"I think (imprisoning a 76 year old for no good reason) is a very good thing, and find most of the outrage over it baffling."

Do you really have such difficulty even understanding why folks might have a problem with it?

There are perfectly coherent cases to be made on both sides of this. I find your case to be utterly meretricious, but I don't find it baffling. Plenty of folks, both of the priggish and of the lock-'em-all-up varieties share your delicate sensibilities here, and those folks don't baffle me.

"I've said before that evaluations of Polanski's art should be kept distinct from from his crimes"

You're really a bit clueless here if you think you can sever Polanski's art, Polanski's life misfortunes, and Polanski's original California court proceedings from the punishment for his crime.

I was happy when O.J. Simpson was acquitted, even though he did the crime, and I'd be very happy if the Swiss released Polanski back to France, even though he did the crime.

Appropriate criminal justice is a bit more complicated than you (and the American electorate) make it out to be.

Polanski has already been punished in multiple ways for the rape. (Incarceration, exile, financial settlement to the victim, and severe career damage.)

The victim wants him left alone.

What more do you want from him? Blood?

This piece of shit has used his wealth and his power to avoid being held to account long enough.

I hope he dies in prison.

No. He has no been punished. He has deigned to accept some minor penalties when it helped allay his guilt, but he has never been held accountable and punished under the law. Those with wealth do what they want far too often, they don't get to decide what punishments apply and what ones don't.

Petey, "imprisoning a 76 year old for no good reason" is one of the more aggressive euphemisms for "imprisoning a rapist for rape" I've read in a while. Well done.

I certainly understand that there are difficult legal issues surrounding international warrants, but near as I can tell it was done by the book. If he's dumb enough to travel into another country without assurances that they won't serve such a warrant, that's on him. Also on him: the rape he was being arrested for.

As to the victim's attitudes, those deserve a great deal of respect. I believe legal actions based on those attitudes are still pending, though, and until the court settles her request, nothing seems wrong about this to me.

Finally, there's something a bit weird about being "happy" that OJ was acquitted. Thinking it was appropriate given the absurd nature of the judicial system, in particular toward black defendants, and even more particularly toward black defendants accused of harming white criminals, is one thing. Being happy about it is quite another. Whatever the failings of the judicial system, it was still a man getting away with a double homicide.

I agree with all of that about Polanski's culpability, but there's a separate issue of Switzerland's selective enforcement of criminal law against high-profile, but not politically-connected, criminals.

Switzerland prides itself on being a safe haven for organized crime proceeds and wanted criminals -- indeed, it's own constitution guarantees the privacy of bank account holder's identities -- and yet now, suddenly, it has a conscience over a thirty-year-old crime with one victim while it promotes on-going criminal activity affecting millions?

That's just appalling. Law is law. I suppose there's some argument to be made justifying why a country has voluntarily made itself a safe haven for crime, but whatever argument that is, it's made especially dubious when the safe haven is selectively disabled to catch criminals for nothing more than media attention.

Anyone who doesn't respect the rule of law, is a scofflaw and that describes Polanski perfectly. The victim's willingness to "forgive" him in this case does not suffice for "the people", of which I am one.

Unless Polanski is willing to face a sentence in the case he remains outside the law & the Swiss should certainly surrender him to U.S. authorities.

One of the reasons the U.S. is the world's longest surviving democracy is precisely because it demands that nobody is above the law.

One of the reasons the U.S. is the world's longest surviving democracy is precisely because it demands that nobody is above the law.

Torturers notwithstanding, that is.

"One of the reasons the U.S. is the world's longest surviving democracy is precisely because it demands that nobody is above the law."

Unless you are Luis Posada Carriles.

"Finally, there's something a bit weird about being "happy" that OJ was acquitted."

What's wrong with having a rooting interest in a trial and being happy when the verdict goes your way?

As to why my rooting interest went that way:

1) I think strict adherence to the exclusionary clause is absolutely crucial, and the police went into his property without a warrant.

