In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Quick Hit: Child Rapist Polanski Freed in Switzerland

Shelby Knox

Swiss authorities have denied a U.S. extradition request for child rapist Roman Polanski and freed him from house arrest. Polanski has been a fugitive from justice for 32 years, after pleading guilty to statutory rape and skipping the country while awaiting sentencing.

Sadly, there’s nothing unusual in itself about a child rapist getting away with his crimes – the difference here is that the media deems the situation worthy of coverage.

Child rapists who recently skipped free that weren’t breaking news:

Last week in Barbados, a man charged with the rape of a 9 year-old girl went free after ten years with no trial.

Also last week, a man charged with sexual offenses against a 13 yr old girl in Trinidad & Tobago was ordered to stay away from her. Not go to jail, just stay away.

A pedophile priest who has allegations of serial child rape in four countries, including the United States, has yet to face charges for any of them. He’s living in Stockton, CA, working as priest, and living next to a children’s skating park.

So no, we won’t be discussing these or the hundreds more children denied justice, for varying reasons, this news cycle. It’s all Rosemary’s Baby and “but 13 is old enough to consent to sex with a famous movie director.”

The Polanski case is to rape apologists as standing water is to mosquitos. (Here’s a big flyswatter, courtesy Amanda Hess, with a point by point refutation of the most common Polanski defenses.) News outlets and blogs feel the need to gin up page views by debating the definition of rape, or it’s status as a crime in certain situations, or the believability of survivors, or whether extraordinary talent – whether it be in the arts or sports – negates one’s status as a rapist. In almost all cases, these conversations do nothing but prop up and propagate a rape culture – and those who initiate them in the mainstream media and on the internet should be held accountable for doing so. If you see this type of behavior, post it in the comments, tweet about it, write a letter to the station – one injustice should not breed hundreds more.

36 thoughts on Quick Hit: Child Rapist Polanski Freed in Switzerland

  1. Pingback: In The Worst Tradition of Swiss “Neutrality” : Lawyers, Guns & Money

  2. The thing that always bothered me about the Polanski case, to say nothing of the obvious, is that the prosecution never provided a reason as to WHY and for WHAT REASON they were trying to bring him to justice now. If you’re trying to court world opinion, providing no answer or only a very perfunctory one is no way to go about it.

    1. The thing that always bothered me about the Polanski case, to say nothing of the obvious, is that the prosecution never provided a reason as to WHY and for WHAT REASON they were trying to bring him to justice now. If you’re trying to court world opinion, providing no answer or only a very perfunctory one is no way to go about it.

      Uh, what? They tried to “bring him to justice” several decades ago, but Polanski fled and couldn’t be extradited.

  3. This makes me sick. All the sympathy and support for Polanski, and the legal support, sends the message to other rapists that they have friends out there.

    And they wonder why we’re angry.

  4. @Comrade Kevin–The prosecution isn’t “bringing him to justice,” as much as completing sentencing. Polanski skipped town before sentencing–he accepted a plea agreement. He complained that the judge was going to renege on the agreement (but judges can do that–they aren’t actually the ones you make a plea agreement with). What everyone overlooks, however, is that Judge Rittenband, the man Polanski said was going to renege (and used that as his excuse to flee the country), was removed from the case and replaced with another judge who agreed to uphold the plea agreement.

    So you know? I have no fucking sympathy. None.

  5. Jill – The Polanski apologists are out in force. I’m an active member of the film community, and the rejoicing going on in some circles is positively mind-blowing. Let me quote just one, in response to reading this article, which I posted on Facebook:

    “I find it amusing that there is no moral relativism here, only absolutism that he is a rapist, that what he did was wrong, etc. etc. This is American puritanism taken to an extreme. Polanski is no guiltier than the mother who dropped her child off, the society that glamorizes empty sexuality and morbidly obsesses over star culture (the two reasons… See More, one has to assume, why the young woman was even at the party in the first place!), the school teachers who promote abstinence, or the corrupt lawmakers involved in the case who only wished to grab a headline…”

    If you want to absolve a criminal from guilt, blame it on society, the girl’s mother, the victim (why was she there in the first place; you wouldn’t climb into a tiger’s cage now would you?!). This is typical.

  6. I know that since he fled the country before he was sentenced, his crime cannot technically prescribe. But I just wonder what you guys thing, law aside: should a old person pay now for a crime he committed 33 years ago? I know that certain crimes, like homicide and crimes against humanity do not prescribe under international law, so considering there was no actual homicide in Polanski’s case, do you think he should be tried now?

