With the recent arrest of fugitive film director Roman Polanski, the New York Times has an article asking: why now? Polanski, who resides in France, was arrested in Switzerland where he owns a home and frequently visited. From the article:
The sudden move by Swiss authorities to arrest Roman Polanski for possible extradition to the United States after 31 years as a fugitive — and countless visits to Switzerland in the interim — has roused diplomats, offended supporters of the filmmaker and left more than a few onlookers asking themselves the same question: Why now?
Law enforcement officials here have said it was a simple matter of opportunity.
But supporters of Mr. Polanski have said that this has been true many times since he fled the United States in 1978 to escape sentencing in a sex-crimes case involving a 13-year-old girl.
Piqued by claims that it had not pursued Mr. Polanski in the past, the district attorney’s office circulated a list of actions and queries by which it had monitored his travels in at least 10 countries, including what appeared to be a near miss, when officials relayed a request for information from Israel about a visit in 2007. “Polanski had left Israel and was not arrested,” by the time the information arrived, said the advisory.
Mr. Polanski’s lawyers, in an appellate court filing in August, said the district attorney’s office had avoided attempts at extradition, which might have resulted in hearings at which judicial misconduct would have been raised as an issue.
Law enforcement officials here have said it was a simple matter of opportunity.
But supporters of Mr. Polanski have said that this has been true many times since he fled the United States in 1978 to escape sentencing in a sex-crimes case involving a 13-year-old girl.
Piqued by claims that it had not pursued Mr. Polanski in the past, the district attorney’s office circulated a list of actions and queries by which it had monitored his travels in at least 10 countries, including what appeared to be a near miss, when officials relayed a request for information from Israel about a visit in 2007. “Polanski had left Israel and was not arrested,” by the time the information arrived, said the advisory.
Mr. Polanski’s lawyers, in an appellate court filing in August, said the district attorney’s office had avoided attempts at extradition, which might have resulted in hearings at which judicial misconduct would have been raised as an issue.
I have dealth with paroled sex offender housing issues in southern california for the last few years.
An interesting question is whether Polanski would be required to serve a typical parole sentence. Currently, even if one serves less than a year in jail for a sex crime, the typical length of parole is three to five years. During this time the parolee is GPS'd and is required to attend group counseling. Given Polanskis admitted numerous relationships with underage girls it would be hard for him to avoid.
Also, the parolee has to reside more than 2000 feet from school/park which has driven most of them into homelessness. Fortunately for Polanski he would be able to afford a home that falls into one of the very few areas that actually fit this requirement.
Finally, some of the parolees I have spoken with scoff at the Polanski defenders' argument that the crime occurred so long ago. Many sex offenders on parole are being punished for a crime like DUI or assault that is not a sex crime. Nevertheless, if they have an old conviction for a sex crime from the 70s and even in some cases from the 60s, they are treated exactly the same as a brand new sex offender.
The disparate treatment Polanski is getting really is galling. I'm not saying this to defend sex offenders but at least let's treat them equally.
Posted by: anonymous person | October 01, 2009 at 01:12 PM
anonymous person, your argument is like those who complain about the "elite" getting a well paid and an unfair defense. Why shouldn't the solution be more funds to public defenders?
Posted by: George | October 02, 2009 at 01:01 AM
The Polanski case and the Hollywood response is interesting in that it is typical of how people respond when a "loved one" is the sexual abuser. Those who support Polanski are no different than family members who rally behind the child molester and give excuses, explanations and justifications for what they know is intolerable behavior. Family members want us (treatment providers, the community etc.) to know that he is so much more than the crimes he has committed. We hear - "Roman Polanski is a genius"; "it happened so long ago"; He has suffered so much - a victim of the Holocaust, his wife murdered"; or "his victim forgives him and wants to get on with his/her life")
All men (and sometimes women) are more than the crimes they committed and their relationships can not be synthesized down to their abusive behavior. Many sex offenders are brilliant - that did not make their crimes less abhorrent, or their victims less damaged. And many, like Polanski have suffered - some offenders have suffered PTSD from Viet Nam, they were molested or beaten as children, etc. etc. etc. I have met child molesters who were also courageous in other parts of their lives - saved a child from drowning, helped families build houses, gave the last dollars from their wallet to help someone make a mortgage payment, etc. etc. etc.
Hollywood is Polanski's family and like many families they cry out that their loved one is not being treated fairly - They place blame elsewhere - the system. They do not want to see him reduced to just a "rapist." Like many other families, they hopefully will have to come to grips with the fact that he, like all other sexual offenders committed a crime - He raped a child, and for that he should have to face the consequences. There is a lesson to be learned - If Hollywood supporters learn it they could also use the media to teach it.
Posted by: Niki Delson | October 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM