» Revenge of the Puritans
The officious forces of rectitude, the soulless minions of orthodoxy, finally caught up with Roman Polanski.
He who the Nazis couldn’t repress, he who dodged Charles Mason’s helter skelter, is now in the clutches of American cultural Puritan-imperialism. Keep in mind that not even his victim wants him prosecuted.
Mitterrand is pissed. Some random author, Stanger, has the quote:
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 12:59 pm
Oh Jack, you do this to me on purpose don’t you? I suggest you read the testimony of the victim on the Smoking Gun, and ponder exactly what it is like to be raped, especially by a popular artist, in a society that quite often wishes woman would just be quiet about their little issues.
Brynn Warren
28 Sep 09 at 1:39 pm
Rape is horrible. The victim says she’s now moved past it and that her and her family are re-traumatized every time the media bring up the story. She doesn’t want him arrested and doesn’t want him prosecuted. She sued him civilly and they settled out of court.
Prosecuting Polanski helps no one and heals nothing.
[The Smoking Gun transcript is here. It's worth a read to stay informed, agreed. I removed the "so-called" and quotes modifying "victim" in my description above. Originally I wanted to use another word, one doesn't really exist: "victim" without implying victimization. After reading the transcript I realized "victim" was correct.]
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 3:02 pm
It does not matter what the victim wants now. He drugged her and raped her while she was crying and saying NO. Then he sodomized her. She was only 13 years old!!! So now she does not want him prosecuted? It does not matter!!! He drugged and raped a 13 year old, admitted guilt, and fled the country. What sick world do you live in to think it takes a “Puritan” to prosecute this guy. Maybe the defenders are revealing a little about their sexual desires because defending this guy, is approving drug rape of a 13 year old child. By the way he has since paid her off, its no wonder she wants this to end, she already won.
Matt
28 Sep 09 at 3:23 pm
@Matt: Analogously, maybe all the people who want him prosecuted are anti-semites. Ad hominem attacks are pointless. I don’t feel like winning an American-style political debate right now, so let’s not start one shall we?
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 3:37 pm
While I’d be interested to see what the victim says now that the completion of the case is a possibility rather than an “irrelevant legal nicety” (her words), in the end that doesn’t really matter. The case isn’t Samantha Geimer vs. Roman Polanski, it’s the State of California vs. Roman Polanski.
Rapists don’t get to go free because they managed to demoralize their victims and taint the next 30 years of their life so badly they give up. I’ve heard no good evidence that he did not do it, nor that he was criminally insane, nor any other good reason why he shouldn’t pay the societal costs of being a child rapist.
Kyla
28 Sep 09 at 4:58 pm
This is the perceptual gap the quote in my first comment talks about.
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 5:37 pm
I suppose my point is I see neither justice nor utility in sending a senior citizen to prison for the rest of his life over a crime for which everyone actually involved thinks he should receive a pardon.
But the rules say the rules must be obeyed. It seems America is going to punish him for the sake of punishment — the “gotta punish somebody” theory of law. That’s what strikes me as gross.
But I guess I’ve confused “justice” and “the law” by making that distinction. Domage.
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 6:03 pm
Not being a “soulless minion of orthodoxy” I have to question at what age do you feel a girl would be too young to drug, rape and sodomize? Does having eluded “justice” for 30+ years lessen the terror felt by a 13 year old child? Perhaps it would it be sufficient to allow you to sympathize with the victim rather then the rapist if perhaps if he were not so well dressed and talented? Perhaps he should have beat her or would that still not satisfy your desire to close the “perception gap”. Somehow I don’t believe that all “intellectuals” and “artist” are as “souless” and craven as you seem to be. There must be a few who don’t believe it’s no big deal for a 43 year old man to rape a 13 year old child.
Shinea
28 Sep 09 at 6:25 pm
@Shinea: Hyperbolic ad-hominem attacks sure are fun! Must… Maintain… Intellectual… High ground… Gaaah, there. I’ve repressed my urge to respond in kind.
Too bad you didn’t actually respond to any of my points — we could have had a conversation! Though by putting “justice” in quotes you seem to be conceding at least part of what I was saying? Oh well, feel free to try again.
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 6:46 pm
I think the issue here though is that Polanski admitted to the crime (or some variation of the crime) then decided that the crime was not worthy of consequences. He fled because he felt that raping a child was not a crime worthy of sentencing, and I think that is what bothers me the most, about this whole case.
He just continued to make movies, and we continued to watch them.
Geimer eventually asked the case to be dismissed at least in part because of how she and her family were being portrayed in the press. This case highlights, in my opinion, the way sexual abuse and its victims are treated in Western society, and the results are quite scary. Polanski is the person responsible for the mess today, not the American judicial code. Polanski drugged and raped a child left in his care. The fact that so many people seem willing to forgive this kind of crime just because the man made a few good movies is utterly terrifying to me.
I will say however that in an abstract way, the ‘wishes of the victim vs. the law’ debate is definitely interesting, and one that I have been thinking of since the Rhianna and Chris Brown case. However, due to the behavior of Polanski (i.e. fleeing prosecution at the time of the initial arrest), I think this case is a bit more complex.
Brynn Warren
28 Sep 09 at 8:04 pm
I find “gotta punish somebody” to be a total misrepresentation of the argument. They are not just choosing some random person to punish, they are punishing an admitted rapist.
The argument, as I see it, is “rapists should always be punished” vs “rapists should not be punished if they meet certain criteria”, the major criteria I’ve seen being “is old”, “had a hard life”, “made appreciated art”, or “has obtained forgiveness”.
The reason I brought up the fact that the case is being perused by the State of California, rather than the victim, is because that is how both “laws” and “justice” work in modern society. Things are illegal not because they hurt a person (I could call you any sort of nasty names, and they might hurt, but it’s not illegal), but because they break society down. Every time a woman is raped without consequence it tells every woman that there are times it’s ok for them to be raped, and tells every man that there are times when raping isn’t all that bad. These messages have real life effects on society. The French government is giving one message about the place and severity of rape in their culture, while the American government is giving another.
I like the American message better.
Kyla
28 Sep 09 at 8:16 pm
Quick note: If you want to fire off a personal attack then the other admins and I will see it, but we won’t publish it. Ditto anti-semitic rants, etc. I won’t dignify hate speech against me or anyone else.
Removed my “God save… Salman Rushdie…” text from the post proper — Kyla and Brynn have convinced me that it was inappropriate.
Jack
28 Sep 09 at 9:11 pm
[...] Jack on Revenge of the PuritansQuick note: If you want to fire off a personal att… »Kyla on Revenge of the PuritansI find [...]
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired | MentalPolyphonics
29 Sep 09 at 12:12 am
Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and David Lynch, among one hundred and thirty-some others, have signed a petition demanding Polanski’s immediate release.
Jack
29 Sep 09 at 8:53 pm
[...] was the subject of some discussion on these blog a while [...]
MentalPolyphonics » Where in the World is Roman Polanski?
6 Dec 10 at 5:18 pm