"Dude, you like to have sex with children, fuck you."

[muckefuck]

I ❤ Luc Besson.

I confess, I don't have much affection for his movies, which with few exceptions belong to the class of slick actioners which are designed to deliver a kind of visceral thrill that I've mostly outgrown. And, yes, he's a great big lovely bear-man, but as recently discussed in aadroma's journal, there can be a sizable gulf between lusting after a man and loving what he does. No, what pushed my vaguely positive feelings toward him into outright admiration was his comments on the recent arrest of the world's most beloved fugitive child rapist:

"This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit," Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. "Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen." He added, "I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

You might've missed these remarks if you've been keeping this particular circus at arm's length, which I can't blame you for given what an unedifying and at times sickening spectacle it's been. (Bernard-Henri Lévy has had some surprisingly good things to say in the past despite having both "French" and "philosopher" in his job title--particularly regarding exactly the kind of knee-jerk French lefty anti-Americanism that seems to be in play here--but describing a man who at the age of 44 drugged and sodomised a thirteen year-old as perhaps guilty of "committ[ing] a youthful error" vitiates any number of them.) I'm not surprised to see so many signatures from French glitterati--and I don't want to think too hard about the motives of 40+ straight male heterosexual signatories like Scorsese, Soderbergh, and (let the snerking begin) Woody Allen--but it's particularly dismaying to see names of artists whose body of work I greatly admire, such as Fanny Ardant and Pedro Almodóvar. I'm trying to see their response in the best possible light, i.e. as a misguided desire to heed the victim's wishes and shield her from further unpleasantness. But it's not really working for me. I feel terribly for her, but it's much more than her rights that are at stake at this point.

ETA: princeofcairo informs me that Kevin Smith has Twittered "Look, I dig ROSEMARY'S BABY; but rape's rape. Do the crime, do the time." So there: That leaves two hot bear directors whose movies I can still enjoy in good conscience.

Comments

[keyne.livejournal.com]

... describing a man who at the age of 44 drugged and sodomised a thirteen year-old as perhaps guilty of "committ[ing] a youthful error" vitiates any number of them.)

<shudder>

it's particularly dismaying to see names of artists whose body of work I greatly admire. [...] I'm trying to see their response in the best possible light, i.e. as a misguided desire to heed the victim's wishes and shield her from further unpleasantness. But it's not really working for me. I feel terribly for her, but it's much more than her rights that are at stake at this point.

A-fucking-MEN.

[leiny.livejournal.com]

It's a mix up for me though I mostly think he should come back and finally get it cleared up even if he serves a little time.

The fact that Samantha Geimer has tried to have the charges dropped doesn't help.

But I don't like this idea that because of who he is and his work that he should be completely forgiven for what ever he does. No one should be above that no matter what country you live in.

On the other hand he left because of distrust in our legal system, I can't blame him for that. The idea we should pay to get some 70 something film director back over here to potentially throw him in jail for something the victim doesn't even want him charged with any more doesn't sit well.

Basically he should just come back over. Maybe work with getting the original plea bargain and go from there. Though the failure to appear in court charge might complicate that.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

I feel terribly for her, but it's much more than her rights that are at stake at this point.

In fact -- and this is a really key point that a fuckload of people seem to be missing -- her rights are not at stake at all here. The rape case is over: Polanski pleaded guilty, was convicted, and that conviction has never been seriously challenged nevermind overturned. What Polanski was arrested for was for being a fugitive from justice, for skipping out on his sentencing and flouting extradition orders for the next thirty years. That is a crime against the people of the state of California (you don't have to take my word for it, go look it up, this is how the fucking legal system works and always has), and the LA District Attorney's office is entirely correct and justified to attempt to collar and return anyone who flees their jail term.

</rant>

[mlr.livejournal.com]

Sorry - but disagree. The Swiss should release him. The last thing we need his extradition to the U.S.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Ich bin entsetzt über die Empörung der deutschen und internationalen Film- und Kunstszene und ihren Anspruch, dass jemand aus ihren eigenen Reihen Sonderrechte beanspruchen könnte. Ich finde "das Piano" ist ein wunderbarer Film und der Oscar war völlig ok, aber hat er dafür einen Freischein für zwei oder drei Straftaten? Es ist auch geradezu absurd, wenn die Meinung des Opfers für die Haltung der Justiz ausschlaggebend sein sollte. Für gravierende Straftaten kann es keine Verjährung geben und Polamski sollte wie John Smith oder wer auch immer zur Verantwortung gezogen werden.
Nichts desto trotz tue ich mich mit dem amerikanischen Rechtsystem immer wieder schwer. Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, wurde das Mädchen nicht unter Druck gesetzt und nicht unter Drogen oder körperlicher Gewalt verfügig gemacht. Ich finde zwar nicht, dass es deshalb ok wäre, aber es ist m.E. sexueller Missbrauch von Jugendlichen und nicht Vergewaltigung. Es muss ggf. auch berücksichtigt werden, dass in den 60er und 70er Jahren andere gesellschaftliche Normen als heute galten. Es wurde in dieser Zeit vielfach diskutiert Pädophilie in gewissen Grenzen zu erlauben. Ich persönlich habe das nie geteilt. Aber die Stimmung in den letzten 20 Jahren ist in dieser Hinsicht viel regider geworden.

