Skip to comments.Roman the Rapist
Posted on 09/30/2009 9:22:58 AM PDT by Chet 99
Roman the Rapist
He had sex with a 13-year-old girl. He got her to go to Jack Nicholson's house by promising that she would be in a photo shoot. When she got there, he fed her a Quaalude and alcohol -- champagne for a 13-year-old, how enticing -- and then he raped her.
Roman Polanski was on his way to a film festival in which he was to be honored for his life's work when he was arrested last weekend. Some 100 European big shots have released a statement in protest: "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him."
I've got news for the big shots: International cultural events are not safe havens for criminals, nor is there any reason they should be. A criminal is a criminal, even if he is "one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers." There's nothing "inadmissible" about it, guys.
His lawyer in France is even more strident: "There is no reason, either in law or in fact, nor on the terrain of the most elementary justice, to keep Roman Polanski in prison for even one day," Herve Temime told reporters.
Maybe I can help Mr. Temime a little bit here, with some law and some facts, and some elementary justice.
The reason to keep him in prison for far more than one day is that he's a rapist who fled from justice. Actually, that's two reasons, and each is sufficient.
Roman the Rapist pleaded guilty. This is not one of those stories where you need to insert an "alleged" or a "purported" before each sentence. This is not a "he said-she said." He was in his 40s. She was 13. He was a famous director. She was a child. He lied, lured and plied her with drugs and alcohol.
How about those facts, Mr. Temime?
Interviewed not long ago, the girl, now a woman, said she wanted to put the whole thing behind her. The rapist's "sympathizers" (that's what the press calls them) think that is enough. Wrong again.
Rape is a crime against the state, as well as a civil wrong against the individual. The victim is free not to pursue damages. That is her decision. Where victims refuse to cooperate, it is often difficult or impossible to secure a conviction, but cooperation is not a legal requirement. The state presses charges, not the victim. Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime against the state. It was "People v. Polanski." The People -- in this case represented by the district attorney of Los Angeles -- are not putting the whole thing behind them. Rightly so.
Polanski pleaded guilty assuming he wouldn't go to prison. I don't have any idea why a famous director who raped a 13-year-old after plying her with drugs and alcohol would assume that no punishment was in order, but he did. Celebrity justice maybe? Who knows and who cares?
When reality intervened and it became clear that a judge might well sentence him to time in prison, Polanski did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. He did not await the sentence and then appeal it. Free on bail pending sentencing, he decided to thumb his nose at the American justice system and flee the country. Fleeing from justice violates the "most elementary" principles of our legal system, to quote the misinformed Mr. Temime. It's every bit as serious as raping a 13-year-old.
For the past 30 years, Roman Polanski has been not just a convicted rapist but a fugitive from justice.
Yes, he's made some big films in those years. So what?
Yes, he's traveled freely across Europe during those years, living a very fancy and famous life without being arrested. So what?
There is no statute of limitations on fugitives.
The fact that he got away with it this long is not a reason to declare him innocent. He is a guilty man who fled from justice. It is time, past time, that he was returned.
If he gets away with this, it means that you can do anything you want without fear of being prosecuted. The more our laws are violated without punishment, the more they will be violated.
Maybe Whoopi thinks Susan Estrich is a racist?
For once I completely agree with Ms. Estrich.
I call her Screech. But she is right on this one.
If only Ms Estrich would apply this type of critical, no nonsense analysis to other legal, policy and political topics.
I believe he sodomized the child also. And LOOK at who is defending him....ALL OF CORRUPT HOLLYWOOOD!
Unlike Whoopi, Susan knows there is no difference between Rape and Rape-rape.
Bingo Susan. It is amazing how many celebs are openly supporting an admitted child rapist just because he is one of them. Wow!
Yes. Not one word to object to: legally, morally, or even gramatically. Which is almost unprecedented for such a liberal writer. Good for her!
I thought Ms. Estrich was one of Clinton’s big defenders, even in the case of Juanita Broaddrick. Or has memory failed me again?