2) The verdict served a local public purpose in ending the long running war the Parker Center was waging on African-Americans.

3) The verdict served a national public purpose in demonstrating for the first time in the Civil Rights Era that a rich black man could get away with a crime in the same way a rich white man could.

So I was happy he was acquitted. A year in jail and the subsequent loss of his wealth seemed the proper punishment to me, given the larger circumstances of the crime.

Do you really have such difficulty even understanding why folks might have a problem with it?

Yes. The idea that there's "no good reason" to imprison someone who raped a 13-year old is incomprehensible to me. And the fact that Applebaum's (quite typical) argument is idiotic from A to Z -- lying about the facts of the case, arguing that 35 years of well-rewarded filmmaking in France constitutes "punishment," etc. -- doesn't help. Your non-argument doesn't really help either...

I was happy that OJ was aquitted. Maybe he was guilty, but he was definately framed. forensic chemicals in blood that hadn't yet been collected? Criminal evidence laying about an otherwise perfectly immaculate room?

There's no way to tell if he was actually guilty, because once a frame-up has been proved, ANY potential evidence could be part of that frame-up. OJ had to walk, and only a complete unwillingness to follow the law could have resulted in a conviction.

"And the fact that Applebaum's (quite typical) argument is idiotic..."

I know that without having to click-thru to her post.

But Applebaum's idiocy doesn't mean that Polanski should be shipped to California in chains.

What's wrong with having a rooting interest in a trial

Well, because it's a case about two innocent victims of a homicide, not a sporting event? Cretin.

You're really a bit clueless here if you think you can sever Polanski's art, Polanski's life misfortunes, and Polanski's original California court proceedings from the punishment for his crime.

Shorter Petey:

Holocaust survivors get one free anal rape of a 13 year old girl.

"Holocaust survivors get one free anal rape of a 13 year old girl."

That isn't quite it.

It's that holocaust survivors and Manson survivors who are great working artists get one anal rape of 13 year old if they suffer an appropriate penalty and the victim is OK with it.

The "who are great working artists" is a big factor here. If Quentin Tarantino or Marty Scorcese shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, I'd be open to giving him a pass. If he shoots a second man, then you put him away for reals.

Historically, giving great working artists a break on (especially) morals charges tends to look very good in retrospect.

Petey, what you are arguing is truly repugnant. Basically, because Polanski is a noted filmmaker ("great artist" is a matter of taste-- personally, I'd reserve that category for folks on the level of Mozart, but I understand your position), this makes his sexual assault and fugitive status, what, exactly? Not important?

One of the cornerstones of any fair society is the rule of law, and the principle of equal justice under law. This should be especially important to liberals, who understand that getting to the position that Roman Polanski got to in society involves a lot of luck, and plenty of people with Polanski's talent don't reach Polanski's level of fame or wealth. In other words, for all you know, there's a person who, with a different roll of the dice, might have made films equally as great as Polanski, who instead is in the dock serving 20-25 for child rape.

Furthermore, your position suggests a sort of privilege that it's different when a man with the magnitude, importance, and talent of a Roman Polanski sticks his penis in a 13 year old girl's anus over her objections than if you or I or any of the other plebes who comment on this thread were to do it.

Indeed, I would argue that if anything, Polanski's status made this crime worse-- he abused his privilege, both by taking advantage of a 13 year old girl who was entrusted to him because of his status and power in the entertainment industry, and by using his wealth and privilege to flee justice and thumb his nose at the American justice system for three decades.

It is a warped world indeed where celebrity-- or even talent-- gives one a free pass to commit the sorts of acts that justifiably might result in a life sentence for someone without the right connections. Of course, in reality, that may be somewhat true (the wealthy do often escape their crimes), but no liberal should ever endorse it.

Wow!

Who knew Petey could get even more perverse and misogynistic?

I remember duking it out with him till the break o' dawn about what a calculating, castrating shrew Howard Dean's wife was(n't).

