Polanski is disgusting and i hope they bring him to justice.

Can we also extradite all those priest who were touching little boys as well.

Could onpoint explain how These priest were able to escape justice like Polanski did or is it okay to sexually abuse children also long are your a celebrity or in the church?

It seems pretty obvious, but I’d like to hear Polanski’s take on all this. Is he just on the lam avoiding punishment, or is there more to it?

Too many Americans are noxious hypocrites.

Some of the loudest voices calling for Polanski’s blood almost certainly buy their thirteen year old daughters make-up, blouses that openly display midriffs, sexually explicit movies and music, semi-pornographic teen magazines and the lewd ads therein, etc, etc…

Anyone who has ever browsed the internet for porn (I certainly have) has seen clearly what many, if not most, young American girls are like in terms of sexuality.

It is no wonder that much of Islam thinks WE are the backward culture when it comes to feminist identity.

If you want to bloviate about sexual mores, then start by taking a good look at your own daughters and just what kind of stupidities WE in this country are putting into our thirteen year old girls’ heads. When you come to terms with that, then maybe you’ll have some grounds for claiming that a girl thirteen or over should really be protected in this country by statutory rape laws. WE are the ones making our young daughters sexually aware when they should still be considered innocent, ignorant children. America truly is a sick, backward culture in many ways.

Polanski almost certainly did rape this poor young girl against her will, but it’s hard to stomach the “moral indignation” and calls of statutory rape being spouted off by such hypocritical Americans.

It’s truly time to take a good, long, objective look in the mirror.

Oh… and don’t forget the short shorts that say “CANDY,” “YUMMY,” and “BITE ME” etc, on the back-side.

Cory, I’d like to hear Polanski’s take, as well. He committed several crimes surrounding this that need to be accounted for in some way. The prosecution from years ago also has some explaining to do.

Not a Chance: your reasoning is faulty and amounts to little more than “the girl was asking for it.” While it may be true that society is too permissive/precociousness is promoted in the media, dressing provocatively, being sexually advanced/sexually confused do not then serve as mitigation for rape.

I can’t really see what Polanski’s defense could be even if the sex was consensual and the girl told him she was a little older.

I think the victim puts it best:

“Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case.”

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/12/polanski.case/index.html

The real question we should be asking is: did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990? He has yet to release his records.

Not a chance’s post implies that it is the victim’s fault if an adult attempts to sexually assault a young woman. Apparently it needs stating yet again: sexual assault and attempted sexual assault are never okay—I don’t care what blouse or make-up someone is wearing at age 15, 18 or 35. It’s a crime and those who commit it should serve time.

I think it’s important that we examine sexuality in our culture as this issue gets worked out but Polanski broke the law, period. Lots of people who aren’t world famous directors go to mail for rape every day and few make a stink about it. Where is Whoopie Goldberg in those cases?

The fact that Polanski makes great films (I think so anyway) has no bearing on this. He broke the law, he needs to serve his time and if it’s life, it’s life.

No Jamie, Not a Chance’s post doesn’t imply that it’s ok to rape; rather, it implies that one should not temp an undesirable consequence, and then point fingers at everything except oneself.

Why are these so called intellectuals & thinkers of our society defending a creep like this? What i find hypocritical abt Polanski’s supporters is that they are at the fore front of calling ppl in developing nations barbaric, cruel etc for marrying young teens, I m talking marriage not rape. But when it comes to their own kind, they r ok with even rape. Strange!

What Polanski did 32 years ago was a crime, period.
However if you look into the case you see the judge, who has since died, committed some grave errors of judicial conduct. A plea bargain was made and the judge reneged on the bargain midway through the process. There were also allegations of other outlandish conduct that the judge had done as he was more interested in getting being in the lime light than in conducting a fair trial. The was reason Polanski fled. Right or wrong, he panicked and left the country.

The other issue is Polanski has already settled with the girl and the family in civil settlement.

Polanski has been traveling around Europe for years and now he is suddenly arrested? Something is not adding up here.

I wonder if it would satisfy his protectors AND his prosecutors if Polansky could be held accountable with a giant fine which would be given to rape crisis centers or other related support services. Might have more positive and long lasting results than sending him to jail. (And letting him go scot-free shouldn’t even be an option.)

That’s it, blame the 13 year old for being suggestive, not the 40+ year old pervert.

Julie that was the original deal, and the judge screwed it up. I think Polanski needs to pay a huge fine, and do some years of community service or something to that effect.

Putting him in jail at this point would be absurd. Also if the DA in LA is not careful the case will be dismissed due to the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

People should read up on the case before commenting, it helps.

The point is, Not a Chance and Todd, that he is an adult. That young girl was exploited and violated by him. Temptation can be resisted. No matter what anyone wears, violating a person never is to be tolerated. Jamie is correct.

If anyone would just read the grand jury testimony, it shows that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Period. In our country the crime is committed not just against the victim, but against the people as a whole as well. So this is not just justice for this poor woman who had to endure the consequences of a 40 year old man taking advantage of her position of authority over her, it is also justice for the people of the state of California. This is not a case of statutory rape — SHE SAID NO. Read the grand jury transcript and it is spelled out clearly. Yes, Polanski is a tragic figure who is haunted by many demons. That does not excuse what he did. He has never answered for what he did. He has even said in past interviews that he didn’t think he had done something wrong. He thought drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl wasn’t a crime? There is one justice. How can we claim that we want justice for the thousands of rape victims in the US each year if we will not apply the law equally regardless of who the rapist it.

I am thrilled that the authorities are finally bringing this sex offender to justice. I am outraged at the reaction of many of Hollywood’s elite. I cannot believe that so many luminaries have called for his release. I will no longer be seeing any movies that any of the people who signed the free polanski petition make.

The hollywood people would not say these awful things if it was their child. Hollywood is sick! Whoopi is wrong and any other Celebrity that signed a paper to let him go are sick also! Why do we have such shows as catch the preditor if underages sex did not matter? This was a child! A 13 year old child! It doesn’t matter if it was consentual in which it was not! It’s Rape!

Is this a joke? Sure have whatever sympathies you want, but are we a nation of laws or a nation of pick and choose? If this was a random guy, he would be fried. We are a nation of laws. You want it different? You’re nuts!

I read that the victim would like the charges against Polanski to be dismissed. Should the victim’s wishes in such a case be taken into account?

This is a terrible crime. My inclination is that people should pay for such things, but the victim has asked that this be dropped and that she feels violated by this being brought up again. Has Polanski raped anyone else?

I agree with Ms. Ferraro. Lock him up. If he paid any amount in a fine, it would still be tantamount to paying a parking ticket. He is free and, maybe, feeling guiltless.

It is not the woman who is pursuing Polansky. It is a DA. This case was messed up originally by a waffling judge. Statutory rape needs to be prosecuted and the perpetrator needs to be found guilty and sent to jail. No matter who or how old he is. Let’s hope that this time justice (making things right, not asking for vengeance) truly is served.

I think it needs to be mentioned: you don’t have to “cut Polanski some slack” because of his age or his artistic accomplishments, but he might deserve some leniency because of the huge lapse of time between the crime and this arrest, and because the victim herself does not want to prosecute any more and has publicly stated that she would like the charges to be dismissed, and because he has repented and is living a different kind of life. He is married, with children and is not living the kind of life he did when the crime happened. Also, the judge reneged on the terms of a plea bargain at the time, under which Polanski had a reasonable expectation that he would be sentenced to the time he had already served. He complied with the court up until that time.