    Please understand that I am in no way condoning what he did to that girl, I simply would like to know where you your take is in this case regarding the statute of limitations.

  7. Ruth, the notion of a statute of limitations was not designed so that the wealthy and the politically connected could “run out the clock” on justice.

    If he simply had come back to L.A. years ago, his lawyers could have raised the whole problem with Judge Rittenband. Heck, the additional time (if any) he would have served would likely have been less than the time he’s spent under house arrest in Gstaad.

    I admire him as a filmmaker. I thought Ghost Writer was marvelous. But my admiration for his artistic skill doesn’t in any way mitigate my horror at what he did in 1977, my contempt for his continued refusal to accept responsibility for sodomizing a child, and my exasperation at those who defend him.

  8. Hugo, I understand your position, which I by the way share. I was merely asking a question. I never meant to imply that only the wealthy and the politically connected should benefit from the statute of limitations. I do think the statute of limitations is a necessary part of the justice system, I was just wondering if you guys think there should be a statute of limitations for cases of rape. I hope I am not sidetracking the conversation.

    1. Ruth, there is a statute of limitations for rape, and there should be. But this isn’t a statute of limitations issue. The statute of limitations applies to trying individuals for crimes they committed a long time ago. Polanski already pleaded guilty to his crime — he was convicted. This is about him serving his sentence, not about him being tried in the first place. There should not be a limitation on how long one can be a fugitive from justice. If a person is convicted of a crime and then flees and avoids sentencing, we shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders after some number of years. The statute of limitations is totally irrelevant to the Polanski case.

  9. @Marilyn: I always have to offer a condescending laugh at those rape apologists. I mean, here they are, invoking American puritanism while at the same time insisting it wasn’t rape because the 13-year-old girl was a slut. That sort of thinking–that a “slutty” girl or woman can’t be raped is, dare I say it?–puritanical.

    “He’s no guiltier than the mother who dropped her child off”? O_o. Um, yes he is–her mother didn’t drug her and rape her. Sheesh.

    You have my sympathy, having to work with dumpster cheese like these people!

  10. My understanding is that in this case, though, Ruth, it’s not really a statute of limitations issue. Since he fled his sentence, that’s an ongoing violation. It’s not so much the 33 year old rape as it is the fact that he is still, at this moment, violating a court order. The question of whether the statute of limitations should apply in the context of rape accusations is moot in this case.

    Though ignoring the context for a moment, I would have to say that I do not believe the statute of limitations should apply for rape. First, it’s a horrific hate crime, which would be appropriate to classify as a form of terrorism, I don’t necessarily consider it less serious than a homicide. Second, sex crimes have the highest rates of recidivism of any offense not related to an addictive substance, so there is a public interest reason in prosecuting a rape even if it occurred a long time ago. Third, we have the problem of untested rape kits – it is entirely possible that the number of rapes which occur in this country (and most countries) make it difficult or impossible to prosecute them in a timely manner because of the forensic backlog. Fourth, there aren’t too many defenses (if any, depending on the jurisdiction) to an accusation of rape (lack of consent has to be affirmatively proven by the prosecution) so I don’t think being far removed from the alleged event would really prejudice the defendant; that factor might change my analysis if the law were ever altered to make it so that consent was not presumed, and was instead an affirmative defense.

  11. Ruth, I’m not a lawyer but it’s my impression that the statute of limitations has more to do with the ability to bring credible evidence against someone. I don’t really think it has anything to do with saying that we think there’s an expiration date after which the seriousness of the crime no longer matters, so why bother prosecuting.

  12. “I do think the statute of limitations is a necessary part of the justice system, I was just wondering if you guys think there should be a statute of limitations for cases of rape.”

    Seeing as how – as it’s already been pointed out – the issue in this case is not the statue of limitations on rape of any kind, but the statue of limitations on fleeing court proceedings, I’m not sure how this question could be considered anything other than a derail. And a potentially rape apology flavored derail at that.

    I mean, I don’t doubt you are curious as to what our answers are to this question, I just don’t see what the question has to do with the topic at hand. There is no point at which the statue of limitations on rape would come into play in this particular case. Bringing in that topic suggests that LA County waited to do ANYTHING until now, which is so very much not true.

    And really, as to Comrade Kevin’s question as to “why now?” – that HAS been answered several times. It’s just that no one who ever asks that question seems to care.