[docorion.livejournal.com]

My German isn't up to replying in that language, but let me try in English. If I understand your second paragraph correctly, you may misunderstand the initial crime-the victim was under the influence of drugs (alcohol and Quaalude, a powerful tranquilizer). She was not physically injured, in the sense that she was not beaten, or forced other than being drugged. She was, however, 13; even if she wasn't drugged, I don't know many first-world nations where the age of consent is that low.

But as dr_memory notes above, he isn't being extradited for the rape. He told the court he was guilty, and the court accepted his plea. He is being extradited for being a fugutuve from justice, in that he fled the country before he could be sentenced and his sentence carried out. As a result, he must still, under the law, "pay for his crime", a crime to which he freely admitted in court.

I apologize for not being able to reply in German; my German is long enough ago, and Swiss enough (ironically enough :-), that I'd only make a terrible hash of it. I also apologize if I misunderstood your comment. Best wishes, docorion

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Can you elaborate on that? I think that, as citizens of USA, we have a pretty huge stake in making sure that the sentences handed down by our criminal justice system aren't evaded by anyone with the resources and connexions to do so. I'm curious why you wouldn't agree.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Not just drugged, either: according to her testimony, when Polanski made sexual advances, she said no, repeatedly, and repeatedly asked to go home. She also said she claimed to have asthma to try to get away from him, and that she was afraid of him, and that at several points he grabbed her when she was trying to leave. Leaving aside whether she could legally consent at all, it was still coercive, against her will, and over her objections: in short, rape, and would have been given the same facts if she had been twenty-five.

(Except that a thirteen-year-old was even more vulnerable to being bullied, manipulated, manhandled, and prevented from leaving.)

[docorion.livejournal.com]

Fair enough; I hadn't dug that deep. Thanks for the correction.

[itchwoot.livejournal.com]

I didn't even know what you were talking about until I read some of the comments here. Mentioning Polanski's name in your original post would have helped.

Sorry, I don't usually follow the news.

[danbearnyc.livejournal.com]

Hey. But Woody Allen supports him! < ducks >

No, the sooner he's in jail, the happier I'll be. I was just reading her grand jury testimony. Shudder doesn't cover it.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I ashamed to admit that it took me this long to read it myself. Whenever mention was made of it before, I naïvely thought it was something Jerry Lee Lewis creepy rather than South Africa creepy.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I remember being 13. It was scary all those yucky grown men who think that puberty = consent. Especially when puberty is at age 11 or so.


Throw the guy in jail! Bad people can make good art, and all those artistes seem to forget that ...

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

Obviously, they've run out of white trash methheads and black people to arrest on outstanding warrants in LA.

It's important to keep focused on the fact that he's a fugitive from justice. He plead guilty and was convicted and fled because the judge was about to renege on the plea bargain- which included prison time- at the behest of an LA prosecutor who was not involved in the case. He's not on the lam for raping a 13 year old. He's on the lam because he was about to be screwed.

Seriously, I think the death of Susan Atkins had something to do with his arrest. Someone in the LA DA's office's actress girlfriend noticed in the trades that Polanski was going to be in Zurich for the film festival and coincidentally "didn't Atkins kill his wife?"

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The USA has never stopped trying to get him arrested. He's been on "red notice" with Interpol for years, but US prosecutors needed forty days advance notice of his whereabouts in order to legally request his extradition. Polanski knows this and thus has been very careful not to make public when he will be visiting countries which (unlike France) might actually honour their extradition treaty with the United States. Why do you think he hasn't set foot in London (where he lived for years and still owned a house) in three decades?

There's this idea that the US could've picked him up at any time--and, sure, we could've if we wanted to invite widespread condemnation for flagrantly violating international law. I seem to recall that the last time we did that in a big way you had some choice words of condemnation yourself.

Obviously, they've run out of white trash methheads and black people to arrest on outstanding warrants in LA.

