Roman Polanski may be an Oscar-winning brilliant film maker, but he’s also a fugitive from justice, an infamous child rapist who jumped bail and fled to France in 1978 to avoid the consequences of his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old in Los Angeles. Polanski was arrested on Saturday in Zurich on the grounds of the 31-year-old arrest warrant.
It didn’t take long for the Polanski defenders to crawl out of the woodwork. Take Patrick Goldstein, pop culture columnist for the Los Angeles Times, who quickly penned a piece published Sunday afternoon decrying Polanski’s arrest by Swiss authorities.
Apparently, Goldstein is of the opinion that Polanski has suffered enough for his crimes, and the Los Angeles prosecutors should not be spending precious taxpayer money (a phrase which, in reference to California, causes much mental angst) chasing a 76-year-old man around the globe.
Goldstein tugged at readers’ heartstrings by pointing out Polanski’s brushes with the most depraved of the 20th century’s murderers: Polanski was a fugitive from the Nazis as a child and wife was killed by followers of Charles Manson.
What’s more, Goldstein complained, as a result of his flight from justice, Polanski undoubtedly paid a high price in his career achievement, was barred from entering the United States and other countries due to extradition issues, and all of this despite his victim’s public forgiveness.
Polanski is portrayed by Goldstein, eloquently, as a misunderstood genius. But neither being misunderstood nor a genius erases any individual’s equality before the bar of justice.
A great moral wrong has been committed by Roman Polanski. The innocence of a child was destroyed – and though this child grew to forgive her attacker, that speaks more to the morality of the victim than the criminal.
And this brings us to the most salient point: No matter what tragedy suffered by Polanski in his life, he is still a criminal in the eyes of the law. No matter what sacrifices made or penance paid, Roman Polanski broke the law. Justice cannot be satisfied by forgiveness, and while forgiveness is a beautiful, moral virtue, justice has yet to be served to Polanski.
The Los Angeles Times, through Goldstein, would have its readers believe otherwise.
The blind scales of justice have been unbalanced for more than thirty years in this case. Those of us who love the rule of law hope that they will not remain that way for much longer, and those of us who track the media’s leftward bias hope Goldstein is in a distinct minority of journalists to pardon Polanski’s criminal behavior.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
History is Unimportant to Leftists
September 28, 2009 - 11:14 ET by MAS1916Just like Obama is ignoring the lessons of history ( http://www.conservat... ) Southern California lefties will ignore the fact that what Polanski did was dodge responsibility for a criminal act. If this were some conservative financier, the lefties would be out for blood. With Polanski, they will just yawn.
And we see the Vice Versa here, mas1916
September 28, 2009 - 14:13 ET by 007memoYou're right. "If this were some conservative financier, the lefties would be out for blood."
And we see the Vice Versa here on this blog, mas1916.
What's the lesson we've learned today, class? Anybody... Beuhler...Beuhler...?
He has been a fugitive from
September 28, 2009 - 11:20 ET by black47211He has been a fugitive from justice in the U.S. since 1978, when he
fled the country rather than stand charges of having unlawful sexual
intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
Goldstein...your words. Isn't this enough? When you typed those words, did anything inside of you go, "Holy crap! This guy raped a 13-year old girl! That is so wrong!"?
I mean, seriously, Goldstein, are you that ammoral? Are you that liberal that you can look past such a fact? Is your spirit that singed by sin?
The LA Times should be dismantled, brick-by-brick, and then used in the construction of a shelter for teens who have been sexually assaulted. Enough.
http://www.pelicanmarsh68.blogspot.com
Citizen Commentators Unite!
Nah, Goldstein should be excoriated, black47211
September 28, 2009 - 14:19 ET by 007memo"The LA Times should be dismantled, brick-by-brick". That's nonsensical. Nah, Goldstein should be excoriated for his opinion, which you do nicely.
007Memo- Nonsensical
September 28, 2009 - 14:25 ET by black47211007Memo- Nonsensical perhaps, yet strangely satisfying from where I am sitting. Thanks for the compliment. I am reticent, however, because I am expecting the other shoe to drop at any minute from you.
Ah, what the heck, thanks anyhoos.
http://www.pelicanmarsh68.blogspot.com
Citizen Commentators Unite!