    Logic suggests that the prosecution let him be while off in Europe because they knew an extradition request would be denied (oh! look! – and, as I’m guessing France already denied?). As for why decide to not him let be now? Besides “why the fuck should they?” there is also the fact that – partly owing to the responses to the film that came out a couple of years ago – Polanski lawyers were in the process of trying to get the case/conviction dismissed/overturned due to lack of effort to extradite on the part of LA County. Meanwhile, Polanski was being less careful about not making his travel plans known, making it easier for authorities outside of France to arrest him. LA County did the logical thing and responded to the lawyers and Polanski’s casualness with trying to get him re-arrested and brought back for sentencing.

    There seems to be the assumption on the part of the people who are asking “why now?” that LA County’s actually believed Polanski was going to be extradited – and so therefore somebody must be hoping to make their name from the trial.** I’m sure they hoped Polanski would have to come back and serve his time, but I rather suspect – and have from the beginning – that the main goal was to simply make sure that he would continue not having the right to step on US soil without facing re-arrest.

    *I’m not sure this is a real word, but I think it’s what I’ve going to use from now on when talking about Polanski in order to remind people that he was already arrested and tried for this crime. He’s not some guy that is facing rape charges from decades ago he is a fugitive from justice.

    **why, Johnny Depp, why?

  13. I’m ashamed of myself now for having seen “The Ghost Writer.” I thought it would be morally acceptable to indulge with him locked up. In any case, that movie sucked (sorry, Hugo)–it had a completely ridiculous ending twist.

  14. I disagree fundamentally with statutes of limitations for crimes–it basically means if you get away with a crime for long enough youu’re off scot-free, rather than constantly afraid of being caught. I am very glad England (where I’m from) doesn’t have st. of lim. for crimes at all. With DNA evidence, rapists (usually the easier-to-convict stranger-on-the-street kind) have been convicted after decades in Britain–which apparently wldnt be possible in the US or Europe. And we don’t have to make up special laws/limits to cover war crimes or child sexual abuse–they’re covered whenever they happened as long as there’s evidence (which is usu. the main problem with old cases).

  16. I always thought the biggest problem with this whole case was the original plea bargaining. The only crime he was convicted of was consensual sex with a minor, but if you read the testimony what is described there is something completely different. I mean the original plea bargain was not even for a prison sentence.

    The main problem in all the discussions about this seems to be that the formal crime that he was sentenced to does not match the real crime (assuming the testimony is truthful).

    I have also seen some references that the international arrest warrant was not issued until 2005, which also seems strange.

  17. @Comrade Kevin: This is roughly how it happened.

    Polanski’s Lawyers: This movie proves our client is innocent. Declare a mistrial!

    Judge Espanoza: I’m reluctant to grant a motion in favor of convicted felons who do not appear in our court.

    Lawyers: Neener neener. You can’t make us produce our client.

    Espanoza: No, but I can renew a warrant for his arrest.

  18. My feeling is that the best thing for everyone involved is to just sentence the guy in absentia already. He’s both explicitly waved the right to be present and defied the court by refusing to appear. Give him something more than time served. He’s barred from setting foot on U.S. soil again, and can whine his way to the Supreme Court that he’s not a Crosby exception.

  19. I’m surprised it took this long for him to be freed. In any case where a person with money is accused, they can always, always get off scot-free. He did an awful thing, but hey, he was a rich and famous film director, and that’s the way the world works. I think it sucks, personally, and I hope karma chows down on his ass.

  20. “If you want to absolve a criminal from guilt, blame it on society, the girl’s mother, the victim (why was she there in the first place; you wouldn’t climb into a tiger’s cage now would you?!).”

    I was thinking about this line of rape apology earlier today and thinking how – like so many such excuses – it makes no sense. I mean, if he’s soooo dangerous that even a 13 year old should have known better, then how can you turn around and argue that he’s not a danger to society?

  21. “Ruth, there is a statute of limitations for rape, and there should be.”

    I fail to understand any justification for statute of limitations laws. Should the man who sexually abused me when I was a child not go to jail just because I failed to speak up and say “hey, that man abused me for years” during the specified time that the law says I can have him thrown in jail? Really? Because, frankly, if anyone looked me in the eye and told me that in all seriousness, I’d tell them to go fuck themselves. A criminal is a criminal and criminals deserve to be punished. It doesn’t matter if what happened occurred yesterday or 50 years ago. So, yes, even if Polanski had not already been tried I’d fully support prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law. Rapists and abusers shouldn’t get a pass just because they’ve managed to run out the clock.

    1. “Ruth, there is a statute of limitations for rape, and there should be.”

