What The Hell Is “Rape-Rape”?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
news, video
2:15PM, Monday September 28th 2009
We’ve already posted about Roman Polanski being arrested this weekend for that decades-old “sex with a minor” conviction, but after watching the ladies of “The View” argue over the issue this morning, I felt compelled to write more. For starters, in the clip above, Whoopi Goldberg, who I never expected to be a rape apologist, coins a term I’ve never heard before—“rape-rape.” Apparently “rape-rape” is NOT when you drug a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and a Quaalude and then have anal sex with her. That’s something else that’s, apparently, not as bad. WTF?
Even though Whoopi and guest host Melissa Gilbert never say that the punishment for Polanski’s crime is too harsh because he’s a famous and brilliant director (who withstood a litany of his own traumas in his personal life), I felt the subtext was there. Would they have been making excuses—under the guide of legalese—if this was Joe Blow or, hell, a s**ty director? I doubt it. And the whole thing enrages me. It’s especially appalling that women, specifically two mothers, are making excuses for his crime.
I don’t presume to know the details of the case, but two things are impossible to ignore. At the time that Roman Polanski had sex with Samantha Geimer, she was 13 and he was 44. In what universe is that nothing short of vile? Whoopi attempted to downplay these facts by asserting that in countries outside the United States, this kind of age difference wouldn’t be as big of a deal. Oh really? So you would be OK with your teenage daughter having anal sex with someone three times her age because that’s how the Euros do it?
The fact that she is even speaking of this incident as if it were consensual is particularly revolting. Even if Polanski hadn’t gotten Geimer drunk—and he admitted to giving her alcohol and half a Quaalude—under U.S. law, 13-year-olds cannot consent to having sex with 44-year-olds. She’s right that Polanski wasn’t convicted of child rape, but that’s because he plead guilty to a lesser charge—which he has NOT served time for—not because he didn’t commit child rape to begin with.
Whoopi also brings up the fact that Geimer doesn’t want Polanski to go to jail. That’s wonderful, I suppose, that this woman has seemingly moved on from her awful experience, but the last time I checked, victims of a crime don’t get to act as judge and jury.
But all of this is neither here nor there. Polanski was convicted of a crime over 30 years ago and ran away before he could serve time for that crime. The fact that he’s been picked up and might be going to jail at the ripe old age of 76 is no one’s fault but his own. I say throw the book at him, make him serve every single day he was sentenced to, plus extra time for running away from his punishment to begin with.
And shame on Whoopi. Let’s hope her granddaughter never has to weigh the differences between rape, “rape-rape,” or the way Europeans like to do it.
- Today’s Lady News: Polanski’s Lawyer Says He’s Been Punished Enough For Drugging, Raping Teen
- Whoopi Goldberg Doesn’t Like Rape Jokes
- Today’s Lady News: After Homecoming Dance Gang Rape, City Struggles With Blaming The Victim
- Help Your Guy Choose the Perfect Mustache (Maxim)
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Rose
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:23 pm: [report]
Well said, Amelia. This bullcrap is making me sick. Why do we fall all over ourselves to excuse the inexcusable? I have a daughter, too. Children cannot consent to sex with adults in any country, or on any planet. Nothing a person does can erase a crime they committed. He’s guilty by his own admission and needs to take responsibility.
writergirl
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:28 pm: [report]
Actually, I would tend to agree with you under normal circumstances. Then I saw a documentary on this case and I don’t necessarily agree with your stance.
There were many, many side and sub stories to this event that makes you kind of sympathetic to Polanski when you hear it. The judge in the case botched the hearing, the trial, and the sentencing from the get go. Polanski left due to the incompetence of the judge—at least that was the impression I got—than for anything having to do with avoiding his sentence. Originally, if I remember correctly, the judge said he wasn’t going to do jail time, issued a ruling to the same, then recalled the ruling. So Polanksy—with the help of celebrity chef Giada DeLaurentis’ grandfather—left for France.
The documentary gave the impression Polanski was more than willing to serve time for the lesser charge, but the judge kept issuing rulings and then recalling them. He never denied what he did, he never, in anything I’ve read or seen, blamed the girl—though several others did—and he admitted what he did was wrong.
At this point, honestly, the guy got completely raped by the legal system in my opinion. As far as I know, he’s never repeated the crime, which in my opinion means he’s not a true pedophile. I think what he did was horrific and he should have been punished, but given the legal botching of the case by the judge, I think he should be given a lessor sentence at this time. If I had been treated by the legal system as Polansky was, I would have left, too.
bethlynn00
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
You attack Whoopi, way more than Polanski, even though he’s the guilty one and she just gave an opinion. But I don’t get the rape-rape thing either. But it is right that what actually happened and what he was charged with make a big difference. What actually happened was rape, but that’s not what he was charged with, so in the legal world, it’s kinda irrelevant. Like I said in the previous post ultimately this could end up being a major waste of time and effort, because it would be very easy for a judge to say let him go on time served (the 42 days he served back then) or that he get a very short sentence since it would most likely be based on 70’s sentencing guidelines, and then him being turned away since that time would have to be served in the very over-populated and very under-funded California prison system.
blackrose1o1
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]
Kinda hostile towards Europeans in this article… Not really liking that very much.
