Free Polanski

Scott Hardie | September 30, 2009
I like Roman Polanski as much as anybody – he directed my favorite movie – but the Free Polanski movement in Hollywood is just too much for me. Yeah, I know it's frivolous and makes movie industry people look like fools, and that's why it's making headlines. But I believe it's sincerely meant, and it's just taking this whole thing a little too far. Yeah, the judge was corrupt, and the plea bargain should have stuck, and the victim has begged the courts to drop this case for years. If Polanski comes back to the States, he'll get his day in court after a brief detention, and he'll probably have the case formally dropped. But he just won't do that, "for my family" he says, and that's why I just can't accept this Hollywood movement to get him freed. Sorry, but he has to take some responsibility for this decades-old mess, and proper respect for the law would have ended all of this back in the seventies. If he can't be bothered to fly back and see a judge, no one should help him go free. (If the above commentary lacks indignation at the original crime he committed, it's because this case is long past that stage. He did an evil thing and deserves whatever punishment a judge sees fit, and that won't change.)

Samir Mehta | September 30, 2009
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | September 30, 2009
my thoughts about the swiss are that they are worried....money is moving out of the Alps and into Dubai....they just decided to play nice with the US justice department in order to get a favor later....On a related note where does Polanski hold a passport?

Ryan Dunn | September 30, 2009
Whoopi chimes in.

Stay classy, Hollywood.

Amy Austin | September 30, 2009
In a related story: Whoopi says to critics... The Color Purple, definitely not about Grape Ape.

Oh, man. I am *so* disappointed in her statement. If anyone's statement is ever to be used to defend and/or exonerate Mr. Polanski, then it should be Samantha Geimer's and no one else's. As the victim, and grown woman long since, she has already stated that the only closure she lacks is the cessation of the spotlight on her and her family. She's apparently gotten over the initial trauma of his extreme misconduct, succeeded in a civil suit against him and wants to move on with her life -- not that this is the way we do "justice" here in America (and not that we are so great at that, either), but... I think even a statute of limitations could be invoked here for convenience's sake. I just hate to think that anyone out there -- least of all, Roman Polanski himself -- would allow themselves to be deluded into believing that this was not rape. (Or "rape-rape".)

If the man has any conscience at all (and kind of hard to believe, if he can't even attend a hearing years later at the very least), then he already has to live with what he knows about himself... no matter what kind of a good guy or artistic genius he may be. Is that worse than jail? In his case, probably not. But anyone who doesn't think that his standing in Hollywood (as a friend and/or film producer) is the *only* reason behind all the outcry... is definitely deluded. This is just what happens when someone so imminently likable blows it and makes a disgusting moral blunder. If all the details of Michael Jackson's charges had been identical to those stated here -- subduing a minor, male *or* female (but particularly male), with champagne and 'ludes in order to perform all manner of sexual acts on them -- then I'd bet my bottom dollar he would *not* have been acquitted.

Erik Bates | September 30, 2009
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | September 30, 2009
Interesting, so as a citizen of France and Poland what exactly is the USA federal jurisdiction to ask for extradition? I'm just trying to figure out the legal WHY? of the request for extradition. It was my understanding that usually the State submitted the request through the state department not DOJ asking directly.....something just isn't kosher here the crime doesn't fit the normal extradition statues

Anna Gregoline | September 30, 2009
Personally, I'm getting really tired of several things:

* Celebrities defending Polanski - even if you don't believe he raped the girl (which he pled GUILTY to), he still avoided sentencing by fleeing - not very honorable, there.

* News stories harping on the fact that the victim wants the case to go away. I say, so what? We don't stop prosecutions because the victim forgives the perpetrator. Also, what kind of world would it be if rape prosecutions stop because the victim says it's ok? That gives free license to the defendant to bribe and threaten their victim into dropping charges, which already happens.

* News stories repeatedly characterizing the story as "...had sex with a 13-year-old girl," as opposed to "...raped a 13-year-old girl."

* If this had been a regular person, instead of a celebrity who made films people liked, no one would be having this conversation of, "oh, it happened a long time ago, let it go." Absolutely not.

Amy Austin | September 30, 2009
True.

Jackie Mason | October 1, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve West | October 1, 2009
Ask an expert.

Amy Austin | October 1, 2009
Lol... I had noticed that, too!

Scott Hardie | October 1, 2009
News stories about the victim wanting this not to be a news story are amusing by nature. If she wanted to disappear from the public eye, I'm sure there are publicists who could help; maybe Guy Pearce's agent?

Samir Mehta | October 1, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | October 1, 2009
I like him too, and I want to see both of those movies. But for most people, he dropped off the face of the planet after The Time Machine.

Steve Dunn | October 1, 2009
Great points, Anna. It's really amazing the behavior society tolerates from talented people.

Scott Hardie | October 1, 2009
I agree too, Anna, and I liked what you said elsewhere. But am I the only one here who thinks that "oh, it happened a long time ago, let it go" would also be said about a regular person who had gone through the exact same circumstances? Maybe I misunderstand – is that position being attributed to the Woody Allens of the far left who want this dropped because Polanski's a heckuva guy, or to people of a more moderate stance like me? I still want Polanski to show up in court and respect the law, but I'm not outraged by this miscarriage of justice or yearning to see him given a long prison sentence like some people. I would make that quoted statement against any zealous conservative calling for his head, but I think you mean it to be something the lefty celebrities would say. I guess I'm just confused.

