The Polanski Witch Hunt?
Posted on September 29th, 2009 in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »
My friend Nina Burleigh argues on the Huffington Post that arresting Roman Polanski is the right thing to do.
To these artists and other supporters of the arrested director, the incarceration of the director is the end of a witch-hunt, the persecution of a genius by low-level, un-imaginative legal drones, who wear un-cool suits and wouldn’t know a semiotic deconstruction if it smacked them in the face. If Polanski did anything wrong, and some, I think, would even say he did not, he should be forgiven for a single folly, committed way back in the ‘lude’ and hot-tub heyday of 1970s Hollywood debauchery. The rape of a 13-year old was hardly the worst offense committed at Jack Nicholson’s pad.
(Blogger: Huh? I love Nina, but kinda wonder if any libel lawyers checked out that particular assertion, and I think if you throw out a charge that’s so loaded, you should back it up.)
Still,
…the arrest of Roman Polanski is a good idea, and should stand. It doesn’t matter whether he is a genius. The world will have to live without his lifetime tribute ceremony, at least for a few months more. It doesn’t matter whether his victim - 30-odd years on and handsomely paid off - forgives and wants to forget.
What matters is that the rape of a 13-year old girl, in a nation of laws, in a nation where women are striving for equality with men, in world where we are hundreds of years away from that right and good goal, be discouraged, by example if necessary.
12 Responses
9/29/2009 10:22 am
I think Grayling, a philosophy professor at Birkbeck, argues this side of the case well in the UK Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6852996.ece
He argues that it is about the crime of rape: that even the victims who forgive,” inadvertently forgive the crime; that is something society should not do.” He argues, for example, that “It is easy for people to be swayed by considerations of personality in such cases as the Polanski arrest. In general the law does well if it addresses itself to individuals and their circumstances rather than imposing rigid blanket laws that contradict justice as often as they serve it, precisely because they ignore the special individual circumstances. But with the great crimes of rape, murder and genocide, prosecution and punishment are about society’s struggle to protect itself now and in the future against the worst aspects of its own members’ behaviour. ”
He doesn’t address the question of a miscarriage of justice that Richard raises (and see-the-film-Anonymous has been declaiming over the last few days). But surely even that concern should be addressed through legal channels.
I haven’t seen anyone go so far as to claim that Polanski did not commit a crime, but I have seen it referred to as a “so-called crime,” as in Harvey Weinstein’s comment, “whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.”
9/29/2009 10:41 am
Except, again, this isn’t about the rape, which would have been a resolved matter were it not for a judge who should have been disbarred.
Gawker ran a nice FAQ about Polanski; here’s this on the trial:
—Q: What happened with his trial?
A: As detailed in a recent documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the trial was a circus that makes the OJ case look like a model of jurisprudence. A judge in love with the spotlight ran the case in circles while seemingly allowing every day’s headlines to dictate his rulings. Ultimately, Polanski allowed himself to be jailed for 90 days to undergo psychiatric evaluation on the understanding that this time served would constitute the bulk of his punishment. When it appeared, however, that the judge was on the brink of reneging on this promise and Polanski was facing a much longer imprisonment, he fled the country.—
http://gawker.com/5369388/roman-polanski-faqs?skyline=true&s=x
9/29/2009 11:20 am
This thoughtful but angry review of the documentary gave me reason to doubt the seriousness of the purported “miscarriage of justice” at his trial”: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/index.html
9/29/2009 11:30 am
I wouldn’t doubt it on the basis of that piece, Anon. The writer may well be right that the documentary downplays the appalling nature of what Polanski did. But he never addresses the question of whether Polanski got a fair trial, as the documentary argues he did not—and that is the essential argument of the documentary, and the one that is most relevant, I think, in the current context.
9/29/2009 12:36 pm
But Richard, if Polanski really got an unfair trial, then why not go through the right legal channels to get the case expunged? (Not sure that’s the exact legal term, but you get the idea). Polanski’s done at least two things wrong: 1) He admitted to raping a 13 year and 2) He fled the court. I still haven’t heard a coherent argument for why he shouldn’t be required to go through the usual legal channels to deal with both of these things like everyone else.
9/29/2009 12:47 pm
My understanding from watching the film is that he did try but that the media circus around him at the time was so intense (remember the media in the 70s was still blaming him for his wife’s murder, which is ridiculous) and the judge was so irresonsible that he gave up on hoping for a fair trial and finally fled.
9/29/2009 1:07 pm
@Anonymous 12:47 pm. Yeah, I saw that in the film too. Any rational person might have fled under those circumstances. But, that still doesn’t explain why he shouldn’t have to deal with skipping town through the proper legal channels now that he has been caught again! New court proceedings, which would obviously take place under a lot of scrutiny, should reveal whether the trial judge acted improperly. He may even get out of the guilty verdict because of it — even though a heinous crime was committed, a la OJ (though Polanski did plead guilty so I’m not sure how that plays out in a legal sense?).
On another note, since I was only 3 years old in 1978 before his recent arrent, I had only a vague idea of why Polanski wouldn’t come to the US to accept the Oscar, lived in exile, etc. His re-arrest has served a ‘useful’ purpose in helpfully exposing his crimes and misdeeds to new generations of moviegoers! (I’m half kidding).
9/29/2009 1:24 pm
The piece in Huff Post tells half the story. Those justifying the Great Artist’s dalliance with an underage girl as an understandable product of his “artistic needs” are full of crap. But the piece ends with its own agitprop: this is about “discouraging” rape in order to promote gender “equality”. That’s politics, folks — and that was exactly the problem with the original trial.
The broad legal issue raised here is indeed the question of whether Polanski can attack the ruling without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. What we don’t know — and what renewed proceedings here might uncover — is precisely what evidence exists as to (a) the actual terms of the plea “deal” and (b) whether the court reneged. What those proceedings won’t do is establish (a) Polanski’s innocence (he admitted guilt and won’t be able to overcome that) and (b) that he must be set free if judicial misconduct is found to have occurred. In short, Polanski faces real jeopardy — and that’s why he won’t come back. (And it’s not double jeopardy either, since the issues are different.)
Finally, in case anyone wants to read the thirteen year old’s testimony regarding the “photo session” (ending in anal rape), here it is: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
9/29/2009 3:02 pm
Why split all these legal hairs? Isn’t the man an admitted pervert? And a fugitive from justice? I simply don’t understand why he isn’t in jail. What moral compass have the French used in protecting this child molester? Do his apologists have 13 year old daughters?
9/29/2009 10:36 pm
If this were Mel Brooks instead of Roman Polanski, would he get the same kind of support? I doubt it. People like Wong Kar Wai and Wim Wenders are standing up for Polanski because of their respect for him as an artist, not because they think this situation (if divorced from the person) is a miscarriage of justice.
9/30/2009 7:40 am
You’re right, Anonymous 12:08. It is a huge miscarriage of justice that someone could drug and rape a 13 year old girl and then plea bargain his way down to a sentence of 42 days in jail. The fact that he avoided the punishment he deserved for thirty years shows that justice is different for the rich and famous.
9/30/2009 8:53 am
I deleted a comment there because it was getting a little personal.
Someone else, I agree with you that 42 days in jail seems an absurdly light sentence. Nonetheless, that’s not really the issue. The question is whether the judge in question was going to renege on that deal and give Polanski the harshest sentence possible in order to please the media—and the extent to which one should be punished for running away from what should have been a mistrial.