Why is this even a topic? If this did not involve Roman Polanski it would be a non-story as everyone (the public at large) would want justice served. All he did was run away from the legal system. He deserves no extra consideration form the legal system, the media, the Hollywood elites, and least of all from us, the law abiding Americans.

Does the recent arrest of Roman Polanski have anything to do with the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired? I have a hard time believing that the US law system going after him, a 76 year old man, now.

Seriously, why do so many of you seem to think you can customize the application of law based on your personal opinions and sympathies? Do you really not believe in a nation of laws? History is pretty clear on the failure of other systems. You’ll throw that all away because of your personal sympathy for a guy who made cool movies??

My question was answered, but I still feel bad for the victim. She never had a choice in this, first the rape, now the unwanted attention.

Could the radio host please explain the EXACT chronology of the charges, trial, sentencing, and incarceration?
It seems that Mr. Polanski did some prison time, but fled before sentencing? Was his prison time served based on sentencing, or because he was not out on bail?
What is he actually being brought back for? A new trial, or for sentencing, or for another trial based on skipping the original sentencing?

What sort of a model would be setting for the world with its terrible population of child prostitution, if we say, under certain circumstances, we forget about it.
Also, in 1977, age 13 was more innocent than most who are age 13 are today. I know I’m out on a limb with that. But the sexual revolution, brought on by the “pill,” was less than a decade old. The nation was still quite Victorian.

Very weak line-up; to have a meaningful discussion, Tom Ashbrook should have gotten a second lawyer to speak on the pro-Polanski side, and you can have however many artistes you want to debate the non-legal points.

Celebrities have been getting special treatment in regards to the law for a long time, so this is no surprise. An actress runs over a 9-year-old kid and gets probation. Famous people are pulled over drunk time and time again and get nothing. Why are we surprised that celebrities are lining up to get a famous director off the hook?

I have rarely heard an “intellectual” as dishonest as Bernard-Henri Levy debate this issue. The arguments are just appallingly full of holes–it’s hard to even think of him as an adult arguing an issue.

he was arrested BEACUSE hes guilty. thats the only WHYYY that matters, Mr. Henri-Levy

If there is no statute of limitations, there is no reason Polanski should not be held accountable.

One does have to wonder, though, why he wasn’t dragged back years ago given his public profile, and as Monsieur Levy said, openly spending time in Switzerland several times a year.

It just goes to prove that if you’re higher up the food chain and a celebrity of his magnitude – you can do anything and get away with it; and that’s what he did.

So I guess we shouldn’t prosecute any of the remaining Nazi soldiers either, since it’s been so long? The logic to “let it go” doesn’t hold water….

Please cf Phil Spector. He, too, brought great pleasure to millions through his work.

Ask any of the 10’s of thousands siting in jail for the same crime what they think. He’s got money and influence, and I am tired of it. This should not be bantered about. He fled the country illegally. That in itself is breaking the law! What’s to be discussed?

If Roman Polanski were a Catholic Priest, we would not be having an argument about IF he should be in jail, only HOW LONG he should be in jail.

Here’s an example of a rapist who committed his crime 19 years ago and is being prosecuted now: Garrido.
How about the 24 captivity and rape of his own daughter: Fritzl. Henri-Levy you know not of what you speak!

I’m having trouble understanding two of the defense points for Polanski.

One is that other people have done worse things. The other is that he hasn’t been chased aggressively enough over the last 30 some years. That other creeps haven’t been punished enough seems like a pretty weak defense. And that there might be some reasons why cops picked him up now vs. before now, don’t have much to do with his guilt. What does it matter if there are political reasons for picking him up now?

I won’t comment on the defense that the original trial was flawed in some way. I find it offensive that some criminals get off from technical mistakes. But that is part of our system. However, in this case, even if it was flawed, it seems that he was found guilt and fled before he was penalized.

Tom,
I am a clinical psychologist who provides psychotherapy for girls who are victims of sexual assault. It is extremely difficult for minors to go through the ordeal of bringing their experiences of sexual assault to the light of day because they are worried they will not be believed, will be viewed as guilty, “dirty,” or as having been responsible for what has happened to them. When we do not hold people who commit these acts accountable, regardless of the passage of time or the status of the perpetrator, we make it more difficult for the next girl who is faced with telling her story in an effort to validate her credibility and obtain some justice.

Mr Henry-Levy is ether full of it and can’t use google…probably both…. there is plenty of cases of rapists identified and prosecuted after decades, especialy with DNA technology becoming so widespread…

enough with this insane apology for a rapist.

rape is not a crime against humanity? vive le french relatisme,…right…it makes me sick to listen to that phony character.

If Bernard Henri-Levy truly believes in what how an artist must be more exemplary than a non-artist, then by his own definition Polanski should willingly submit himself to incarceration in the US. Otherwise, he is a calm, mild-mannered father who has openly flaunted the laws, and Henri-Levy actively supports the antithesis of his definition of an artist.

Roman Polanski is a survivor of Auchwicz where his mother died, followed by the murder of wife and unborn, 8-month old child…I hardly characterize this as a charmed life, as Ferraro continues to maintain…her position is a further embarrasssment.

To Marc,

The “defense” you refer to is not making arguments grounded in law.

i feel creepy and guilty every time i watch a RP movie and was impressed, amazed, moved or amuzed; because i new about this disgusting crime he committed, and how the whole world knew, and yet he flew off on a plane and continued to live lavishly and famously. i was appalled to the point of nauseous whenever he was given big awards.

the scandal is the years between his escape and now, not the fact that he is finally confronted.

The argument (”or the French speaker’s “bet” to a caller) that one could not find another (anonymous) criminal who has been taken 32 years later is lame. Of course, he is instantly recognizable to most as he smugly went on with his life in countries with low morals and little respect for law. Obviously, this would happen frequently if criminals who did not take responsibility for the crimes were able to be justly labelled with a “scarlet letter” or similiar recognition. His celebrity may have brought him to his eventual arrest, but it also unjustly protected Polanski as well. The only issue that should disturb us is that it took this long to grab this unsavory character.

Further, I think there should be a worldwide boycott of all filmmakers and actors who shamelessly support him.

http://www.silobreaker.com/30-year-rape-case-proceeds-5_2262587027776077832
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/mar/03/dna-tests-confirm-conviction-30-year-old-rape-case/
http://www.ktvu.com/news/17886163/detail.html

Here are 3 cases of 30 year old rape where “regular” men have been prosecuted over cases that happened approx. 30 years ago. So the arguement that we’re only pursuing Polanski because he’s famous is foolish, the only reason we HAVE to pursue him is because he’s loaded and he CAN abscond.

Bernard is right that this whole thing was precipitated by the political pressure over the Swiss accounts scandal. But, if Polanski had not raped a 13 year-old, the Swiss would not be using him as a bargaining chip.

The matter of the victim’s opinion could not be any more irrelevant. Not only is it meaningless in the context of US criminal law, but she was raped at 13 in a circumstance that was facilitated by her parent. Not a recipe for a well-adjusted adult — the fact of her victimization and its consequences for her psyche is only more reason to discount her opinion on the perpetrator today.