Susan, you knocked that one out of the park! Well done.
Last year, transcripts of Geimer's 1977 grand jury testimony, which resulted in six charges against Polanski, were made public. The transcripts include shocking details of 13-year-old Geimer testifying that the 43-year-old Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude before performing oral, vaginal and anal intercourse on her, despite her demands to "keep away."
The Flight to Avoid Imprisonment is a crime alone worth a year in jail.
Just how many other young girls has he done this to in his 30 years of freedom? A pedophile not caught is still a pedophile.
Yes, he did ... wasn't sure she was on birth control:
Susan Estrich, unless I am seriously and hideously mistaken, is a rape victim here self. Yes, whoopi, a REAL rape-rape.
So while I normally disgree with her- especially her support of Bill Clinton (ANOTHER accused rapist) she is right on the money here.
Too bad she cannot apply this same insightfulness to other liberal causes (like baby killing and death row murderers NON killing)
I know if that was my daughter, it would have been a very short fancy and famous life...
Someone check to see if he has an actual law degree...
Estrich was singing a different tune about Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick...
SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK’S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE — “not interested”
Good for you Susan, you haven’t been swayed by who he is or what he has done. He plead guilty and then fled the punishment. Hopefully now he will serve his time plus that for fleeing.
Yes he did, “At 15 Natia Kinski began a romantic relationship with director Roman Polanski...”
If he was a Roman Catholic priest, the glitterati would be baying for his blood.
Frankly I'm a little shocked at the number of luminaries who apparently feel either that special rules (extending to child rape?) should apply to special people, or that he got away with it and we shouldn't revisit the issue because it's old. Remember the names next time these people pose as avatars of morality with respect to other issues. "Yeah, Bush should go to jail for letting someone put water up a murderer's nose but child rape is OK if you're One Of Us." Right.
Doesn’t matter whether the victim forgave him or not; he still raped her; therefore doesn’t deserve a pass.
To be fair, Juanity Broaddrick never submitted a complaint to the police. She missed her chance.
She was. Apparently Polanskum hasn't done enough for abortion rights to merit Estrich's sympathy.
Birds of a feather flock together, is an old saying that comes to my mind when I hear all these hollywood & european big shots crying foul over this rapist finally being caught and jailed.
Just makes me wonder what they’ve been doing to young girls that they would see nothing wrong with a 13 year old being raped by this rapist.
Yes, he did, evidently because she didn't remember exactly when her last period was because she was too drugged on Quaaludes and champagne.
Even if the woman is over seeing him see jail time, he is still due in a jail cell for jumping bail.
Well someone provided a young Drew Barrymore with drugs and alcohol at adult parties.
The Obama Injustice Department did that in the Black Panther election day case.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more perfect example of the left’s ideology concerning the rule of law vs. cult of personality.
The hollywood gliteratti are working under the assumption that since Polanski was so gifted, he should not face the full force of the law. Exactly what the left has in store for the rest of the country, if they are able to stack the courts as they now are attempting to do. There could be no more clear example of the axiom: Some people are more “equal” than others.
If that were my daughter, I’d be explaining to the nice officers how Mr. Polanski got that fatal bullet wound.
A friend of mine went to school on the east coast with a guy who, after graduation, went out to Hollywood to work in costumes. Fifteen years later he came back east to visit (sometime in the mid 80s), visited her and her husband, admired their 2-year-old, and after the kid was in bed, the adults had a glass of wine and some conversation. One topic led to another — eventually he said huffily that he thought that having sex with young girls was an ok thing to do because his “friend” Jack Nicholson was into it. That was the last time they spoke to him, much less let him near their house.
Oddly, the victim was quoted in Reuters as saying she didn’t think Polanski should be given any prison time.
Does anyone know what goes on, really?
I heard that she got some money....don’t know if its true.
Susan Estrich is my favorite liberal.
On most issues, she is pretty far to the left, but she is usually intellectually honest.