Other than that, I agree, he should definitely be charged and serve time for the crime he committed.
Leese
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:30 pm: [report]
Thank you, Amelia. I just realized that almost every news story I’ve heard about this has called it sex with a child. Not rape. I think people are forgetting that he drugged and raped a young girl. Salon.com has a really well done article about the same topic as well.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
@Writergirl - Get ready to be bombarded by people that skim the story and think he is a convicted serial child rapist.
writergirl
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]
@Riley—I know. And I would, for any case involving a child-rapist say that they should have the book thrown at them and thrown into the general prison population. (We heard about that scenario last week) And I don’t support letting convicted criminals—especially those who admit to the crime—get off easy. But there is such a thing as Due Process in this country, and Polansky’s was denied that several times.
angelspinning
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:36 pm: [report]
I’m not sure what my opinion on this is, but I feel sad that we as a country don’t even try to live up to the idea that jail is for rehabilitation, not punishment.
bethlynn00
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:37 pm: [report]
@writergirl: Yeah I saw that documentary too and their is some fault with the judge as well, because he was doing some really unethical stuff regarding the sentencing trying to get more publicity. And no matter what the someone has done that does not give the legal system the right to mis-treat or manipulate them.
Also, to one more thing in the article, many victims play a very important part in the sentencing of an offender. Their statements effect the final decisions of both the judge and jury where their are variances in sentences. So I think it’s wrong to think that her opinion is completely irrelevant, honestly I think it’s the most important opinion, just like with any crime, the victim should play an integral part in the outcome.
bogart4017
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:37 pm: [report]
Americans are always trying to give new names to the same old crap. Sex that is not consensual is rape. And where i come from i don’t give a damn who you are or what you do—if you engage anyones 13-year-old daughter, grandaughter, niece or sister in sex consensual or not, your worry ain’t gonna be what you’re charged with. Your main concern will be which ravine they find your corpse in after being dragged down a long, dark country road tied to the back of a blue chevy pick up. I’m finished now.
lea322
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:39 pm: [report]
@Writergirl: (not attempting to bombard you!) I just wanted to say that even if it was the worst handled trial in history, running away and refusing to return was a poor choice. The state of California (or the US government, I’m honestly not sure who specifically was calling for his extradition) are right to demand that he return and finish the case.
lostrun
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:44 pm: [report]
It is interesting to see how people are coming to his defense. Whether or not the judge was acting unethically, Polanski left the US, and has never come back to avoid his jail time. His ass should be in jail b/c he had sex w/ a 13 girl who he admittedly drugged. That is illegal. He did this in the US, not Europe, so there is no reason to bring European lifestyle into it. In the US, when you drug someone and then have sex w/ them, it’s rape. When you do it to a 13 yr old, it’s rape of a minor.
Squidtermz
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:51 pm: [report]
@angelspinning - Very good point.
Frisky on LI
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]
I wonder if it was a 13 year old girl in the middle east being forced to marry a man 3 times her age and bare his children if Whoopi would be so ok with that. She’d have her Hollywood buddies up in arms over it.
If we let this Polanski freak get away with his crime what is that saying to the rest of the world about rape crimes against women and children?
Ginger
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 01:56 pm: [report]
It’s a sad day when Sherri Shepherd is the one making sense.
I think the worst part of this is that Geimer just wants to move on and everytime this gets brought up people talk about her like she’s still a child who was victimized. If she can move on from this event, I think that the press should be able to.
missbb
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:12 pm: [report]
@mcfree You actually had a good point, but by posting multiple rants, it’s taken away your credibility. Too bad.
@writergirl I saw the same documentary (it was excellent, btw) and in it, he admits that he “likes young women” (and I don’t think he was referring to women over 18). Also, Polanski DID repeat the crime by having sex with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15 years old (statutory rape in the U.S., I don’t know about in Europe).
Also, why do you go back and forth between “Polanski” and “Polansky”?
brandyalexander
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:13 pm: [report]
McFree: I think everyone on this site knows the difference between actually raping a child and saying that a seventeen year old is sexy. There is a difference.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]
@Brandy - This happens every time a big story is posted, it shows up on searches and you get the dregs of some underworld society repeatedly posting incoherent rants.
Makes me think of a room full of chimps typing on keyboards, one of them will eventually put something together. Infinite monkey theorem proven.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:23 pm: [report]
Yes it is all completely ok with me. I endorse it with my presidential seal of approval. Every idea I have is a good idea, so I’m glad you are on-board with me.
Together we can change the world Mcfree!
Squidtermz
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:26 pm: [report]
Shun the non-believer… SHHHUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNAHHH!
heythere
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:27 pm: [report]
Amelia, I think what Whoopi meant by “rape-rape” is that the legal system calls an adult having sex with a minor rape because the person is a minor. So what she meant was the legal system calls it that, but really it was consentual not actual rape by force. Which she is obvisouly dead WRONG, but i’ve heard the term “rape-rape” before.
