When does the statute of limitations run out on a rape case, and does the victim actually have a say in the matter?
This issue has come to light as internationally known director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.
In 1977, Polanski sexually attacked a 13-year old girl he was supposedly shooting photos of for French Vogue magazine. Once charges were filed, he fled the United States and set up residence in France, and was told that if he ever came back to the States, he would be arrested.
His victim has since settled financially with him, and in the past, she has come to terms with the episode, and has even backed Polanski on a number of occasions. She even backed him when he was up for an Oscar for the film “The Pianist,” which he directed. She said in an op-ed piece that I believe ran in the Los Angeles Times that voters (I am paraphrasing) should judge the film and not the man.
The victim, who had acting aspirations as a teenager, now lives in Hawaii and is married with a few kids. She has said that the latest episode to bring Polanski to trial is a waste of time and any measures to bring him to the U.S. should be dropped.
However, the U.S. continues to be interested in this case, and Swiss police detained him on a U.S. warrant as he was going to the Zurich Film Festival to pick up an award.
Does the victim have any say on this case? The incident happened more than 30 years ago, and Polanski has been a fugitive of justice since then. The victim settled with the director, and each has lived out their lives on separate sides of the world.
Why is the U.S. continuing to be interested in bringing Polanski to justice? Nobody will argue that what he did—essentially raping a minor after plying her with drugs—was a horrid thing. But the U.S. has not been able to touch him in more than three decades, why is it pursuing the case now?
I think it is because Polanski is one of the few well-known people in this world who has been able to basically thumb his nose at the U.S. for these many years, and has made a nice living off of these shores. The U.S. could only glare at him for the past three decades, but now, to bring some type of closure to the case, they are pursuing it.
In 1977, Polanski was supposedly going to take a plea bargain from the originally appointed judge, where he would have little or no jail time, and that was going to be the way he repaid society for what he did. However, word leaked out that another judge was going to try the case, and that judge was reportedly not going to be so forgiving, so he fled.
This is an incredibly intricate case because of Polanski’s background, which is full of excess but what preceded by much strife. He is a concentration camp survivor, and his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and his unborn child were murdered by Susan Atkins, a member of Charles Manson’s cult (see Rant #98, September 28, 2009).
In fact, Sharon Tate’s sister has said that Polanski should be let free because the act between himself and the girl was consensual! Somehow, I did not know that such an act between a grown man and a child could ever be a consensual one.
Whatever his background, I think that he should be sent back to the U.S., and when they bring him back, he should be punished, and be punished for running away like he did.
But honestly, what would be accomplished at this juncture by throwing the book at him?
The victim doesn’t want it to happen, but I think her feelings—as an adult—do not really matter. What he did to her those many years ago must be accounted for.
Give him something to do that will help make society better, such as, as part of his “sentence,” have him make a batch of public service announcements related to subjects like date rape, sexually transmitted diseases, and the like.
Also, have him work 1,000 hours of community service at a women’s center that deals with brutality against women.
Actually let him see that what he did 30-plus years ago was a horrid act, by dealing with women who have been through it all.
On the other hand, why should he be treated differently than someone who committed the same act 30-plus years ago but wasn’t a celebrity? You can certainly put up a good argument on both sides of the coin here. Maybe jail time is the way to go here. Give him a number like everyone else who has committed the same crime.
As an aside, more than 100 move business folk have come to his side, stating that he should not be arrested. Woody Allen is one of the signers of this petition.
Sometimes, you have to wonder who your friends really are. I think in this case, as far as Allen signing this petition, this is the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment