On Roman Polanski
First, I believe a rape occurred. Second, the victim -- now in her forties -- has asked repeatedly and without duress from Polanski to have the matter dropped. She has settled a civil case with him. She has publicly forgiven him. And, for me, that settles it. The victim should control whether a prosecution occurs. Period. Third, it is a scathing damnation of our legal/court system for the victim to claim that the system traumatized her far more than the rape itself. The authorities should not be allowed to continue 'raping' her.
Fourth, I do not believe Polanski received a fair trial. I think there was clear and extensive misconduct by the judge (and others) in the original proceeding. Fifth, I recommend the HBO documentary"Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" without which I do not believe prosecution would be occurring. Sixth, the state is clearly pursuing prosecution not for the victim but on its own behalf because Polanski fled its jurisdiction and lived well thereafter. In short, Polanski has flouted authority and 'authority' is pissed.
Seventh, this is an example of the U.S. imposing legal jurisdiction around the world. A bad precedent is being set. Eighth, I do not believe that Switzerland has not received a quid pro quo for nabbing Polanski.
Ninth, it is fascinating to watch political reactions. E.g. the founder of ultra-progressive Feminist Majority thinks Polanski should not be arrested. According to the L.A. Times"My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation."It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things." Amazing.
Tenth, you know how sick you were of hearing about Michael Jackson... Well, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
For more commentary, please visit www.wendymcelroy.com.
comments powered by Disqus
Jesse Walker - 10/6/2009
I largely agree with what you wrote, but I think this casts a different light on points four and five:
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel - 10/6/2009
Thanks, Wendy, for bringing some much needed sanity to this topic.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Newly released interactive map shows images of destroyed monuments of Mosul
- How the Rise of the Post Office Explains American Innovation
- These Americans are reliving history and don’t mind repeating it
- Britain largest home is saved for the nation
- Shelter and the slums: capturing bleak Britain 50 years ago
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't
- Princeton U. historian Imani Perry claims mistreatment in parking ticket arrest
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history