@mcree: What are you talking about? Amelia is saying he should pay for what he did, which is JUSTICE. You should read more carefully. Obviously your a man. Us women should be selfish when it comes to rapist cause we are affected the most by this. The article is about what Whoopie said, it’s not a question if Polonski should go to jail or not.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:29 pm: [report]
You MISUNDERSTAND me Mcfree! I thought WE could change the WORLD. Please tell ME you haven’t becomed disillusioned.
I don’t GET it, you called ME great and AN idiot…where IS this coming from?
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:31 pm: [report]
Wait wait, Mcfree, you think pedophilia is awesome? I’m not sure our goals are the same anymore. You’ve changed my friend.
bethlynn00
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]
@mcfree: Actually Joe Jonas is 17, so he can legally consent to sex, well in WI that’s the legal age of consent, so at least if Amelia had sex with Joe Jonas in WI she would not be a rapist. And still having sex with someone is not the same as rape, if that person is of age and consenting. Now whether Joe Jonas would consent to sex with Amelia is a totally different story, but you get the point. Another thing I think you should take a chill pill anyways, because every one would agree that one woman does not speak for all of us, so for you to make generic, insulting comments about all women is just really sad anyways.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
Mcfree, now you are just hurting my feelings. Is it possible for us to ever mend the fences and be together?
heythere
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:38 pm: [report]
I read carefully mcfree, and I agree with bethlynoo, you need a chill pill. And come on, are you some idiot thinking it would be child rape for Amelia to kick it with a Joe Jonas? And thats your big argument. Come on.
writergirl
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:40 pm: [report]
@bethlynn00 and lea322—The United States Constitution guarantees Due Process under the Second Amendment. His Due Process rights were violated by that judge in the case. That was my point. They can bring him back, but they can’t subject him to trial again (Due Process) and there was no clear ruling on the sentencing due to the mistreatment of the case by the original judge.
@Missbb—like I said, I don’t know if he had sex with other minors. I did not know about Kinski. And Polansky vs Polanski was simply typos—I was doing two things at once.
FloraPoste
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:44 pm: [report]
Oh my God, Riley, you’re cracking up. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.
H. Blue
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]
Ooh. Was mcfree banned? Please say yes, Amelia.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]
Aw, Mcfree was fun. :sad:
kr070707
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:48 pm: [report]
@mcfree: I too read all your posts and to SOME extent you are right in that we (as Americans) consider anyone under 18 to be a child and not able to give consent (even though the law doesn’t see it that way and there are some states where the age of consent is 16). But, please, lets not equate the drugging and factual rape of a thirteen-year-old child with a somewhat misguided, fantasy internet gallery. You are the one turing the post and the situation at hand into a joke.
kr070707
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:49 pm: [report]
Damn, I took too long!
bethlynn00
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 02:56 pm: [report]
@ writergirl: I agreed with you that his rights were violated by the judge and that needs to be taken into account for the outcome of this situation, although I think that is going to be difficult to deal with since the judge in the original case is now deceased, but his original defense attorney and the original prosecutor both made statements that they did not agree with the actions of the judge, so that may be taken into account. Although it does not excuse the fact that he fled the country, that was wrong on his part. However this plays out, I think it’s going to be ugly.
retro chic
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 03:29 pm: [report]
Like I stated in the previous Polanski post, the realities of the rinse cycle of so-called justice, esp here in LA, will be for him to pick up where he left off – serving only a minor sentence, if that. He did it. He’s guilty. But, it’s too expensive to fight the extradition battles WITH CONDITIONS to ever be the the big hoopla others may want it to be. With all the legal challenges, watch for this story to slink away into the night the same way Polanski did 32 years ago.
There are too many current rape cases, for both children and women, that need the DA’s resources, so, some of you might be disappointed. I am only speaking to the adjudication, not the merits, of the original case. Yes, I am a jaded Angeleno.
Btw, Whoopi’s lame-ass Euro-sex vs. rape-rape rationalization is ridiculous. I hope she doesn’t think she’s speaking for anyone other than herself, and that other celebs don’t follow suit.
writergirl
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
@bethlynn—I agree, he shouldn’t have fled. But I can totally understand his reasoning in doing so. Guess we’ll see.
majicksand
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 04:06 pm: [report]
I think I’ve said everything I needed to (and then some) in the other post, but I am interested in hearing what people have to say here. Consider this comment a placeholder.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 04:13 pm: [report]
GRAPE APE
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 04:19 pm: [report]
Soooo anyone hear hear about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a young girl in 1990?
He hasn’t denied it yet.
GreenAura
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 04:36 pm: [report]
^ I sense a ban coming on….
OutOfLine
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 05:21 pm: [report]
Wow, this line of comments gets really confusing without all the ones from McFree.
gsplsngr
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 05:31 pm: [report]
I am a guy and somewhat conservative at that and I am sickened that some of you women would give this guy a pass based on his fame and a sympathetic documentary. You don’t have to dig very far doing research to find that he was involved in a relationship with roman Nastassja Kinski when she was under age, so there is a definite pattern here. How could any women call herself a feminist and condone a 44 year old man give a 13 year old wine and drugs so he could have sex with her.