By the way, I'm not quite sure what this line is doing here unless it's to falsely suggest that arresting a fugitive from justice is somehow a distraction from more important police work. And, yes, the trial was flawed. If you've observed the American justice system in action for any length of time you're well aware that this is unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence. Unlike white trash methheads, however, wealthy Hollywood celebrities can afford high-power legal representation that's extremely adept at getting charges dropped or lessened and at appealing sentences. After all, that's how you have a chance of getting charges of forcible rape reduced to "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" in the first place.

[mlr.livejournal.com]

It was a gut reaction - but I'll try to articulate.

1st reason: To me he is being hounded - his celebrity seems the chief impetus for giving the case any priority at all.

His plea was accepted. He, as an adult, admitted to having sex with a teenager. (I would not be the legal one to know - but I assume because the plea was accepted, the other charges of rape, drugs, etc. are no longer relevant to his case and cannot be reintroduced.) He fled before sentencing - another crime. The U.S. requested France to extradite. The request was denied by terms of a treaty. The U.S. could have, but did not request France to prosecute him on the California charges. The U.S. government should have pressured the French at that time, or within some reasonable window of time afterward. But since they didn't, the case joined scores of other unresolved cases.

But it really didn't. It lingered on because of Polanski's celebrity. I think the chief reason to bring him back to the U.S. at this time for some gaudy trial would be simply to make a point that no one is above the law.

So many things have changed in 30 years. The victim's thoughts for one - she has asked that the charges be dropped, and I think that is relevant. And as someone commented above, social mores indeed do change - 1977 was a very different time than 2009. If the L.A. office were pursuing all other 30+ year old extradition cases for these kind of charges (unlawful sex with a minor, failure to appear), I guess I would have less of a problem with it. But I doubt they are. This seems chiefly to be about a celebrity.

2nd reason: A bit selfish - but I cannot stomach the thought of giving Nancy Grace, Fox, et al. any more fodder for their awful machines. I don't think we need another great national distraction.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

First of all, the argument that the LA office is not pursuing charges in similar cases is an argument from ignorance. None of us here can really evaluate the truth of that statement.

Second, I've heard the "mores were different" argument more than once and I still don't buy it. When was it ever considered acceptable in this country to drug someone and force them to have sex with your despite their repeated pleas for you to stop and allow them to leave? Certainly the victim didn't feel this was the case and said in her testimony and in interviews up to the present day.

Third, it "lingered on because Polanski's celebrity" in the sense that Polanski exercised the privileges conferred by his celebrity to continue his career in plain sight. Almost anyone else who fled similar charges under similar circumstances would've been forced go into hiding and most likely died in obscurity and penury.

Fourth, why are the victim's request that the charges be dropped relevant when she's not even the plaintiff in this case? Moreover, if they're relevant now, why weren't they relevant as recently as 2003 when she told a Hawai'ian newspaper "But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us."? Polanski never cared about the victim's wishes, not at the time, not after he'd had time to reflect on his actions, not ever. Doesn't that rankle your sense of justice at all?

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

I'm tired of being scolded by you. Really, you're such a righteous old scold.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I always knew this day was coming, I just never knew which disagreement would turn out to be the trigger. Thanks for putting up with me for this long.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm not especially enthusiastic about chasing him down at this point, but nor do I see it as any kind of gross miscarriage of justice or whatever they're saying now in the Miramax offices. The guy fled justice! It is not unreasonable to bring him back forcibly to make him face the music.

[embryomystic.livejournal.com]

Same here, and I'd read a few articles on the subject. I'm not usually one to complain about media bias, because it seems to me that's a lot like complaining about the wetness of the ocean, but something smells fishy when the facts of the crime are right there in the victim's testimony (and the accused pleads guilty, which kind of implies that the accusations are, gosh, true), and yet journalists keep acting as though it's all alleged, and nobody knows what really happened.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

Hopefully this doesn't come off as scolding, but rather as genuine enquiry: countries which (unlike France) might actually honour their extradition treaty with the United States

As far as I know, France's actions have been entirely consistent with the terms of their extradition treaty, which allows them to refuse to extradite their own citizens to the US - if Polanski were a US citizen I think things would be very different.

When was it ever considered acceptable in this country to drug someone and force them to have sex with your despite their repeated pleas for you to stop and allow them to leave?

