|
|
|
October 9th, 2009
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) uldihaa | 10:45 pm
This is something I really need to get off my chest, so I'll give this journal thingy a try.
I've been following the whole Roman Polanski thing for about a week now (yeah, yeah I know, I live under a rock Ok!?) and I just can't seem to get over the way some people keep defending him. He raped a 13 year old girl! How the hell can you possibly excuse something like that? Not only did he plead guilty to it (a plea deal made, not because of lack of evidence, but to spare the victim from being required to testify publicly in a court, rather than privately in a grand jury hearing), he was told quite explicitly that the Judge was not bound by this agreement and could, at anytime before actual sentencing, reject the deal; Polanski then verbally acknowledged that he understood this fact. When he heard from his lawyers that the Judge was considering rejecting the deal, he panicked and fled the country (for 32 freakin' YEARS). He plead guilty, people! To 'unlawful sex with a minor' (translation: rape of a child). Are some people just that damn stupid that they'd defend a rapist just because he was a great film maker? According to a petition signed by over 100 'celebrities', I guess so.
Of course, the defenders never really mention what happened. Instead they focus on 'judicial misconduct' on the part of the presiding judge. A judge, Polanski defenders claim, that had an axe to grind. The judge had an axe to grind? Really? Then why is it he let Polanski end his psych-evaluation early to complete a film shoot in Germany? I don't think any of the defenders have mentioned this little tidbit. But it is true that the Judge was reconsidering the plea bargain. Why? Because he was shown photos of Polanski with his arms around a pair of underage girls at Oktoberfest. These were shown to him by a prosecutor at the DA's office not connected to the case. Misconduct? Maybe, but on who's part? The Judge or the DA's office? What I want to know is why the prosecutor of this case didn't bring these photos up himself. Seems to me that it would show that Polanski just might be a future threat to other girls.
These defenders also point to Polanski's undisputed harsh and brutal past; surviving the Holocaust and the horrific murder of his wife and unborn child. Last time I checked, a tragic past does not give you permission to do whatever you want. So really, this defense is a total non-starter; it's dead at the starting line, folks.
The man raped a 13 year old girl, plead guilty to doing so, then fled the country before he could be sentenced; everything else is just a smokescreen. It doesn't matter what great films he created (while on the run, by the way), or that he 'moved on and made a family' (also while on the run and the wife? Yeah, she was 15 when they started their relationship). In the end, he's still a man that raped a 13 year old girl and got away with it for 32 years. My hope is that he gets at least 20 years for the rape and 6 months for every year he was on the run. That sounds about right to me.
|
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
JournalFen |