Riley
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 05:42 pm: [report]
Oh Mcfree/misty234am, I knew you’d come back to me!
wildstrawberries
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 06:47 pm: [report]
to the multiple posts concerning women condoning the rape of a minor by Roman Poanski: You need to actually read the posts. From beginning to end. No one here is condoning drugging and then having sex, consensual or otherwise with a minor. Every post here is calling for justice in this case. The point many are trying to make is that during the sentencing of Polanski, who made huge errors in judgement by leaving in the 70’s, was not treated to a fair and balanced trial of his peers. Which I would argue is one of the foundations of living in a democracy. If people in positions of authority are allowed to use their position as they see fit without regard to the rule of law we might as well live in a fascist dictatorship.
Pinky
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 06:48 pm: [report]
Sounds like Whoopi has been to the Bill Clinton linguistics center, i.e. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is ”
tishfish44
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:29 pm: [report]
EVERY TIME this douche is nominated for an award I want to punch a wall! He should KNOW better than to be a sick prick who damaged a 13-year-old, to have SEX with a CHILD! How dare he? And how dare people glorify him??? Ick, ick, ick. It is NEVER okay to have sex with a 13 year old. Period. And in this case, I don’t care about any statute of limitations. He has already admitted guilt, it is time to pay up. He has been living the high life for far, far too long.
kr070707
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:45 pm: [report]
@Misty234am/Mcfree: I stand by my statement that actions speak much louder than words. I am not advocating child rape (if you would actually read my post) by any means. My point boils down to understanding contexts. Polanski was found guilty of ACTUALLY raping a minor; there was a factual victim. Do you honestly feel that the Jonas brother in question feels that he is a victim of Amelia (or the thousands of other women who say the same thing about him everyday)? Also, Amelia did not solicite sex from the Jonas. Men can write on message boards or forums that they would have sex with 13-year-olds (even SPECIFIC 13-year-olds), but as long as they don’t actually proposition a real child it is free speech. Sure, they can be monitered by the FBI or “To Catch a Predator” but until they actually start talking to the minors it is not a crime. If simply SAYING you would have sex with a 17-year-old is a crime, then you better start arresting every 18-year-old high school senior of both genders.
Plus, can we at least agree that there is a BIG difference between a 13-year-old and a 17-year-old of either gender? I’m talking in terms of emotional, mental and physical maturity. Again, not advocating sex with minors of any age, but sadly, I think that most people would not be nearly as disgusted if Polanski had done the same thing to a 17-year-old. In fact, it probably wouldn’t have been illegal.
The main point in this whole debacle is whether or not justice was served, and in my opinion it was not. Polanski needs to do his time because that is what the crime merits. It shouldn’t matter if you have enough money and contacts to live abroad for decades.
Bee Mee
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 08:02 pm: [report]
I’ve learned from the blogosphere today that if future child rapists want to have the unquestioned defense of the arts community, that they’d better put in their applications to film school, ASAP!
Serously, ther’s no way around it. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. No ammount of misguided (often disgusting) slut-shaming, mother blaming, bad childhood experiencing, briliant genius excusing will change that fact… or my mind.
Whoopi Goldberg, Deborah Winger, and these two jackoffs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-farr/leniency-for-polanski_b_301269.html
can all go straight to Hell.
ladyredlocks
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]
The only thing that I’m curious about is this:
I read the court transcript of Samantha Geimer’s questioning and she admitted to having sex twice before. So, I’m curious as to the circumstances of that? Was THAT consensual?
ladyredlocks
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 08:19 am: [report]
Also, he did settle with Samantha Geimer out of court. I’m sure she received a large payment. Not that that makes up for it, but it seems that they came to an agreement.
Pinky
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 08:33 am: [report]
Civil and criminal courts, and out of court settlements are different ladyredlocks. They do absolve a perp against laws of the land. If someone settles in civil court by paying the family of a victim he murdered 1 million $ and they accept it does that mean the killer should not be tried for murder in a criminal court and gets off scott free (less a million bucks) ? NO. We have criminal laws for a reason. And it seems Mr Polanski was a serial abuser, um…how old was Natasha Kinski when he started “dating” her ? 15. The man is a pig.
Bee Mee
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 08:37 am: [report]
OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil court and ordered to pay millions in restitution to the victim’s families. That doesn’t mean they came to an agreement on the criminal case.
All it means for Polanski is that he paid in a French civil court while fleeing the US criminal court.
Children cannot give consent to sex. It sounds like there is perhaps one other adult in the victim’s past who is just as guilty as Roman Polanski.
Besides that, the same court transcrips stated that she said no multiple times. That does not sound like consentual sex. Minors can’t consent. People who say no did not consent. People who are drugged can’t consent.
griffin
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:42 am: [report]
Thank you for this post. I just have to argue against the “because that’s how the Euros do it?” and “or the way Europeans like to do it.” I live in Europe and contrary to what celebs like to claim, it is not european to allow sex with children, in fact to most people here it is a horrific crime. (I cannot speak for the french since they apparently have gone temporarily insane.)