Didn't drop the other shoe, black47211
September 28, 2009 - 19:16 ET by 007memoI didn't drop the other shoe, black47211 cause I figured I'd just leave it at that.
But since you're waiting for it, I did take exception to the "Are you that liberal that you can look past such a fact?" My guess is that most regular people, librul and conservative, feel exactly the same way on this subject.
Has he suffered enough?
September 29, 2009 - 07:24 ET by BlueCat57The man has lived in French paradise for all these years. I doubt he suffered at all. Free health care. Topless beaches. French food and wine. In fact, I don't understand why all the liberal Hollywood types who think things are so bad in America don't move their residence AND CITIZENSHIP there.
If living in France is punishment, maybe we should empty our jails by releasing convicts and giving them one-way tickets to France. We could send ALL of our sex-offenders there too so they would have to live under bridges and in urban forests. I'm sure the open minded French would welcome them. Maybe we could send a cool million in foreign aid with each one too. Cheaper than keeping them in prison here and all it is is paper anyway.
I love it when people make up statistics. "most liberals and conservatives would feel he has suffered enough." BS. Most conservatives and liberals still feel that some things are wrong and that justice is what makes America great. Most liberals and conservatives believe all people should be protected, even stupid ones that are somewhere where an adult can give them drugs and alcohol.
On the other hand if we just gave up on any unsolved crime after a few years then we wouldn't have such a clogged up criminal system. I'd suggest looking to the Bible for guidance what with sanctuaries, etc. but of course liberals would reject that.
No justice is only for the poor and non-liberal. And victims don't have rights in the liberal mind.
And yes, I've used several definitions for liberal here. Sometimes I mean the liberal elite, sometimes the common liberal. I'm sure you can figure out when each definition is used.
PS - I smell Obama's first pardon. And I mean pardon on commutation. Look up the difference.
"I love it when people" can't read simple composition, bluecat
September 29, 2009 - 14:37 ET by 007memobluecat says: "I love it when people make up statistics. "most liberals and conservatives would feel he has suffered enough."
But bluecat made up that quote. Go back to 7th grade comprehension class.
"I love it when people" can't understand simple composition, bluecat.
Actually I didn't make up the quote...
September 29, 2009 - 19:40 ET by BlueCat57... I paraphrased your comment.
007memo – wrote: “My guess is that most regular people, librul (sic) and conservative, feel exactly the same way on this subject.”
My interpretation: You are saying most liberals and conservatives feel that he has suffered enough.
My mistake: Using quotes instead of saying that I paraphrased you.
And of course any time one uses “most” it is likely to be incorrect and possibly made up. And quite frankly what I quote above from you is imprecise and open to interpretation in several ways.
Now, if I have misinterpreted what you meant by that phrase then correct me on that.
And yes I know that I used most in my comment and while it may be correct I haven't gone out and researched the topic to find supporting data.
I never implied Polanski suffered enough, bluecat57
September 30, 2009 - 15:36 ET by 007memoI never wrote nor even implied that: "most liberals and conservatives feel that he has suffered enough." I wrote, and I quote accurately: "My guess is that most regular people, librul and conservative, feel exactly the same way on this subject."
But it's not even a guess, most regular people are offended that Polanski would get some type of leniency for this heinous crime.
This is not a librul vs conservative issue, as much as some would like to pretend it is. And the fact that you have wing nut Hollywood types defending Polanski doesn't mean they speak for the majority of libruls in this country.
To their shame, the left has wing nutty Hollywood counted among them, and the right has wing nutty talk radio and Fox News. You can't account for the wing nuts.
BTW, the fact that you assumed I meant otherwise exposes your cartoonish, stereotypical assumptions as to how all libruls must think.
Also, there was some commenter on this page, "posing" as a librul, writing about how his poor dear father had been put in jail by this same terrible judge associated with Polanski, and Polanski deserved leniency blah, blah. I'd guess some reading that believed that cartoon character to be a real live librul, ROTFLMAO!
Or was he posing as a libertarian? I don't know, I'm so confused.
→ memo
September 30, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Cool ArrowSo you think Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Gary Glitter, Papa John Phillips, and ACORN are all conservatives?