Mr. Levy makes 2 poins: first that the government had to search more vigorously and thus condoned his crime. The prosecutors have limited resources. Polanski was the one who fled. The burden was on him; he was the fugitive.
Prosecuting old cases happens all the time in the US Justice system. Mr. Levy would lose his bet.

We Believe as Americans that Justice is BLIND.
And in that tradition we (the common people) are protected from the powerful, the elite and can rest assured that they will be brought to justice despite their money, ability, position.

Holding up Polanski’s art as his defense flies in the face of that. Any other Joe Schmoe off the street would have been in Jail long ago.

The gentleman from France’s argument that Polanski is targeted because he is a celebrity does not hold water. Mr Polanski actually has committed two crimes, the rape and jumping bail. The law in the U.S. always pursues fugitives because it is a crime on its own! I believe Mr. Polanski would have been brought to justice earlier if he is not a celebraty.

Please focus on the illegal actions of the judge in charge of Polanski’s case. From what I saw in the documentary, he should have been removed from the bench and charged. Regardless of whether Polanski is a first-degree murderer or a pick-pocket, he has a right to a fair trial which he knew did not happen and that is why he left and did not come back. That should be the focus of the discussion, in my opinion.
Greetings from Canada.
Steve

A child was drugged…illegal.
A drugged individual cannot give consent…a 13 year old is both too young to give consent, and if drugged, even less able to be cognizant of what is going on. Sex with this child is illegal. The onus is on the adult to not be a rapist.

To Not a Chance and Todd,

Let me quote an old Take Back the Night riff -

“Yes means yes
No means no
However we dress
Wherever we go!”

Still, I completely agree that the American public has allowed corporations to sexualize our babies, small children, tweens, and teens way too much; it’s hard sometimes to even buy underwear that is decent for an eight-year old. Sometimes it’s all lacey, shiney, full of those messages you mention…just try finding decent stuff, even at a JC Penney. I don’t/won’t buy it, but I know a lot of people do.

“Seriously, why do so many of you seem to think you can customize the application of law based on your personal opinions and sympathies? Do you really not believe in a nation of laws? History is pretty clear on the failure of other systems. You’ll throw that all away because of your personal sympathy for a guy who made cool movies??”

Dave, we’re liberals.
And for us liberals, “artists” are demi-gods telling us the truths about our lives, hence they deserve special treatment and a special status than an average person on the street, more so when it comes to criminal activities.

What Roman did was inexcusable, but Bernard still makes the most sense. Inexcusable is not the same as unforgivable and with all of the “Christian” rhetoric flying around this country, one hard pressed to find any reference to forgiveness or redemption.

Ms. Ferraro earlier asked who we should allow to get away with these heinous crimes. How about the Bush/Cheney regime? Perhaps the French should keep their children away from the United States because of our casual attitude towards torture.

If our justice system really wanted Roman Polanski, they could have had him decades ago. This is nothing more than a high profile diversion.

As a filmmaker and a journalist I am offended that we are debating the fate of a rapist who has been on the run for years, who did not at any time come forth to face judgment on his own.
Using his occupation as an artistic defense is highly offensive to those of us who work in the industry without
committing crimes against children.
His work is forever tainted by his real world behavior, and he should face the same punishment as any non celebrity would.

Two points:
1) Polanski fled to France and began a relationship with Nastasia (sp.?) Kinski when she was 15. He’s a serial pedophile.

2) Alex Kelly from Darien, CT was convicted of rape and fled to Europe in the 90s. He was a fugitive for 8 years until he was found and extradited from Switzerland. He has since been sent to jail in the US. So, contrary to the French guest’s opinion, we do chase “nobodies” as well as celebs like Polanski.

You can’t compare a dog fight to child that was raped and sodomized. That is ridiculous. If the man is guilty, he needs to do his time. All these people that were named such as Mike Vic, did their time. He need to do his too1

Did Polanski ever offer restitution to his victin? Did he use any of those millions or celebrity to educate or advocate on the topic of rap or child abuse? No, he ran from his crime in EVERY sense, and did nothing to atone for the crime, despite and ABUNDANCE of opportunity.

I’d like to state that I am in favor of extraditing Polanski and making him stand trial. There are three points I would like to make:

1) Even though his victim has pardoned him, which she is welcome to do, she should no longer interfere with the criminal case. In India, bigamy is illegal for Hindus and it is a crime for Hindu men to have more than one wife. However, it can’t be prosecuted and has almost never been prosecuted because only the injured party or someone with standing in the case can file a police complaint or file charges. In the case of bigamy, this translates into this responsibility being put on the first wife, who is all too often either submissive, subjugated or financially totally dependent on her husband.

2) Ferraro points out that Polanski’s status should not affect the decision to prosecute or not. However, hypocrisy in prosecuting crimes or in access to justice is nothing new: when the Americans sign on to the International Criminal Court, and begin to prosecute those Americans who broke the law on torture (be they ex-Presidents or film-makers) and those soldiers and mercenaries who continue to commit crimes in Iraq and cooperate with international justice, perhaps it will then be easier for the Europeans to swallow the Americans’ sanctimonius arguments about “no one is above the law”.

3) Polanski should be tried not because “he is vile” but because he has broken the law. Judgments of character should not interfere with judgments of action – lest we fall into the fascist and hierarchical trap of letting the “good” people off the hook for their misdeeds – ranging from massacres during fascist Spain to rapes by high caste men against low caste women in rural India.

I’ve been to France and I know also that they will chase nobodys for a crime. That guy is full of himself! Maybe he’s trying to gain brownie points; you never know.

Bernard is addressing a more philosophical issue issue that does not align neatly with the legal and ethical arguments of Ferraro. It sounds like he agrees with them on the legal and ethical points yet is raising a question about double standards.

I found two news stories in which “ordinary citizens” that have been fugitive for +30 years recaptured and brought back to face justice.

Thomas Bell in 2006 (murder fugitive)
https://www.michigandaily.com/content/30-year-fugitive-be-returned-michigan

Charles Free in 2008 (robbery)
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/WorldNews/story?id=4400763&page=1

Roman Polanski is a wonderful artist and he is also a child molester and rapist.
The first does not cancel out the second. I was molested and raped by a 38 year old artist when I was 15. He tried to brainwash me that he had extreme and unusual needs because of his artistry. and that I was assisting him all the while he was teaching me! I was thoroughly intimidated and kept the events a secret for years. If I could prosecute him now I would, but I’m certain he’s dead since I’m now 68 years old and have suffered for years as a result of sexual abuse.

My god — it wasn’t “rape-rape”?!?! Only “mis-conduct”?!? When you commit a crime you need to be brought to justice for what you have done. He has not and ran to avoid that justice.

Mogl, you ask “Did Polanski ever offer restitution to his victin?”

Yes, they reached a settlement and she forgave him.

Sorry, I hit the Submit Comment too soon. I want to make a point that Bernard-Henri Levy is wrong that regular people who are fugitives do not get re-captured. Roman Polanski deserves no special dispensation.

Two news stories in which “ordinary citizens” that have been fugitive for +30 years recaptured and brought back to face justice.

