What difference does that make? He should get a free pass on child rape because he’s NOT a pedophile? Rape is rape is rape.
And I wouldn’t give much credence to the victim’s statement that she “forgives” him – it’s practically routine for abused children to form an unhealthy bond with their abusers. Heck, even adult rape victims are often unwilling to testify; that’s what makes this sort of crime so utterly heinous, worse than murder IMHO.
Poor, poor Polanski – he probably fled hoping that the attitude towards child rape would someday lessen from where it was in the late '70s. Didn’t work out so well for him, did it? Muahahaha.
This is exactly right. Anyone who says “the judge changed his mind” without acknowledging that the judge was first quite lenient and only changed his mind after Polanski abused the freedom he was given is only telling half the story.
I do wonder if this arrest is a manifestation of Switzerland’s new spirit of cooperation with US authorities.
To everyone saying he could fled before he pled and waited out the statute of limitation; I don’t think it works that way. IANAL, but my understanding is that all a statute of limitations means is that one must be indicted within X years of the alleged offence, not tried. Polanski was already indicted and even if he wasn’t it would have been a simple matter to indict him in absentia (suspects don’t even have to be told a grand jury is considering charges against them let alone allowed to attend).
I think in interest of her wishes and the age of the case they should make short work of the case. Perhaps a large fine or contribution to a victim’s agency and a permanent ban from the U.S. and call it done.
I just think it’s a dangerous thing to listen to the victims too much, though. What if a victim is just saying that because they’re intimidated or embarrassed or for some reason, they don’t see it as a crime? I don’t think justice has anything to do with the feelings of the victim.
It’s got to be hell for Samantha Geimer. To go through life being ‘the girl that Roman Polanski raped’ (or ‘the girl claiming Roman Polanski raped her but what was she doing at a Hollywood party anyway and I hear she’d had sex before and knew what Quaaludes were?’).
Of course, if she wants to go out and commit a heinous crime, flee the country and have others blame her actions on what Roman Polanski did to her, I may sympathize with her plight. Just as long as she makes some art I like.
Considering all the crap that people say (“He was a great ARTIST,” “He made a little mistake and it was so long ago,” “Sure he raped her, but her mom let it happen!”) I get the sense that what else is she going to say? It just seems so tempting to just go with the flow. Maybe she really does genuinely believe he shouldn’t be punished anymore, but I still think that’s a huge mistake. I’ve never gotten the argument about why Roman Polanski shouldn’t come back and pay for what he did.
Did rape/abuse/contributing to the delinquency of/etc./of minors (and whatever else he was charged with) have a statute of limitations in California in the 1970s? (I know in some states today it does and in some it does not.)
An issue to me is that in the 31 years since the crime he has had, to my knowledge, no consequent sexual or other offenses against an adult or a minor (unless you count naming his son Elvis Rajmund Polanski). The caps below are not for screaming but just emphasis when I say in caps THIS IS NOT TO BELITTLE OR CAST DOUBT UPON HIS GUILT IN THE 1978 RAPE, but I think it should be taken into consideration.
Polanski is a 76 year old man with health problems. (How major they are I’m not sure; his attorney mentioned them, they could just be the “if you live to be 76 you’re gonna have some health problems” variety). There is no reason to believe he is a danger to anybody when he is free. His victim wants the issue to go away so she can get on with her life. His wife and two teenaged children live in France, so his incarceration in the U.S. would deprive of him of family (a man who lost many mebers of his family, including his mother, in Nazi death camps and his first wife and unborn son to another infamous act of butchery; again not exonerating, but is it a wonder he’s messed up?) in what are likely his final years. Therefore, does it benefit anybody to imprison him?
So again, I say bring him to the U.S., fine the hell out of him if that’s legal, and release him on probation and a vow not to return to the US (which I don’t think is an issue anyway since he’s supposedly avoided it for 30 years [it wouldn’t amaze me if before 9-11 tightened security he might not have snuck in a time or two]). If he ever again sexually assaults anybody renew it, otherwise let him go.
The danger with that Sampiro is that you’re essentially rewarded his fleeing from justice. It’s a dangerous precedent and it sends the wrong message. Jail time is appropriate.