There is a very good article in the guardian about Whoopi Goldberg’s strange viewpoint by Joan Smith:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-arrest-whoopi-goldberg
A snippet of it explains what Polanski did to the child. I hope I am allowed to post this, it is not something I like to post and having read this I wonder how anyone could call him a victim,
“...Even at the level of witless celebrity small talk, it’s hard to believe that any of these people are talking about a 44-year-old man who was alleged to have groomed a 13-year-old girl for sex, got her drunk, fed her a drug and raped her vaginally and anally. The child testified to a grand jury that during a photographic session in 1977 at the Los Angeles house of the actor Jack Nicholson (who wasn’t there at the time), Polanski encouraged the girl to drink champagne, got into a jacuzzi with her and persuaded her to take a sedative.
Then Polanski sent her to a bedroom where he performed cunnilingus on her before putting his penis in her vagina. Drunk and terrified, she protested that she didn’t want to have sex, but Polanski took no notice and asked when her last period was. She couldn’t remember and he asked if she was on the contraceptive pill. When she said she wasn’t, he turned her over and penetrated her anally. He performed further sex acts before the weeping girl got into his car and was driven home…”
I only wish for a public petition to keep him in jail.
LG
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:44 am: [report]
@ladyredlocks - even if Geimer had consensual sex twice before her encounter with Polanski, that does mean that she was not raped by Polanski. You don’t have to be a virgin for rape to occur.
Also, sentencing should occur at the time of conviction, whether it be by guilty plea or jury decision. The judge has had enough time to digest the facts of the case and the various sentencing guidelines and should be able to give a fair sentence at that time. It doesn’t make any sense to allow a convicted felon to go home and wait on a sentencing decision. If the judge had timely sentenced Polanski, he would not have had a chance to escape.
If the judge was involved in innapropriate behavior, such as the evidence would suggest, Polanski would have the option of appealing his sentence or asking for a reconsideration of his sentence. I’m not sure how it works in California, but unlike appeals of an entire case, sentence appeals and request for sentence reconsiderations are usually heard quickly. If the judge was not honoring the plea agreement and gave Polanski a longer sentence than agreed upon, Polanksi would have had a chance to have that sentence reduced if he had stayed and played by the rules. Then, all of this would be behind him.
_jsw_
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 10:06 am: [report]
I missed this article and the various banned commenters and can only assume that justice1 is yet another incarnation of the same person, so I’ll let them spit and rant and pull their hair out over nothing without further comment.
As far as Polanski goes: writergirl nailed it. Regardless of what he did, and regardless of the legality of it, his prosecution was flawed and he wasn’t given his right to due process. The justice system needs to be held accountable for holding up its end of the bargain to us citizens, which means they need to act justly, and they didn’t. It’s all well and good to argue that Polanski should serve his time, but I agree that he should get off… to increase pressure on the system to self-regulate. What happened in the mid-1970’s was tragic, but nothing can be done about it now. However, if rage over Polanski getting off increases the scrutiny of the system so that, next year, some 44 year old man who is falsely accused of raping a 13-year-old actually has a fair trial, then everyone wins.
It is terrible when the guilty go free. But it is worse when the innocent are thrown into prison. As others have said, prison is now a trash bin where we toss people, and, when they get out and act the role into which we’ve put them, we catch them and throw them back in.
We’re too into punishing, too into finding someone to pin the blame on, and not enough into ensuring guilt and attempting rehabilitation. Polanski did a terrible thing. He should have been punished. But, by violating our faith in the bench, the judge did worse, and the system needs to be held accountable.
bumbler
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 10:09 am: [report]
@Griffin Thank you. I’ve never lived in Europe but accusing an entire continent of condoning and participating in statutory rape is horrible. I’m sure Whoopi’s comments aren’t getting as much publicity abroad as here in America but when I heard her quote I imagined Europeans doing a collective “Dude, WTF?”
InSearchOfAStudyBreak
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 09:04 pm: [report]
I’m never watching the view again.
323Felicity
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 10:31 pm: [report]
actually joe jonas is at least 20 and it is nick jonas who is underage, to the best of my knowlege… but that’s not really the point.
and where were the girls’ parents when this was going on? of course that doesn’t excuse anything he did. but i feel like at least a little of the blame should be placed on them…but it is good to know she was able to get past his happening to her and be able to forgive. (even though that doesn’t excuse anything either.)
wildstrawberries
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 11:23 pm: [report]
@justice1 lol, you are very immature. Calling names like some grade school kid. Anyway, I am currently earning a Phd, so a moron I am not. You obviously lack education as your argument is constructed by name calling and insults. It is apparent to me that you lack any critical awareness whatsoever. Go have your apoplectic fit elsewhere. Maybe you could find someone who cares, but I doubt it.
ToTellTheTruth
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 08:22 am: [report]
Excuse me, but which part of Europe exactly would not consider this to be a crime? I am European and where I come from it would certainly be considered to be a crime! If we are dealing with the truth, get your facts right,(as Whoopi said. This man should go to jail, age has nothing to do with it, nor has failing health, nor has wringing his hands with remorse, nor has the fact that the girl, now a grown woman has forgiven him. This was a punishable offense and still is, this man was,(he may not be now)a child predator, even if the girl consented, which apparently she didn’t, it would still be a crime.
GreyWolf
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 10:10 am: [report]
@_jsw_: Your comments on the justice system are right on, especially the need to protect the innocent, even at the cost of sometimes not punishing the guilty.