Thomas Bell in 2006 (murder fugitive)
https://www.michigandaily.com/content/30-year-fugitive-be-returned-michigan

Charles Free in 2008 (robbery)
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/WorldNews/story?id=4400763&page=1

The french guest wants to know one example of someone being found and charged 30 years latter. ASK HIM to name one case of someone fleeing justine and 30 years later being told “never mind”, you evaded us long enough.

To Steve,

I completely agree with you about rights to a fair trial – thanks for speaking up.

More on this thought: some people seem to be indicting Polanski (in their mind) on charges that were never proven. These charges were not fully litigated; instead we have only what Polanski pled guilty to. And I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.

This entire discussion is absurd, and frankly, revolting.

The stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice 32 years ago is an injury that cannot be reversed—this media circus simply adds insult to that injury.

The victim is once again being pilloried in the public.
Whoopi Goldberg’s (among many, many others) questioning whether it was “rape, rape” is frightening, to say the least.
Roman Polanski raped her once—how many times does she need to be viciously violated against her will again with these salacious inquisitions into the circumstances surrounding her rape before we are done with her?
Rabid, self-righteous, self-appointed ‘protectors of children’ have no consideration for her, her family, or her right to privacy—to not have these vicious wounds reopened.
I wonder what is really at stake here?
What is behind this perversity of justice? Is it merely an urge for revenge? And who are we avenging?

Ahem,

These charges were not fully litigated; instead we have only what Polanski pled guilty to. And I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.

That’s the problem isn’t it? He ran away.

Someone posted about the tens of thousands sitting in jail for the same crime.
But they don’t have the “defense” of great films.
Well, in state law, in Massachusetts, the passionate “defense” made by Bernard-Henri Levy would be strictly held back until the sentencing phase. Only after the trial (a trial where the jury is strictly instructed that they are not to consider any possible sentence, that that is not their purview, before they deliberate), only then are the “impact statements” allowed. And mostly the impacts have to do with: This man has x number of children, and he has such and such a job which helps the community and supports his dependents. I’m sure Polanski or his lawyer would point out that he would not be able to make films during the time he is in jail. But I don’t think people are talking about say a decade in jail. I don’t know what the sentencing guidelines are in California, but that is where these discussions belong.
In Massachusetts, sometimes the judge finds that the person has already served the time that he is being sentenced to, and the convict is sentenced to probation. Lawyers arrange for what seems fair to all sides, given acknowledgment of conviction for the crime.
The impact statements do not precede the trial in American justice.

Apologies to Mr. Levy for the gentelman calling him an idiot. I don’t agree with Mr. Levy but he is entitled to it. Amerian “civitiy” is infamous, case in point.

And SHAME on you Not a Chance for sticking up for rapists the world over with your “She was asking for it—just look at the way she was dressed” post.

Rape cases always manage to bring the woman-haters to the fore.

Mr. Henri-Levy asked for an example of a case in the United States were a fugitive was caught after a similar time frame and returned to jail.

A simple web search yielded:

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/tennessee-1263021-years-caught.html

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/2504547/

Here are two fugitives who escaped from jail for which they serving time for robbery. One of the gentlemen escaped from prison in 1965!!! Twelve years before Polanski committed his crime.

I would say that robbery is a lesser crime than what Mr. Polanski plead guilty to. As we say in mathematics:

QED – the American justice system does go after fugitives without regard to time.

pardon my typing

“civility”

The plea he originally signed on to would have given him, as I understand, a not very long sentence, something like a month or two in jail or a psychiatric facility. If he gets extradited to California, I wonder if that’s what he’ll be sentenced to now. Maybe he’ll get more for jumping bail.

I think it’s hilarious to see his film industry supporters defending a child rapist. Good to know they don’t think the law applies to them the same as with everyone else. Good for justice system to go after him anyway.

The Hollywood apologists for Polansky do live in their own world. I have no problem with him being forced to face the law.

That said Geraldine Ferraro is being disingenuous when she says the “law is the law”. On a routine basis statutory rape victims show up at the delivery room accompanied by their parents and their rapist beaming over their new baby.

The difference is these are 13, 14 and 15 year old girls’ 18, 19 and 20 year old boyfriends who knocked them up and show up at the hospital for their daddy moment. No one reports them them because the social worker doesn’t want to alienate the father from his child. The girl doesn’t complain she was raped because she ‘consented’.

Let’s not excuse Polansky for the crime he committed. But let’s not pretend the criminal justice system is trying to land a big fish among many minnows.

OOPS: I meant to say … Let’s not excuse Polansky for the crime he committed. But let’s not pretend the criminal justice system isn’t trying to land a big fish among many minnows.

I cannot fathom Mr. Polanski’s apologists.

Box office success and awards are not legal proceedings.

If Polanski deserves any mercy it should be decided by the courts at sentencing. The woman who confessed to Sharon Tate’s murder 40 years ago recently asked to spend her remaining days dying of a brain tumor out of jail. After decades of apparently good behavior and moral transformation locked up, she was not released one day. Meanwhile, Polanski has been able to go forward with a productive public and personal life for the past 31 years. He has his many accomplishments only because he was unjustly free to do so. Many imprisoned now would accomplish positive contributions to society if they were given Polanski’s opportunities. But the past is the past and cannot be changed. One mistake has ruined many a life and Polanski should be no exception.

I liked the way Geraldine Ferraro kept repeating “the law is the law is the law”. Tom, I felt like asking her if she drivers a car and if she ever once went over the posted speed limit. If so, why hasn’t she turned herself in to the police.

People need to be reminded that the justice system works the same for all regardless of fame.

The main point to me is that he obviously isn’t sorry, or he would have tried to do the right thing long ago. I think the reason for the furor over this is that it is a referendum on our society’s attitudes about rape, and how they’ve changed, or not changed apparently, in the last 30 years (ie date rape used to be called a “bad date”; legally a woman could not claim to be raped by her husband, etc.)

As for the luminaries supporting him…I will never listen or view their work again without some taint. The whole thing is gross and is depressing me. Eve Ensler has a good essay about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/does-the-brotherhood-of-f_b_305581.html

Sad to see opinions, like those of Todd and Not a chance, in this day and age, that suggest somehow the victim is to blame when they are raped. Whenever I hear a man suggest this I wonder if he feels like he would, or has acted, to force himself on a woman because she was wearing attire or makeup he found “slutty”. It’s like announcing you’re a potential rapist. Gross.

Roman Polanski’s actions should never be described at statutory rape – I think many people who haven’t read the details of the case start imagining a Lolita-type scenario and it softens what happened.

Her testimony was that she repeatedly asked to be taken home and asked him to STOP. She STRUGGLED and said NO. He OVERPOWERED her and repeatedly performed FORCED sex acts on her. If she had been 20 it still would be upsetting and damaging for her. Now imagine a child begging to be taken home and being raped and sodomized. Evil.

In many respects he has perpetuated a double crime against the victim because of the unwanted attention she receives (and how upsetting for her to be blamed as “ambitious”, a charge also made against her mum -unfounded). This is exactly the reason why the DA should pursue this sort of thing without reference to the victim. She would be blamed by many if she continued to testify against him. Not saying she is not being sincere in her desire to see the case thrown out, but it sets a bad precedent.

