Roman Polanski Caught at Last

Posted on September 27, 2009 in Film Scoundrels

There is no doubt that Roman Polanski has contributed great works of film to the world archives. But there is also no doubt in my mind that he committed a heinous crime when he drugged and had sex with a 13 year old girl.

One can feel compassion for a criminal without endorsing his crime. I recall here the murder of Sharon Tate. I imagine the unbearable longing he must have felt after her murder by the Manson Family. There truly must have been a seeking, a desire for softness and beauty to fill the void. Roman Polanski loved young women, it is clear. But I do not mention this either as an excuse or as a reason to charge him. No, there are other factors that must be thought of.

What surprises me are the legions who are jumping to his defense, saying that he is “misunderstood” or the subject of a witch hunt. I remind readers of these facts: First, that he was convicted of the crime. Second, that his victim was a 13 year old girl — a womanly body who wasn’t even fair game in the eyes of the French. Third, he drugged this said female. So even if he “made an honest mistake” about the age of the girl ((Yeah, right.)) , he still raped her. Fourth, after his conviction, he got on board a Europe-bound 747 and has stayed out of the reach of California law ever since. So he knows what he did was wrong.

I simply have no sympathy for him regardless of gems like Tess that he made in the years after his trial. That any European country other than England — especially Switzerland — was willing to grab him by the collar for the long plane ride home surprises me. But this isn’t a matter of maintaining the sanctity of numbered bank accounts: we have here a convicted child-abusing felon on the run.

No amount of great art exonerates a man or a woman when a trespass is committed against the body of another person. Your past sorrows do not release you from the responsibilities of treating your fellow human beings with decency. For some crimes, such as rape and fleeing from conviction, there can be no statute of limitations.

---

UPDATE: A few arguments have been advanced to me on Twitter and I’d like to address them here.

First, there are questions about the trial. It was badly conducted, Polanski’s defenders say. This is leaving out the fact that Polanski was free on bail while he awaited his sentencing. It was during this interval that he fled. He could have appealed the decision, but instead he made a run for it. This suggests to me that he and his lawyer both felt that his chances of getting out via this avenue were limited.

Second, there is the complaint that the judge did not honor the deal that Polanski made with the prosecutors. Plea bargains are not writ into law. They simply say that if the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecutor will ask for a specific sentence. The judge is not obligated to accept the deal. Evidently what Polanski did so horrified the justice that he insisted on something more.

A few people say that the victim forgives Polanski and feels that the courts hurt her more. I can understand this, but it isn’t a reason for releasing Polanski. Behind this argument is another one — that this has already gone on too long. But consider this: if Polanski had served his sentence, this would be over for everyone. Instead he chose to hoof it to France.

There’s also the message being sent to other rape victims: the trial is going to be worse than the rape itself. So don’t accuse, don’t press charges, don’t participate. Let the rapist keep raping.

It’s outrageous that Polanski’s supporters are calling on one law for Polanski and another for everyone else. This is shades of the Simpson murder trial except with a different set of people.

For a discussion about what anti-rape activists say, check this article from the Los Angeles Times.