Why Polanski Should Not Go to Prison

This past weekend, acclaimed movie director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old warrant issued against him by Los Angeles prosecutors. The warrant resulted from an incident in 1977, when Polanski allegedly drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at the home of actor Jack Nicholson.

After he was charged in 1978, the Los Angeles prosecutor at that time reached a plea bargain with Polanski. The agreement called for Polanski to submit to mandatory counseling and treatment, but no prison time was included. However, when the judge indicated that he was not bound by this agreement and that he would still consider imposing prison time, Polanski fled to France prior to his sentencing.

He had resided mainly in France ever since (with occasional trips to Israel and other countries), never returning to the U.S. for fear of being arrested on the outstanding warrant. He recently entered Switzerland to receive an award for his film directing. He is now being held there by Swiss authorities as he fights extradition to the U.S.

Most Americans believe Polanski should be sent back to the U.S. to face the music, i.e., spend time in prison, for his crime. I respectfully disagree. I believe he should either be let go or brought back to the U.S. with a guarantee that the outcome stipulated by his plea agreement will be honored. No, I’m no fan of a creep like Mr. Polanski, but there are several reasons why I feel that he should not spend time behind bars.

First, the victim, who is now 45, says the incident did not traumatize her nearly as much as the efforts to prosecute Polanski have. In addition, she says she cannot move on until or unless Polanski is off the hook. Should she be punished in order to punish Polanski? Hasn’t she already suffered enough?

Second, she has long since forgiven Mr. Polanski.

Third, although he did flee after pleading guilty, he had good reason to believe the judge was going to renege on the plea deal and send him to prison for many years. What we need to realize is that the original plea agreement had been negotiated expressly for the purpose of making things easier on the victim, not out of any sympathy for Polanski.

Also, contrary to popular opinion, Polanski never admitted to rape (although there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that this is the crime he actually committed) – he pleaded guilty to a single count of having sexual relations with a minor. Had he pleaded guilty to rape, he would not and should not have gotten a deal that included anything less than 20 years in prison.

But you may be thinking: Ah, but that constitutes statutory rape – isn’t that technically the same thing as rape? Well, no. Statutory rape and actual rape are two different animals. Statutory rape is based on an arbitrary age of consent set by statute (hence the name), which can be different from country to country and state to state. For example, in most U.S. states, the age of consent ranges from 16 to 18, whereas it is 14 in Canada. Therefore, consensual sex with 14-year-old, which would be perfectly legal in Canada, would be a felony in most U.S. states.

Interestingly enough, in Biblical times, people were considered adults at the age of 12. Many theologians even surmise that Mary was around this age when she gave birth to Jesus and married Joseph (who was apparently much older) a short while later. Who would have the gall to accuse God of selecting a child to bear His Son? Should we call Joseph a pedophile? All the recent outrage about Polanski’s 13-year-old victim being a “child” is totally foreign to Biblical teachings. Indeed the definition of age of consent has always been determined by culture.

Now actual rape, on the other hand, is almost universally recognized as the act of forcing someone (man, woman, or child – it doesn’t matter) to engage in sex against their will. That doesn’t vary a whole lot from culture to culture and has remained pretty much the same down through the centuries. Again, while no one doubts that Polanski committed actual rape, that is not what he pleaded guilty to.

Fourth, Polanski long ago reached an out-of-court settlement (for an undisclosed amount of money) with the young lady as a result of a lawsuit she filed against him.

Fifth and finally, this case is more than 30 years old. It’s time to for all of us to move on. More importantly, though, it’s time to let victim get on with her life. 

Comments

[Mark Ward]

"We sat on the sofa and that's when it happened," says Samantha. "He started kissing me, I protested but then just submitted. I'd been drinking and was too frightened to push him off - he was a famous guy, he was intimidating. We were alone and it was pitch-black. I was scared. I knew what he was gonna do - and I didn't want him to do it.

"All I could think was let's get through this and I can get home. I just froze up." Polanski had intercourse with Samantha, performed oral sex and sodomised her. He then drove her home saying: "Don't tell your mum or your boyfriend, this is our little secret."

Does "NO" not, in fact, mean "NO" anymore?

And I don't give a rip WHAT Whoopie Goldberg (or you) say... When an adult male says, "Judges want to have sex with young girls. Juries want to have sex with young girls. Everyone wants to have sex with young girls.", he's NOT talking about NORMAL sex - HE'S a PEDOPHILE.

[tony]

Your problem is that you have the facts wrong. The Judge DID NOT renege on the plea deal. The plea deal was between the prosecuter and Polanski. The deal was to drop the other charges and offer a RECOMMENDED sentence. The judge accepted the plea deal but never agreed to and was never bound by the RECOMENDED sentence. Polanski was fully aware of this and acknowledged it when he formally pled guilty (read the transcripts where he acknowledges that by pleading guilty he could get the maximum sentence).

He chose to run away and will now most likely spend more time in a Swiss jail than he would have spent in a California prison.