“I liked the way Geraldine Ferraro kept repeating “the law is the law is the law”. Tom, I felt like asking her if she drivers a car and if she ever once went over the posted speed limit. If so, why hasn’t she turned herself in to the police.”

Oooh, you’re a clever one aren’t you? Forcibly raping and drugging a child and going over the speed limit, same difference.

Sounds like you would get along well with Todd. Please, stay away from children, you clearly don’t understand which rules to fudge.

ATTENTION TO RICK EVANS:

“On a routine basis statutory rape victims show up at the delivery room accompanied by their parents and their rapist beaming over their new baby.”

Dude, what you’re saying is creepy enough, but here is what happened in this case, according to her testimony (taken from salon — see for yourself at thesmokinggun.com):

“Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.”

Sound like the beginning of cute, happy, little family to you?

Wow, I thought we were better than this, but apparently not…I’m off the board, this is too depressing.

**WHOOPS, my apologies to RICK EVANS**

I didn’t read your second comment, and misunderstood your original point. Sorry.

n as much as I have never been a fan of Ferraro, I found myself thinking she was sounding fairly reasonable at first, but then she introduced two notions that seemed to tip-toe out of her pay grade, as it were, and into ad hominem arguments: 1) when she began to wrongfully malign European culture (and the French, in particular). And 2) when she held up Polanski’s so-called ‘charmed life’ as one of a few reasons for bringing him to justice.

Bernard-Henri Levy was perhaps too intellectual for the show, and his view (although very different than my own) was in a way pigeon-holed and not given its full due (and his limitations with the English language did not help him to give more nuance to many of his views). He had a couple of points; although, ultimately, they are not very important: 1) Mr. Polanski is being sought now because of his celebrity, not despite it (though he did not mention that, by the same token, Polanski’s celebrity has also afforded him some protection over the years). And 2) There is some political motive at play. The notion of simply bringing a fugitive to justice doesn’t quite wash (the Swiss accounts scandal is more likely). Also, Monsieur Levy’s “bet” to the one caller was just plain silly!

David Carr was fairly easy to agree with.

All of this said, I have read the transcript of the girl’s testimony; I’ve read the indictment and I’ve read about the judge, who played politics with the case and committed many errors in the execution of his powers.

Polanski’s ‘charmed life’ is NOT an issue. The girl (now a 45 year-old woman) shouldn’t have to testify again or relive that crime–and the media should also make every effort to show some modicum of restraint in seeking her out or putting a spot light on her. The fact that Polanski pleaded guilty and then fled is important but also is the judge’s behavior (and that behavior needs its own day of accountability). Polanski was not afforded proper defense because of the judge’s bungling but Polanski made a calculated mistake in fleeing and having a very visible life.

In terms of the crime itself, Polanski is guilty and showed a supreme lack of judgement. He met with the girl twice before the incident; he even spoke briefly with the girl’s mother. Even if she appeared to be a little older, Polanski had plenty of opportunity to find out more information about her. It appears he also put the girl in that position through some deception and manipulation that indicates a pre-meditation on his part.

Sorry, but I am about to use an expression I have grown to hate but “at the end of the day” justice has to be served and Roman Polanski has to be made accountable for his actions. I don’t think it would serve anyone well to throw him in prison for ten-twenty years. There must be some just way to satisfy society’s need for justice, Polanski’s right for fair due process and the need for him to accept responsibility all while protecting the victim’s privacy and views.

“Polanski fled to France and began a relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15. He’s a serial pedophile.”

Intersting point, Alan – especially since that relationship begin while she was starring in Polanski’s film Tess, based on Thomas Hardy’s classic novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles, a story about a girl whose life is ruined after her privileged employer “seduces” her.

[...] can listen here. The commentators include Bernard-Henri Levy and Geraldine Ferraro and New York Times’ David [...]

I was molested for 5 years by my stepfather (ages 7-12) and it was a defining time in my life which has taken years to get over. However, I do not feel that Roman Polanski was or is a predator, and those mindless sick serial predators are the types that I have always feared very much for my daughters. I read that the girl first went to his house, removed her shirt, and pictures were taken for vogue. A second time she returned to his house and again agreed to take off her clothes to be photographed, and the rape occurred. I am not saying it was her fault, but she was putting herself in a very vulnerable position-In addition, the year before his wife brutally murdered with his unborn child cut from his wife, along with the horrible murders of others at his home by Charles Manson. And also he had escaped from a concentration camp where his family had perished. I am not condoning what he did, but come on, how much can one person take? He made a big mistake, the victim wants to move on and has said she forgives-the vengenance with which people want to prosecute him is really disturbing to me. He has already suffered enough-If I saw my molester today I would not want him jailed, I would think he was a very sick individual who needed help, and frankly he was alot more evil. And Polanski is not a serial rapist, or a predator, this is a very different situation. We as a society or so self righteous..

Mr. Bernard Henri-Levi took the heat, did it with style, and what he said made sense. He graciously dealt with what appears to be a nation of highly conservative, holier than thou, self-righteous, superior moral beings out for blood and “justice”. Life is easy when everything is black and white, when you take the high moral ground, and when your beliefs are always right.

Roman Polansky
this is a country of laws,
costly enforcement
money and its equivalents
make people less equal than him

(tankoid)

I listened to Bernard-Henri Levy’s arguments very carefully. Following his logic, we find the following:

If you commit a crime and then:

-Manage not to be arrested for 30 years,
- win awards,
- and start a family,

then you are no longer accountable.

And a sub-clause to this is as long as did not happen to his daughter.

Finally, I find the following rationalizations terrifying: “It is not a crime against humanity.” And “It is not the biggest crime on the earth.”

Please, please hold your guests accountable when they try to rhetorically belittle the significance of rape in this manner.

Also, if you have a profession that brings you into the limelight and thus makes it harder for you to hide from the law, then you are less culpable.

Rhetorically, he is effective; logically … well, wish there was something to comment on.

Agreed, what RP did was a crime.. and must serve the sentence.. however I just wonder, what was a 13 year old doing alone in a strangers house?

Where on earth was her mother/father??

If you want to persecute RP, please heaven sake, when will we hold the parents also equally responsible?

This just doesnt sound like justice but more like Hatredness..

Tomorrow someone else will sell their kid to a brothel, and we will be there yelling and shouting to persecute the pimp, but no responsibility of whatsoever about the parents.. huh…. Just doesnt feel right.. thats all..

I know you guys are going to call me names….
and Self-Hating lkj;lkaj;oi;lkjdf, etc. but I am girl who like math and percentages

According to my calculations 91% of the people who signed the petition and wants Polanski to be released and not be accountable, are also supporters of Israel.

This is not a judgmental statement or a personal comment, it is just a mathematical fact.

Sorry, shoot the messanger. Somebody had to brought it up…. of course, until they delete this posting.

Also: In answer to Mr. Levy’s impassioned plea for other historical cases (and I was unaware American justice system rested on things coming in pairs), I question whether he is familiar with the sex scandal of the Catholic Church within recent years? Due to the fact these cases tend to be trivialized, ignored, and excused (in much the same manner he presented), it is not unusual for justice to be very slow in coming.

