney struck with the prosecutors. Its one way that we make sure that people with means and people without each get a fair shake. If the judge sees a wealthy individual getting a deal that does not fit the charges, he can say "no mas."

    When that happens, the defendant has a simple remedy: He didn't get the deal he wanted, so he is free to withdraw his plea and either go back to negotiations or push for a trial.

    Polanski had a sweetheart deal that would result in no jail time. He got word the judge wasn't going to buy it, and about that time, knew for a fact that if he went to trial, Anjelica Houston would be testifying. (She was dating Jack Nicholson and showed up while Roman was f***ng this young girl, and observed the girl leaving the room in tears).

    So pull your star-fu**er celebrity naval gazing head out of your colon and learn a little bit about the system before you spout off.

  52. #52

    Any of you polanski defenders got a 13 yr old daughter?? I got a few Ludes and champagne is cheap..I promise I'll make sure she wants to

  53. #53

    Just to clarify one legal point that some of Polanski's defenders seem to have missed.

    If Polanksi was afraid the judge was going to sentence him to more than the 42 days he expected, he had the right to withdraw his plea of guilty and go to trial on the original charges of rape and sodomy. I guess he didn't want to do that because his only defense to those charges would have been consent (since Angelica Huston was prepared to testify that he did in fact have sex with the girl he couldn't claim that the whole thing was made up) and that would have still left him admitting statutory rape, which would have left him worse off than with the plea bargain.

    Gee, life's a bitch, isn't it?

  54. #54

    Congratulations, you get an "A" in "Understanding Morality 101"

  55. #55

    Apparently many liberal elites in Hollywood think that the same rules don't apply to them. That's why they make excuses for and sympathize with Polanski, who no matter how talented he might be, is also a self-confessed pervert who raped a 13 year old child. And since when is the passage of time itself an excuse, especially when that excuse is due an additional crime of fleeing the law and from the country?

  56. #56

    I believe he has a perfect excuse. I mean first off he obviously has severe mental issues. Furthermore I feel that all of the slut shaming he endured from people and the media influenced by our current rape culture put him in a state of emotional trauma so intense that for fear of everyone knowing that he enjoys sex he had to flea the country.

  57. #57


  58. #58

    Notice how stupid and arrogant the folks defending him here and elsewhere appear to be? The have no problem using the following tenuous excuse as to how the " victim has married and moved on" in an attempt to defend Roman The Child Rapist Polanski. Yet,they quickly also use the Manson event as another excuse to defend the child predator..

    You don't get to have it both ways. Tate's murder is moot. He's remarried and moved on,you could say. The Manson family didn't abscond and are paying the price behind bars. Polanski hasn't faced the music because of his cowardly ways. Just like any other child rapist, they're all cowards.

    In my opinion,those defending Polanski must be child-rapists themselves. Woody Allen on that list is a given. Harrison Ford is not surprising either-considering the woman he's involved with is built like a 10 year old girl. Boycott their work or watch their work thru pirated copies. After all,I'm sure Whoopi Goldberg would agree,pirating isn't exactly Theft Theft.

    Polanski must do time for all and any additional charges. If he dies behind bars,so be it.

  59. #59

    I think he should get the same sentencing as all those female child rapists. That one woman went through 5 young boys before she finally got a year or two in prison.

    Or was it three years? Well whatever.

  60. #60


    Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be implying that the fact that a clearly biased judicial system entirely defrauded the defendant shouldn't matter simply because the defendant is clearly guilty of a terrible crime.

    "Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France)."

    Unfortunately for you, Amanada, snark isn't exactly the same as a fair judicial process. Justice is only worthwhile when it's inconvenient; to argue that simply because somebody commits a heinous crime renders them worthless under the law is to subvert the entire foundation of our judicial system.

    He shouldn't have run, tiny Pianists or no, but to claim that the defense that the legal system failed him is invalid because "he's a child rapist!" is just obtuse.

