Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Polanski Speaks Out, Wants Out

by Anne Thompson
May 2, 2010 12:18 PM
89 Comments
  • |
Thompson on Hollywood

On Sunday Roman Polanski stated that "he can remain silent no longer" over his still-unresolved rape case, now 33 years old, and distributed a statement to the media. Actually his old friend Bernard-Henri Lévy sent around the 908-word statement, reports the NYT.

Polanski has been under house arrest at his home in Gstaad, Switzerland, where the authorities have to determine whether or not to extradite the filmmaker to the United States to face sentencing in an L.A. Court, something he has been avoiding for three decades. He was arrested entering Switzerland for a tribute on September 26.

“I can remain silent no longer because the request for my extradition addressed to the Swiss authorities is founded on a lie,” writes Polanski, who blames Marina Zenovich's HBO documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired for stirring up career-mongering LA prosecutors into acting on his long dormant case. (She's working on a follow-up, needless to say.)

David Poland wants the filmmaker to face the music like a man and take responsibility for his actions. Here's Variety.

While I object to people who suggest that Polanski never did anything terribly wrong--he did--I do think that at his advanced age he bears little threat to anyone and has been punished, served time, and should be able to break out of this impasse. Was he a libertine and a reprobate, did he behave criminally and break the law? Yes. I'd like to see him cop to what he did. But this case is old and cold. There must be a way to fix this.

By the way, The Ghost Writer was one of Polanski's best, sharpest, most personal films in a long while. I want to see him make more films.

  • |

More: Directors, News

89 Comments

  • DocSays | May 4, 2010 12:08 PMReply

    Actually, there is not a flaw in my argument. Most rape cases do not go to trail and they are notoriously difficult to prosecute. All that aside the fact remains a deal was struck between the judge, prosecutors and Polanski's lawyers that his time served at Chino satisfied all parties involved and he was to be released. The judge then began to brag about what he was going to do to Mr. Polanski and this frightened him into fleeing the country. So, yes, there was no trial but there was a plea bargin deal reached which holds up as far as the law is concerned.

    As far as the money thing goes, well, the state of California where this would be prosecuted is in a state of complete financail ruin (and so is the United States for that matter) and so spending millions on extraditing and prosecuting Polanski on a 33 year old charge, where the sexual assualt victim has pled for the last 7 years to let it go, and the person being charged was found not to be a danger to others by American doctors 33 years ago, and where a deal had already been stuck on the sex crime charges to satisfy all parties, sort of makes it criminal to attempt to proceed with this stuff. Right now what they want him on is the fleeing the country thing because the sex crime part of it will be a slap on the wrist.

    Polanski will never return to the United States, where he was charged with these crimes, and so he is not a threat to our citizens or our children. Nor according to our doctors is he a threat to anybody else. So, the only reason to drag this out and not sentence him in absentia is for the publicity and to satisfy the public bloodlust.

    "Justice" will not be served in this case and only the "nuts" on both sides of this issue get satisfaction out of this. The Polanski nuts who think he did nothing wrong and the nuts that want to see him dragged into a public square and set on fire. This is a show for them and a publicity stunt for the current prosecutors who know they will get famous for taking part in this charade.

  • Shaun | May 4, 2010 4:14 AMReply

    I think it is pretty clear that more than 30 years ago, when he was first accused and charged with his crimes, Mr. Polanski walked away with a slap on the wrist. For what he did, he should have received a severe jail penalty. Instead, his celebrity enabled him to plea bargain to a much lesser charge, even though everyone knows and agrees that he drugged and anally raped a child. It's shocking and disgusting that what he was ultimately waiting to be sentenced on was far less than he deserved and admitted that he did. His later admissions of how much he enjoyed having sex with underage girls certainly does nothing to endear him to anyone or create any sympathy for him.

    Polanski has not suffered at all. He has been a successful fugitive and child rapist who, if he ever returns to the US, will probably still get away with a slap on the wrist for his more heinous crime. Right now, the greater probability is that he would be given a stiffer sentence over his decision to flee the American legal system.

    In the end, Polanski deserves no sympathy. One way or the other, he is probably (mostly) getting away with truly criminal behaviour.

  • Gert S. | May 3, 2010 11:43 AMReply

    This thing is just sooo old, it’s not even worth it anymore. Jews are over it and they just want to go away, so does Hitler. He’s paid for his mistakes, so I think they should drop it.
    ----
    Too bad for Adolf he was rejected at art school.

  • Sue W. | May 3, 2010 11:31 AMReply

    Why don't we ask the people in jail for 30 years on pot charges if Polanski should be free?
    Just because the "mother" "pimped" her out SHE WAS STILL UNDER AGE and he had sex with her, then he fled the country...so what if he's old or talented....HE RAPED AN UNDER AGE GIRL.

  • robin | May 3, 2010 11:20 AMReply

    Gee, if it is as simple as Polanski says why not just make the trip and prove his case. He makes it sound as though, while he did plead guilty, he should be blessed and sent on to conduct his life according to Polanski.

    Were no other facts present than he offered he would still be liable for 90 days in the Los Angeles County jail.

    So whine away and try to deflect your responsibility, you still owe a debt to society, why not pay up and move on instead of becoming a discredit yourself and others who believe in you.

  • Justin Sluss | May 3, 2010 10:53 AMReply

    huge typo there...

    " he bears little "

    you meant bares...

    LOL

  • Mink | May 3, 2010 10:44 AMReply

    The Los Angeles times in Feb 1978 says the original Santa Monica Judge Laurence J. Rittenband would have sentenced Polanski in absentia so why can that not happen in 2010?

    At least the Los Angeles Judge Peter Espinoza could give an exact sentence which would have given the Swiss Justice something to work with, instead of something vague and murky.

    However at the JANUARY 22nd 2010 hearing where the County of Los Angeles Judge, Peter Espinoza refused to sentence Polanski in absentia.

    Judge Espinoza said " “Nothing precludes the possibility that the original Santa Monica Judge in 1977 in Polanski's case] Judge Rittenband's [original] promise will someday be enforced,”

    And the Judge added: “I don’t disagree that the intended sentence was the time Mr. Polanski already spent in a state prison (Chino) under psychiatric evaluation."

    What Judge Espinoza said is documented at:
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/heat...

    So if Polanski's sentence is for time served i.e. 42 days, then it would follow that Swiss Justice should deny extraditing Polanski, because Roman Polanski has already served his time in California.

    County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza’s January 22nd statement means the Los Angeles Prosecutors request for Roman Polanski's extradition does not meet the Swiss criteria for extradition which criteria needs to be that Roman Polanski is facing 6 months of jail time or more, but according to Judge Espinoza it looks as if he is not facing any more prison time at all.

    So here is another Catch 22. County of Los Angeles Judge Espinoza says Polanski is only facing time served, but yet refuses to sentence him in absentia, which would end this never ending story.

    Ever since Judge Espinoza made his January 22nd statement, about Roman Polanski's sentence being time served, this has not stopped the District Attorneys Office extradition request.

    The DA's office have continued to insist on Polanski's extradion which now seems to be more of a ploy to add more clout to the Los Angeles District Attorneys lust for power, to be the next Attorney General, at the expense of another famous person Roman Polanski, who in addition to already serving his time at Chino, is proven to be harmless after 33 years.

    Let us not forget the dégoûtant & vicious cycle at work here, in the hopes that it will not be repeated.

    Polanski’s arrest in 2009 and pending extradition deflects attention away from the Santa Monica Judicial & Prosecutorial corruption against him in 1977, which caused Polanski to be trapped in the first Catch-22 situation in Los Angeles 1978 where there was Santa Monica Judicial Misconduct against him, & which in turn caused him to flee America in 1978.