If anything can be learned from past precedent, it is that this comes at a great hazard to the victim, the vulnerable, and society as a whole. Thus, we need to take every opportunity to send an unequivocal message that sexual abuse is not something diminished by the fact you are otherwise (or later) “a nice guy,” not something that you can away with if you silence the victim long enough, not something you can get away with if run soon (or far) enough, and most certainly and emphatically something that is “a crime against humanity” in every sense of the word.

I would also like to point out that giving Mr. Levy so much air time creates a dangerous illusion that there are two legitimate sides to the issue. There are not. There is only a rational, ethical, and just one, and an emotional, amoral, and yes, even idiotic, one.

Lastly, the blurb for the show reads, “Roman Polanski, in jail in Zurich for sex with a 13-year-old 32 years ago.”

I question why it is not phrased, “for raping a 13-year-old 32 years ago”? (As it is correctly identified on the main page.)

Similar language has been used in other media outlets, and it only leads to confusion and a softening of the crime.

Roman Polanski has lived as a cultural force in this world since he admitted to his crime of stat. rape. It seems obvious that Roman Polanski has been allowed to pay his debt through his art, or live free because of his art, and this has been legitimized by the United States over the last four decades during which Polanski could’ve been arrested and extradited and wasn’t.

1 – The research shows that serial pedophiles strike again and again until they are caught and stopped. Polanski admitted he raped this 13 year old in the US, then fled to France and began sleeping with 15 year old Nastassja Kinski. How many others don’t we know about?
2 – If I had done such a thing, I would be in jail or dead. Most criminals in jail kill child molesters when they come to the big house because even criminals have a code – you don’t have sex with kids. Yes, it’s vile even by their standards.
3 – Hollywood is out of touch. Polanski does not deserve any of the cover he is getting. The 30 year lag in enforcement of his extradition is unfortunate, but that’s how it goes sometimes. And having Woody Allen as one of your moral defenders (and I used to admire him until he wed his step-daughter) is not a great help.
4 – I’m a liberal but Polanski is a dirtbag who crossed a big, nasty line and he needs to be held accountable. No two-tiered justice anymore, please.

A quick google search lead to this 2005 nytimes article about the number of old rape cases being reopened because of DNA evidence. The number of cases being reopened in NY alone is over 200. I am sure NPR can research this subject quite easily.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801EFD7163EF930A35752C1A9639C8B63

Quoting Ferraro, “the law is the law in this country”.
Unless of course your name is George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, or David Addington. We have a proud history of a judicial double standard, exemplified by the prosecution of Chuckie Taylor for torture by the Bush DoJ. Taylor it should be noted is black and not someone of great social status in the US, so his conviction was clearly fair and appropriate. But we must never falter in our hypocrisy, and it would never do for members of the Bush administration to be held to the same standard of law as Taylor was. The question is to which judicial standard should Polanski be held?

I think Polanski was totally wrong in raping this young woman and is disgusting. Having said that, I also think that the opinion of the victim (better yet the survivor) needs to be heard.

I feel like all these fat cats that want attention and are taking the moral high ground are just speaking about this only because it is the topic of the day and is a way for them to some press. What about the girl (now a grown woman) that was raped? She has said that she has put this behind her and that every time this comes up it hurts her, her mom and her family. She has moved on and wants this to be behind her. Yet we have all these people that CRAVE media attention talking about this and demanding justice or freedom. I say BS. It’s a way for these people to get on the air and that they don’t care about the victim and that it’s self promotion. No one wants to be known for something that happened to them 30 years ago, including the ‘famous’ people speaking out about Polanski, for or against!
I just feel that this woman went through hell at a young age and know that Polanski got away with a disgusting crime. I understand that a crime was committed and the price not paid. But it’s less about Polanski, it’s less about ‘justice’ and more about how this individual who was assaulted wants to be known as a mom, sister, daughter, aunt and not as the victim of a rape that happened 30 years ago.
Let her move on and concentrate on the adolescent murders that happening at an alarming rate in Chicago, the homelessness that is happening all over this country or a war that is taking the precious lives and maiming the brave young men and woman of this country.
Sorry, but my heart is with the victim and her wishes, not with Polanski and certainly not with self promoting celebrities and politicians who think they know what is best.

Plain and simple Polanski is a fugitive from justice. This crime is of a very serious nature. I don’t think that any rational, reasoned & moral person would find that too much time has passed. This is a violent crime against a young girl. He already got a sentence that was outrageously low to begin with. Rather than even attempt to demonstrate any sense of responsibility or remorse for the harm he caused he fled the U.S. for France. This demonstrates to me that he is a misogynist. That his celebrity friends are rallying to the aid of a rapist is revolting.

Speaking of misogynists, “Not a chance” sounds like a person who is deeply troubled. I am not all that familiar with this case, nor will I ever be. That being stated, “Not a chance” can’t be familiar with it at all or he is a monster. Not a Chance that he is a decent person!

Kevin, I sympathize with your instincts but not your conclusion.

Just as I, iota for iota, depth for depth, share every inch of Mr. Evy’s utter outrage that this is being prosecuted 32-long-years-later!

The outrage is: why the (insert word of your choice) did this take so long?

That is the second crime, and there is no question the fault of our own penal system will increase the pain of the victim.

The third crime is being committed by the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and other so-called Hollywood progressives whom I am rapidly losing any respect for.

I would also like to note Mr. Levy’s tone and strategy in this conversation: It worries me that people are responding to it, as it shows we still respond to emotion over reason.

Point one, the voice of outrage. It exploits are instincts for empathy and passion. When will we learn this is a strategic rhetorical device, used by the likes of Blagojevich and Cheney and guilty parties and their defenders all over the planet? It is the simplest emotional device for changing our perception of the guilty into that of a victim.

Two, trying to explain away the crime. Oh, but… it happened a long ago. Oh, but “it’s not the worst crime on earth.” Oh, but… the prosecutors are hypocrites. Oh, but… he’s not such a bad guy. These could also be called red herrings: all premises unrelated to the conclusion he was trying to make.

Three, trying to paint himself as some impartial judge by another appeal to our emotions: We are to know, if this ever happened to HIS daughter, he would be capable of ANYTHING. This unsubstantiated claim is to make us sympathize with him as a human, someone who does care about the safety of children, someone who does register the horror of the crime and therefore must have good reason for defending the abuser in this case.

Again, I question why these appeals warranted a place on the show. I believe the public airwaves belong to the realm of logic and reason; the arguments presented by Mr. Levy strike me as in the realm of propaganda and hysteria.

I still have not, from anyone defending the pedophile, heard or read one logical argument against his prosecution.

And I would be happy to respond to one if it were to be presented here.

excuse me: “It exploits our instincts for empathy and passion.”

I am not certain who the French intellectual is who is on the show, but he gives French intellectuals a bad name. His logic sloppy.

1. Just because someone has suffered a terrible loss in one area of life is no reason why they should escape punishment in another area of life. Prisons are full of people who have suffered great tragedies in life, who were not excused their crimes. Your intellectual is guilty of the fallacy of emotional appeal.

2. Time alone does not excuse a wrong. Certain crimes are judged as causing such a threat to the public good that include no time limits. Fleeing the rightful jurisdiction of the courts is one of those laws–forget what he did to the young girl, which was a crime no parent would wish on a child. If anyone who could escape detection for a set number of years would be immune from prosecution, a mockery would be made of our judical system.

