What Do You Think?
Last month I wrote about how Roman Polanski wanted his 1977 rape conviction dismissed. I think the consensus was pretty much unanimous that he should feel fortunate to have been allowed to remain free for the past 30 years and go on with his life without much sacrifice on his part at all.
Does your opinion change though if the victim also wants the case dismissed? The victim, Samantha Geimer is apparently pretty ticked at the Los Angeles District Attorney right now. She has twice in the past written letters to prosecutors asking that the original charges be dismissed.
Now, she has once again done so and blames the Los Angeles DA for ruining her life by making public all of the lurid details of the rape in their reply to Polanski's motion to dismiss.
"If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do. The District Attorney has, yet one more time, given great publicity to the lurid details of those events for all to read again."
"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said. "I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney."
"My views as a victim, my feelings as a victim, or my desires as a victim were never considered or even inquired into by the district attorney prior to the filing," she said. "It is clear to me that because the district attorney's office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney's office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case."
I can definitely see how this could affect her life. Here is something that happened to her at a very young age which was probably horribly traumatic and each time the story hits the news or when the documentary about the case was released last year, she has to relive the entire episode again. Not only does she have to relive it, but as she said, her entire family including her children have to live with it and face it and who knows what kind of harm it is doing to them.
I think the views of the victim should be taken into account here, but at the same time I hate the possibility of what kind of precedent this could set. Think about future rape victims who either are convinced or bought off by their attackers and ask that the case be dismissed. Should the court allow each one of those instances to be dismissed as well? Do you think that whatever the victim wants should trump everything else? Should a convicted rapist be set free because the victim is tired of having to deal with this episode that happened so long ago?
What do you think?
28 comments:
While I can understand the purpose of a defendant knowing his accuser, I also understand a victim's need for privacy. We should have a better way of filing charges which keeps the victim anonymous to those outside the courtroom.
But, on the other hand, Samantha Geimer has already been outed, so to speak. It would be senseless to rehash the charges without using her name, and Roman Polanski should still be taken to trial.
I don't know the whole story except what I have read on this. I can understand being frustrated, having to hear the story over and over again and the family probably being embarrassed.
Also why wasn't Polanski extradited back to the states?
If he just served his time in the first place, she wouldn't have been put through this over and over again.
While she wants the case dismissed, how can they do that when she still says he's guilty? But I do understand her point because this has been going on for 30 years.
He should either come back and go to jail or quit whining about coming back to America.
I can understand why she doesn't need it to be rehashed all the time, and why she's pissed at the LA DA - every time they give publicity to it, she relives it unnecessarily, and who knows what ideas other freaks are getting?
Sylvia, if Polanski could have been extradited, he would have been. As a French Citizen, he cannot be extradited to US. If he visits other countries who play the extradition game, like UK, they would have got him. If he goes to, say, Poland, US cannot extradite the scumbag.
I understand Ent's concern, but I don't think if the victim gets her wish, it would necessarily become a precedent that an offender could use. I'm sure some have already tried that tack on their victim any event - it couldn't be written in law.
i think there needs to be time span that a victims say is admissable, like 10 years after the fact,not when it's fresh and if the victim is underage. i can't think of another case that would even need this...but hey its Hollyweird.
Ugh, this is so hard. I really hate it when the rape discussion comes up because you can never really discuss "rape" as one crime. Each case, each situation, victim, perpetrator is so different. There are too many grey areas already. But one thing that always upsets me is that the victim is so seldom taken seriously, and often the courts seem to not believe the victim, they have to explain themselves from beginning to end. What were they wearing, were they drunk, have they had a lot of sexual partners before? Noone ever asks what the rapist was wearing. So if I want the courts to take a victim serioulsy when she seeks justice, I also feel she should be taken seriously if she wants the case dismissed. But it's such a hideously grey area, because it DOES set a precedence, and basically Roman Polanski will go free even though he did this to a young girl.