  61. #61

    MJD, BDL, an fyi:

    Implying that this was a simple instance of a moral judge not accepting a terrible plea bargain is intellectually dishonest. If you want to see him strung up, that's fine. I wish he would never get out of jail myself, but more than that, I support a fair legal system. To wit:

    The problem wasn't that the judge declined the plea. It's that there where ex parte communications that allowed the defendant to be deliberately mislead about the state of his trial. This is illegal. This is not a "fair trial."

    Get pissed at the original prosecution, or at the Judge, or, best of all, at Polanski himself. But don't act like every single person who thinks the situation is a little more complicated than some blogospheric rabble-rousing is a pie-eyed Hollywood sycophant; I've never even seen a Roman Polanski movie.

  62. #62

    Ugh said: "The thing that really gets me here is that the French government is very excited about the prospect of undressing Muslim women who have the audacity to cover themselves up and is simultaneously aghast at the notion that a cineaste pedophile might get arrested and brought to justice."


  63. #63

    "after three decades and a settled civil suit against Polanski, has moved on from her childhood sexual assault."

    Very nice, implying that the victim has been "paid off". Not only morally egregious of you but also untrue as Polanski apparently never got around to paying her the settlement.

  64. #64

    My moral concern rather goes to a generation of teenager Iraqi girls, massively destined for an "entertainment" job in rich Arabian bordellos (rather than university studies under an "evil" dictator). How much do tiny justices save? Doesn't forgiveness ever work? Wasn't fledding Nazis illegal too?!

  65. #65

    '“But the American justice system is fucked up.”

    Granted. But if we’re going to talk about the fuck-up-edness of the U.S. legal system, surely we can find a better martyr than a famous rich guy with the best lawyers in the world who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, struck a plea deal in order to get off with the lesser charge of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” (or statutory rape), and then fled the country when it looked like the plea deal may not be honored? I’m all for Polanski being tried legally and fairly. Over the years, Polanski has repeatedly attempted to appeal the case—a really cool feature of the American legal process he purposefully evaded—but he refuses to appear in court.

    Excuse me while I play the world’s tiniest piano, but if the American legal system is broken, the fix is not for rapists to just choose their own adventure (in this case, France).'

    While much of this is true, ther is one thing you probably don't know: the standard of review for appeals cases. that standard is a"clearly erroneous abuse of discretion" by the judge. Judges have wide discretion and proving it clearly erroneous is difficult. This discretion is why the plea was not going to be honored. There is substantial indication that the judge loved the spotlight that this case out on his courtroom, and that that is the reason he was going to honor the plea deal. however in order to prove that not honoring was the deal is an "abuse of discretion" Polsnski would have prove no reasonable judge under the circumstances could find enough evidence for the higher charge. That means if any theory presented by the facts could satisfy the higher charge, the ruling stands, true or not.
    Polanski should go to jail, his defense is ludicrous, and true judges can set aside pleas for good cause, but when that cause is likely muddied by an attempt at stardom by a judge, I just don't think that's just. The process must meet the result. If all we cared about were results then we'd be in trouble.
    Polanski's crimes likely meet the higher standard. He should be extradited, but to stand trial, not to be put away on the charges he was likely disingenuously convicted of.
    If you want to see justice, I think this is the only way, and I think and hope he will be convicted again.

  66. #66

    All of this irks me.

    Fact: Polanski PLED guilty; there was no more trial to be had, there is no more trial to be had. Polanski fled sentencing, not trial.

    Fact: Judges can agree or not agree to plea deals, and are under no obligation to uphold any deal the DA strikes. The DA can simply recommend a course of sentencing. Polanski was clearly informed of this at trial, and asked at the time he personally entered his plea in court, if he understood that the judge did not have to honor any plea Polanski may have entered into with the DA, and that Polanski would not receive a final sentence until after the results of what could be a 90-day (and turned out to be 42-day) evaluation of him. Polanski testified in court that he understood this.