      I fail to understand any justification for statute of limitations laws. Should the man who sexually abused me when I was a child not go to jail just because I failed to speak up and say “hey, that man abused me for years” during the specified time that the law says I can have him thrown in jail? Really? Because, frankly, if anyone looked me in the eye and told me that in all seriousness, I’d tell them to go fuck themselves. A criminal is a criminal and criminals deserve to be punished. It doesn’t matter if what happened occurred yesterday or 50 years ago. So, yes, even if Polanski had not already been tried I’d fully support prosecuting him to the fullest extent of the law. Rapists and abusers shouldn’t get a pass just because they’ve managed to run out the clock.

      I don’t want to derail this post on the SOL issue much further, but for me it’s a criminal defendant’s rights issue. Thirty years after a crime has been committed, witnesses forget or are lost, DNA evidence may be contaminated, other evidence may be lost or may not be able to be gathered. There’s more from the ACLU here if you’re interested.

  22. “Thirty years after a crime has been committed, witnesses forget or are lost, DNA evidence may be contaminated, other evidence may be lost or may not be able to be gathered. There’s more from the ACLU here if you’re interested.”

    I assumed that would be the response I would get. In my case, there would have been no witnesses and no evidence even if I had spoken up while it was occurring. That is typical of many sexually-related crimes. Does the fact that there is no evidence mean that them men who commit these crimes should walk free even though they have committed crimes that permanently damage or alter the bodies or psyches of their victims? I will never heal completely from what happened to me. I will never be a person who has never been abused. It took me years to even fully understand what happened to me and recognize it as abuse.

    I really do believe it comes down to deciding who you care about more: rapists and abusers, or their victims.

    1. Does the fact that there is no evidence mean that them men who commit these crimes should walk free even though they have committed crimes that permanently damage or alter the bodies or psyches of their victims?

      No… but that isn’t an argument to get rid of the statute of limitations. If there’s no evidence, then there’s probably not going to be a conviction either way. The SOL reflects the fact that after a certain period of time, the evidence is skewed strongly in favor of the prosecution, insofar as a defendant may not have evidence that could exonerate him. And not everyone who is indicted for rape is guilty; regardless of guilt or innocence, all criminal defendants have a right to defend themselves in court. No one is arguing that men should get to walk freely if they’ve raped someone. What I’m arguing is that, system-wide, there is a Constitutional balance of rights between criminal defendants and society (including people who are harmed by crimes). That balance is absolutely crucial in maintaining any semblance of fairness or justice. I mean, terrorists are also really bad people who I don’t want walking the streets freely, but I still think that people accused of terrorism — again, not all of whom are terrorists! — should have their day in court and access to attorneys and all of the basic rights that our criminal justice system offers.

      I really do believe it comes down to deciding who you care about more: rapists and abusers, or their victims.

      No, it doesn’t. It comes down to recognizing that we’re working within an incredibly flawed criminal justice system, and that a good-faith position on SOLs and the rights of criminal defendants does not mean that a person cares more about rapists and abusers than rape victims. I don’t think murderers should get the death penalty, either — does that mean that I care more about murders than murder victims? That’s a really unfair rhetorical tactic.

      But this is a huge derail, and I think we should get back on the topic of the post.

  23. Seriously Kevin? Given how you comment on probably most articles on Feministe and Feministing, I’m supposed to believe that you don’t understand how your first comment could be offensive to rape victims? How it implicitly sides with Polanski? How it implies that this sentencing is a waste of time because he’s been so good at evading the law thus far?

    When I read the CNN article while at work today, I cried in my cube. I would respect the decision if it had anything to do with Samantha Geimer’s wishes, but it didn’t. I want to know who failed to mail what, and I want to know what the fuck was so important that he or she had to invalidate rape as a reprehensible act on account of money.

  24. Here are few ideas to consider.

    First, the person who was defending Polanski by citing the screwed up ways in which our society deals with sex and sexuality is right in that people don’t grow up in vacuums. In other words, we can’t just dismiss the idea that there’s no collective responsibility for these kinds of issues.

    However, at the same time, the same person using that society is screwed so Polanski isn’t any worse than the rest of us argument is wrong, absolutely wrong, in terms of equivalence. Polanski already plead guilty, and fled his sentencing. He is responsible, and it’s ridiculous to say that he should now be free to go because it’s been 30 years.

    Secondly, think about the times. 1977. Prosecution of rape and sexual assaults was a rarity still. The view that what Polanski did was a crime probably was, back then, up for debate even more than it is now.

    “The only crime he was convicted of was consensual sex with a minor, but if you read the testimony what is described there is something completely different. I mean the original plea bargain was not even for a prison sentence.”