    Roman Polanski would not have returned to California in 1977 after the Judge permitted him make a movie outside of the country if his intent was to flee justice.

    Polanski only left Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Judge when he was treated unfairly.

    His case is not the only case of foul play where Santa Monica Judges and County of Los Angeles District Attorneys who seek promotion will victimize the defenseless in order to gain that promotion.

    It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, because these California Officials, like vultures will search for your vulnerability, and with each different victim comes a different Official promotion opportunity.

    We are being sold out and denigrated, our lives ruined so these California Officials can sweep corruption under the rug, receive praise and a promotion at our expense, as well as enhancing their own illicit power.

  • true justice | May 3, 2010 10:20 AMReply

    Justice, You are the propaganda monkey, wake up!

    The girl's mother, herself and the media made this "rape"!
    If you have any respect for REAL RAPE VICTIMS you wouldn't compare this propaganda-case with the real deal.

    Why are Americans always bringing this story back? Americans can't stand that one little Polish guy avoided their corrupt legal system. So you have to bitch about it for 30 years...

  • RealJustice | May 3, 2010 10:15 AMReply

    Don't forget that:

    Little Samantha's mother had a habit of pimping her teenage daughter out to other men.

    Little Samantha had brought the drugs herself.

    Little Samantha had had sex with two other adult men in the days before. The identity of these two men was known to the prosecutors, but they were never charged. Only Polanski was. Why? Yes, BECAUSE he was a rich and famous foreigner.

    What he did was horrible (I wonder how many rich and famous people in the wild wild 70s got away with it), but there are so many things wrong with this case, everybody would have fled the country the very moment he had the chance.
    And, "Justice", I wonder whose PR agency those people gleefully regurgitating unproven accusations over and over again work for. Or do they just have a very dirty fantasy life?

  • lisa Munoz | May 3, 2010 10:11 AMReply

    This thing is just sooo old, it's not even worth it anymore. Samantha is over it and she just wants it to go away, so does Polanski. He's paid for his mistakes, so I think they should drop it.

  • Justice | May 3, 2010 9:50 AMReply

    Ok, people like CleverTitania are saying that if he wasn't famous this wouldn't be happening.
    Yes its true it wouldn't and neither he would get only like month or two in prison even better in isolation. He would get few years in prison like I would and other non famous people.
    Sentences like his first is dangerous precedent!!

    To people that defend him: The world is what it is today because of you, brainwashed propaganda monkeys!

    These people that are defending him with so many posts and with such commitment, I wouldn't be surprised that they are working for some PR agency!

  • M. Angel | May 3, 2010 9:14 AMReply

    I hate this argument that Polanski shouldn't serve any prison time because he's too old and doesn't pose any threat anymore as a result. There are many men(and women) who are currently rotting away in prison that are even older than he is. Men and women who now commit lesser crimes are subject to much harsher punishment. A man who say simply touches a 13 year old girl inappropriately now is subject to years of hardcore sex offender probation/treatment, sex offender registration, residency restrictions, etc. This is not to say I in any way condone an adult touching a 13 year old girl sexually, but clearly it's a lesser crime than drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl. Yet even if Polanski was extradited back to this country, he would likely avoid these additional hardships since he would just do whatever time he was sentenced and then go back to Frace upon his release completely avoiding sex offender registration and all that comes along with it. So he needs to stop being an arrogant cry baby and just do his time. He'll still have all his money and freedom afterwards for a crime that now strips away the civil and constitutional rights of those who perpetrate it in the 21st century.

    Yes, I'm fully against modern day sex offender laws as I think they do more harm than good and piss all over our constitution, but this does not mean I sympathize with sex offenders or any other type of criminal for that matter.

  • The speaker of truth | May 3, 2010 9:01 AMReply

    Let me get this straight Matt, people make you sick because they want to see a man punished for having sex with a 13 year old girl? I think you need to take a look in the mirror and realise perhaps you're the one with the problem. I'd like to see what you think if it was your daughter Roman engaged in those acts with.

    And as for R Kelly, well he shouldn't have walked free, but she was 15, not 13. 15 is only 1 year off the age of sexual responsibility, when a girl is 15 you can at least realistically claim that you believed her to be of legal age. If she's sexually developed she may have looked anywhere up to 19. Roman on the other hand knew this girl's age, and she was only 13. She had barely begun puberty!

    Punish him for his crimes, because that is what he deserves. You people are such hypocrites, just because he is a rich and famous director he deserves a pass? And also, he RAN away from justice. So we send out the message that if you run for long enough its OK and we forgive you? I just don't get it.

  • Jim | May 3, 2010 9:00 AMReply

    "...no history of any other incidents..."

    Okay, but he sure likes 'em young. His wife is only a couple years older than the girl he raped, and the rape occurred during his (alleged) relationship with a 15-year-old girl that (allegedly) lasted 3 years. The guy is skeevy. Oh, I'm sure he's grown out of it and is harmless now, but he's a skeeve nonetheless.

    "...for one mistake."

    Trying to unlock your front door with your car key is a mistake. Getting someone's name wrong is a mistake. A mistake is something where it's appropriate to say, "Oops!"

    Raping a child is not a mistake. Raping a child is a crime. "Oops!" does not apply. His victim is on the record with her story and has never changed it. Her forgiveness and/or ability to live with it, while admirable, are not grounds for dismissal and does not, and should not, make it go away.

    Polanski was remanded to Chino for a psychiatric evaluation PRIOR TO SENTENCING. It was NOT his sentence. It is not beyond the judge's purview to order a psych eval conducted by the state, independent of the influence of the defense or prosecution. And because he fled PRIOR TO SENTENCING, all of the original charges are pending, not just the statutory rape he plead guilty to. So he's on the hook for -- if I recall correctly -- contributing to the delinquency of a minor, rape, sodomy, and one or two others.

    And we should just let that go because... Why, exactly?

    Because he's sorry? Because he won't do it again? Because it's been so long? Because his victim wants to move on? Because -- and this is the one that gets me -- so many Hollywood superstars have spoken out to let bygones be bygones?

    And that he had a hard-knock life? That's an excuse? Do we owe every Holocaust survivor a 13-year-old sex victim? Should every widower be allowed one anal rape of a minor?

    Look, it's not that I don't see where the Polanski sympathizers are coming from. It was a compelling documentary and there's no excusing judicial misconduct if that's actually what happened -- though I love how we're supposed to give Polanski the benefit of the doubt, but we're going at this judge like HE was a child rapist.

    Again, I understand the arguments on the other side, but for me it boils down to this...

    Raping a child is evil. There is no possible excuse. Her mom pimped her out? That made him want to have sex with a kid? She somehow consented in her stupor? She was coming on to him? THAT made a grown man in his 40's want to sodomize a child?

    Sorry, that doesn't compute. Raping a child is evil. It's unconscionable and depraved. So no, he doesn't get a free pass and anyone who thinks the scales are somehow balanced now because a judge was angry with a child rapist and let his bias show through had better get their moral compass checked. The judge's reaction to the case was human. What Polanski did was inhuman.

    Case closed.

  • Dave | May 3, 2010 8:05 AMReply

    Have you seen his house? Its beautiful...The scenery is beautiful... I'd take house arrest for life at a place like that.. This guy should be locked up in a real prison and serve time like anyone else would.

