Link for the Day (September 27th, 2009): Is now a bad time for a Polanski “pianist” joke?

Link for the Day (September 27th, 2009): Is now a bad time for a Polanski “pianist” joke?

By Keith Uhlich on September 27, 2009 in Links for the Day Jump to Comments (0)

_____________________________________________________
"Link for the Day": Each day the House editors post a link to an item that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.

TAGS: roman polanski

Polanski is a great filmmaker. He also raped a child. What is hard to understand about this?
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-05 04:09:45 In America, a judge may choose whether or not to abide by the terms of a plea agreement. When making the plea agreement, the prosecutor will tell you this, that nothing is certain.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-01 17:00:46 When you talk of how Polanski "decided he didn't need to be punished" because of Rittenbrand, you forget that escape is only the natural instinct when the punishment doesn't fit the crime and there is no other way out. Case in point: Billy Hayes and the Turkish prison.

Of course, the American prison isn't as harsh as those Istanbul hellholes (even when Parker and Stone mostly exaggerated them), but what if Polanski had been sentenced to life? How long would it take before his case could be heard again?

This time he will be getting a fair trial.
Posted by Adam Zanzie on 2009-09-28 21:58:28 I for one plan to not run afoul of the criminal justice system by not raping any teenagers.

Like Geimer and the prosecutor, I'm not surprised Polanski fled the country either - it's a cowardly act, the act of a cowardly man who doesn't feel sorry for his crime. He probably thought the plea bargain would get him a slap on the wrist, he'd have to act contrite for a few months, and so on - what I term 'the Chris Brown.' The moment he realized Rittenband (who I admit overplayed his hand, which is why he was subsequently removed as the presiding judge on the case - as corrupt as the American judicial system sometimes is, it has some really nice built-in anti-corruption provisions) didn't take what Polanski had done lightly, he decided that he didn't deserve to be punished, so he bolted. And in the subsequent decades since Polanski fled and Rittenband was removed from the case, he's continued to evade punishment. How just for everyone involved, especially Geimer, whose desire for closure has been thwarted for so long that she gave up on any hope she might see Polanski brought to justice.

And yes, Adam, I am 100% at ease with my statement, despite the fact that I like some of Polanski's films. Whether or not I like his movies doesn't have any bearing for me on whether or not I think he should rot in jail.
Posted by Brendon Bouzard on 2009-09-28 19:36:59 Brendon, I hope you never run afoul of the American legal system, much less the criminal legal system, because your sense of justice is in direct proportion to your ignorance of how corrupt and broken it often is.

A plea deal was offered and accepted. Polanski did exactly what was agreed to. The judge then attempted to not only break the deal but to deliver the harshest penalty possible to Polanski.

I'm not arguing the severity of Polanski's offense or the possible injustice and harm in his plea deal, but when the system itself decides for whatever reason to not honor its own side of deals like this then prosecutors, judges, and the public should not be surprised when criminal defendants flee the system.

Whether or not Polanski has suffered enough or too much is not for you or me to decide, but he did what he was asked and they attempted to shaft him after the fact. I don't blame the guy for running, I blame the system for failing so miserably to render reasonable and reliable justice to the victim and the offender.

Further, your concern for the victim seems to utterly miss the point that she not only settled out of court years ago but wishes the charges to be dropped because she no longer wishes to suffer the prolonged humiliation of reliving a vile event that occurred some 30 years ago. Maybe you should consider the victim's rights and wishes before you puff yourself up into her (unnecessary) protector.
Posted by Joel on 2009-09-28 18:11:43 Remember, however, that even prosecutor Roger Gunson has said, "I'm not surprised that he left the country under those circumstances." And Samantha Geimer, although obviously not a student of the law, wrote in the NY Times: "Who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?"

Don't get me wrong, Brendon; I'm not fiercly in disagreement with you. You make some undeniably valid points here. But you don't seem to like Polanski much at all, do you? You seem to utter the words "If there was a God, I'd be thanking him right now" with 100% ease.
Posted by Adam Zanzie on 2009-09-28 15:05:50 Judge Rittenband wasn't considering 'taking a bribe' - he was considering rejecting Polanski's plea deal and the insane idea that 42 days in Chino was sufficient 'time served' for his brutal crime. Not that it would mitigate Polanski's deed in any way.

Further, FLEEING THE COUNTRY is not in any way an appropriate response to 'well, the judge was corrupt.'

Not a single thing I said regarding the facts of the case was untrue in any way.

Also, what in the fuck does extraordinary rendition have to do with Roman Polanski?
Posted by Brendon Bouzard on 2009-09-28 13:22:06 I really can't stand the hypocrisy of Americans lecturing the rest of the world about justice. Why don't you start by bringing to justice those Americans who have illegally abducted and tortured foreigners since 2001. And after that, perhaps you might like to prosecute the ones who gave the orders in violation of basic human rights and human dignity. And maybe then you can go after Polanski for God's sake.
Posted by sophist75 on 2009-09-28 09:42:43 Well, that isn't completely true. The judge whom Polanski was up against was corrupt: if I've heard the story correct, he was considering taking a bribe to slap Polanski with a life sentence. Even those who hate Polanski have got to admit that that is an abuse of the court system.
Posted by Adam Zanzie on 2009-09-28 05:20:47 Millions of people survived the Holocaust - not all of them drugged and forcibly raped teenage girls. Thousands of people in America lose their spouses to murderers every year - the 'natural' response is not to rape a teenager.

When a thirteen year old girl has sex with a forty-five year old man, her ability to consent is questionable at best - this isn't even a case of that. This wasn't Polanski 'fornicating' with a 13 year old. He raped her. Brutally.

And how exactly has Polanski 'suffered enough?' The man's made a mint off making movies in Europe over the past three decades, including the two most prestigious prizes in cinema. He's lived a life of luxury and fame, and he's never been asked to atone or address the gravity of the heinous crime he committed.

No amount of trauma justifies what Polanski did - it's not "only natural." It's horrifying.
Posted by Brendon Bouzard on 2009-09-28 04:30:50 On the one hand, I think there should probably be some kind of statute of limitations for most if not all crimes; if you do something bad and escape, and you don't do it again after a long enough period of time, the law should probably forget about it. But I really strongly disagree that whether Polanski is punished by law or not should have anything to do with the personal tragedies he suffered or with the works of art he (helped) create. The law is the law. It applies to everyone equally. That's one of the founding principles of this country.
Posted by Anonymous on 2009-09-28 03:56:45 As I posted over at Everything You've Always Wanted to Know About Film, Polanski undoubtedly committed a horrendous crime, but I agree that he's just about suffered punishment enough. It's clear that he's never going to do another thing like that again. And I can't help it: I feel sorry for him, with his mother being gassed at Auschwitz, with Sharon Tate being chopped up by the Manson goons, it's only natural that he would be driven to drugs and alcohol and whatever made him fornicate an underage girl. Obviously he has a lot to answer for, but like you, I suppose my appreciation for the man's work blurs my common sense a little. It's hard.

It's too much to ask for, but if Polanski does get deported to the U.S., I'm hoping that President Obama will consider pardoning him. Fingers crossed.
Posted by Adam Zanzie on 2009-09-27 22:21:42 If there were a God, I'd be thanking him right now.
Posted by Brendon Bouzard on 2009-09-27 21:45:48 Propriety be damned!
Posted by Ryan Kelly on 2009-09-27 15:32:54

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

The Attic

GIVEAWAYS

CONNECT WITH