    Then he went to France before sentencing and never came back.

    I don't care if the fleeing convicted criminal fled to France to make movies for 30 years or fled to Mexico or Canada for 30 days to avoid sentencing, he still is still a convicted criminal who has not served the sentence he is due to serve by law (and which, by law, is limited to no more than 5 years in California, at an absolute maximum). The fleeing itself is a crime.

    If France chose not to honor an outstanding warrant and extradition order, that is France's issue. The Swiss chose to honor it. That's out of everyone's else's hands, governmental or otherwise; if the Swiss extradite him to the US, that is still solely between the Swiss and the US.

    Polanski can appeal sentencing (and could have done so at the time) and need not have been in jail while doing so. The sticky issue now is that even if he appeals sentencing regarding the statutory rape conviction, he now also has to contend with having fled sentencing, itself a crime. He brought that one on himself.

    The man is no longer on trial for rape, regardless of anyone's opinion on that. But, as a citizen of this country (and Polanski pled guilty to a federal offense), I am hugely concerned with seeing that a convicted criminal does not have the option to decide whether or not he feels like going through with his sentence. Besides, Polanski DOES have the option of pulling out of his plea agreement and taking his chances with a trial. Like O.J. Simpson and Phil Spector; it could go either way. The man knows his options; he just chose the one that would guarantee him his freedom; but having pled guilty to a crime, he knew he was agreeing to give up his freedom anywhere from 42 days to 5 years. It is not his decision, however, to figure out how long that will be. No man is above the law.

  67. #67


  68. #68

    Now that some time has gone by, we see that Polanski is not the VICTIM that his FAKE DOCUMENTARY CLAIMS him to be!
    I say this because the former LA Prosecutor that made the claim of misconduct WAS LIEING AND ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT HE WAS LIEING!
    This was NOT NEWS TO POLANSKI, as POLANSKI WAS LIEING ABOUT the entire 1977 trial, even before it started! Polanski would PUBLICLY BRAG OF THE STUNTS/lies THAT HE WAS GOING TO PULL ON JUDGE RITTENBAND, to make the judge look bad. Then Polanski would commit these acts/crimes.
    I KNOW this to be true, because I phoned judge rittenband, in 1977, and WARNED HIM OF POLANSKI'S SCAMS/SCHEMES!! Judge Rittenband was to have ME arrested, because he misunderstood what was occuring. Then one of the court employees told judge Rittenband that his friends/family/neighbors had ALSO HEARD POLANSKI BRAGGING OF THE COURTROOM ANTICS THAT HE WAS TO PULL, DAYS/WEEKS BEFORE THEY OCCURRED!!!
    Judge Rittenband PHONED these people, found that I was telling the truth about Polanski, AND DETERMINED THAT POLANSKI had mental problems and sent him for a 90 day evaluation! POLANSKI'S OPEN CONTEMPT OF COURT was a CLEAR INDICATION OF MENTAL PROBLEMS, and a SELF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR!!!
    When Judge Rittenband HEARD OF THIS SCAM BY POLANSKI, he knew that he could no longer waste time on a sociopathe who had NO INTENTION OF EVER ENDING THE TRIAL!! REGARDLESS OF THE SPECIAL TERMS ALREADY GIVEN TO POLANSKI (dropping most of the charges against him)!!!
    Rittenband told Polanski to go back and finish his mental evaluation, so that the judge could find the appropriate punishment for Polanski!
    This plan was (in POlanski's delusional mind) the path to being a GOD TO THE HOLLYWOOD PEDOPHILES WHO OWN/RUN MOVIE STUDIOS AND TV NETWORKS!!

  69. #69

    The Age of Consent. People keep bringing that up like it is a movie title.

    It does not matter WHAT the age of consent was in 1973, or now. Nor does it matter what Polanski THOUGHT was the age of consent.

    She did NOT consent.

    Got it?