  • Londonamigo | May 3, 2010 7:50 AMReply

    DocSays.
    Although I agree with you there is a flaw in your argument. For one, I read that this case never actually went to court as Polanski had already fled. It was due to go ahead on the 9th August and he faced 6 charges. So I guess he could still face trial. Secondly, I'm not an American so it wouldn't be my tax that is spent but even if it was I wouldn't care because surely it is justice that counts not money? The sums being spent is insignificant compared with other taxes you pay for. It gives out the wrong message if you don't pursue a criminal because you are reluctant to spend money.

  • AC | May 3, 2010 7:48 AMReply

    Where to begin? How do you figure he's served his time and has been punished? This guy took a plea for a lesser charge, and also agreed to settle a civil lawsuit. I don't see how you do that if you're innocent. Not that you're saying he's innocent, but how has he paid for what he did. Doing what he did to an adult would be bad enough, but he did it to 13 year old.

    In the end, I guess everyone is entitled ot their opinion, and this is mine: I will never watch another Polanski movie. This world, the US leading the way, has become so morally apathetic that we're wiling to forgive and forget so easily. Especially if they're celebrities. Case in point, Gary Glitter. The guy is found with child-porn and his music is still used for sporting events the world 'round. Glitter's and Polanski's work should be destroyed and their names erased from history. It's disgusting what people are willing to overlook.

    My two cents, take it for what it's worth.

  • DocSays | May 3, 2010 7:30 AMReply

    Who Polanski is should have nothing to do with this case and in the eyes of the law it does not. It is sort of odd how people want to play both sides of that to back their personal feelings in their statements here.

    People claim Polanski is getting an unfair advantage because he is wealthy and famous and people claim Polanski is getting treated unfairly because he is wealthy and famous. There is probably truth to both sides of that but it matters not a bit in the eyes of the law.

    Nobody should feel bad for Mr. Polanski because his actions led him to where he is now, he made this mess and for 33 years he has been dealing with that fact.

    The only real question is how should Polanski pay for his flight from the United States? This will be the one area where prosecutors can press for a harsher sentence because the sex crime charges will be near impossible for them to pursue any further than they went 33 years ago. So, sure we can all sit here and feel disgust for Mr. Polanski but there is no satisfaction to be had from this case. We do not need to bring Polanski back here to sentence him nor is there much reason to do this outside of the fact that it will help create a media circus and make all of the players famous.

    Justice would be better served leaving him in Europe and putting our tax dollars toward something far more beneficail to the people of this country.

  • beauhooligan | May 3, 2010 7:27 AMReply

    I don't care how old Roman Polanski is, or that he lost his wife and unborn child. What I do care about is what he did to that 13 year old girl. He gave her a rich dinner with three glasses of wine and a Quaalude, then, after saying he wanted to see her naked because he wanted to cast her in a film, he raped and sodomized her. There is no way that a 13 year old girl could be said to have "consensual" sex, as a 13 year old girl is a child, can't consent to sex, so what Polanski committed was child molestation. Roman Polanski is nothing less than a MONSTER. I don't care that he has grown old, he still needs to pay. The jerks in Hollywood think that he has paid his dept, but fortunately, the LAW is less forgiving. If you have a 13 year old daughter and some pervert gives her wine and Quaalude, gets her naked, then rapes and sodomizes her, then see if you want to give this freak a break. It's an ugly situation, so let's not act if he was just a bit of a party guy. Bring him back to the USA and make him serve the maximum sentence under law.

  • T.L. | May 3, 2010 7:26 AMReply

    Wait. You are suggesting that he is too old to pay for something he did? Then you basically say you want him to get off on those charges so he can continue to make more movies? What the f*ck. What is your malfunction? As a father I can tell you if someone ever did anything to my daughter and people would not or could not do anything to bring the person to justice then it would be open season on the jackass.

    Then you have assholes such as the writer of that statement sticking up for this elitist who has or had a penchant for children. First off that is sick enough, but take take a child's innocence, to ruin the rest of their life and make no mistake that is what these pedophiles (and rapists in general) take from their victims. The victim never gets over it, they live the rest of their life in fear, and they have emotional scars that never heal. I have dated a few women that have been raped and molested as children.

    One was impossible to sleep in the same bed with because she would thrash around in her sleep screaming and slamming her fists into the nearest objects. Others were afraid to be around people. All of them could no longer live a normal life. This is what rape does and the mere suggestion this guy be let go is disgusting. Your fucking parents must be proud jackass.

  • Londonamigo | May 3, 2010 7:13 AMReply

    DocSays. What you said is true and makes a lot of sense.

    The attitude of Polanski and his supporters still stinks however. It is not right to portray a crime of this nature as an insignificant event.

    He has basially got away with it, but it shouldn't be forgotten and he should suffer the negative reaction of his own doing. Deservedly so.

  • DocSays | May 3, 2010 6:55 AMReply

    I think that it is not possible for most people to discuss this in a rational way and I would say I'm no exception. When you hear a person has abused a child it is reasonable to feel outraged by such an act. Here lies the main problem with this discussion. For many people there is no "sentence" that can live up to the "crime" they believe Mr. Polanski committed. This is why we have a legal system to prevent lynch mobs from running wild in the streets. While I also "feel" that the only way Polanski could "pay for his crime" would be to suffer some form of physical abuse the facts of this case state that a bargain was reached and met by both the prosecutors at the time and Mr. Polanski's representatives. Yes, his 42 days served at Chino were supposed to have satisfied all parties and Polanski was to have been released. However they came to that agreement it is and was within the letter of the law. The judge then made noise about changing that agreement and this caused Polanski to flee. Polanski fleeing is really the matter the legal side of the process must deal with now, not what happened with the victim of the sex crime, that matter was already decided in a court of law over 30 years ago.

    Polanski has now been jailed twice for his crimes and much effort and expense has been spent on a case that has only been extended due to Polanski fleeing the country. Were he a dangerous criminal it would be worth taxpayer dollars to extradite and prosecute him but being that it was decided back when he was first jailed that he is not it seems a bit outrageous to be spending our money on brining him back here.

    His lawyers are correct in this case and he should be sentenced in absentia. Spending taxpayer dollars on dragging out a 33 year old case where all parties were satisfied legally at one point is insane. We are only hearing about and dealing with this now because Polanski chose to flee and because he is a celebrity and this case will draw lots of press for all involved. Everybody involved in this case can get a book deal out of it and profit from it except the American taxpayers who will pay the bill to extradite him and prosecute him and to what end? The rape charges will proceed no further than they did 33 years ago and so he will only be prosecuted for fleeing the country.

    I am not defending Polanski and I agree that the way you support your feelings about him is to avoid his films. This charade should come to an end because at this point there is no value to the people of the United States or California to prosecute him for fleeing the country. Sentence him in absentia and be done with this.

  • Londonamigo | May 3, 2010 6:37 AMReply

    I don't understand why some people are of the attitude to forgive and forget just because he makes good films?! That's a vile attitude in itself.

    Living in the UK, Football(Soccer) players are some of the most famous people in the country, idolised by some. But if a similar thing was to happen to any one of them, whether it was in the present or past, the press and public would be outraged. They wouldn't escape a lengthy prison sentence and their career would be over. Polanski is extremely fortunate to be in a position of wealth and the prospect of continuing his work.

  • CleverTitania | May 3, 2010 6:33 AMReply

    Well, it's clear that most people can't be bothered to actually look at the facts of the case and instead want to just make a lot of assumptions.

    As has been stated, there is no history of any other incidents from Polanski similar to the one in question. Therefore, he is no threat to society. His victim has made several public pleas to have the charges against him dropped. There is no one who was affected by this case who has any interest in pursuing it further. And he evaded what amounted to false imprisonment by fleeing the country, a behavior even the prosecuting attorney thought was understandable in his situation.