    If there is a question about the leniency, and whether that should be considered in letting him go or not, I’d say it’s important to consider how different courts and law enforcement are now from 1977 when it comes to dealing with sex crimes. Men who committed assault or rape got off very easy most of the time pre-1980 because the deck was stacked completely in their favor. So, the lack of a prison sentence back then is no surprise.

    And when it comes to statutes of limitations, I find this a very tricky issue. I was the victim of a sexual assault by another man about 13 years ago. I didn’t say anything to anyone for a long time, and only after several years was able to tell the whole story to others. And I’ve never done anything legally about it because I don’t even know where the guy is and yes, I have no evidence.

    I also think people should have fair trials and that, if we toss out fair trials for anyone, we’ll all suffer in the process. But how do have a fair trial when it comes to crimes that are often so terribly hard to prove in the first place?

    The disappointing thing about the Polanski case is that he’s been allowed to skip out on his case this long, and that government leaders and other powerful folks have supported his ability to avoid facing the music so to speak. Just goes to show you that wealth and fame can help a person get out of just about anything.

  25. Comrade Kevin: Why the hell should they have to “justify” bringing ANY fugitive to justice, after any amount of time? If anything, the default should be having to justify _not_ doing so when the opportunity arises.

  26. Just as a point of fact, the statute of limitations doesn’t apply to Polanski because he’s already been convicted. He’s a convicted felon who jumped bail before the sentencing hearing. His guilt is without question because he both confessed and plead guilty to a sexual offense.

    The questions in the Polanski case are:
    Should he be compelled to attend court hearing at which his legal fate is decided?

    Should he be sentenced, and how?

    Should the case be declared a mistrial?

  27. In other words, we can’t just dismiss the idea that there’s no collective responsibility for these kinds of issues.

    While we can’t dismiss collective responsibility in general, I think that in any specific case its more or less irrelevant when we’re talking about guilt. Yes, rape culture contributes to the justifications and rationalizations on a social level. Yes, the rape culture helps to cause more rapes by giving rapists a narrative in which to place their actions so that they do not feel criminal to them. That doesn’t change the fact that the final guilt lies with the person who knowingly hurts another person. Basic human empathy still comes into play and Polanski has admitted in public that he drugged, held down, and forcibly raped another human being while they begged him to stop. He admitted it in court, bragged about it on camera, and from all reports has continued to behave in a similar manner.

    What is important to remember in this case is that central act of inhumanity and how it has continually been obfuscated by Polanski’s supporters. All of the discussion about context, what the victim “should have known,” the prudishness of America, collective responsibility, the ways in which Polanski has been victimized in his life, the value of his art, has been used exclusively as a smoke screen to cover what he did. Engaging with those discussions when the specific topic is Polanski is playing into the hands of those who would like to erase the fact that Polanski is a violent rapist.

  28. Well it was nice of LA to try to bring Polanski to justice. Shame it didn’t work out. Hopefully there will be a next time.

  29. Wow, poor choice of words, of course by next time I mean an extradition attempt. I am sorry for saying it so badly.

  30. The only crime he was convicted of was consensual sex with a minor, but if you read the testimony what is described there is something completely different.

    This is another way I’ve seen this issue derailed (not that the comment here is derailing!) — the whole “statutory rape” thing. The issue is that a grown man violently raped a barely-teenage girl and then fled the country. …But all his fucking supporters start going on about how 13 isn’t that young, and what about 18-year-olds sleeping with 16-year-olds and getting arrested, and aren’t you a prude for saying girls can’t be sexual! yadda yadda.

    Infuriating, because it tries to co-opt some decent feminist issues and language to turn a straight forward guilty-rapist-fled story into a debate about Romeo and Juliet laws.

  31. “But all his fucking supporters start going on about how 13 isn’t that young,..”

    Even worse, the part that they – and clearly Polanski – seem most concerned about is not even her actual age, but the fact that she had begun to hit puberty and therefore had a young teens body and not the body of a small child – and therfore it’s somehow understandable and not icky and actually sorta ok or something?

    As someone who hit puberty and had breasts at age 9 (and therefore looked fairly similarly at age 10 to the way the victim did at age 13), may I just YES IT IS STILL CREEPY AND WRONG AND DISTURBING AND DID I MENTION WRONG AND ABUSIVE to try to “seduce” a child who has just hit puberty – much less do what Polanski did.

  32. Screw Polanski. Stockton is my hometown. I was wondering if any other locals would come out on this thread.

Comments are currently closed.