  70. #70

    Why do douchebags need to steal other anonymous usernames (like mine)?

    Maybe because they're the ultimate in douchebags, practicing the ultimate in douchebaggery?

    Yes, that's it!

    That isn't my post up there.

  71. #71

    I'm beginning to wonder what Switzerland's plans are for the child-rapist Roman Polanski. He is under house arrest as far as I know but is that it? He is 76 years old now his life is more than half over what good is it to put him behind bars now. Maybe he should be stationed close by Charles Manson. That should be his demise.

  72. #72

    1. you are trying to force Europeans, who base their law on the oldest and best of all law systems, Roman Law, to bow to USA law. Will not happen.
    2. You are condemning a man, who was never found guilty, therefore denying him one of the main tenents of Anglo-Saxon law, that is, nobody is guilty until a court decide it so.
    3. You are hurling epithets about child rape, which suddenly is in your invectives an European thing, while the whole case happened during wild seveties in LA, where, as far as I have researched, the culture was much more permissive of such behaviour and it was generally not punished at all (not that it was a good thing though). So, you judge someone on the sensibilites, culture, moral and law of 2010, while the crime, if, was committed 27 years ago, when he reacted ass "all did" (not an excuse, but still). Hypocrite much?
    4. You shout and bemoan why do the Europeans not accept your values, while you know very well, that USA values change not only from the state to the state, but from the district to the district. Whose values should Europeans accept and adore?

  73. #73

    I have a 7th grade daughter.

    Some of the apologists (Amy @ 39, for example) may think that 7th grade girls are mature and sophisticated, but go spend time with real 7th graders.

    They're not sophisticated, no matter how much they think they are. They're not supposed to take or be given drugs. In fact, it's more dangerous for teens than for adults, because teens are still physically and mentally developing. They're too physically immature to take sexual penetration from an adult man in ANY orifice.

    It wouldn't even have mattered if she didn't say no or seemed to say yes. No decent man could spend time with a 7th grade girl and believe he had any right to do what Polanski did.

  74. #74

    @pakvapol, re: point #2

    Did you not even read the article, or any others that state the facts of the case? You say he was never found guilty, and that is false. He was _convicted_ of unlawful sex with a minor. (Sadly, he was not convicted of all charges against him, but he _was_ found guilty, and did not fully comply with sentencing for the crime he admitted and was convicted of.)

  75. #75

    Blah Blah Blah! This happened 30 years ago, who gives a monkey's ass about this anymore, especially seeing that victim doesn't want this endeavor to continue. That's more important than any other single factor, and it should be the biggest factor in trying to right a legal wrong so far in the past that isn't murder. Finally, WHAT A FRIGGIN WASTE OF MONEY, ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE FACT THE CALIFORNIA DA LOST THE CASE!!! The Puritan Family with vengeance to wield needs GFT! They can't think rationally about a single thing, and the only thing greater than their ignorance is their arrogance. If they really gave a damn about this girl they'd be going after her mother as well, with an even greater sense of righteousness!

    Parents, pull your heads out of your arses and quit commenting, your opinions mean dick, and your views would be laughable were this not a very serious crime that does indeed deserve harsh punishment. To little to late, not to mention frivilous, ludicrous, ridiculous, and wildly straight to late after the fact. I seriously hope this DA gets canned for their foolhardy approach to this case.

