29 October 2009

Things I Really Shouldn't Spend Too Much Time Dwelling Upon

The LA Times just had to throw it in my face with ANOTHER cover story about the giant pile of stupidity surrounding Roman Polanski. Yes, there are many irregularities in how the case was handled. The prosecutor and judge were obviously biased, and Monsieur Polaski didn't help things by fleeing the country. Now all sorts of celebrities are crying foul: it's the past; he's an artistic genius so he's allowed to be eccentric; it was "making love" (that's how Polaski himself described it). However, none of that changes the fact that HE RAPED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. There isn't a caps lock button big enough to adequately express my outrage at the people who publicly support him for entirely inadequate reasons.

Hollywood is bursting at the seams with rich crazy people of questionable morals. All too often these creative souls' actions are dismissed without consequence. I have to ask, though, what kind of person is willing to ignore the intoxication and rape of young girl by a man more than three times her age? Let's suppose, just for a minute, that she not only consented, but was voluntarily participating. While still statutory rape for blindingly obvious reasons*, consensual sex with someone physically and mentally mature enough to make reasonable decisions about her own body is significantly less heinous than ignoring the same girl's wishes and forcing himself upon her. In this Hypothetical Land, the one Polanski seems to be inhabiting, his actions could reasonably be overlooked by some. While I would not, I can understand why others would.

Moving back to reality, she did not consent. Just because he didn't beat her up and tie her to a radiator in the process does not excuse his ignoring of her "No." Though less violent than other cases, IT WAS STILL RAPE. I cannot fathom why anyone would be so willing to allow the perpetrator, who readily admits his guilt, to go free of punishment. To be clear, living a life of luxury and cinematic awards on a different continent is not punishment. Jail time is punishment.

On a whole different level, what does it say about people like Whoopi Goldberg and Woody Allen when they publicly support a child rapist? Do they also think it is acceptable to set puppies on fire and kick them off cliffs? To my knowledge, Kevin Smith is the only celebrity to point out the ridiculousness of defending Polanski. At least he isn't a puppy killer.

*I'll give you a hint - as the adult, he should have ceased and desisted.


pennyfore said...

While I do generally agree with you, I think part of the reason people are so up in arms defending him is because the girl herself (who's gotta be in her mid-40's now) came out a few years ago and said she forgave him. If the victim's coming out and saying, "OK, enough" -- especially when something happened 30 years ago -- maybe we should just move on?

I'm inclined very much to disagree, of course, as it pretty much sets a horrible precedent, that if you're convicted of a crime and you're really rich and famous and flee the country for 30 years, then all is forgiven. I guess what I don't understand is why the other countries granted him amnesty for so long.

osmodion said...

While she may want to move on with her life (for which I applaud her), the fleeing the country aspect cannot be ignored. If he is allowed to escape his punishment for either the rape or flight, then a horrible precedent, as you phrased it, is exactly what will be established.

My understanding is that what he did wasn't the dastardly crime under European law that it is here. But that's an entirely different topic that I don't know enough about to argue.