Surviving the Holocaust Does Not Mean You're Allowed to Rape Anyone

I absolutely agree. But honestly, Palanski doesn't have to be Elie Wiesel or some kind of wonderful humanitarian. He had a lot of hard knocks, and if he wanted to live out his life be a grouchy, pissy, generally obnoxious guy who made everyone around him a little miserable, I wouldn't begrudge him that. I know many survivors who did just that with their lives, and though I don't think it's a great thing, it's their right.

Raping a young girl is not anyone's right, ever. Defending Polanski for a crime that he has admitted to is inappropriate and shameful.

I think this is a tricky case. He admitted his guilt, spent a small time in jail, but then, apparently, a corrupt or delinquent judge seemed to be willing to throw him into jail for a long, long time on the sexual misconduct he pleaded out to. So he fled.

 I don't know what the punishment should be for raping a minor, I guess several years would be at the minimum. Hmmm. Guess I'm realizing that clemency nowisn't such a good idea and he should serve some kind of suspended sentence of up to a year, even though the girl, now a middle-aged woman, has said she forgive Polanski and doesn't seek any further jail time for him. Still, rape is rape. If there isn't a statute of limitations, he should face a "reasonable" amount of time for his crime. And 42 days isn't going to cut it. 

Lilit's post, while well intentioned, I think misses the point of Polasnki's trauma and of his subsequent gifts to humankind for his many impressive pictures outside of the Hollywood system. The Pianist is an important work at the Elie Wiesel level. Also, I would imagine his raping of a young woman stems, in part, to his trauma over losing his pregnant wife. Or maybe he was just a sick Hollywood type with too many drugs in his system.  

I saw this suggestion, & couldn't agree more:

Throw the book at him, and force him to direct the next two Transformer movies.

The problem here is that Polanski was allowed to plead to the lesser charge of statutory rape.  If you read the documents on The Smoking Gun (from the Grand Jury testimony), this wasn't "mere" statutory rape (i.e., consensual sex with an underage girl).  This was rape.

there is nothing in anyone's past that should constitute the rape of a minor. end of story. 

however, in agreeing with nicolebeth, he was allowed to plead to the lesser charge of statutory rape, and that fact alone had me believing since i've known about roman polanski's crime that it was a consensual encounter with an underage girl (although i don't think a thirteen year old is really in any mindset to make responsible decisions about sex).

your piece brings to light the true facts about the case, and although i would never take polanski's side on this (i find his actions disgusting, vile and shocking that anyone who had endured such torture themselves could force such torture on another), I do have to say that it was the justice system that failed in this case. not only was he allowed to plead to the lesser charge in the first place, but under the original terms set by the court, he was actually allowed to travel abroad as well. i realize that changed and upon hearing of his imminent prison sentence he fled siting his Auschwitz imprisonment past...

however, you are right: nothing in his past, or his eventual contributions to film and art make his behavior OK - nothing that he will ever do will EVER make the drugging, raping and sodomizing of a child OK. it's just sad that our justice system allowed him to get away with it for so long...

"If there isn't a statute of limitations, he should face a "reasonable"
amount of time for his crime. And 42 days isn't going to cut it."

First of all there is no statute of limitations in respect of serious crimes such as rape, and rightly so.

Second of all, if we assume for a moment that a statute of limitations applies to serious crimes, we may say that the statute is applicable at the moment the original charge was layed way back then, a few decades ago. The period that has elapsed since his escape to the present day would not be taken into account.

Third of all, if he has yet to be convicted and sentenced then that is the next part of the process. What is reasonable will be judged by reference to sentencing law, as it applies to every rape offender. The fact that he has fled the jursidiction, I might add, does not add to his chances for a light sentence.

Fourthly, the fact that he is a holocaust survivor does not detract from the crime he committed in any way.