    There are no apologists here. No one has condoned what happened. But some people are willing to look at the facts of the case and not just brand a man as a monster for life for one mistake. In point of fact, the judge in the case might have broken more laws that Polanski did. There is evidence multiple incidents of judicial misconduct alone.

    I'm not going to keep arguing though, with people who care more about what they determine to be 'justice' than what the victim in the case wants. But, of course, she's been bullied into writing an OpEd for the LA Times and publicly requesting the LAPD to drop the case, right?

  • earl hazzard | May 3, 2010 6:33 AMReply

    oh, joel, you seem to have left out of your post the he is OLD. as if that justifies anything.

    look, i think that he sould stay underhouse arrest for a long time. and if he wants to make movies, then he should ukse his creative mind to come up with ways to bring the set to himself, shooting only in his swiss mansion and the surrouinding grounds.
    or, he coiuld do what coppola did in the early 80's and bring in a 'command center' in which he could direct anywhere in the world from his swiss mansion via satellite.

    the guy is a highly creative man - and he's OLD, so let him figure out ways to do his time like a man, hold his mud, and shut the fVck up. enough wyngeing already, roman - use the restricitons to come lup with a masterpiece!

  • Syd | May 3, 2010 6:20 AMReply

    To bw: You said, "Let's stick to what actually happened, and try not to bring in all this other nonsense."
    Okay.
    What happened: Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. He evaded justice by fleeing the country.
    End of story.
    Anything else is nonsense.

  • Angela Kingston | May 3, 2010 6:03 AMReply

    P.S. This man is not just arrogant in his belief that he is above the law but he is also a coward.
    Only cowards pick on people smaller than them to take advantage of such as a 13-year old kid. Cowards jump bail and flea the country when found guilty.

  • Serina Tang | May 3, 2010 6:00 AMReply

    First of all, he admitted he drugged and raped his victim. He was convicted in court.

    This pedophile - and that is what he is - drugged and raped/sodomised a young girl, an underage girl, fled the US and escaped justice. Anyone else who sexually assaults a child is hounded and hunted down. It does not and should not matter that this occured over 30 years ago, that the victim has asked to let it drop, that he is famous, wealthy, old, or whatever excuse he does come up with now. The Catholic Church is continually persued over child sex claims that occured even earlier than this disgusting crime, so what defense is Polanski's then?

    What is even more shameful is how many high profile people, celebrities and other in the film industry have come out and openly supported this perverted pedophile. In effect these people offend all victims of child abuse, and say it is OK to rape children make no mistake. He has lead a privileged life as a wealthy man over the past 3 decades whilst remaining a fugitive from the law. What other child molester can make this claim?

    Return him to the US and place this pervert in prison. I do not believe he is no longer a threat, he has shown his propensity for young girls and no doubt if handed an opportunity would no doubt take it. I am just surprised he has not used the anti-Semitism excuse yet.

  • Emalita | May 3, 2010 5:59 AMReply

    WHA??? Anne Thompson, you close the story with, " I like some of his movies." In what universe do you end with praise for a rapist, regardless of his profession?! His movies have NOTHING to do with the rape he committed on a 13 year old child. We're talking worse than Michael Jackson stuff here.

    The young person he assaulted wants nothing to do with the case, and who can blame her? She was torn apart by the media back then, and she has since moved on with her life. Well done, senorita!

    Regardless of her desires, Polanski is a vile man for committing this crime. There is talk he has done similar things to other underage people.

    To subtly exonerate his crimes by declaring, eh, I like his movies, you again give pass to the heinous crime of rape.

  • Angela Kingston | May 3, 2010 5:57 AMReply

    Who is asking him to serve MORE time because he is rich? He has not served the MINIMUM time BECAUSE he is rich. He has escaped justice because he is rich. If anything NONE of you Polanksi apologists would be defending him if he was Joe average. Most rational people think he should be treated like Joe Average. His butt would have been back in the U.S. and in Jail a long time ago if he wasn't rich. He has been protected and sheltered by fellow rich and powerful people throughout his 32 years on the run from justice. If his victim were the daughter of a fellow director, he would have served the MINIMUM sentence of a rapist, no plea deals. President Sarkozy of France delivered a personal letter from Polanski to President Obama during the Nuclear Summit. You think the average Joe who rapes a 13-year old girl, jumps bail and evades justice for 32 years can get a personal letter hand delivered to the President of the United States during such an important meeting? There is ample proof that this guy drugged, raped, and sodomized that girl against her wishes. But due to his wealth and influence, the LA justice department got him off on lower charges. If the same case were to happen in present day, his celebrity wouldn't save his butt. Thanks to lots of blood and sweat victims have more protection and can stand up to the rich and famous in the justice system. He committed a crime, pleaded guilty and has to serve whatever time the judge at the time decided. No one should serve only 42 DAYS for such as assault whether rich or poor. That's what America is about equality under the law. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/parsons/2010/04/30/nicolas-sarkozy-s-special-delivery-is-in-poor-taste-115875-22223982/

  • Bobby | May 3, 2010 5:50 AMReply

    Let's ask the victim what she wants. Surely she has more of an opinion than anyone else in the world

  • Bret | May 3, 2010 5:33 AMReply

    You are upset over the treatment he has received? Living in a chateau in Sweden?

    Polanski was sentenced to 90 days. He served 42. He was not released by the judge for the remaining time. The judge was going to make him serve his full time, up to what is allowed by law possibly. Polanski ran like a coward to avoid paying for the crime. In what reality is 42 days of prison for rape a sufficient penalty?

  • bw | May 3, 2010 5:12 AMReply

    smg,
    he has never shown behavior that would categorize him as pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children (as in 6 year olds). Both Kinski and the girl in this case were teenagers. Ephebophilia would be a more accurate term, but that would only apply if the person had an actual preference for teenagers over adults, which isn't the case, as all his other sexual partners were adults. And just so we have all our facts straight, Kinski denies that anything ever happened between her and Polanski.

    From an interview she did with the Guardian:
    There was categorically no affair, she says, although it has frequently been reported that they were lovers. "There was a flirtation. There could have been a seduction, but there was not. He had respect for me."

    So you can't call him a pedophile. That's a loaded word and it doesn't make sense in this discussion. And you can't say he had sex with a teenage Kinski, because those are just unsubstantiated rumors that she flat out denies.

    Let's stick to what actually happened, and try not to bring in all this other nonsense. You're trying to vilify the man with anything you can.

  • Lisa | May 3, 2010 5:09 AMReply

    He drugged and raped a child - he's a pedophile. Fans don't want to believe their heroes are sometimes rotten to the core, but defending a pedophile is reprehensible. It says everything about a society when they'll toss a child on a garbage heap to bow at the feet of their heroes.

  • Gary Dell'Abate | May 3, 2010 5:08 AMReply

    Bottom line is the guy is a child molester. When we start acting lax about such a serious thing it will be a real sad day for humanity. He should be punished and is no different than any other person who commits this heinous act.

  • D'Press | May 3, 2010 5:02 AMReply

    If Polanski was a catholic priest, he wouldn't even been arrested in the first place.

  • len | May 3, 2010 5:01 AMReply

    Bottom line is that he doesnt ever want to pay for what he did. He wants to get away with it. He raped a little girl and then he spent his life oin the run from the law. He needs to pay for that. End of story. No one should get away with that. Is he a brilliant filmmaker? Without a doubt. Is he a criminal? Also without a doubt? Just imagine if it were your daughter.