I'm being pedantic here, so forgive me. The best answer I could give to your question is "I don't know, but I suspect it was never legal, if the person so forced was a member of the elector class. Socially acceptable is another whole kettle of worms, and in particular has failed to account for spousal rape until quite recently." She wouldn't have been protected on grounds of age before 1889, when it became a criminal offense in California to have sex with children below the age of 14 (according to Slate). I know that in the case under discussion Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge and so, legally, no epistemological problems remain: we know his guilt performatively, as it were. But that doesn't turn the victim's (very distressing) testimony into an unimpeachable source of truth. She lacked witnesses, and for most of American (and everyone else's) history the word of a child has been given less weight than that of an adult (likewise the word of a woman vs a man, a client vs a patron, a poor person vs a rich person etc). Given the charge to which he pleaded guilty, we cannot say that we know she was forced except on grounds of her age.

No, I don't like that either, and privately I think her testimony very likely is the most accurate account we'll ever get of what happened, and I consider both the act and the argument "but he makes nice films and he dresses well" unacceptable. And IANAL, so my pedantry may all be for shit. But I couldn't help biting at your hook.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

To clarify, I suspect (but cannot prove) that, given the difference in their social standing, if he'd done it in 1888 he not only would have got away with it, he might have been chaffed approvingly for his rakishness behind closed doors down at the club, if they had such clubs in LA in 1888. Except for the whole "being the wrong sort of foreigner" thing, which might have brought the disapproval of society down on him - although again, I'm just not sure about LA. I'm probably extrapolating from Boston or NY.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

The forcible rape charge could easily be reintroduced, which seems to be why Polanski fled in the first place. The judge had not yet accepted the plea agreement at the time of his flight. Polanski's case for judicial misconduct appears to have largely fallen apart, you can read all about it here.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Actually, it seems that the charges flared up again because Polanski's lawyers have been agitating to have the charges dismissed (apparently based on allegations of judicial misconduct that are now falling apart.)

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

No need to apologize, it's up to me to do so because I avoided to write in English, because I wanted to save time. Reading your entry I have to confess that I didn't know about the drug intervention and even not about the psychological pressure and that she wanted to leave. I just heard the basic information on the radio on my way driving to work. So my elaboration and argumentation was superficial. Sorry for that.
Anyway, there was no significant difference between you and me. I agree completly (and I even did before) that he has to shoulder his responsibility for what he did. It even doesn't matter that his former victim is on his side. Who knows, maybe it's a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe it's her way to come to terms with the past. I'm even not able to tolerate the suggestion of an amnesty for the crime he commited, even not for the message on other victums of sexual abuse.

[docorion.livejournal.com]

No worries-I actually enjoyed the opportunity to exercise my language skills, so I personally thank you for posting in German. Cheers!

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I'm not one to call civilly disagreeing with me or, indeed, correcting me on points of fact "scolding", so no worries there. I think a lot of the heat generated by this case is due to the fact that Polanski does seem to consider himself "a member of the elector class" and his peers seem only too willing to support him on that count.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

LA was much more of a podunk shithole in 1888 than Boston or NYC, so I suspect different rules applied.

[mlr.livejournal.com]

I read the documents cited by your other commentators - including the testimony, and I am perhaps a little better informed.

Rape is a horrible, traumatic, and terrifying experience. I am not condoning rape or Mr. Polanski by disagreeing with you - and please keep that in mind for what I'm about to say.

To me, it was significant that the girl was not a virgin, and was knowledgeable about each of the sexual questions, and familiar with Quaaludes. Her testimony brings to mind a few of the stories I heard from classmates of mine in junior high and high school who had sexual relations with college boys in the small town where I lived. These girls would have been as young as 14 and no older than 16. The men would have been in their early 20s. The scenario of jacuzzi, alcohol, drugs, and strange houses rings familiar. Depending on one's point of view, the girls would have been seen as very cool and ahead of everyone else, or either sluts. The sex, as far as I recall, was consensual. I do distinctly remember the two abortions involving girls in my high school before senior year. The girls would have been 16. Of course this was a small number of girls, not by any means the average experience. Likewise, I recall the many stories shared over the years with me by gay men of their teenage (and sometimes childhood) sexual encounters with older relatives, neighbors, etc. It's hard for me to remember any of these retellings where the teenage person felt that they were damaged. In fact many of the gay men felt grateful for these young sexual encounters and considered them an education of sorts. I infrequently see one of these girls, Ginger C. (she is more or less a Western baroness at this point). I have also seen J., and once on a plane, I saw Ginger L. They seem like quite nice people, all with children, careers, worries, etc. Of the guys, Mike, now a teacher, brings a smile comes to my face every time I think of him - he is such a wonderful, funny, sexy man. I still seem him occasionally.

The same sexual candor from those times that has allowed the modern gay movement to progress, that paved a way for such topics even being discussed in a public forum; has also provided a way for more scrutiny and knowledge of sexual behavior of adolescents, and also sometimes encouraged an hysteria about such behavior.

