CNN reports that controversial Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested Sunday morning by Swiss officials as he was trying to enter the country to attend the Zurich Film Festival.
Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978 after pleading guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. He has lived in France since then, avoiding extradition on a warrant that was issued for his arrest shortly after his flight.
The arrest took place at the request of U.S. authorities in anticipation of Polanski attending the festival, which was holding a tribute event in his honor. He is currently being held pending an extradition hearing.
Polanski was accused of giving 13-year-old Samantha Geimer drugs and alcohol before “performing various sex acts, including intercourse” with her during a photo shoot. Though he pleaded guilty to the charges, Polanski was never sentenced. There has been discussion over the years as to the validity of the charges, whether or not proper procedures were followed, and whether or not the charges should be dropped.
Geimer herself is among many who have called for the charges to be dropped. She has been quoted as saying:
I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception. Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case.
Polanski is best known for his writing and directing roles in Academy Award-winning films like Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, and The Pianist. He declined to receive his Oscar for The Pianist in person because of the warrant still out for his arrest in America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Flo
this is just outrageous.
2 - Chelsea Doyle
"Polanski fled the U.S. in 1978 after pleading guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl."
...EXACTLY. The fact people are even trying to argue he shouldn't get charged for this is ... offensive.
3 - Jeannie Danna
Who is paying for the extradition?
4 - Robin Kavanagh
It happened so long ago, though, and the victim doesn't feel the need for any additional punishment. He pled guilty in court, though didn't serve time and came to a financial settlement with the girl (who says she's moved on and wishes people would just leave it alone). I don't think that him serving jail time will give any sense of justice or have a useful effect on anyone involved -- or society as a whole.
5 - roger nowosielski
That's the latest on the story.
And Chelsey is a real gem - a law and order firecracker.
She must be a right winger with a Christian heart.
Stick it to the individuals but support America's wars.
6 - Rebecca
He broke the law, he admitted to it, he should do the time. Nobody should be above the law, no matter who they are.
7 - roger nowosielski
Continuation on the Polanski saga.
I guess Rebecca is another law & order advocate. America had surely done a good job indoctrinating its women?
Perhaps both you and Chelsea should have lived during the witches' trials in Salem. Wonder what your views of law and order would have been then?
How very attractive you both are!
8 - El Bicho
What does their gender have anything to do with their opinions, Roger? I mean other than a crutch for your condescension.
9 - roger nowosielski
No condescension. But the two of them were women, so I addressed the two women.
10 - Shari
People who talk about the wishes of the victim are looking at a very narrow view of justice. Justice is not about exacting vengeance on behalf of the victim. It is about society acting on it's norms and values.
Justice serves three functions - punishment (which is the aspect which suits vengeance), deterrence, and rehabilitation. In Polanski's case, the main purpose is deterrence. The message to be sent is that you cannot outrun justice for a crime such as drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.
People also need to keep in mind that charges are not only brought by the victims. They are also brought by the state and whether the victim has a desire to see someone punished or not has nothing to do with it. The state has an interest which transcends those of an individual victim. One can debate all one wants about how this may apply in Polanski's case, but the bottom line is America has an interest in asserting very clearly that it will punish any pederast who acts on his urges, no matter how wealthy or famous he is or whether he is a creative person.
11 - Chelsea Doyle
I'm a liberal agnostic, Roger, so your assumption that I'm a right wing Christian is about as foolish as the rest of your condescending behavior.
Like Shari said, this is not just about the victim in this case. What does it say about our justice system that an admitted pedophile is just excused? Is it because of his fame and his background? Is it because for 31 years he's managed to perpetuate another crime by obstructing justice in his exile? Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. He plead guilty. Then he fled justice and hid in exile for three decades. It makes a joke out of our justice system if he is not given the proper sentence. Or at least he should serve trial.
If Polanski is convinced he did not have a fair trial the first time, then perhaps by showing a sign of good faith and turning himself in he might be able to get one this time. His victim speaking up for him could very well be a saving grace, as will his age and tragic background. If he's willing to do the right thing here, perhaps he'll get the exoneration he's been hoping for.
12 - roger nowosielski
So perhaps he made a mistake in judgment at the time. We're all prone to do that. But whether you're agnostic or not, you're are speaking as judge and a jury - a kind of mighty seat, I should say.
Whatever the case, I suggest you get off it and pay closer attention against other crimes against American people - like our by our government and our elected officials. You might find your time better spent.
And you still come across as a vengeful, unattractive human being, whatever your religious persuasion or whatever.
13 - DoNothing
Reguardless of political or religious persuasion Polanski commited a crime that he did not face the punishment from. If he had killed the girl then would you still be willing to "let him go, enough time has passed?"