Absolutely not. The law of the land must stand. I agree with Enty - the precedent this would set is horrible. Yes, it is terrible to relive the details but that is because the rat-f**ker Polanski skipped out. Its not her fault. But to hurt future victims and dishonour a law of the land because of his skipping out is wrong. This victim may have recovered but others have not.
Polanski had the means the wherewithall to escape justice. Most do not. Should the wealthy once again prove there is one law for them and another for the rest of us?
No.
The DA office should continue to pursue this until Polanski returns or dies.
The law must be respected.
"I have become a victim of the actions of the district attorney."
Polanski caused her to be a victim in the first place and he should be held accountable, imo. Also, the DA's office should have given her a fair warning of the upcoming proceedings (maybe they did since there are laws on the books about this kind of thing but if they really did not then they should get into trouble and she should sue them for the trouble). I think she wants the whole thing to go away and as long as Polanski is out of the US, this will always be an issue for her and her family, sadly.
Prosecute him and keep the case sealed so that none of the details are released to the public.
Unfortunately, she has suffered and Roman Polanski is free to make movies, win awards, and live his life in relative peace. This has always sucked and will continue to suck.
I would think that it's similar to a domestic abuse case where it doesn't matter what the beaten spouse says, it's between the defendant and the state.
The victim in this case was a 13 year old girl. An adult man raped a 13 year old girl. Sad to say, it's not about the girl, it's about the adult who broke the law.
Does that make sense?
Stop posting the victim's name and photo.
Um, it's illegal to do it with a chick under 18?!?
ruh roh
K, thanks for the info.
i have read horrible attacks against this woman on other websites. Basically, there is a segment of the population out there that feels she was just a teenage hollywood slut that slept with a director to get somewhere with her acting career.
If I got hate mail and saw message boards attacking me that way every single time the case was brought up, I'd want it dismissed and expunged too.
Ror, not necessarily, it depends on the state. In California, it's 18.
It's not the court's fault that this is ongoing, it's Polanski's. The reason she's back in the news is because of HIS request to have the charges dismissed. I completely understand her desire to have closure, but the blame is 100% his. Also, did it make any difference that they rehashed the crime in their response? Even if they hadn't described it at all, the press would've pulled out the details from old sources, so it's not like it wouldn't have all come up again. I wish she'd put the blame where it belongs. Apart from legal precedent, I'd hate for anyone to take away the idea that what he did was not criminal.
Polanski is a rapist - of a child! He's absconded from the law for 30 years, and the French have welcomed him with open arms. If anyone is to blame for this fiasco it's the RAPIST. The DA is doing their job trying to get the rat bastard that committed the crime. The fact the victim wants it dropped is important, but not so important as to make a fleeing criminal outside the jurisdiction of the law. You would think a rape victim would want to protect her own children from the filth that was perpetrated on her, not give him excuses and help him get off the hook.
I want the sick f*ck locked in a prison cell with no light, no heat, no 5* meals, no adoring fans or ass-kissing French movie hags. This man violated a CHILD!
He should not be above the law by virtue of $. The fact the French lick his boots every chance they get tells the world quite a bit about what they think of child rape and the sick perpetrators of it.
Most people don't know that Polanski did spend time in prison for this rape. Then he struck a deal with the PROSECUTORS to get out that the dirty judge RESCINDED because of PUBLICITY, not justice!
Most child rapists get FAR LESS time and FAR LESS publicity.
Thirty years is enough. Let it go, folks!
This is from Newsweek's take on the docu (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138382):
There's a clip at the beginning of the documentary that shows him cheerfully, and a little creepily, admitting that he likes "young women … I think most men do." But the film is more about his punishment, not his crime—and it paints a far more complex picture of what happened than most of us know. The documentary raises questions that are surprisingly relevant: why is America's judgment of Polanski harsher than Europe's—is a crime relative to a culture? And perhaps most current of all: can you separate an artist's personal life from his art? It's the same question you could ask about the rapper R. Kelly, who has finally gone on trial on child pornography charges for allegedly making a video of himself having sex with a girl perhaps as young as 13—yet he's continued to release a string of No. 1 hits during the years it's taken the case to get to court.