Mr. Polanski forced this girl into sex, and although she was familiar with both drugs and sex, she can only be considered a victim of a rape. No question! A horrible thing that happened a long time ago. Mr. Polanski has entered the halls of the notorious, and he should have been punished - no doubt!

For me however, this case is on the national radar because of his celebrity - not because of its merit. It is a heaven-sent gift to the Insurance companies - all of those righteous citizens mirthfully going about their great civic duty - debating Roman Polanski over the water cooler.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

This isn't the first lament I've seen about how chatter about this case is distracting everyone from the latest developments concerning the public health care option. While I respect the sentiment, I think these complaints beg a very important question, namely that in the absence of this scandal everyone would be standing around the water cooler discussing health care legislation instead.

In my view, that's just not realistic. It may be different where you are, but most people I know weren't talking about HR 3200 and HR 676 (had to look those up just now) even before the arrest. I certainly wasn't planning an entry on it; if I hadn't posted about the petition yesterday, I wouldn't have posted about current events at all (except possibly to rant about Obama's support for the Olympics®). How often does policy news ever trump celebrity news in this country? The full Michael Jackson autopsy was released earlier in the week; in the absence of all the Polanski stories, this could've been the headline-grabber.

Thanks for sharing the points about teenage sex; they're thought-provoking and I'll respond to them later.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

He was also able to dodge the charges for thirty years because of his celebrity and the attendant wealth and privilege that brings. Ron Polanski the school janitor doesn't have a house in France to flee to.

Assuming that she was sexually active, why do you find that significant?

There are legitimate questions to be raised about statutory rape law, in terms of how bright the line should be and how much, if any, leeway should be given to prevent turning teenaged sexual experimentation into a lifelong burden, how big an age difference makes interactions more likely than not to be exploitative, how much prosecutorial discretion should be permitted in ambiguous cases, etc.

But this case has nothing to do with any of that. The girl was thirteen, not seventeen or even sixteen. The man was in his forties, not 21 or even 25. They weren't classmates or equals or a chance-met couple: he was her employer, a wealthy and powerful individual with vast potential influence over her chosen career, more than three times her age. (And he didn't choose her despite her age or without knowing: he admitted knowing she was thirteen, and his pattern of behavior and his own statements make clear that this was a matter of intent, not love or lust knowing no bounds of age.)

Both her youth and lack of experience in the world (however much sex she may or may not have had) juxtaposed with the total imbalance in power between them, is pretty much the textbook reason that statutory rape laws exist. They're there precisely so that we don't have to adjudicate just how slutty an eighth grader can be before she's fair game for sex, or just how much manipulation, fear, or force is necessary before an adult has crossed the line into unacceptable behavior. It's a simple, bright-line rule-- "no sex, period"-- on the theory that the loss to eighth-graders in not getting to have sexual experiences with older men for another year or five is less of a loss to them, on average, than the consequences to eighth graders of tolerating it.

(Keeping in mind that no matter what the law is, there'll be a penumbra of behavior people will get away with, sure as a 55 mph limit will see drivers doing 65 or 70. If it's okay to sleep with thirteen-year-olds, then someone will try to extend the argument to eleven-year-olds. "I thought she was thirteen!" "If thirteen's okay, why not twelve and a half? And if twelve and a half, why not...")

Thus the theory that this sort of relationship has a greater than normal risk of being exploitative. And the transcript demonstrates that in this particular case, most of us if anything underestimated just how bad it was. There are certainly cases that raise questions about the laws surrounding underage relationships, but this is precisely the cautionary tale that needs to be kept in mind while reforming them.

Because even with a bright-line rule, even with a victim not old enough for high school, even with straighforward forced sex (assuming we're not back in the regime where unwanted sex can't take anything away from a girl who's already surrendered her honor to some other guy), this man expected 90 days of psychiatric evaluation to turn into time served, felt further entitled to early release, and when that fell through, left the country and continued his life as before. (Aside from shifting to high-school-aged girlfriends.) The law as it stood was inadequate to its task, and it remains to be seen to what extent it can be salvaged.

Yes, we need changes so that the college student who sleeps with her or his high school boyfriend doesn't have to register as a sex offender forever. But we need to not, at the same time, make it even easier for forty-year-old men to rape thirteen-year-olds than it evidently was. Whatever injustices may exist in other contexts, this goes to the heart of what the law as it exists is supposed to be for: to protect everyone below the age of consent both from adult predators and from their own bad judgment, no matter how good or bad that judgment is and no matter what the details of their personal history.

(Especially since, while we can't jail him for unknowns, how likely is it, really, that she was the only girl or woman he ever pulled this on?)