A tough subject as has already been stated. I guess I have a real problem with the tone of this article. I do not think RP's holocaust history is being put forward as the major reason for letting him slide on what amounts to a really ugly sexual assault. I have my own personal history with both sexual assualt and the holocaust and the trivialization of either is extremely offensive to me. Lilit's tone, particularly in the second paragraph in which she deliberates on what would be acceptable for Roman to have done is as offensive to me as a bunch of movie makers saying a rapist should walk because he is such a great artist. Furthermore, as the parent of a beautiful little boy, I really don't know what affect it would have on my psyche if he and his mother were STABBED TO DEATH when he was in the womb...mercifully the Lord didn't ask me to live that particular hell. In conclusion I find that my own feelings on this are that RP is a really f-up guy who was really irresponsible and indulged his own evil with how he dealt with his pain and suffering...and that Lilit is pretty irresponsible with her pen as well. An interesting afterward which this article also doesn't address is how the VICTEM feels about it all:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

First, Lilit is not irresponsible.

Second, Polanski is worse than merely an f-up guy who indulged evil.  In my opinion, Polanski, just like every other child predator, is the embodiment of evil.  I take great solace in believing in a just God, who reserves a special place in Hell for those who prey on kids.  In addition, I find myself mulling over what would be the most appropriate punishment for RP at this late stage in life.  

I'm no legal expert so I didn't realize that all serious crimes don't have a statute of limitations, and that -- duh -- if he ran from sentencing then of course any limitations would be moot since the clock stops ticking. In any case, I think we all agree that Roman Polanski committed a serious crime and needs to pay for it, but that the criminal justice system also broke down, and now the victim just wants to move on with her life:

From CNN: [The victim] Geimer has said she long ago got over what Polanski did to her. She sued him, and a settlement was reached out of court. But the media, prosecutors and the courts in Los Angeles, California, continue to torment her, she has said.

 Very tricky to say what the right move is. Polanski paid up, and Geimer, apparently, was satisfied with that outcome and wants to be left alone. I'm tempted to say that the US is just making things worse by pursuing him if it's now in the victims best interests to have this case closed.

It's a quandary. I still don't like the idea of Polanski -- or anyone else -- getting away with rape, but after serving 42 days and having lived in fear of arrest for decades, and after paying restitution to Geimer, maybe it's best to walk away from this whole thing.  

I hope to God that Geimer is fully cooperative with The State of California's open & shut case vs. Polanski.  While Geimer is a grown woman who experienced a very unfortunate incident as a young gal, and received a cash payout, there are many more young victims out there who haven't had it so easy.  It is for these folks, in particular, that this case is so important.

Child predators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  They are unconscionable, and are repeat offenders.

My eyes have got to be playing tricks on me here, because I think I just read, "having lived in fear of arrest for decades, ......, maybe it's best to walk away from this whole thing."  (?!?!)  If I did read that right-- Zach, please enlighten me as to how you are able to get around with no spine in your back.  

BrookeLynn, you're demeaning this blog -- and yourself -- with ad hominem attacks, especially over such a sensitive issue which you claim to care about.

I couldn't agree with you more that child predators need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but I think this is obviously a special case considering the victim herself is saying that she's experiencing more trauma due to the never ending nature of our government's handling of Polanski than she would to having a guy thrown in jail. As much as we should always enforce acceptable standards of behavior, we should also be mindful that victims' needs are relevant in determining a just punishment -- and there's no such thing as one size fits all punishments, cf Rockefeller drug laws. I doubt I'll come to a conclusive ethical sense of this case since it's so complex, but having a one-size-fit all sentencing approach doesn't seem right, ever.

Well ZT, I guess we agree to disagree when it comes to the importance of prosecuting criminals even though the victim(s) don't wish to be troubled with the burden associated with doing what is the correct, sometimes tough, but socially responsible thing.

Even though you find me demeaning, I would still be a very great neighbor to you.  And you could count on me to come forth as a witness if I ever saw you (for instance) get robbed.  I would fully cooperate with police to see that the perpetrator was apprehended even if you announced that you just weren't up to the ordeal, or found it all terribly overwhelming, or simply too much of an imposition.