Also from Newsweek:
Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse"; probation was the recommendation. But the judge began to maneuver behind the scenes: he wanted to look tough for the press, though not necessarily send Polanski to prison. He asked a reporter for advice on what sentence he should give; he gave regular interviews to a Hollywood gossip columnist. The day before the sentencing—despite an agreement with Dalton and Gunson—Ritterband was overheard bragging at his country club that he was going to lock up Polanski for the rest of his life. The next day Polanski was gone, his Mercedes abandoned at the Los Angeles airport. Even the prosecutor now says, "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances."
Do you call that justice? I'm all for justice, but this is not justice.
If you see the documentary, you will get the other side and understand where they are coming from. Samantha was interviewed for it, too.
Has Polanski committed any other child rapes? None that I know of.
Worry more about the guy down the street who does a couple years in prison and gets out again or the uncle in your family who pays too much attention to the little ones.
she needs to get empowered by a victims rights group fast. so much for progress..
wouldn't the state want the cooperation of this young woman? sounds like they wouldn't have it. i think with all the time that's gone by, her wishes should trump everything else.
the DA's office was out to get polanski, i have no doubt. is this rape? yes, in the sense that she was too young to legally consent.
but for chrissake, it's been YEARS. there's more to this story than most people know. i think her mom kind of pimped her out too. her mother never should have left her alone with a grown man.
i say she wants it dropped, then drop it. after all, it happened to HER.
Apparently you guys didn't realize that Samantha outed herself. When Polanski was up for The Pianist, she came forward and identified herself. No one outed her. It was her choice.
You'll notice the photo ent posted was from an event. She went to the documentary release.
Part of me thinks she got paid off/Polanski paid for her therapy bills or something.
It would set a precedent if the charges are dropped against him. Especially since he's thumbed his nose at the courts for 30 years.
At this point, it's not even about the rape. He fled the country to avoid the justice system. For that reason alone they should hang him out to dry. Once you flee from the justice system, all bets are off.
No, she shouldn't be allowed to pardon him. I don't care if he never re-enters the U.S. What has that hurt him, that he's been unable to pick up the awards bestowed on him in person? It's not her call, and if dredging up the past is such a pain for her, I think that's evidence of how horrific Polanksi's crime was, regardless of the time that's passed.
Thanks for posting the Newsweek bit, Nunaurbiz. There was a plea agreement drafted and this a-hole judge only needed to sign off. He got stars in his eyes and changed his mind. And Polanski chose to flee.
I say renew the plea agreement and sentence him for fleeing justice.
The victim is free to feel and request anything she wants. It's the law of the land that rules, not what the people want. I don't think it's a matter of her being "tired" or "embarrassed." She didn't do anything wrong. I do think she wants to stop hearing about it and the constant reminder that she's a victim. It's difficult to move on and this has been going on most of her life. If Polanski isn't coming back, she's going to try do get some resolution through this request to the DA's office. So what? As I said, she can do what she wants.
" is this rape? yes, in the sense that she was too young to legally consent."
Nancer, this isn't just rape in the sense that she was too young to legally consent. Even if she had been 18 it would have been rape because he had sex with her against her will. When someone says they don't want to have sex with you and you do it anyway, that's rape, no matter the age of the victim.
Too many predators already bully their victims into recanting or not testifying. Let's not give them another opportunity to exploit. This is why we have a criminal justice system... so those decisions are based on law rather than emotion.
Bring him back to the US. Let him plead guilty and sentence him to "time served" or some equivalent nonsense.
Then deport the m**********r with the understanding that if he ever sets foot on American soil again, he'll spend the rest of his life rooming with some big tattooed guy named Ray Ray.
Polanski drugged a teenage girl so he could have sex with her. If he comes back to the US, he should serve his time. And Hollywood should stop giving him standing ovations.
Post a Comment