two links and .02 on the Polanski ugliness

mood: angry
music: Ani di Franco, "Out of Range"
Ed Benerno: "Another popular justification seems to be, 'The victim forgives him.' As a former police officer I can tell you unequivocally that the victim of a crime is often the person least capable of making that decision. They are frightened and humiliated. They just want it all to go away."

Via LJ:ky_expatriate: [info - personal] chrismm's ongoing list of celebrities who aren't giving Polanski a free pass.

My .02: The girl said 'no.' I just don't see any acceptable apology around that. And, on a similarly basic level: my niece is that age. I don't care how tragic and/or brilliant and/or nice-the-rest-of-the-time someone is - if they do anything like that to her, I'll be going after them with a shotgun.

Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments


[info]arionrhod

I'm with you on that, and if they won't let priests off who did such things, why should he get off just because he's famous?
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 05:22 pm (UTC) | | Reply

[info]letoutthetiger

Don't see why the guy just can't go back quietly and sit the time he has to sit in jail. I don't understand the fuss. I appreciate the victim is forgiving, but that is not what it is about.
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 05:33 pm (UTC) | | Thread | Reply

[info]bronze_ribbons

Well, I do understand why some of the Polanski apologists are equating jail time = lost potential works of greatness. To play devil's advocate for a sec, I could see hesitating for a second if asked, "If someone like Beethoven committed a crime, and punishing him meant that the Ninth Symphony would never get written, would you be willing to make an exception?" (Alternatively: "If a top 10 tennis player was found guilty of rape, and jailing him would effectively terminate his career, would you consider deferring or commuting his sentence?" And yet another: "If someone was humanity's best shot at developing a cure for cancer, AND a criminal, and punishing him = setting back cancer research indefinitely (= more people dying because a cure hasn't been found), would you still insist on the letter of the law?")

But all that said, I don't buy it. Lots of people have the potential to do great things who don't get to because of lack of money, luck, health, etc. Many great accomplishments don't happen to be celebrated because they're not as visible or well-distributed as Hollywood movies. Rape derails numerous victims from fulfilling _their_ potential as artists, teachers, parents, etc. As far as I'm concerned, Polanski committed a crime and literally got away with it for years. His accomplishments/talents are irrelevant to the fact that he raped a child, and as Ari points out, if he had been a priest - or a politician, or a plumber, or anyone other than a legendary film director - he'd have been abandoned to his fate long before now.
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 07:49 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]ellid

Not to mention that he could still write scripts in prison.
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 08:24 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]letoutthetiger

""If someone was humanity's best shot at developing a cure for cancer, AND a criminal, and punishing him = setting back cancer research indefinitely (= more people dying because a cure hasn't been found), would you still insist on the letter of the law?")"

I think this might be the only case where I'd consider it. It is of course an ethical question: one person's suffering versus the suffering of millions. And in such a case, I think people could be locked up in a research lab as well.

And I agree with your line of thought. Commit crime + flee =/= not guilty. Back in jail with him; I'm sure the prison can set up a small film club for him to play with. Bascially, it is just yet another degrading way to look at women and the crimes commited against them as something that is just worthless compared to the rights of successfu, richl WASP men.
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 08:25 pm (UTC) | | Parent | Reply

[info]ellid

I wasn't at all surprised to see that Andrew Vachss wants him to fry.

So do I. 13 years old? What a disgusting old pervert.
Posted on Oct. 3rd, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC) | | Reply