Dear Hollywood folks

[topaz]

Dear Hollywood folks:

I like you.  I really, really like you.  Lots of you are really my kind of people: funny, engaging, passionate about making great movies, earnest about progressive change (if a bit shallow in your politics, but lots of us are guilty of that mistake sometimes).  I confess: I am more susceptible to show biz gossip than I like to let on, and am liable to click through on the latest celebrity news quickly when no one's looking.  I care, guys.

So it is only with the deepest sincerity and concern that I ask you today to shut the fuck up about Roman Polanski already.

Seriously!  I don't know what you think you're doing, but it's not helping.  It's not helping anyone.  It's not helping him, it's not helping the situation and it's really not helping you.

Look, I know there are complexities at play here.  I know that the victim has, for most of the last 30 years, wanted to put the case behind her, and since January has wanted the case dismissed.  I know that Polanski was on the verge of locking in a plea bargain when the judge fucked him like.... well, like a 44-year-old director fucks a 13-year-old girl, I guess.  No one, as far as I can tell, believes that he poses a threat to anyone at this point.  I get it.

But please let us return to first principles: this is a man who pleaded guilty to raping a thirteen-year-old girl.  That is not usually classified as a victimless crime, Hollywood folks!  While the judge's apparent decision to reneg on accepting a plea bargain was a rotten thing to do, it does not reduce or lessen his guilt and it arguably does not justify fleeing justice for 30 years.

So if you want to lobby for his freedom by urging that the judge dismiss the charges, or sentence him to time already served: that is a fine argument!  Go for it.

But in the meantime, kindly do not:

• tell us that he should be excused because "he's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago"
• refer to raping a thirteen-year-old girl as a "so-called" crime
• attempt to excuse it on the basis that "it wasn't rape rape"
• dismiss the gravity of the issue because Polanski "is not responsible for killing anyone"
  

And above all, whatever you do, DO NOT allow Woody Allen within a HUNDRED MILES of commenting on this case.  I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a camera dolly.

Or, as muckefuck put it so eloquently: I ❤ Luc Besson.

I love you, guys.  I really do.  Now stop fucking up.

Comments

[qnetter]

First, I'm not sure any crime is worth pushing through the criminal justice system thirty years after it was committed, escape or no escape, especially given the victim's desire not to do so. it's amazing how law-and-order types believe the courts should listen to the desires of the victims -- but only if their desires are for higher penalties...

Second, if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison. does it excuse the act itself? Hell, no. But the court should have recognized that circumstance and ruled on his misconduct hearing without his physically appearing, since the odds of dismissal or a new trial were significantly non-zero.

Finally, and I know this makes me an evil person: I am really tired of the "but she was only thirteen" argument. I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood. (I do, however, have a duty to protect the safety of others, no matter their age, so I'm not shirking that here or letting Polanski off the hook -- just saying the age issue seems to be here only as an emotional hot button.)

She was raped; that's enough, whether she was 13, 33, or 93. And, yes, he should be tried and face consequences of that crime. But (please read this carefully, this is not the pro-NAMBLA argument it might seem) I know that age and power inequity are not in all cases the same -- I know that I could have knowingly consented in a lot of situations when I was 13 or 14 -- and [EDIT] while there should be a PRESUMPTION of power imbalance in a case like this subject to legal examination, the real issue here is that, yes, there was a power imbalance, yes, he drugged her, and yes, it was clearly against her will and she said so then and always after. What I am getting at is this: the person responsible for protecting her childhood, legally and morally, is the stupid mother who sent her unattended for a photoshoot. It has pissed me off in this case from day one that we did not bring the force of the law down on this stupid, abusive, and criminal mother.

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

Wait, seriously? You're blaming the mom???

[keyne.livejournal.com]

Excuse me, I think I left my jaw on the floor next to yours.

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

This is kind of why I couldn't bring myself to post about this today. I don't want to find out that my friends are secretly dickwads.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

Well, of course! After all rape is always a woman's fault, and if you can't blame the kid, the mom's the next best thing!!

[qnetter]

Not instead of Polanski, of course not. But, yes, I am blaming her.

Do any of you actually remember the case, or are you just working off pre-digested thirty-year-old news? It was very clear at the time that the mother was a somewhat-complicit social climber who was knowingly trading her daughter's baby-doll pre-adult image for a shot at the big time.

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it also clear at the time that the victim was an immoral little Lolita?

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm aware that the girl's mother was seen to be deliberately sexualizing her daughter, and I agree 100% that sending her off unattended was a screamingly stupid thing to do, and I agree that it is a travesty that authorities did not pursue a separate case of child endangerment against her.

That said, this is a distraction from the matter of Roman Polanski's culpability in drugging and molesting a young woman. Bringing it up in this context is essentially to say that the girl was asking for it because of the way her mother dressed, and you need to knock it off.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

it was very clear at the time

...not in any way that was ever demonstrated in a court of low.

that the mother was a somewhat-complicit social climber

...which is neither illegal in and of itself nor a mitigating factor for a rape charge.

who was knowingly trading her daughter's baby-doll pre-adult image for a shot at the big time.

