Student Post - You Can Run, but You Can't Hide

The New York Times recently published an article rehashing the story of Roman Polanski, who was detained in Switzerland for deportation. Polanski now faces punishment for a 32-year-old conviction on one count of having unlawful sex with a minor—that was once viewed as a “lapse in judgment” by an otherwise clean individual. In 1977, at the age of 13, Samantha Geimer was drugged and raped by Polanski. Mr. Polanski fled the United States when the possibility of jail time and deportation was indicated by Judge Laurence J. Rittenband.

The most interesting part of this seemingly “normal” case of unlawful sex with a minor is the astoundingly relaxed manner in which sex crimes were viewed in the 1977 era. A report prepared by Polanski’s probation officers characterized the rape as an exercise of bad judgment and suggested that Polanski receive probation rather than actual punishment. This “slap on the wrist” recommendation was perpetuated by the laissez-faire view of sex crimes in this era, in addition to the victimization of Polanski. From the New York Times article:

[His probation officer’s report] described his birth to a Polish national father, Riszard Polanski, and a Russian national mother, Bula Katz, and told how his Jewish family was confined behind barbed wire in a Krakow ghetto during the German occupation.

In 1941, the report noted, Mr. Polanski’s mother was taken to Auschwitz, not to return. Later it said, “the defendant’s father cut the wires permitting the defendant to escape” the ghetto, to spend the war with Polish families.

Recapping the defendant’s background, the report said Mr. Polanski was blocked from attending advanced art school after the war “because of his Jewish origins,” lost his religious faith, and twice suffered a fractured skull, once as the result of an assault in Poland, once after a car accident. It noted a first marriage in Poland, and a second to the actress Sharon Tate, who, it said, “was killed by members of the Manson gang in Los Angeles in the well-documented case in 1968.”

I am sure these devastating life events endured by Polanski were riveting to his probation officer and certain Hollywood VIP’s who put effort into securing Polanski’s good character, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination justification for rape. In fact, as there is no justification for rape, Polanski’s broken past is completely irrelevant in defending his actions toward Geimer. It is alarming when rapists are victimized in this manner. Through the eyes of Polanski’s former probation officer, the emphasis is placed on the trials and tribulations of the rapist, rather than what the victim has endured for the past 32 years. Furthermore, cultural differences, the alleged provocation by the 13-year-old victim, and the speculative unlikelihood that Polanski would commit a subsequent offense are absolutely no reason that this monster should have been gifted with the lesser punishment of probation—not in that era, and certainly not in this era. Luckily, current trends are working towards stricter punishments for sex offenders, although modern day law enforcement and judiciaries constantly struggle with policing the parole of sex offenders.

Comments

[lawdoc]

"The most interesting part of this seemingly “normal” case of unlawful sex with a minor is the astoundingly relaxed manner in which sex crimes were viewed in the 1977 era."

Does this mean sex crimes are viewed "normally" now?

The Polanski case has so many fascinating legal issues this article just scratches the surface with a superficial "cry for vengeance", and a the politically correct stereotyping of sex offenders.

[Mark # 1]

Except that the purpose of a presentence report as compiled by the probation department is to inform the judge about the defendant. The facts of the instant offense are already part of the record by the time the presentence report is compiled. So the focus of the presentence report is squarely and rightfully on the defendant.

[jimbino]

Amerika will not come to its senses until it removes all references to sex (in the senses of both act and "gender") in its laws.

Rape is NOTHING more than a "battery," and until sex is demystified and sexual assault treated as physical assault we will remain in the dark ages of male-bashing and persecution.

Polanskis should have been--and should now be--treated by the legal system as persons who drugged a person and committed unwanted touching (battery). Keeping sex touching special will guarantee more decades of repression of sexual expression and unfair punishment.

If Polanski returns to Amerika and is put on trial again, I will do my best to serve as a juror and to exercise my right to "jury nullification," declaring him "not guilty"--as I would any defendant subject to either capital punishment or excessive punishment brought about by our Christianism's perversion of sexual expression.

[Steve]

While the student poster is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, I don't really see anything new or fresh here analytically. Should Polanski be punished according to the standards of today? or according to the relatively more lenient standards of the era in which his offense was committed (excepting associated charges for flight)? The student here clearly believes the former, notwithstanding constitutional guarantees or SCOTUS opinions to the contrary. Indeed, Polanski's victim has long been forgiving in her public statements of support for leniency.

[Daniel]

Steve. It has gone a little bit beyond "forgiving". Geimer has actually SUED because she believe HER rights as a victim are being ignored. It's never ceases to amaze me how people like the poster are willing to trample all over the dignity of the victim in order to serve their own goals. Listen to Geimer. She thinks that the RAPE of the judicial system has been far worse for her than anything Polanski did. That's a rather stunning denouement that people like the student poster should give heed to.

[Joe]

jimbino, I disagree with you about rape being nothing more than "battery." Rape is far more invasive than getting punched or slapped.

[Charles Saline]

Rape is extremely violating. However, in times past it was probably perceived more as "this rogue is trying to make me carry his baby!" and, therefore, was probably easier to recover from, mentally. Recovering from a violation of any sort is partly a function of perception. Our modern perceptions of rape are correctly extreme, but they also make it almost impossible to recover from it.

Meanwhile, we glory in the knowledge that sex offenders are getting massive sentences, now higher than some murderers and people who severely harm others, physically. This brings up two issues:

One, you may be better off murdering anyone you even violate (even by just fondling), for fondling might carry a higher penalty and may be easier to prove than murder. So our high penalties might cause victims to be in higher danger (but I have had a person tell me that victims of molestation would be better off dead - showing how far we have changed from the views of our ancestors, many of whom would have just told molestation victims that it happened to me, too, and just get over it - not a thoughtful response).

Two, we now have men viewing photos or videos that are no worse than anything you would see by watching Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon. What happens to these men? Today, even though you can still rent The Blue Lagoon and films like it, they get five to ten years in prison. I just hope that the judges, prosecutors and police involved in such cases are honest enough to prosecute themselves for whatever similar images they saw in films since they reached adulthood. The hypocrisy is astounding. They watched the same things, but now ruin the lives of others for no less and no more.

Obviously, producing and distributing nasty stuff like The Blue Lagoon probably should be illegal, and harms those involved!

[Daniel]

Charles.

You hit on what has been a pet theory of mine for some time. Namely, that this whole moral panic is driven by Boomers' need to feel superior to their past. That generation had a huge party in the 60s and now they feel guilty about it.

I can't wait for them all to die off (naturally, of course)