  • JH | May 3, 2010 4:53 AMReply

    Elderly people can't rape? Tell that to all the rape victims whose perpetrators were in their 70s, 80s, 90s....

  • Lys | May 3, 2010 4:49 AMReply

    He's managed to evade being called to account for his actions by fleeing overseas and he obviously doesn't want to face the music.
    No doubt he'll use every legal ploy to delay or stop being sent back to the US.
    He's Totally Gutless.

  • smg | May 3, 2010 4:42 AMReply

    Eduardo. He may have been deemed not to reoffend but he then did the same basic thing with Natasia Kinsky and has a long history of pedophilic activity outside of this country. I'd say if you put the same situation in front of him now he'd do the same thing.

    The point here is that he did not serve his full sentence and has actively avoided serving it. He admits he did it, he just doesn't think it was so bad.

    This isn't an innocent man. This is a man that thinks we should just forget about it, he did after all.

  • CleverTitania | May 3, 2010 4:40 AMReply

    TraSee - I didn't get any of my information from this site. But if you'd like to be disingenuous by implying the judge only intended to give him the remaining time on his sentence, clarification needs to be made. The judge intended to give him as much time as he could possible contrive, that was made clear by both his public and court room statements.

    It doesn't matter if he couldn't give him 100 years. He demonstrated he intended to not just prosecute Polanski, but persecute him too. When even the prosecutor thinks the judge is playing out a mock-trial, that's a sign that justice is being perverted.

    And bw's point is also quite valid. Non-repeat offenders, even in child sex-abuse cases, are given lenient sentences constantly. It was only the high profile nature of this case that caused things to go the way they did.

  • TraSee | May 3, 2010 4:33 AMReply

    I know and understand the situation. The judge would not be able to apply a 100 year sentence. And he knew it. He talked smack, just like you people. Judges must follow sentencing guide lines or risk losing on appeals. Even back then. Don't be so quick to judge what I posted. Read something besides this site :)

  • Londonamigo | May 3, 2010 4:25 AMReply

    Andre, you and others who appear to defend Polanski seem to missing the point entirely.

    There's no labeling here, couldn't care less about a label for fucks sake! It's that he did something wrong(very wrong) and illegal. He has spent the majority of his life running away from it and not facing up to it.

    Is it me or do some people not understand the difference between right and wrong?

  • Ben | May 3, 2010 4:25 AMReply

    Criminal's a criminal. HE committed a crime and took the cowardly way out. He fled to a foreign country (which embraced him with open arms). He raped an underaged girl. It doesn't matter if she's 40 now. Would you like it if you were raped and then the person fled the country and returned 30 years later a "free man" because people say "he's been punished enough"? Think about it.

  • bw | May 3, 2010 4:24 AMReply

    This case never actually went to trial. They reached a plea deal. The only thing he pleaded guilty to was having sex with an underage girl. He didn't plead guilty to forcibly raping her. Everyone here is acting like it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he forcibly raped her. That just isn't true. He very well may have done it, but it wasn't proven in a court of law. He very well may not have done it. He always claimed that she consented, she always claimed she did not. We don't know what actually happened yet. He never took the stand, nor did she. She gave a deposition, but she was not cross-examined. The only evidence the public ever heard was the evidence the prosecutors put out to the media. This evidence wasn't cross-examined either. Nothing was. It is irresponsible for people to claim that he is absolutely guilty of everything he was charged with and should be locked away forever, and it is irresponsible to claim he is absolutely innocent and should be set free. No one can make any of these claims until the entire case goes to trial and all of the evidence is allowed to be presented, contested, etc. This is how the legal system works. If people aren't willing to accept that, then they should look for a new country, somewhere where the public gets to be judge, jury and executioner. But that won't fly in this country.

    This is the United States and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty of all the charges yet. He pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape (sex with a minor), but he only made that plea as part of a deal that his sentence would be the time he spent in Chino for his psychiatric evaluation. That sentence was served. So Anne's point is valid that he did in fact serve his time.

    If the LA DA doesn't want to accept that deal, and I don't think they do, then they will have to bring this whole case to trial, and only then will we be able to find out what actually happened. And only then will anyone be allowed to judge his actions as proven in court.

    Everyone needs to chill out and let this thing work its way through the system. And like it or not, Polanski being allowed to appeal his extradition and try and fight it is part of the system.

    Also, anyone who's trying to make the argument that because he's rich and famous he should be treated extra harshly is retarded. Get over the populist bullshit. Yes, he's a rich and famous artist. That has very little to do with anything, so save it. Celebrities don't get away with things that the rest us can't. If you think that's true, then you only follow celebrity trials. Try going down to your local court and watch how many regular joes get slapped on the wrist after committing some serious crimes. It happens all the time, you just don't realize it because you're too obsessed with what the celebrities are doing. A lot of sex assault cases end in simple probation, no jail time.

  • Anti-Andre | May 3, 2010 4:18 AMReply

    Here's a clue for you, Andre: SHE SAID NO. She said no repeatedly. And Polanski is a pedophile, a rapist and a sonofobitch who needs to rot in a cell.

  • CleverTitania | May 3, 2010 4:17 AMReply

    Trasee - You didn't look deep enough. They weren't going to give him the remaining 48 days. The judge in the case was boasting that he was going to give him 100 years, to multiple witnesses. He wasn't suggesting that he should get the rest of the days he didn't need to be evaluated anymore.

    Judge Rittenband was a publicity hound who blatantly committed misconduct in the case, trying to use the public attention on the case to make a name for himself.

    The prosecutor, not the defense attorney the person trying to lock him up, later said, "I'm not surprised that [Polanski] left under those circumstances."

    Check out Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. It's a documentary on the trial on what led Polanski to flee.

  • Andre | May 3, 2010 4:12 AMReply

    This tread is not about Polanski...
    It's about people who see the (ugly)reality of human beings against people who need to label everything or else they can't cope with complicated situations.

    Yes, he offered alcohol and drugs to a thirteen year old child.
    Yes, he had (anal) sex with this child.
    Yes, He left the country to avoid his sentence.

    No, he is not rapist. And if you have been the victim of one, then you would know why...

    Someone who keeps on going after the girl says "NO". That's rapist. Sex with a willing (older looking)teenager, how distorted it may be(Anal! 13!), is not the same... even if (American) law says it is. It's wrong... but it is not rape, not really(same case with R.Kelly)

    And if you say it is rape, just because you need a label. Then maybe you're the one being disrespectful to the real rape-victims...

    (Michael Jackson, and all those priests did it with small children, big f*cking difference!!! That's pedofilia)

  • TraSee | May 3, 2010 4:08 AMReply

    Even readers of this site should be able to look up basic info on Polanski's sentence. He was actually sentenced to 90 days psych eval at Chino. He was released after 42 days. That's why the judge was going to add jail time or deport him. He has been sure to avoid countries with extradition treaties with the US. What kind of man does this? GUILTY ones. He pled guilty to a lesser charge that bear the same weigt as Statutory Rape. He should serve jailtime. Stop whining and let's see the remaining justice served. I know being forced to stay at your home in Switzerland must be tough!

  • Shaday | May 3, 2010 3:58 AMReply

    42 days for a rapist of a 13 yr old instead of a sentence of "one to fifteen—twenty years" (Polanski's admitting words) doesn't add up. Running away from it is also clearly wrong and his age only demonstrates that he has had his own stolen leniency for a long time, so it's quite about time he faced his responsibilities. He shouldn't have ACCEPTED on record that he knew the final sentence hadn't been given.