...which is neither illegal in and of itself nor a mitigating factor for a rape charge. Seriously, if you don't believe me go ask an actual lawyer.

If your assertion is that her mother was an idiot and a terrible parent: I'm with you 100%. But it's also completely and totally irrelevant: it's just as illegal to drug and rape the children of terrible parents as of exemplary ones, and Polanski was not arrested this week for rape, but for being a fugitive from justice.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

I am obviously late to this party, but what the heck:

So ddo you also blame the parents of kids molested by priests for taking the kids to church? What with pedophile priests & the Catholic Church's hierarcy's ongoing coverups being a widely-known problem?

[(Anonymous)]

The big point you're missing here is that he was tried and convicted. In fact, he pled guilty. The issue was already pushed through the criminal justice system in California.

He fled just before his sentencing, after serving 42 days in prison while waiting for the trial and sentencing (which some are saying was enough jail time).

There have been fewer than 10 attempts to arrest him in 32 years.

Did he rape other girls in that time? who knows?

I'm sure that the mother has suffered plenty, and would change her decision that day in a heartbeat. I'm not sure if Polanski has suffered, or even expressed remorse about what he's done.

[qnetter]

I'm sure that the mother has suffered plenty, and would change her decision that day in a heartbeat. I'm not sure if Polanski has suffered, or even expressed remorse about what he's done.

I'm not sure you'd care whether or not he has suffered or expressed remorse. It was pretty clear back when the case occurred that the mother did not, at least at the time -- she made a very "Mama Rose" decision to trade her daughter's image for status and fame.

I am by no means saying she and not Polanski is culpable -- but she definitely is.

[aroraborealis.livejournal.com]

What I am getting at is this: the person responsible for protecting her childhood, legally and morally, is the stupid mother who sent her unattended for a photoshoot. It has pissed me off in this case from day one that we did not bring the force of the law down on this stupid, abusive, and criminal mother.

The person responsible for not raping her was Polanski, and every other person who entered her life, before, then, and since. Her mom may have been a cold-hearted social climber, but she didn't drug her daughter and rape her. He did.

If you don't think there' s a difference between raping a 13 year old and a 33 year old, why is this the mom's fault?

[trom.livejournal.com]

It was pretty clear back when the case occurred that the mother did not, at least at the time -- she made a very "Mama Rose" decision to trade her daughter's image for status and fame.

And you are basing it on the newspapers of then?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"I know that I could have knowingly consented in a lot of situations when I was 13 or 14"

The law says otherwise.

Also, i question why you are introducing the red herring of her mother's culpability. She made a questionable decision, but she didn't break a law.

[qnetter]

I believe she did break a law.

It feels like all most of you know about the story comes from news articles thirty years after the case and a short Wikipedia summary.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

You may believe she broke the law, but she was not charged nor convicted.

Also, i've been hearing about Roman Polanski dodging the cops for quite a long time.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

What law? Be specific. A general statement of "to protect her child" is too vague to be credible.

[qnetter]

The law says otherwise.

And it's as bad a law now as it ever was. A PRESUMPTION of non-consent is reasonable. A complete assumption of it is not.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. Well, have fun at your next NAMBLA meeting.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

He spent 42 days in jail before he fled, so he didn't flee rather than setting foot in a prison.

Just correcting you because you seem rather insistent that only you know the facts of the case.

[qnetter]

Yes, technically, true. But those 42 days brought home to how great an extent his prison stay was a flashback and intolerable.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure any crime is worth pushing through the criminal justice system thirty years after it was committed

Roman Polanski's 2 crimes are raping a child and absconding before his sentencing. What's the minimum number of years that have to go by for the courts to let a child rapist and jail skipper not have to worry about serving his time?

if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison.

You know, a good way to avoid jail time is to not rape children. In fact, maybe someone who has an "Auschwitz experience" should have been even more averse than your average Joe to committing acts that could increase his odds of having to go to prison.

I'm not wholly convinced I have a special charter to protect someone else's children's childhood.

I don't even know what this statement means. Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side? Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?

[qnetter]

Is this a contributory negligence argument, like in some states, where if you get in an accident and a jury decides that your bad driving contributed even the slightest to the accident, you can't recover any money from the other, more negligent side?

No, it's an argument like I faced in Florida when I was the less-contributory party to an accident and was still required to pay the full bill for the other drunk driver's injured passenger because I was insured and he was not. Specifically, it means that being sure the person in question is treated differently as a child than they would be as an adult is the responsibility of the parent.

Are you saying that the state should not be allowed to prosecute a child rapist if there was some "contributorily negligent" bad parenting involved?

No. i'm saying that a rapist is a rapist. The "child" part is irrelevant to me other than as an indictment of criminal parenting on the part of the mother.

[trom.livejournal.com]

Second, if I had had Polanski's Auschwitz experience, I know I would have fled rather than ever set foot in a prison. does it excuse the act itself? Hell, no. But the court should have recognized that circumstance and ruled on his misconduct hearing without his physically appearing, since the odds of dismissal or a new trial were significantly non-zero.

Except that he wasn't in Auschwitz. If you're going to call other people on their facts you should make damned sure you have your own right.