BUT… Polanski is an animal, and what sickens me most are the vast numbers of apologists who are trying to trivialize the extent of his crime. He admitted to drugging a female (forget her age and give him the benefit of the doubt that she DID look of legal age). He then had non-consensual sex with her, sodomized her, all over her protests and demands that he stop. In what world is that acceptable?? It is violetn, vile rape. The man is an animal. He may be talented but he is an animal.
There is a point to be made that he shouldn’t be punished for this, galling as it may be. He had a plea bargain that would have kept him out of jail (the DA who accepted that should be strung up, but that’s a different issue). The judge didn’t accept it and wanted to put Polanski in jail until he could make a decision on the bargain. Polanski fled before going back to jail, and is technically a fugitive. Whether or not that’s an extraditable offense, I don’t know. But I do know I don’t have much respect for those who are trying to defend or minimise his actions.
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 10:36 am: [report]
From what I’ve read the DA or someone from the DA’s office had an ex parte discussion with the judge which lead to the judge believing Polanski was not remorseful for his crime. While ex parte conversation (conversation between the judge and a counselor without the opposing side present) is judicial misconduct it would rarely lead to throwing out the entire case. Instead a new judge would be assigned and usually the original plea bargain would be upheld. Again this is only what I’ve read and more knowledgeable friskians can correct me if I’m wrong. If Polanski had remained in America and taken his appeal through the proper legal channel this would all have been resolved decades ago. Polanski needs to come back to California and uphold his side of the original plea agreement. I think throwing out the entire case against him is going too far for the level of judicial misconduct.
I will say that the plea agreement is disgusting and I don’t understand how the mother had the power to make a decision or influence the DA on punishment and charges in a criminal matter.
Zahara
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 10:50 am: [report]
A Poem - What if
- The A&E industry didn’t close rank around RP
- No statements by French Cultural Ministers
- No petitions signed by an international Who’s Who
- No Debra Winger crying foul
- Or Whoopi (rape-rape)
- What would that look like
- What are these people afraid of
- By not supporting him
- Never being invited for Apres Ski ever again
- Or partying with him in Cannes
- Not appearing in any of his future productions
- Getting no love from Roman
What If
Zahara
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 11:25 am: [report]
***News Flash***
France is dropping its public support for Polanski. See BBC website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 11:49 am: [report]
I hope Hilary laughed in the faces of the French politicians who had previously asked her to intervene on Polanski’s behalf.
_jsw_
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 12:17 pm: [report]
I love using the report link.
I often wonder how long it takes trolls to come up with new names. Given the lack of creativity in their comments, I’m guessing it takes a while.
Before they get banned, though, I do like it when they carefully craft one or two offensive sentences and then cut-and-paste that many times to drive home their point. That comes across as novel and creative every single time.
moonblossom
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 12:34 pm: [report]
Whatever the judge and the DA did is irrelevant to the actual facts. Misbehavior there is another issue for another court. Bottom line - He raped a child. He needs to go to jail. He got off with a light sentence to begin with because of the sad state of sex crime punishments back in the 70’s. Shame on anyone who thinks it is remotely acceptable to speak out on behalf of this monster.
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 01:00 pm: [report]
@jsw I wish I could report someone but I don’t have an account on the email program it sends me to :-( Wish there was another way.
_jsw_
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]
@bumbler: I agree. It should be part of the system, because, among other things, they’d know who reported it instead of having to wonder who was behind the email address.
Having a few moderators in the hopes that someone would almost always be online would also be good.
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]
Then I could have an Internet Police hat. I’m down for anything that involves an awesome hat.
Also we need to find a way to ban based on IP addresses and not just user names and emails. It would help with these multiple accounts that are obviously the same person.
Riley
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]
This guy is awesome. How many times has the same post been made all over this site now? I’m counting at least 5 accounts now, right?
Riley
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:18 pm: [report]
Oh no, you said it 7 times! How did you know that 7 identical insults would banish me from the interwebs??
Riley
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:25 pm: [report]
It is nice to see that you read the somewhat newer posts to add into the copy/paste routine. I see I have an honorable mention, which is cute. I appreciate you as well!
lea322
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:34 pm: [report]
Oh, how sweet! The troll stole my name. I’m honored!
writergirl
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
@JSW-thank you.
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:39 pm: [report]
Haha Lea I was so confused!
spatula
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:43 pm: [report]
@ (the real) lea232…poor thing!
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]
Awaiting the ban hammer in 5…4…
GreenAura
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:51 pm: [report]
Interesting, sex w/ minors is NOT okay (agreed on all fronts, right? right!) BUT insulting people with Down Syndrome is quite alright. I guess as long as the person with DS is of age then its “okay”. Glad we got that straight. But by the time anyones reads this, that troll will be banned anyway. I was starting to enjoys “its” comments!
GreenAura
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:53 pm: [report]
@spatula: I hope you didn’t think that I was referring to you as having DS, I was just responding to the troll
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]
Haha my poor heart is broken. I like that he can tell how fat I am over the internets. Magic, for sure.