Memo, the liberals have built up quite a group of child molesters and their enablers.
Can't account for wingo's, coolarrow
October 1, 2009 - 21:17 ET by 007memoAs I wrote: "To their shame, the left has wing nutty Hollywood counted among them, and the right has wing nutty talk radio and Fox News. You can't account for the wing nuts."
LEECH!
October 17, 2009 - 02:27 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Sooooo.....
October 17, 2009 - 15:55 ET by BlueCat57Instead of simply saying:
My statement meant ...
You spend several paragraphs written in an accusatory tone then assume what I'm thinking and call me cartoonish.
You could have just said:
You misinterpreted my statement and here is what I meant...
I clearly spelled out why I interpreted your statement as I did. In fact, I copied and pasted your exact words into my comment. You apparently didn't bother to read my comment beyond where I disagreed with you, nor do you appear to have re-read your comment right above mine.
Dare I call you thin skinned?
PS - How do you know that his father wasn't sentenced by this same judge? Did you go out an verify that?
Hey Goldstein,
September 28, 2009 - 11:25 ET by DelsaSh** happens and it should happen to Sharons husband.
But if I have to watch him on tv 24/7 I want the Sh** to happen to him somewhere else.
Maybe they will hold him in jail where he is until his death?
Child Rapist?
September 28, 2009 - 11:29 ET by someloudthunderSince when is 13 considered being a child? Was she a minor yes. It's rape. She was no child though. Justice will be done to sir Polanski. You can't run from justice sir.
Yes, 13 is a child.
September 28, 2009 - 19:21 ET by Radical1979Yes, 13 is a child.
Samanta Geimer, the victim,
September 28, 2009 - 11:44 ET by JesseJacksonIVSamanta Geimer, the victim, wants the charges dropped.
I am no lawyer, but don't
September 28, 2009 - 12:29 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI am no lawyer, but don't you have to have been the one that filed or pressed charges in order to have the right to have them dropped? I doubt at 13 that she filed/pressed charges so she can ask all she wants, but it’s not going to happen.
If I recall, her mother was
September 28, 2009 - 12:58 ET by Delsaat the home with her daughter and she did not want to file charges.
What they wanted was $$$$$ and when they didn't get it?????
The State of California pressed the charges and that is the reason the X 13 year old has nothing to say about it. Mommy and daughter partied a lot with the rich and infamous.
Forever,
September 28, 2009 - 17:19 ET by UpNorthin the case of a minor child, or any felony usually, the State files the charges. They do so, on behalf of the citizens of the state, because the state law finds the act so heinous.
A person can refuse to cooperate with authorities in the prosecution of a person accused of something, but in felony cases, it's the state that has the interest to file charges.
Thanks for the replies,
September 29, 2009 - 11:45 ET by ForeverOnTheRightThanks for the replies, Delsa and UpNorth
So forgiveness from the
September 28, 2009 - 12:55 ET by Mike SargentSo forgiveness from the victim is enough to satisfy the demands of justice before the law?
Should we ask Mr. Polanski if he forgives Charles Manson, so that we might release him? Should we ask the families of the people who have drowned in their desperate attempts to escape Cuba if they forgive Che, so that we can clear his name of his thousands of murders as well? Should we ask Coretta Scott King if she forgives her father's murderer? Should we, as a nation, forgive Jack Ruby for denying us decades of mental peace while nobody is quite sure who killed JFK?
Justice demands restitution. Polanski destroyed a young girl's life, and can never make it right again. It is only just that he spends his dying breath in prison, giving the ultimate sacrifice for his crime -- his freedom. All of it.
That is justice. Forgiveness does not fill that requirement, and we should not pretend that it does.
JJWalker, We already know AND that is IRRELEVANT unless
September 28, 2009 - 14:04 ET by pahuberyou are, of course, defending child rape, MORON.
What else could you be possibly conveying by your asinine statement.
Please, let's purge more of these trolls!