    Now, after running away, he's taking it back, conveniently enough, while missing to mention that his supposed "time served" was ONLY 42 days, which itself is sign enough that it wasn't the actual sentence for his crime.

  • pantherton | May 3, 2010 3:57 AMReply

    I watched the film Polanski: Wanted and Desired, I like some of Polanski's work but even so you can't get past the cold hard facts in this case. He fled from America, he raped a 13 year old, and you got to pay for that. He just expects special treatment is all, because he's a celebrity and because its been over 3 decades. The thing is Polanski is delusional, he refuses to acknowledge that his actions will have consequences. He needs to go to prison, I understand his argument, yea he served some time, yes its been a while. The argument that his victim wants the case forgotten is irrelevant, I am certain he paid this woman a ton of money to say that.

    You commit a crime and you'll have to pay, its quite simple.

  • AllLiar | May 3, 2010 3:56 AMReply

    "Poor" Humans !
    They are so idiots.
    They learn NOTHING from past.
    JUSTICE doesn’t exist.
    What exist is laws create by millionaire for themselves and for billionaire and trillionnaire.

    And Polanski is not an exception. He is a millionaire.
    So he can do all what he want, NEVER will he go at jail.

    The only exception when a rich can go in jail is when other riches, more rich than him, are league against him.

    Also Polanski is a Jewish. Well not a big surprise he is rich so.
    But today we live in a world where all Jewish are like Jesus. All are Saint.

    I have nothing against Jewish but I don’t find them better than other race of human.
    Neither more bad too of course.

    Anyway. They have any importance that Polanski rape a teen since he is rich and so the laws are his side.

    But take any normal people, no rich, and if one rape a teen, sure he will go directly in prison and they will never have any “media circus” around him.

    They are a World for riches and another World for other.
    And since Human exist and money, it’s all time like that.

    If you are rich, you can kill anybody, except other rich, and be sure to live free forever.

    JUSTICE doesn’t exist. But Circus about it is there forever.

    For some idiot cause this circus thing is 30 year old now it’s not important.
    Well so what Hitler did to Jewish have no importance too since it’s more than 60 years old.

    Humans are not able to be objective and invent any lie when they want to believe to something it’s false but they dream it’s true.

    Cause Polanski is rich and Jewish, he will die very very very old and in one of his 100 home.

  • CleverTitania | May 3, 2010 3:56 AMReply

    See, this is the kind of irrational argument I'm talking about here. He didn't 'go around raping 13 year old girls'. This was an isolated horrible incident, according to board certified psychiatrists. This isn't a pattern of behavior. He made one awful mistake and has lived a life time more hurt than the girl in question has ever suffered.

    And I am both a mother and sexual-abuse victim. But if I were in Geimer's place, I sure as hell wouldn't think the treatment Polanski is getting is justified by his crime. No one is defending what he did. What we are talking about is there justification for continuing to prosecute him, which there isn't, legally or ethically.

    And the idea that only guilty people run from the law is just blatantly wrong. Guilty and innocent people run, depending on their situation and means. If I had served my court-appointed sentence, and then had the judge 'suggest' I should get more time, I damn well would consider running too.

  • Londonamigo | May 3, 2010 3:51 AMReply

    Let's imagine, you invite your new neighbours round for dinner. After a few drinks you get talking about your past, your youthful mistakes.

    You and your wife talk about drunken fights and getting caught smoking weed. Then the husband of your new neighbours says; 'I shagged a doped up 13 year old girl in the arse and done 42 days in prison'

    I can guarentee one thing, you'd never talk to that person again, let alone invite them to your house.

    Come on people, there is no way you can sympathise. He should do the honarable thing and accept this is not going to go away. This is no little mistake, the only person he can blame is himself. People wouldn't talk about this so much if he'd just be man enough to take the consequences.

  • Sparky | May 3, 2010 3:41 AMReply

    An innocent person would have no reason to flee. It's time he paid for his crime. It's far too often that celebrities get away with this sort of thing.

  • Dan | May 3, 2010 3:38 AMReply

    She was underage, drugged, and he plead guilty to the charges. That is the end of the story. He needs to serve his jail time, just like any other person. Just because he has made a few good films does not excuse his crappy behavior.

  • Anonymous | May 3, 2010 3:33 AMReply

    To CleverTitania: Oh okay, so if someone has a rough life they can go around randomly raping 13 year olds. Gotcha. :D
    So tired of pathetic little brown nosers constantly defending Polanski and his buttrapefest.

  • Jennifer | May 3, 2010 3:31 AMReply

    Janet, you are a sick, sad, strange woman. I hope you know that.

  • saffie | May 3, 2010 3:30 AMReply

    If it had been my kid, thirty years later we would be talking about the crazy lady who chopped up the world-famous movie director protruding piece by piece and scattered his body in the mountains for the animals to eat. Or maybe we'd just be talking about the world-famous director who mysteriously disappeared after raping and sodomizing a teenage girl. We wouldn't be defending this perverted piece of scum.

  • oz | May 3, 2010 3:21 AMReply

    HE DIDN'T RAPE HER!! SHE WANTED TO F**K WITH HIM !!!! END OF STORY !!

  • CleverTitania | May 3, 2010 3:18 AMReply

    The answer to your question, JustMe, is illustrated in this thread. When issues arise involving rape (particularly of a minor) people lose their rationality.

    As has been stated in this very comment thread, Polanski served the sentence he was originally given. Then they tried to change the sentence after he was released, and then he ran. Anyone with the means would have. The fact that he has means does not mean he gets out of jail free, but it also means he can't be used as some kind of political scape-goat to prove a point. We like to both crucify and deify our celebrities; NEITHER is an appropriate response.

    If this were anyone other than Polanski, this conversation wouldn't be happening because he wouldn't have the public view and he wouldn't have had his sentence 're-evaluated' after serving it. People who believe he should be free don't generally believe it because we don't think he did anything wrong. Plus, those who think he's lived some rosy life are lacking the facts.

    His mother died in Auschwitz. He was separated from his father, after escaping the Krakow Ghetto, and had to live under a pseudonym to hide from the Nazi's. Then there was his wife and unborn child (plus a few close friends) being murdered by an actual sociopath's minions. Painting this man as somehow 1/10th as evil as Manson, which is what people seem to want to do, is insane. This guy made one awful mistake, which he served his time for, and has lived through hell to survive this long. He's earned a little forgiveness.

    And while it is sometimes appropriate to prosecute someone when the victim isn't willing to support the charges, the cops should be listening to Geimer above everyone else. She isn't just opposed to him being further prosecuted, she made a publicly forgave him in 1997, formally requesting that the LAPD drop all charges, and in 2003 she wrote an LA Times pieces stating he should be allowed to come back to US to get his Academy Award. Who exactly is helped by extraditing him now?

    Oh, and to clarifying a mistake made above; he gave her a Quaalude, not a Rufie. Big difference particularly looking at the time period this occurred.

  • Angela Kingston | May 3, 2010 3:12 AMReply

    To Just me: Polanksi broke the law. Don't commit the crime if you don't want to do the time. His victim wanted the prosecution stopped because she gets harassed by the media and Polanski apologist whenever this case comes up. She has to put up with being called a whore, a slut, and a seducer. She has to put up with people coming to Polanski's aid and saying that his art is too important for him to be prosecuted. Or that because the women in Polanski's life (mother and wife) were killed by evil people, he deserves a get out of jail free card. Crimes against daughters and children of non famous people on the other hand are not important. What victim wants to put up with being demonized? You think it's right for our justice system to let rapist off free because their fans can intimidate and harass a victim? Or is it only o.k. if they are rich, famous, and make great movies. For others that say he is too old. Whose fault is that? Who fled prosecution for over 32 years living it up in France? These excuses are beyond weak.