Amy Austin | October 1, 2009
Well, first of all, I think the Woody Allen reference was a special case having far more to do with his own history of screwing over his girlfriend by screwing her adopted daughter (before or after taking nudie photos, I wonder?) than with Polanski being "a heckuva guy"... though, I'm sure he believes that, too. But I don't think anyone but the closest of friends -- and *maybe* parents -- would say, "oh, it happened a long time ago, let it go" about just some regular guy... I think the rest of the world would want his head on a plate! Either Polanski's got a hell of a lot of *close* friends speaking out for him, or there is a celebrity double standard going on here.

Jackie Mason | October 2, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | October 3, 2009
As luck would have it, I had the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired here at home from Netflix when Polanski was arrested. This film makes a couple things very clear:

1) Polanski is guilty. He gave drugs and alcohol to the girl and had sex with her. She testified that it was against her will. Some people considered it relevant that she was not a virgin and had previous experience with alcohol and drugs. Seriously though... dude... 13. She was 13. He was 44.

2) Polanski got totally screwed by an unethical judge. It is utterly shameful the way he was treated by the American justice system. He did everything he was asked to do, pleaded guilty, did a short stint in prison, and got completely screwed by a rogue judge. A very striking aspect of the documentary is that both the DA and the defense attorney agreed about everything that happened - including that the judge was unethical. When the DA agrees with the defense attorney, you know it's the truth.

At the end of it... I think he should definitely not be put in prison. The California court system owes Roman Polanski an apology. Justice demands he be released and his case closed. This is not in any way to excuse what he did. The judge's misconduct does not quite rise to the level of the Duke lacrosse case, but it's in the same ballpark.

Steve West | October 7, 2009
The Swiss have rejected Polanski's appeal and bail reqest. I'm assuming that for some reason they think he's a flight risk. Go figure. Although the Swiss are known for four things: cheese with holes; cuckoo clocks; bank accounts full of dough obtained through questionable means; and an absolute adherence to international law. For the uninitiated, that last was sarcasm.

Tony Peters | October 7, 2009
Steve Dunn please don't believe everything you see on TV....even if the judge was unethical that doesn't absolve Polansi of his crime. I've been following this because while I think he's a turd I also think that it will be impossible for him to get a fail trial on the original charges....Marcia Clark has been writing some interesting articles on Daily Beast about this whole thing and she seems to believe that the only thing he will go to jail for is the only charge that they can actually prove..."Failure to appear" 3 years which in California probably means 6 months

Steve Dunn | October 7, 2009
The reason he won't go to prison on a full-fledged rape charge is because he already pleaded guilty and been convicted of a lesser charge. This was agreed to by the DA and the victim's family at the time in order to spare her from having to testify. The only thing remaining is for Polanski to be sentenced.

On that subject, everyone agreed at the time (judge, DA, defense attorney, Polanski) that he would be sentenced to probation. This was the basis for pleading guilty in the first place. However it caused a public outcry, so the judge recanted his promise and "sentenced" Polanski to a mental evaluation in Chino State Prison, which Polanski completed. Still feeling public pressure, the judge seemed poised to renege on the deal AGAIN, possibly sentencing Polanski to 15-20 years, and that's when Polanski fled.

I don't believe everything I see on TV, but I do recommend this documentary. The judge's misconduct is, in my opinion, beyond dispute.

This has nothing to do with Polanski's guilt or what punishment we think he deserves for his crime. To me, this is about the American justice system and the fact that we cannot tolerate corrupt judges. It's like if someone gets off because the police failed to give him the Miranda warning - it doesn't mean he's any less guilty, but the correct result IS to let the guy off because otherwise the police would have an incentive to trample on defendants' constitutional rights. If the judge (or the DA) is corrupt and breaks the law to screw you over, you should get off.

Technically to comply with the law, Polanski should have taken his sentence and sat in prison until he got released on appeal. Given his experience with the justice system up to that point, I frankly don't blame him for making another choice. The DA said the same thing - he didn't blame the guy for fleeing.

Tony Peters | October 7, 2009
yeah but there is nothing in the law that says a judge has to accept a plea agreement.......... If the DA today can make a good case he will probably be in jail for the rest of his life (personally I think he should have gone to jail 30 years ago for the rest of his natural born life but hey that's just my unforgiving ass)....of course its a big if most people believe that case is a no winner, but it comes to this it is the judges prerogative to issue sentencing not the DA not the Defense Attorney and until the DEFENDANT stands in front of the judge and admits his guilt at sentencing, the case isn't concluded and nothing that went before counts. He was never convicted, he never had a trial, he plead guilty in order to get a reduced sentence.

I don't see the american justice system having any problems here, I don't think a corrupt judge weighs in any part of Polanski's guilt. nor will it weigh in any attempt to have the case throw out of court, not even the failure to appear charge

Scott Hardie | October 7, 2009
For what it's worth, at least part of the film was fabricated. (link)

Tony Peters | October 7, 2009
yeah I saw that a while ago which is why i don't have a lot of trust in documentaries anymore, even if it were true so what....doesn't change what polanski did

Steve West | October 15, 2009
Polanski is apparently depressed to be in jail. Like Norm MacDonald said, "Jail would be great...except for that anal rape thing."

Scott Hardie | October 16, 2009
I keep expecting to see the Onion or Andy Borowitz or some other satirical fake news source report that Swiss authorities have arrested the thug who slit Jake Gittes's nose and are preparing him for extradition for the 1930s crime. Then I remember that that's not funny and I'm a huge film nerd.