Of course writers for WAPO
September 28, 2009 - 12:05 ET by celatorOf course writers for WAPO and The Los Angeles Times make excuses for this child rapist. He's a left wing artiste. He's a creative type. He's a writer/producer. He's Hollywood, He's one of them.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
It's great to be a liberal
September 28, 2009 - 12:06 ET by donsalimanPolanski and Ted Kennedy,one gets a pass at leaving a human being to drown and the other gets a pass at raping a young girl.
It may be great to be a liberal,but hell is to pay for being a female involved with a liberal.
Looks like the idiot
September 28, 2009 - 14:17 ET by gopcongressLooks like the idiot Polanski, who could have served maybe two or three years under the obscenely lax sentencing for child rapists and druggists, he is elgible for Jessica's Law, which is a MINIMUM 25 years to life.
Anything less is a HUGE STATEMENT that no matter who you are, it is OK to rape and drug children. Pure and simple.
If the judge drops the ball on this one, or the prosecutor doesn't refuse the plea deal, then those people will be targeted (electorarily, not personally) bigtime in the next year. BIGTIME!
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
I think he's still got to
September 28, 2009 - 14:29 ET by GrannyGrump42I think he's still got to be sentenced under what the law was at the time, not the new law.
And the idea that he should get a walk because he was a Holocaust survivor whose wife was murdered by the Manson Family is abhorrent. It's an insult to Holocaust survivors and families of murder victims.
That sounds like they would
September 28, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Scuba DudeThat sounds like they would try the "Twinky" defense. Do everything possible but except responsibility for your actions.
I do so hope he gets extradited.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
Not in this environment
September 28, 2009 - 14:46 ET by gopcongressNot in this environment. If he gets less than significant prison time (not jail time, but real San Quentin cellblock sharing prison), then the people will howl.
If he DOES get leniency, which is the same as getting what he WOULD have gotten in '78, then there will be a lot of questions involved. I'll contact Robin Sax and get her take on it and report back to this thread.
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
I Don't Know How It Makes You Liberal To Defend Polanski...
September 28, 2009 - 23:03 ET by The7SticksI see it from this perspective: it is a waste of the tax payer's time and dime to be going after a case where the defendant had already made a plea bargain by agreeing to plead guilty on one of the six charges, spent forty-two day in state prison, and only fled when this that loose cannon of a judge tried to make an example of him because he was a la-de-da Hollywood elite (I say loose cannon because that very same judge sentenced my father to three years in state prison for attempted armed robbery. I thought that certainly seemed excessive.) On top of that, there is no child predator epidemic going on, so why use this as an excuse to justify those ridiculous Jessica's Laws that are bankrupting California back to the Stone Age? If you ask me, I think children are more endangered by being registered as child pornographers for sending naked picture of themselves to their boyfriend or (God forbid) girlfriend than they are by Roman Polanski. I just see this as a waste of our taxpayer money. How liberal can that possibly be?
Sticks
September 28, 2009 - 23:11 ET by RESTLESS 1Your post is a waste of cyberspace. Your libertarianesque bullsh#t mantra of "it's all good man" is wearing thin.
42 days for drugging and sodomizing a thirteen year old is nowhere near enough. I don't know about you father's situation, but it seems to me that three years is not enough for attempted armed robbery.
I guess we should just give criminals a stern look and make them promise to never do it again?
Grow up, will ya?
"If the man, with the power, can't keep it under control...some heads are gonna roll." -Judas Priest
Only a liberal pervert would approve of raping a child,
September 28, 2009 - 23:20 ET by cocodrieWhy do you approve? What are you?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
A couple of points
September 29, 2009 - 05:59 ET by DaMavThis is not simply a statutory rape case but someone who fled to avoid facing the court. If such cases are not prosecuted, why would anyone bother to show up for sentencing?
If you accept the testimony of the 13 year old, this was not only statutory rape but forcible rape, vaginal and anal. It seems likely that Polanski already got a huge break via his plea bargain. I don't know what happens to average men who commit such a crime but I suspect and hope they spend a very long time in jail.
Didn't there used to be liberal "womens' rights" groups and "child welfare" groups that would storm out and demand retributive justice in these cases? Funny they don't seem to be around on this one.
As a father of two girls, I am delighted they finally acted, regardless of the politics, and I hope they nail him to the wall. But the elite in Hollywood are so powerful in LA that I'll only believe it when I see it happen.