  • Stephen | May 3, 2010 3:11 AMReply

    I can hardly believe that people are actually defending Roman Polanski. I feel bad that his his wife and unborn child were murdered by Charles Manson's "family", but that is no excuse to drug and rape a 13 yearold girl. Also to say her mother "pimped" her out shows your lack of intelligence. Manson has been on the lamb for 33 years. If he is truly sorry for what he did, he would man up to his crimes. Rape is rape and he raped and drugged a child. Like president of France who is upset that the US arrested this man, people defending his actions should look in the mirror. His films are great, but he did the crime and should pay. Just because he is famous does not put him above the law.

  • Anonymous | May 3, 2010 3:04 AMReply

    He should at least have probation, community service, SOMETHING. im only saying this because the victim has moved on and has taken care of herself, i think what, but she has taken care of herself, but he should still serve some time and have probabtion, maybe 5 years in prison? probation rest of his life or something?

  • pole and ski hater | May 3, 2010 2:52 AMReply

    I don't understand why there is such a long thread of arguments about this topic - there really shouldn't be. The guy had nasty sex with a 13 year old. When did humanity get to the point where some people can argue and say "hmm, yes, I KNOW that, but let's think of some potential circumstances where having ANAL sex with a CHILD might be acceptable..." If we go down this road of trying to justify such actions, then we are heading to a very dark place indeed. What's more, why is it that a child rapist/a person who finds it acceptable to SODOMISE a child, is praised by his peers, given accolades by various film institutions and allowed to continue to make millions through film-making? A person like this should not be allowed to hold such a place in society, especially if they have not served any SIGNIFICANT time for their crime. All you protectors of child sex offenders, stop defending this man and taking pity on him - I don't care that his crime was some time in the past - when you make the decision to subject a young child to rectal intercourse, then you must be prepared to pay the price - and more.

  • JustMe | May 3, 2010 2:48 AMReply

    I don't condone what Polanski did, but Samantha Geimer, the now 45 year old woman who was the 13 year girl this happened with, has said that she just wants this to be over and does not want Polanski to be prosecuted. So why doesn't the authorities in LA just drop it??

  • G.V. | May 3, 2010 2:48 AMReply

    So basically what you say is that guys like Paul Schäfer, Milosevic, Karadzic or Noriega, Wolfgang Priklopil and others that have been charged but fled for years should never be punished for anything they did? And I do not care that he "only" raped one girl and these guys are responsible for several peoples lives (btw who knows how many other kids this guy raped).

    It's not like they (the above mentioned) and Polanski lived in a cave like Hussein, these guys had lives and never had to suffer for their actions.

    You can't be serious.

  • Angela Kingston | May 3, 2010 2:46 AMReply

    Ms. Thompson you claim Polankski has been punished and has served his time. In what alternative universe are those two things true? The man has been living like a king in France for over 32 years and continued to be celebrated while making movies. If that's punishment then rapist unite and take over the world. He drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year old girl and considered 42 DAYS in jail time served. To add insult to injury, he fled justice and left the country when out on bail. And FINALLY, he has NEVER once admitted that what he did was wrong or apologized for it. Even when the victim took him to civil court and won money for the crime he committed against her he tried to get out of paying. He truly is an arrogant man who has been lead to believe being an artist means he is above the law. I love movies too but it's really sad that you as a woman think that entertainment is more important than crimes against women. I am glad that the men currently attacking the girls and women in Darfur are not movie makers. I did not see the Ghost Writer specifically because I refuse to pay for scum like Polanski to evade the law. You obviously feel differently. I hope you live the rest of your days never having to experience the horror and shame of being a rape victim.

  • Led | May 3, 2010 2:43 AMReply

    fuck polansky. this discussion wouldn't even take place if he was a normal human being like us and not a famous movie director. he never serve time for this, let him die in jail for all I care.
    and fuck that't girls mother for turning this whole thing into a damn circus. sindicate for justice is one thing, capitalize on a rape (her own daughter, of all people) is another.

  • Eduardo | May 3, 2010 2:37 AMReply

    Polanski served 42 days in Chino State prison back in 1978. It was not a mental hospital. He was held in solitary confinement in a state prison for a psychiatric evaluation. The prison pychologist determined that Polanski was not a pedophile and unlikely to re-offend, whereby he was released after serving 42 days. That's saying nothing of the additional 15 weeks he served last year in a Swiss jail in solitary confinement and the 4 and 1/2 months of house arrest in his Swiss home where he's currently confined.

  • Michael | May 3, 2010 2:37 AMReply

    So if I am interpreting Ms. Thompson's argument correctly, if I were to drug and rape a 13 year old girl and then escape justice for 33 years I shouldn't be punished. Is that right? Or is it only okay if I make some great movies while fleeing from justice? I wonder if she would be so forgiving if it was someone close to her that he raped. Yes, I am aware that Polanski's victim wants the case dropped, but that has more to do with the media hounding her than anything else.
    While I agree that Polanski is unlikely to re-offend, that does not undo his crime or free him of responsibility for the consequences of it. The justice system does not exist solely to protect the victims/potential victims of crime, but also to punish the guilty as an example to others. If we are speaking of guilt, well, by his own admission Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl, it doesn't get much more guilty than that. Everything else is just the lame excuses of a rapist.

  • Michael | May 3, 2010 2:36 AMReply

    That said, i am a bit conflicted. I had sex before I was 18 and I know I was completely willing. Looking back on it, I don't feel regret, nor do I feel I was too young. I was completely aware and educated about what I was doing. I've never felt once someone hits 18 they are magically an adult. The real thing that pisses me off is that that is not even a real defense anyone uses, they use that its been so long and that he makes great movies, terrible and lame defenses.

  • Chris M. | May 3, 2010 2:35 AMReply

    I think it's ridiculous that anyone has any sympathy for Polanski. You don't get to rape people. You just don't get to do that. I don't care if you directed Chinatown or not. And "life as a successful filmmaker in Europe" is hardly adequate punishment.

    Calling him a "reprobate" makes him sound roguishly charming. Robin Hood was a reprobate. Polanski is a rapist, a child molestor, and a coward on top of it.

  • Rowan | May 3, 2010 2:34 AMReply

    While I think the sentencing at the time of the plea deal was too soft (he was sentenced to the prison in Chino, undergo psychiatric analysis while there and to be released either when the sentence was up, or the prison psychiatrist deemed him safe to not offend again), he served his time - as per the former district attorney's recent statement. He served his sentence and it was judicial misconduct to alter the sentence after the fact that made him run.

    What Polanski did was reprehensible. It doesn't matter that her mother let her go with him, or if the 13 year old girl had been sexually active before the rape. She said no and he had sex with her anyway. That is rape. But he served his sentence. This sets a bad precedent that judges can alter the sentencing of record to suit their own personal agenda. It is because of this that I agree with not extraditing him and think that Polanski should be allowed back into this country without fear of being arrested.