Now, he's excusing rape. My, how times have changed.

If Quentin Tarantino or Marty Scorcese shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, I'd be open to giving him a pass.

I guess the misplaced "him" is confusing me here. Or do you consider Tarantino/Scorecese great enough artists (?!?!) to get away with murder?

Really?!

You've lost your ever-loving mind, bless your heart.

"I guess the misplaced "him" is confusing me here."

While my grammar there is somewhat clunky to parse, I don't think either "him" is actually misplaced.

"Or do you consider Tarantino/Scorecese great enough artists (?!?!) to get away with murder?"

I will return to my original weasel words: I'd be open to giving them a pass.

So while there may be hyperbole there, my larger point remains: Scott is wrong when he thinks that Polanski's art can be separated from the current extradition proceedings against him.

There are good reasons why the criminal justice system, by design, looks at the entirety of a suspect's life when determining punishments.

-----

Tangentially, after reading the comments to this post at LGM, am I the only one creeped out by the fact that folks can't distinguish between child rape and adolescent rape?

am I the only one creeped out by the fact that folks can't distinguish between child rape and adolescent rape?

Perhaps not, but you're way off the mark if you think the age of the victim mitigates rape.

When were you last raped, Petey? Did you mind it less as a fourteen year old than when you were eight? What say someone give it another go now?

"Perhaps not, but you're way off the mark if you think the age of the victim mitigates rape. When were you last raped, Petey? Did you mind it less as a fourteen year old than when you were eight? What say someone give it another go now?"

Of course it mitigates. In the criminal justice system, all kinds of fine lines are drawn to determine the severity of punishment.

Would I mind it more if I was killed by first degree murder than if I were killed by involuntarily manslaughter? No. I'm dead in either case. But the criminal justice system handles those two events quite differently.

Determining the appropriate punishment for rape depends on seeing the greys in the particular case at hand, not just in dividing things into rape vs not-rape.

And specifically on the topic, I don't think I'm going out on a limb to assert that the recent societal trend toward conflating child rape and adolescent rape is, well, childish.

There are good reasons why the criminal justice system, by design, looks at the entirety of a suspect's life when determining punishments.

Well, yes and no.

Of course there are all sorts of reasons why sometimes punishment needs to be mitigaged. For instance, it was insane that they didn't let Manson family murderer Susan Atkins out on parole when she was dying and no danger to the public.

And certainly, a person can argue to a judge or jury that even though they committed some horribly wrong act, the sentence should be lenient because they are a first offender, remorseful, didn't know what they were doing, not dangerous, etc.

(Of course, none of this applies to Polanski, who is not remorseful and went off to France and took up with additional underage girls. But he is surely entitled to argue it.)

But what does that have to do with extraditing him or convicting him for child molestation?

You could say the same for OJ. Sure, he should have been afforded every opportunity to argue for one reason or another that the sentence should be lenient. But that's different from saying he should get off for murder.

You are arguing, at bottom, that being a great artist conveys a privilege to place one's penis in the anal cavities of 13 year old girls without their consent, and that is simply sickening.

And specifically on the topic, I don't think I'm going out on a limb to assert that the recent societal trend toward conflating child rape and adolescent rape is, well, childish.

I'll go out on a limb in the other direction. What's Polanski doing screwing teenage girls? He was in his 40's. There are plenty of beautiful, available, talented women his age in the entertainment industry.

The fact is that 40-somethings shouldn't be fooling around, even consensually, with teenagers. It's exploitative, it's bad for women, and it's not necessary. Plus, it raises all sorts of consent issues (especially when you ply them with alcohol they aren't allowed to be served and drugs they aren't allowed to possess).

Polanski didn't have any business being in the same room alone with a 13 year old girl. If you want to say that it would have been worse if she had been 5, I guess you might say that, but this was plenty bad. And bear in mind-- POLANSKI's offense was not statutory rape, but actual rape. If he had plied a woman his own age with champagne and ludes and then sodomized her over her repeated objections, that would be enough to warrant a severe punishment (as it did for Mike Tyson).