3. The fact that a victim forgives someone for a crime does not remove the criminal’s responsibility to the state. We prosecute people everyday, where the victim has forgiven the person who has committed a crime against them.

The question comes back to the question of why Polanski should be excused of a crime where we would rightly punish others. The only reason anyone is speaking up for Polanski is that he is a great artist.

Maureen,

You fail to mention (at least) one thing. In 2003 Samantha Geimer said “she wants the case resolved so she can get on with her life without any more publicity” (CNN). This to me suggests that the current media attention actually increases the pain of the victim.

On a side note. I find it interesting that in over 100 comments no one mentions her name, I believe. She seems to be the 13-year-old-victim, in essence, anonymous. Yet we all seem to know so well what right, wrong, truth, pain mean to her.

I find it interesting that we have folks “searching” to admonish the commenters for wanting the victim to maintain some privacy and, in the same sentiment, recognizing the pain the victim endures when she is identified in the media. I think people understand that she is a person who has a name, and if there is one aspect of this discussion that seems to indicate consistent agreement it is empathy for the victim. At least most in this forum are doing a bit better than CNN. Did they say where she lives and whether or not she has a husband and children?

I also don’t think concern over how the media would handle coverage of a trial/story/crime should prevent justice from being served. “Let’s not prosecute criminals because the media will report on it and cause pain for the victim” doesn’t seem very logical.

If we spend one hour of OnPoint time for (defending) a creep, we should spend one hour on what the hell has happened on 9/11

As a person trained in rape counseling and working in this field for some time, I have two basic, but important, points and another that is more my opinion:
1) The victim always has the right to not prosecute despite Ferraro’s comments of the primacy of the state. As a counselor, I cannot advise this course of action without going to jail myself but I have seen many instances where this was absolutely in the victim’s best interests.
2) Onerous punishment for rape does not help the feminist cause. As with any other criminal inquiry, the more exacting the punishment, the least likely that people will prosecute, that juries will convict, or that we can have a public discussion about changing the mindset that is behind such crimes.
3) My opinion: We have been involved in a national witch hunt for any malfeasance involving minors (as defined rather artificially by age) and have really poisoned the waters. Given the time frame of this act, I can understand why Mr. Polansky did not want to trust his fate to the tender mercies of the American jury. This discussion takes us beyond the details of this situation but goes to helping understand our troubled history here.
Rape is a unique type of crime that is deeply personal, terribly destructive, and a product of our social/gender consciousness. It is an act of asserting power over another, not of sex. As such a consideration of the larger social environment especially in a case of now near historic time frames seems in order. I would have hoped that we could have had this discussion rather than a restatement of our prejudices against Hollywood or a reframing of a deeply problematic idea that we might achieve total justice here. It seems to me that we have entered a phase where political considerations on both sides are blinding us to the reality of who we all are – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I have looked over the online petition, and we should remind ourselves that most of these people had the good wisdom to support Barack Hussein Obama in the last Presidential election. They were among the first to point out that Sarah Palin was grossly unqualified to be a crossing guard, let alone vice president.

Given their service to this country, I think we should not be so quick to judge the likes of Ms. Goldberg, Mr. Weinstein, and the rest of the artistic community. Through their activism, they have often shown to be more moral than this country’s “middle.”

Brett,

I agree with the first point you are making. However, I need to, for what I would like to express is that I’m afraid in the jungle of supposed logic, binary thinking, finger pointing, the most sacred goes lost: her will.

I apologize to mention her by name again, I believe, it is important. As a 13-year old girl, Samantha said No. As an adult woman she said No again (CNN was a reference for the quote). I’m afraid, what most are emphatic for is only their very own disgust, hatred, fear and vengeance for certain actions. In all the noise, Samantha is likely to get overheard again, just like 32 years ago.

Isn’t it the media who have brought the victim’s identity into this? Where I live, anyone underage, perpetrator or victim, their name is kept out of the paper. Wasn’t it the victim in Polanski’s case who stepped forward herself to say enough already?
If so, she put herself into this. I believe I heard Ferraro saying that once she had testified to the Grand Jury (very secret proceedings), she was done. In a “complaint” where I live, her name would have been reduced to initials, and left as initials.
The crime, such as it was, would be prosecuted as a threat to society. As I was once told, “Do you want this to happen to somebody else?” In that instance, the “abuse” was creepy, no more, but a certain practitioner was wiped off the charts, I guess, and I didn’t have to do anything. In other cases (a few) — once where I’ve been chased across town, me on a bike, the perp in a car, and to my home, into my bed — I weathered it pretty much unscathed. I considered it my problem, more or less along the lines of getting pinched into a parking spot, stuck in a strange place. Instances to deal with and get over. In all cases I was over 18. I can imagine a justice system overreacting, especially in a culture where the perpetrators felt entitled; they saw no wrong.
Where a 13-year-old is involved — I just think it might be the victim has distanced herself from the incident far enough; but it’s not about her anymore. It’s about the sense of entitlement that let it happen.
I credit Bernard-Henri Levy’s argument about the value of Polanski’s art not at all. Just imagine every criminal having to defend first against the accusation, and then his entire oeuvre, as if he were at the gates of St. Peter. Forgive me, Lord, for I have created millions of dollars of profit for the film industry, and charmed millions of viewers. What about all the artists who are only celebrated/successful after their deaths? Keats, I believe is one? Or the grandmother of Obama, maybe arguing over the right to have hip replacement surgery the month before her son’s election: “Grant me, oh health insurer, because I shall be proven to be the grandmother of the next president, and you will be glad to have saved me.”

Yolanda,
Whoopi talked about what happened as not being ‘rape, rape.’ It is difficult to take her opinion of this as anything other than offensive, at worst. At best, it is juvenile.

She was a fairly good stand-up comedian back in the eighties. To make a socio-political statement as a celebrity does take courage sometimes, but it is not quite the same thing as “activism,” though. I don’t know if anyone would go so far as to say her career has been a ’service to this country.’

I also think the reasoning is not very sound that because someone supported Obama’s election, their opinions are to be extolled in other matters.

Matthew,
My point had less to do with your point specifically and more to do with politicization in the media that prompts the judicial system to alter its duties one way or the other. At this point, the issue for the judicial process is what to do with Mr. Polanski. (He has already been found guilty of the initial crime.) My point had to do with bringing him to justice not based on media involvement or the “court of public opinion.” As Ellen Dibble has pointed out, the victim no longer needs to be involved in the proceedings; the victim has stepped forward herself, and the media is and will be equipped to cobble this up. If the victim suffers further, it will be at the hands of the media’s attempts to capture the public’s attention through sensationalism. My hope is that the judicial process will not be swayed by such matters. If my point utilized your comment at all, it was that comments in general were starting to find fault and virtue with the same idea simultaneously.