It was wrong of me to insinuate that you're a coward, when you clearly stated, "It's a quandry."  Nobody can be a coward if he is unclear on which direction is the correct way to go; it's only if the correct way is known, & not taken. 

Please accept my apology, Brooke

Firstly - (IANAL nor do I play one on TV but...) statutes of limitations depend on the state. Some, California for instance, do limit the amount of time the prosecution can take before commencing proceedings, depending on the nature of the allegation (I guess not all rapes are equally created under the eyes of our Lord and/or state congresses). You can read about it on the National District Attorneys Association website (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/sexual_assault_statutes.pdf)

Secondly, the statute does not apply because he pleaded guilty. Once the guilty plea is entered, you cannot, in effect, 'run away from the sentencing'. But in this case, the judge reneged on the plea agreement between the DA and Polanski, which is rather offensive.

Brooke - who needs to carry out this justice you mention? When does civic justice impinge on the victim's social well-being (or personal sense of justice)?  Sure, maybe Zachary's a coward. Maybe the victim (who has, of her own volition, PUBLICLY identified herself) is too. But this looks like federal aggrandizing of a matter that has rightly passed its time.

Bringing this back to my sparse knowledge of Judaism, no amount of harm or sorrow endows someone with a moral right to commit a wrong. Living through the holocaust and the murder of your wife and unborn child (sorry, or fetus, depending on your view of procreation rights!)  does not make harming others OK. But enough with the mishegas. This matter should be over. The only ones not satisfied are some percentage of the press, public and legal system. And you know what? 2 of those 3 don't really get a vote in this contest.And the third really already had its say.

edited for some grammar. i'm sure there are plenty of mistakes.

Yes I agree that he should be punished for his crime, but the crime was committed in America, he was tried in America, and he should be punished in America!

Allowing The Swiss authorities to exact punishment for a crime that was committed outside their jurisdiction is setting a bad precedent, how much further will they take it.

The next speeding ticket I get will I be subject to extradition to Switzerland, will I have to worry about being extradited to Saudi Arabia for drinking beer and reading a Playboy magazine?

Wiesel is a bad example. He didn't let his own experience of being brutalized by the Nazis interefer with the blind support of Israel's brutalization of the Palestinians. He's also a sitty novelist.

Thank you for your post.  I have to take a break from this particular thread.  Unfortunately, at this time, I'm lacking the energy and patience for this topic.

A very interesting news story. I note the prevailing view that France gives its great artists, writers, thinkers all kinds of privileges that were once only reserved for kings and high noblemen. 

 I also think that Polanski was/is a great artist and directed some outstanding movies - my favorite is his Macbeth. In my opinion THE best film adaptation of any Shakespeare play ever.

That said, I think most fair minded people who are familiar with the facts here understand that Polanski has gotten away with raping a 13 year old girl.

 It was not "statutory rape" - consensual sex between a man and an under age female - say a 19 year year old guy dating a 16 year old - and things went too far.

No it was a 43 year old man, drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. And this forty year old man - Polanski had shown strong indications that he was targeting girls in this age group.

Compare this crime to the supposedly horrible crimes of President Richard Nixon at Watergate during this time. Imagine if Nixon had entertained, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Anybody think the American/Western media, artistic community would have come to Nixon's side?

With Polanski now, I don't know what should be done. It shouldn't be a "show trial", but rape of a minor is a serious crime. 

That is a very good point.

Let's take it one more step and ask what the American/Western media, artistic community would do with the same scenario but replace Richard Nixon with Barrak Obama.

I still stand behind my original comment, the Swiss government has no jurisdiction, and why do they want to do something now, and why didn't they ask for O.J. Simpson.

This whole thing stinks!

I understand the plight of the girl to leave her alone since she is trying ( and succeeded) to forget her past. Unfortunately, if we give up on issues such as this, we are just fostering the idea that anybody famous and rich can away with any crime he has committed.

Also, having a hard past must not be used as an excuse to any crime you commited. It might be very idealistic of me to say so, but, an individual is not only shaped by his experiences but by what he does with these experiences as well.