  • Joel | May 3, 2010 2:32 AMReply

    Matt, you are right. All celebrity cases are the same. R.Kelly and M.J. didn't serve time so why should Polanski? Come on people, Polanski is OLD and he's made movies that you've watched. And he is OLD. Don't send him to jail because he might not be able to make anymore movies that you may or may not want to watch and that will probably be recognized at one of the many, many prestigious film festivals like the Oscars, and if not, Golden Globes, or probably Cannes, if not there then maybe the People's Choice awards, and surely if not there then maybe MTV.
    Surely you can't hold OLD Roman guilty for things YOUNG Roman did.
    You can't lock up an OLD guy. Come on now, he's old. Look at him, he's old.
    Didn't you read the letter, he misses his family and can't work in Sweden.
    Seriously though, can't the Swiss make up there mind? Are they looking at just the fact he left the USA before being sentences or are the looking over the entire case? I think they need to ship his hind end back to LA, let them slap him on the wrist and get this over.

  • Michael | May 3, 2010 2:31 AMReply

    So what, because he makes great movies we shouldn't care? Because he did it so long ago we should move on? Alright, well how about all those priests that molested children decades ago? Why are we having a field day complaining about them, how do YOU feel about them? Just because the guy can make films and they ARE good, does NOT mean he shouldn't be punished for his crime. If this was any other human being, a lot of people who defend this guy would be all over him as a rapist and saying he should be put away.

  • ted | May 3, 2010 2:31 AMReply

    i agree with matt on this, polanski is being treated in such a way that hes being shown as guilty till proven innocent.....its a load of crap, anyone that disagrees to these statements, althugh entitled to their own opinions, is a fool and doesnt know what they're talking about

  • M. | May 3, 2010 2:23 AMReply

    I object to the fact that he was a guest in our country, was given a sweetheart deal of 42 days in a mental hospital, and walked away with two weeks to go.
    Mr. Polanski is telling us that our laws don't matter, that he is above them. That is what bothers me most of all.

  • Matt | May 3, 2010 2:14 AMReply

    The woman's case against Polanski is b.s. The accusers of R. Kelly and Michael Jackson had far more credibility, yet they were simply paid off. The former actually urinated on a 15-year old girl as a form of sexual gratification, and here we're protesting against Polanski? You people make me sick.

  • Justin | May 3, 2010 2:13 AMReply

    He's too old to pose a threat to anyone, and the victim has said in the past that she'd rather the whole thing went away then brought back to the front page, so I see no benefit from punishing him. Yes, what he did is horrible and under normal circumstances someone should be punished severely for such a crime. But after 33 years, I just don't think he's the same person anymore.

  • Peter Branetzki | May 3, 2010 2:05 AMReply

    You do the crime and you do the crime...the man was convicted and was to be sentenced when he fled the country...sex acts upon minors in disgusting and the fact that he survived the nazi death camps and his wife was slaughtered unfortunate events has no bearing on this case...he committed a crime that if i as an ordinary person would be tried and convicted of would be sent away the fact that he is a celebrity and has famous friends who ignore the fact that his crime is heinous and applaud him as an artiste and bring up the tragedies of his life shows what a incestual society Hollywood is...

  • andrew | May 3, 2010 2:01 AMReply

    Polanski is the victim for giving a girl a rufie? Wow you are probly a rapist too janet

  • janet | May 3, 2010 1:55 AMReply

    Polanski is innocent, set him free. The girl's mother pimped her out and she must be held responsible. The girl also should be considered an adult because of her track record of sleeping with older men. Polanski is the victim here.

  • Joesph | May 3, 2010 1:54 AMReply

    1: It was so long ago.
    Not an excuse, ever, for any crime. Time passing does not excuse a crime, and there is no statue of limitations on rape. Justice is meant to be blind, and this includes to time.

    2: The girl was willing / The mother put her up to it.
    Assuming these are correct, they are a mute point. The rape, at the very least, was statuatory rape. That is, she was underage. Whether or not a underage girl is 'willing' or has had previous sex is besides the point. She was still underage and the law still applies.

    3: There was corruption within his case.
    Perhaps. However that does not mean you get the right to flee. If there is corruption, then appeal. Being a celebrity he'd have more power to do so. But, even if fleeing was the morallly acceptable thing to do at the time, how come he didn't voice his case and return soon after to face the charges without corruption?

    4: I like his movies.
    I love Chinatown, it's one of my favourite movies. That does not excuse or condone his actions. He should face the charges and outcome, whichever way it goes.

    5: MJ and R Kelly didn't get in trouble.
    Michael Jackson faced charges, and they were dismissed (IE, found innocent). Another case was paid off, which in my opinion was to avoid the media circus again. Regardless, of the cases that went before a court, MJ was found innocent.

    So to was R Kelly. The video of the underage girl having sex and watersport s was deemed to NOT be R Kelly. I have not seen it, as it's child porn, but according to the law case it was not R Kelly.

    Do you see the similarities here? Both of these celebrities faced their charges and were found not guilty by the law.
    -----------------------------
    We have two celebrites that were both charged with heinous crimes and faced the law, yet are still harrased and have had their names tarnished. Where as another celebrity flees the country, for 33years no less, and continues to show any remorse or sympathy and is praised as the 'victim'.

    You should all be reminded that Polanski had sex with a child, perhaps societies most hated crime, and has never been (finalized) his punishment. Rape is rape, and the fact people call him a victim is cringe worthy.

  • Daniel | May 3, 2010 1:53 AMReply

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh it's one thing to rape someone (which is like one of the worst thing that you could ever do to another human being), but to also flee from the charges? This guy has zero sympathy from me at least. Yeah, I like some of his movies but oh well.

  • Nick | May 3, 2010 1:44 AMReply

    Polanski is a crud-ball.. he drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year-old girl. Then this "artist" fled the country to avoid incarceration.

    He should rot in prison.

  • heyberto | May 3, 2010 1:34 AMReply

    To suggest that Polanski should not be punished because you'd like to see him make more films is unbelievable to me. I can't believe how Hollywood has taken to defending this pedophile, and justifying his actions. The Hollywood community continues their elitist standards by sticking up for this reprehensible excuse for a human being. They're insulting every young person who has ever been molested or harmed by these predators. He should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. I refuse to see any of his movies or do anything that would contribute to his financial well being. Hope they send him away for the rest of his life.

  • Martin Lazzarini | May 3, 2010 1:05 AMReply

    Clearly the man copped to his culpability, spent time in prison, his fleeing the U.S. may not seem to have cost him career-wise, under our eyes, but I'm sure it did to him. It is something he can elude nor whitewash from our collective memory. I can't imagine what else do people want from him. Let's see the true colors of those who want justice to be done: What if that's done in exchange of a communications ban on the subject? Oh-- I see, then what this is all about, for these people, is about tabloid-pleasure. Isn't it? I mean, it's clear the LA prosecutors are looking to jump on a publicity bandwagon, to defend their collective reputation. It's clear the public who clamors for it are looking forward to the 24/7 news coverage. I wonder how many of these people are for the International Criminal Court, how many are for persecuting military officers and their superiors who bring atrocities far crueler to hundreds of people around the world? My bet is not a single one of these people are for it. Therefore, tit for tat, my dear fellows. The day your morality goes beyond the gossip page, I'll be ready to support you. In the meantime, don't forget to take your meds.

  • Sarah | May 3, 2010 1:03 AMReply

    When is a rapist not a rapist?
    When they are a rich, fat celebrity...that's when!

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • First Reviews of Woody Allen's 'Magic ...
  • Best of the Week: Peter Biskind's New ...
  • Summer Box Office Freefall Continues ...
  • Academy Elects New Board of Governors: ...
  • Will Mark Romanek Follow Kubrick Into ...
  • Venice Film Festival Awards Golden Lions ...
  • ‘Project Greenlight’ Returns, and They ...
  • Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Do Battle ...
  • 9 Films to See in Theaters or Stream ...
  • Trailers from Hell Is 'At The Circus' ...