Geraldine Ferraro was once a great hero of mine. Her stupid (there isn’t any other polite word) comments on the program –and those of callers– disgusted me for their self-righteousness, self-serving, condescending snideness. Ferraro’s regret for sending her daughter to France for an education, and her insinuation that French morals incline French people to pedophilia, are irresponsible and global insults to a fine society and culture. Her simple-minded, xenophobic, provincial-American attitudes are embarrassing. I not longer wish her well.
Everyone, including Polanski, agrees that Polanski committed a crime. I think his actions were reprehensible and cannot be defended.
But, to pursue Ms. Ferraro’s line of reasoning –that America’s superior standard of justice (unlike those of other ‘lax’ countries) is inflexible in its doling of punishments and we must pursue every wrongdoer to the ends of time and space–let me suggest that she will have her hands busy pursuing most underage young American people, the majority of whom are engaged in sexual activities. ‘Statutory rape,’ is by legal definition what most underage young people are engaged in. Further, if she is a person of principle, I expect her to be forthcoming on the following questions:
Did Ms. Ferraro, herself, engage in even a single sexual act before she was of legal age? If so, she should turn herself in and face maximal jail time despite her advancing years (as she wishes upon Polanski).
If, in good conscience, she can deny any such activities, she must also demand of her own children honest responses to the very same question. I suspect that she will not like the honest responses, and she will not enjoy turning her own children in for what she considers a horrendous violation of law which should be punished at any and all cost.

I agree with what skrekk said:
“Quoting Ferraro, “the law is the law in this country”.
Unless of course your name is George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, or David Addington. We have a proud history of a judicial double standard…”

Jim makes the point: “minors (as defined rather artificially by age) and have really poisoned the waters.” I understand how that may apply when a case involves an 18-yr old prosecuted for the statutory rape an 17-yr old, but a 13-yr old is clearly a minor. How would you define minor if not by chronological age?

Moreover, I will add that, although, I think Polanski did escape because of his celebrity status, never paid the price for his actions, and has never showed any real remorse; the time, money and attention that the authorities, media, and the Americans, French, Swiss, ect, have focused on Polanski could be put too much better use i.e., cracking down on the sexual slavery and abuse that takes place all around the world.
And why now? There is no doubt in my mind this Polanski case has resurfaced for political reasons. The election of judges in this country is ridiculous but that’s a discussion for another day.

YAHOO MAPS is the most powerful software for Mapping which can able to open Almost any mapping file format! YAHOO MAPS is the best solution for mapping, drawing and calculating geographical distances. Cutting and filling of volume calculations or other advanced capabilities like contour generating from surface data, image rectification and viewing shed analysis from surface data triangulation and gridding of 3D point data is possible with this astonishing YAHOO MAP software. For details visit…. YAHOO MAPS

I think what Mr. Levy was trying to say, and has been discussed a lot in Europe, is that something is fishy. Why is the US so hot on this case now – after over 30 years? Mr. Polanski has had a vacation home in Switzerland for ages and openly went there often. The US could have pressed its case years ago, but didn’t. What has changed?

One thing could be the documentary film about the case that came out last year which made the DA’s office look bad and raised suspicions about the correctness of the presiding judge’s behavior. DA offices don’t like criticism leveled at them in public. It annoys them greatly. Then we have a judge up for re-election who needs/wants to look good before the voting public. I’ve always thought the system of electing judges is deeply flawed, especially in our society where running for election costs ridiculous amounts of money, many times more than in any other democracy. This means elected officials are perforce beholden to the large donors to their campaigns, bad enough for a politician and terrible in a judge. We don’t know what went on behind the scenes between the judge and the DA’s office and the Swiss government, for that matter, but something doesn’t smell quite right.

Furthermore I found Ms. Ferraro’s comments dismissing any such interests disingenuous if not hypocritical for an attorney and someone who has run for political office and been elected. I’m sure she’s not as ignorant of the processes as she makes herself out to be.

In my mind, jail or prison time should primarily be used to protect innocent people from future crimes. Roman Polanski has not raped or molested anyone in decades, and I think it’s safe to assume, he won’t do it again.

That doesn’t mean that he’s innocent. I would want him to face justice and make it up to his victim in some form. At the very least, He should pay her the sum to which he initially agreed ($500,000.00) and all the interest due since he fled. There could be additional penalties; what he did was awful. But I don’t think we need to be protected from him at this time, and his victim has already forgiven him — in spite of his flight.

I’m being inconsistent, because I feel different about Nazi wartime criminals. I don’t care how harmless they are today, their crime is too heinous to be paid off.

I agree that Polanski is a criminal and criminals should be punished. However, Geraldine is not helping the argument by taking cheap shots at France. That is completely absurd and petty.

Also, there is so much injustice and inequality in our legal system, why does no one care about that unless a celebrity is involved?

I am surprised so many of you are looking at such a simplistic view of this. I hate politics.

This website asks commentors to refrain from ad-hominem attacks… maybe they need to review that policy with their callers and guests!

Ms. Ferraro attacked all of France, what’s up with that? Don’t send your kids to France? America has more Rapes per Capita than France:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
(maybe she should have been a bit more concerned for the innocence of the French girl she was hosting)

Then some caller says he’s “stupid”? Talk about ad hominem attacks.

In any event this whole public lynching is a huge waste of everybody’s time and money and attention… that should be focused on bigger issues like America’s absurd incarceration rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
“Over 7.2 million adults on probation or parole or incarcerated in jail or prison in 2006. That’s about 2.4% of the U.S. adult population, or 1 in every 42 adults”

Although maybe Ms. Ferraro doesn’t feel we have enough people in jail yet. I’m not sure we will ever have enough for her.

“…something is fishy. Why is the US so hot on this case now – after over 30 years?”

Exactly. I’m not concerned about Polanski, but I am concerned about why this is going on now. Ferraro completely dismissed the question regarding the time frame.

Bernard closed this interview with a challenge to come up with an individual who committed a similar crime as did Roman P. who then fled and was picked up years later.
The answer to that question is: Alex Kelly
Mr. Kelly was on the run for almost eight years, he too was picked up in Switzerland. He has now done his time, is out living a normal life, and has not committed any further actions that would suggest otherwise.

Why is that everybody who keeps saying that the victim says “she’s over it and it should be dropped” do not mention that she got paid a big settlement by Polanski? I was surprised that Ferraro didn’t bring it up….She was great on this btw.

One of the morals of the story:

If you’re a fugitive from another country and you have a safe harbor in your present location, don’t leave the nation that is harboring you! He seems to have dropped his guard and forgotten that he was a high profile fugitive.

They played a clip of Polanski himself basically chuckling and saying it wasn’t premeditated and just sort of ‘happened’. (it happened after alcohol and quaaludes of course)

Levy is making me sick… every thing he says is so absurd, I don’t even know where to start. The problem is that Polanski should have been ‘hunted down’ SOONER. He was LUCKY to have over 30 years of the sweet life he didn’t deserve, as a criminal child rapist!

And frankly, if Woody Allen signed a petition in support of Polanski, that doesn’t hold much weight for me.

Disappointing show. We expect more out of Mr. Ashbrook than point/counterpoint shows about gossipy topics. And the only person they could find to defend Polansky was a duplicitous frenchman who lives to hear himself speak?

Please. There’s real topics for conversation these days.

I was disgusted that Bernard Henri-Levy would try to excuse the drugging and brutal rape of a child who repeatedly said no during the attack by saying “come on, he didn’t commit a crime against humanity”. I was also disgusted that NPR would not correct such an assertion. How is such a crime NOT a crime against humanity?