Cheers to the Swiss police for arresting director Roman Polanski when he flew into town for the Zurich Film Festival. You’d think that after 31 years on the lam, there would be two things he’d know to do before traveling abroad: check the weather and check the country’s extradition policy. So either he overestimated the neutrality of the Swiss or he shares the same delusions of invincibility as O.J. Simpson. Or maybe he knew about the threat but, being a showbiz dude, he just couldn’t resist accepting some meaningless recognition. Hopefully Kanye West was there to jump in and let everybody know who really deserved that award.
I’m happy about the arrest because he’s a child molester who never should have had the opportunity to jump bail. People usually consider child molesters the worst of the worst but it seems that if you can make a good flick or do a fancy moonwalk, any sort of inappropriate behavior with children is ignored.
I’m not one who thinks the legal age of consent should always be the standard; frankly, there are some 16-year-olds who have the maturity of an adult and plenty of 30-year-olds who don’t. But legally AND biologically, a 13-year-old is a child. No matter how anybody wants to color this particular situation, the fact is he drugged a child and raped her.
I hope he gets his comeuppance and spends his remaining years in jail. He should consider himself fortunate that he was able to enjoy a rather glamorous life for the last three decades instead of doing his time as a pretty young thing eyed by a dirty old cellmate.
Tags: kanye west, o.j. simpson, roman polanski, swiss
Wayne wrote:
I’m not really suprised that France wants him released. They’ve always been a little sketchy in the morality department.
I’m suprised Poland would also back a child molestor, never really saw that in them.
Then again Poland never seems to do much that is note worthy across the pond, so it could also be another haven to child molestors.
Jenée wrote:
I think legal semantics are the reason people are going easy on him. He was originally charged with “rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor.” But under the terms of his plea bargain, those charges were dismissed and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Seems to me he rejected that plea bargain by running off and people wouldn’t be so forgiving if the original charges were attached to his name.
Beth wrote:
I know, I know, we have to put everyone in jail for doing just about anything.
However, have you checked your own genealogy. I have mine.
In the 19th century and before, boys and girls married and had children well before the age of 13.
I’m not advocating a return to that policy because of overpopulation, but before we hang Roman, please do some research on how you got to be born, and I think you will find that you are the product of many many relationships between what we now call children.
In other words, when a person was sexually able to have children in the past, they did. Otherwise chances are they wouldn’t live to have children at all.
So, let’s be clear. Our outrages in the 21st century often are political outrages and have very little to do with either biology or normality, but everything to do with how long it takes now to raise a child to be productive in a very complex society.
Beth
Jenée wrote:
I made it clear in my post that I think there’s a gray area between moral laws and legal laws on this issue. But the age of 13 is well outside of any gray area since many girls that age are incapable of reproduction so by any standard, that’s a child. It’s absurd to try to compare people today with people from a couple centuries ago– we’re not the same creatures. And anyway, Roman Polanski was a 20th century man familiar with 20th century laws when he committed his crime. There’s no excuse for that.