@Green Aura these trolls are alright for their poorly spelled, grammatically incorrect rants that they think will actually make anyone mad or hurt their feelings. I do prefer slightly more rational or creative trolls but you can’t beat guys like this for their optimism. He really feels he matters.
lea322
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
@bumbler: I was too for a second! They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.
_jsw_
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:03 pm: [report]
I thought that trolls tried to get people upset instead of simply getting them to laugh. This is an interesting change. When we laugh, does it make the troll get upset? It’s hard to tell. The grammar is already so atrocious I don’t think we could discern a difference caused by anger.
The smarted hecklers can be a nuisance but at least they’re fun to take on. The less intelligent insult-trolls are probably junior high kids.
*waves to junior high kid*
GreenAura
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:06 pm: [report]
@bumbler & jsw: I’m cracking up over here! If this person isn’t happy with their day job, they could probably make a living as an insult comic. I kind of don’t want them to ban “it” because it’s actually making me smile
_jsw_
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]
@GreenAura: No way could they make a living, unfortunately. A good insult comic at least comes up with original and on-target insults. This guy recycles the same pathetic ones. That’s why I’m assuming junior high - the poor kid hasn’t had a chance to learn how to be creative in his insults yet. He seems stuck with using terms for stupid, overweight, and homosexual. So lame.
I’m hoping for better.
bumbler
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:16 pm: [report]
Yeah this is on par with a Michael Richards style breakdown. Simultaneously hilarious (in the laughing at not with way) and tragic.
GreenAura
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 04:23 pm: [report]
@jsw: yeah you are probably right. I’m willing to bet this kid is either a bully at their school, or the one getting picked on so they use this as an outlet for their rage. Either way, I hope @lea232 overcomes whatever hardships he/she is going through. We were all kids once too and it can be harsh!
Shriekback68
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 06:24 pm: [report]
Has anyone here boycotted his films in the past because of this? Ever refused to pay for/watch any of his films because of this? Just curious.
tishfish44
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 07:58 pm: [report]
@Shriekback68 Truth be told I don’t always pay attention… BUT when I know for a fact that a movie is a Polanski film, I will not watch it. I cannot in good conscience knowingly give him money. I saw “Macbeth” when I was in tenth grade and didn’t know any better but that is about the gist of it. A quick view of his movies on imdb.com shows me that I have successfully avoided his films otherwise.
theattack
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 08:11 pm: [report]
@lea(the non-troll), I was beginning to wonder if the troll had just tried to build rapport with one user name so that when he unleashed the crazy comments, he’d sound less crazy since we were already under the impression that he wasn’t. But of course that would be way too complicated, and he’s probably incapable of saying anything that isn’t troll-esque.
Countess Mariska
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 10:15 pm: [report]
Polanski committed his crime against Samantha Geimer, not against some amorphous Society In General. Samantha has publicly forgiven him, the two have settled the matter between themselves, and she has repeatedly stated that she wants the whole business dropped. So who the hell benefits from continuing this noxious pageantry *32 years* after the crime was committed? I’m not “excusing” Polanski’s crime, but I’m pretty well and totally disgusted that this giant bureaucratic legal machine is mindlessly chasing after someone’s one-size-fits-all idea of “justice” without realizing how far away from actual justice it’s wandering.
Not to mention that even if we do define Polanski’s crime as having been not against an individual person but against Society At Large, what’s the best way for this now old man to atone for his crime? Spend the rest of his days in a jail cell for a crime he committed before many of this site’s readers were born, or be allowed to continue contributing to Society by creating enduring works of art? Is redemption, even partial redemption, ever possible?
The worst thing about this whole stinking uproar in my opinion is that watching, enjoying and admiring Polanski’s films is now going to be a socially unacceptable act. It’s a bit like listening to Wagner—in order to be allowed your Ring of the Nibelungen you have to first go through the mandatory ritual of hand-wringing and breast-beating over the composer’s obnoxious anti-Semitism, then after the opera you must consider yourself so morally compromised and politically tainted that you must immediately watch a five-hour documentary on the Holocaust to properly atone. I’m a classical musician, believe me, I see the Wagner wars up close and personal…..
It is one of the greater injustices of artistic history that Wagner is known first as an anti-Semite and only second as a composer. Now, another injustice is added.
moonblossom
wrote on September 30 2009 @ 11:55 pm: [report]
@countess M - I have to disagree with you. Crimes are not only committed against an individual. Crimes are committed against society. It is society that deems what behaviors are unacceptable and what the punishment will be for violating the rules. In effect - our laws reflect our values. The law is merely a representation of a society’s values. He broke society’s laws and deserved to be punished. Whether or not the particular victim of this crime forgave him or not is irrelevant. That is between him and his god. Society is still owed a debt. That’s why when a person is criminally prosecuted the prosecutor represents “the People”, not the individual. In civil cases it is the individuals.
Also, he didn’t just break the law with respect to this one victim. He has been a fugitive for decades. Leaving the country to escape your sentence is in and of itself a crime. That is a crime against society.
Finally - sex crimes have really high recidivism (excuse my spelling) rates so it is very likely that the victim we know about is not his only victim.
As far as redemption goes…that, again, is between him and his god. His art doesn’t earn him a free child rape card.