I'd like to give Petey some credit here, for doing what no other Polanski-defenders and rape-trivializers (to my knowledge) to my knowledge have actually done--actually tried to universalize their response to this particular case. I didn't work out particularly well, of course, but that's kind of the point.

Petey, you are so out of your depth here; maybe you should stick to topics you know, like the benefits of a John Edwards presidency.

"I'd like to give Petey some credit here, for doing what no other Polanski-defenders and rape-trivializers (to my knowledge) to my knowledge have actually done--actually tried to universalize their response to this particular case. I didn't work out particularly well, of course, but that's kind of the point."

Defending such folks never works out well in real time.

I wouldn't have brought Ezra Pound back to the US in chains either. That would have been an unpopular position to take at the time as well. After all, who wants to defend fascist scum? But I think that position would have aged well.

In my world, giving Polanski a pass if the crime victim is OK with it seems an absolute no-brainer. Dude's made a lot of good art in his life.

I suspect you are on the wrong side of history, actually, Petey. The feminist revolution is exactly what has turned the issue of powerful men having their way with very young women they meet through their work from something that is either tolerated or celebrated to something that is reviled. (This is true with OJ too-- domestic violence went from something that was broadly tolerated to something that gets the police involved to protect women. OJ didn't get the memo.)

So I don't think you can really analogize this to prosecutions of the past that we now view as not being particularly just.

Note the feminist blogosphere has been basically universally condemnatory of Polanski-- this is a pretty good indicator that what you are standing up for is actually a form of retrograde, traditional power structures.

"Perhaps not, but you're way off the mark if you think the age of the victim mitigates rape. When were you last raped, Petey? Did you mind it less as a fourteen year old than when you were eight? What say someone give it another go now?"

Would I mind it more if I was killed by first degree murder than if I were killed by involuntarily manslaughter?

Um, no, Petey...no one mentioned murder hypothetically...What might your reason for changing the crime here would be?

"Um, no, Petey...no one mentioned murder hypothetically...What might your reason for changing the crime here would be?"

We had both just been discussing hypothetical murder in the comments immediately previous.

Cheers.

Is it not obvious that Petey is a jerk-troll who is not making the slightest effort to discuss the issue in good faith and only wishes to dilute the discussion? Doesn't responding to his comments just make it easier for him to post yet more inane, bad-faith comments?

Applebaum: "Oh how Polanski has suffered in exile!" I know a guy - an artist, in fact, but not a rich or famous one - who spent a year in jail after the cops caught him with six Vicodins. He never hurt a soul; he certainly didn't force any thirteen year old girl to let him screw her up the ass. Meanwhile, for the last thirty years Polanski has lived a life of luxury and fame that ninety-nine out of a hundred Americans can only dream of, in complete impunity. I don't want to specially persecute Polanski, I just want him to face the same treatment any other rapist who wasn't a millionaire and a celebrity would have faced.

Take what Polanski did to his victim and multiply it few million times and you arrive at the devastation of lives for which Henry Kissinger was responsible the world over. From the over 600,000 civilians killed in the illegal bombing he orchestrated in Cambodia to the aiding and abetting of assassinations in Latin America eliminating democratically elected governments and installing dictators who Kissinger supported in their campaigns terrorizing their own people.

The U.S. "justice" system has kept Kissinger above the law making sure that everything from mere requests for testimony by countries such as Spain, France, Chile and Argentina to a lawsuit accusing him of causing kidnapping, torture, and death have all failed on "procedural" grounds.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Henry continues to be celebrated, admired, fawned over and consulted on news/talk shows and in the corridors of wealth, power, business and academia.

Yes, the supporters of Polanski are despicable. What does that make an entire country that shields a class A war criminal like Henry Kissinger?