  76. #76

    1. you are trying to force Europeans, who base their law on the oldest and best of all law systems, Roman Law, to bow to USA Anglo Saxon based common law. Will not happen. And by continental law all crimes (with the exception of war crimes and genocide), cannot be enforced after (generally) twice time of the highest possible sentence that could be passed (which in this case did) – statute of limitations.
    2. You are rallying to jail a man, who was never condemned for rape or sodomy, never admitted to be guilty of them (he admitted a lesser offence), therefore denying him one of the main tenets of Anglo-Saxon law, that is, nobody is to be persecuted until a court decide it so; and btw. if the USA judge three decades ago would not go back on his decision, it would be different. Polanski didn't spend 42 days in a psychiatric institute, it was Chino prison under psychiatric evaluation. Per a deal brokered by the judge & prosecutors this was to be his entire sentence. After serving the time the judge then reneged on the deal, essentially breaking the law. This is what the Swiss decision is based on! This is what the sworn testimony the Swiss asked for sets out. This is what the present LA courts refused to release because it shows "faults in the extradition request" (ie Polanski has already served his sentence). It requires considerable brains & critical thought to get beyond the mob hysteria, but the BS of this article is irresponsible.
    3. You are hurling epithets about child rape, which suddenly is in your invectives an European thing, while the whole case happened during wild seventies in LA, where, as far as I have researched, the culture was much more permissive of such behaviour and it was generally not punished at all (not that it was a good thing though); but at the same time there was a backlash - the conservative counter revolution started to make examples. So, you judge someone on the sensibilities, culture, moral and law of 2010, while the crime, if, was committed 33 years ago, when he reacted as then “all did” (not an excuse, but still). Hypocrite much? Any analysis from those times about how was such behaviour/crime handled and what is the ratio of punishment for it? Or the rage is better than that?There were a number of such trials at the time, - the trial of Harry Reems anyone?
    4. You shout and bemoan a supposed fact, that is, why do the Europeans not accept your values, while you know very well, that USA values change not only from the state to the state, but from the district to the district. Whose values should Europeans accept and adore instead of theirs and why?Polanski is, so far as I can tell, guilty of a morally reprehensible act, but this case was bungled from the beginning, by USA law enforcement agencies – the fact that Polanski lives in Suisse was known to everyone since 2005, but USA reacted only after direct report from Switzerland in 2009.
    5. The record of the case shows the possibility that the extradition request was seriously flawed, and that in fact, Roman Polanski had already served the sentence for which he had been convicted. That Switzerland couldn't get a California court to provide a sensitive document likely favourable to Polanski confirms this suspicion. This was compounded by the fact that the rape victim behind the case against the artist, has said several times that she has forgiven him and no longer wants to hear this story going back over 30 years. No Suisse councillor could ignore these facts when considering a request to extradite the film-maker. 
    6. The very circumstances surrounding Roman Polanski's arrest were heavily in his favour. The film-maker was arrested upon arrival in Zurich, after he was invited by Swiss authorities to receive an award. This was to be a senior federal official who was to praise him - on behalf of Switzerland. Polanski's confidence in Switzerland was badly betrayed by the zeal of an official who himself reported to U.S. authorities the moment the director arrived on Swiss soil. This - despite the fact that Polanski regularly stayed in Switzerland at a cottage he owns - and without anyone questioning or worrying about it. Swiss rule of law - that all citizens are equal under the law - was wrongly invoked to justify Polanski's arrest. Or else, how can we justify the way this principle was never brandished to trigger Polanski's arrest during his frequent trips to Gstaad?And, how many times did USA refuse to extradite a criminal to another country? David Headly for example? What goes around comes around.
    7. And you forget that this is not USA ramming its law and morals into others nations throats, this is a fundamental cultural issue: to what extent is a law universal - how much should it be subject to national, cultural interpretations?

  77. #77


    Well golly. Have you folks started releasing criminals caught and convicted after they committed their crimes, since your legal system is apparently required to absolve the guilty as long as differences in culture are present?

    Can you even convict foreigners?

    Better re-examine Simon Wiesenthal's work. Some of those poor war criminals might not be guilty any longer since the times have changed so drastically.

  78. #78

    I welcome decision not to extradite Polanski. Women who have sex with boys get away with it all the time, a couple of thousand more cases like this and we'll start approaching gender equality.

    Also interesting to note how quickly the "victim" started supporting her "rapist" after receiving a big check in a civil suit case. Makes one wonder how truthful and uncoerced her original testimony was.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.