Whooptedoo
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 04:26 am: [report]
This guy didn’t commit rape-rape or gray rape. He commited just plain rape and needs to spend some serious time behind bars.
That drugged, thirteen year old girl said no. She told the police afterwards that she was scared he would harm her.
The notion that he is artistic and has some accomplishments doesn’t change the crime. Ditto on mis-steps by the judge. It doesn’t change the crime to which he has pled guilty.
If he has a problem doing the time he shouldn’t have done the crime.
VX967
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 08:31 pm: [report]
Gee guys do some research in a topic first. Read what actually happened and the real villain.
bumbler
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 08:35 pm: [report]
Care to enlighten the ignorant masses VX?
griffin
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 12:28 pm: [report]
Thanks bumbler. The Whoopi-comments are all over the news, especially in the UK, but the collected sentiment is as you imagined “WTF?”
Who benefits? Uh, lets see…how about children everywhere who as long as this pervert is allowed to roam free are at risk of being molested and then told they were at fault because they appeared “willing” and “looked older?”
I sympatize with Samantha Geimer, no doubt about it, only she knows how she learned to survive this terrible ordeal but when she claims she came out of this unharmed, I unfortunately have to disagree. Had she not been harmed she would never argue that this animal should escape jail. Had she not been hurt she would understand that - and this sounds harsh - it is not just about her anymore.
It is about all the present and future 13 year old children in the world that could fall into Polanski’s hands and paedophiles like him, reading all the oh, this is not so bad” celebrity-nonsense coming out of Hollywood these days.
Unfortunately, victims often react with forced forgiveness because they think they somehow brought it on themselves and the only way to escape the memories is to ask people never to mention the case again.
Child survivors of abuse often blame themselves because this is what society tells them. Throwing Polanski in jail would send a message to the abused 13 year old girl still hurting somewhere in Sam Geimer’s soul, saying, “He was not allowed to do this to you! Though we could not help you then, we will make sure he will not hurt others!”
I shutter to think how many children Polanski might have deemed willing in his years on the run? How many wounded teenagers and adults survive today by muttering,
“Lets just forget what happened…” and how much money, read ticketsales Polanski has paid out to silence his victims?
I feel sick.
The matter? Oh, you mean the anal rape...For one moment I thought you referred to buying a faulty house or settling a case in small claims court. Silly me…
Bee Mee
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 12:53 pm: [report]
Countess…
Great art is not an excuse for child rape.
I’m sorry if this stinking uproar is the most tragic affront to your sensibilities, not the unapologetic drugging and rape of a child.
No rapist on the planet should go free just because there is the promise of another great film or piece of art. If Charles Manson claimed to be an artistic genius, I doubt Polanksi and his list of friends would like being told to get over it if he were released… or that a supposed $500,000 settlement makes everything balanced again.
Making a movie while evading the law is not redemption. No matter how many artistic sycophants who sign a petition in support of a child rapist claim it to be so.
As for Wagner, well, he didn’t have a problem making his anti-semitic views know, so why are you so offended that he is remembered for them, and that people who are opposed to an anti-semite aren’t fawning over him. He made his choice in life.
bumbler
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]
Making peace with the woman who he raped has nothing to do with whether or not he should be brought to justice. BTW latest reports show that he hasn’t paid her a dime from her civil suit so everyone who claims she’s just out for $$$ is wrong. You think we should set a precedence where murderers or rapists can convince their victims to excuse them and then go free? Doesn’t that lead to a perversion of the legal system, creating an incentive for criminals to harass or intimidate their victims? I haven’t seen a single interview or statement where she has wavered from her version of what happened, instead she complained about the media harassing her family and her every time this case comes back up in the limelight. I feel for her and respect her right to feel however she wants to about the case. I don’t think that should have any bearing on how the case is prosecuted. Every citizen or person visiting America has a contract with the state to adhere to the laws. You break that, like Polanski did, you face the consequences. If rapists were answerable only to their victims how could they possibly be punished? Danegeld? The law is there to protect everyone in America not just those who have already been victimized.
griffin
wrote on October 3 2009 @ 03:22 pm: [report]
And apparently some men still live in caves and drag their knuckles on the floor…Whatever. All there is too say to that confused misogynistic nonsense is this,
It is very few female teachers who can use their superior muscleweight to overpower and rape or threathen to rape teen boys. That is why when men rape girls, it is usually considered more of a violent crime than women manipulating boys into bed. I do not condone either, I think the damage to the child/teen is horrible no matter what, but very few boys are forced into women’s beds out of fear of bodily harm. There is a difference.
griffin
wrote on October 4 2009 @ 07:04 am: [report]
And answering the above would make me a true idiot...so I wont do that.
I just hope you will get the right help for whatever might have happened to you. Such oneeyed hatred and bullying of a whole gender surely comes from a place of deep hurt and for that I am truly sorry.
msnikanik
wrote on October 17 2009 @ 12:42 pm: [report]
Rape-Rape is a term used for brutal stranger rape. The one depicted most in the media. What she was saying is that what he did was sexual abuse and wasn’t saying that it was right just that with the way the law is set up he wouldn’t get the time that he would under today’s laws.