If it is better to ignore individual crimes when there are so many wars going on then let's release all the rapists, murderers and other criminals from prison? After all, they never started a war.
The only people acting as judge and jury here are the judge and the jury that found him guilty.
14 - zingzing
i think that whatever the victim wants should be followed. it's been so long that he's been properly punished to some degree. if the victim would rather not go through 2-3 trials, don't make her. it's ruining her life and the life of her family. justice for her (and her family) would be being able to put it behind them.
if you want cold, hard, criminal justice, you just want empty justice for the state. the state doesn't give a shit.
let it go.
15 - zingzing
"It makes a joke out of our justice system if he is not given the proper sentence."
who gives a shit about the "system?" we have real people here who are crying out to be left alone. the system doesn't care one bit about justice. it won't change either way. ask what the victim wants, and follow. that's justice.
16 - Erok
Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. I have a daughter. The only fit punishment for a pedophile rapist is death. Polanski is lucky he ran, b/c I doubt his cellmates would have been very considerate of his fame and fortune. I have no sympathy for him, and I personally hope he gets the worst possible sentence that is allowed, and he gets to meet up w/ some of those other prisoners who will allow him to feel what that 13 year old felt like.
17 - roger nowosielski
It's interesting that only women have chimed in here and are clamoring for "justice."
Are you a woman, Erok, if you don't mind my asking. Because if so, it would look like you are a vindictive bunch. I would have thought that our womenfolk have are gentler and kinder, but you're surely doing your best to make me abandon my naive thinking.
Oh, I get it now - you must be rabid feminists and want to stick it to the man. It's suddenly makes sense now. So I tell you what - I'll stick to my view of the "fairer" sex regardless.
You all have pleasant dreams.
18 - Mark
Well, it's clear that our friend roger is either a douchey troll trying to rile folks up, or simply retarded....
Let's see, you're making pretty quick accusations against people you're scolding for making accusations aren't you? Chelsea up there doesn't need to be judge and jury, because Polanski PLED GUILTY to the crime. Or did you just skip over that part?
I'll grant one part of the entire against argument: The girl in question wants it to be over. I respect that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the courts have been waiting 30 years to sentence him. But lovely idea of your about how so much time has passed, we should focus on other crimes. I suppose if old George W. was tried for his 'crimes' that you probably cry about, you'd be just as forgiving if he skipped town for 30 years or so too. Because hey, by that point, we'll have 'better' things to worry about!
Since you've painted your own picture of some of the women's opinions here, I'll paint one of you: Clearly you have no children, because if you did, you'd actually give a crap. And since you have speak to ladies with such high regard, I'll also assume you aren't married, and won't be any time soon. With great lines of summarizing girls attractiveness based on their opinion that a child rapist should still be punished, it really shows what an attractive person YOU are....
Have a lovely day!
19 - roger nowosielski
Got it all wrong again - and I've been married more times than you will in three lifetimes. In fact, I regard women as more intelligent and down to earth then men - have great respect and admiration for them. So it's you that comes out as some kind of a troll.
Which doesn't negate there are crazies on both sides of the gender divide, and you taking a side one way or another is more indicative of your false modestly, or political correctness, or whatever other screwed up values you were brought up on.
I have not abused these ladies, only noted the fact, rather odd to my thinking, that thus far only the womenfolk are objecting. Are there no reasons why they ought to? Of course there are, but we never got to that point, did we? So unless there are other things which may be brought to bear on this topic, whether in general or in particular, yes - I find those positions unattractive, and irrespective of which mouth they issue. In any case, the ladies are free to respond and we may yet have a conversation, but I'm certain they don't need a knight in white armor. All you're doing is shit disturbing, or rather, trying to indulge your overinflated ego. Well, screw that!
Verstehen Sie, or do I have to put it more plainly for you if English is not your native tongue?
20 - Robin Kavanagh
May I remind everyone that personal attacks are verboten on BC?
21 - roger nowosielski
Robin,
We have Comments Editors to see to that. They delete any comments or parts of comments they deem inappropriate.
22 - Tim
Criminal got arrested. Would anyone say anything else if he wasn't a celebrity?
23 - Ruvy
It's interesting that only women have chimed in here and are clamoring for "justice."
Could be, Roger, that they don't think that drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is such a nice thing to do. I know I don't.
Does the mere fact that Polanski was a good film-maker entitle him to a free pass? Look that one up in the philosophical tomes you like to read, Roger. Maybe Foucault has an answer for you.
Justice, in my opinion will take into account the wishes of the victim - who does not need for her life to be disturbed further. But there is no issue of trying Polanski for raping her. That issue is decided. So the victim need not be disturbed further. It is merely a matter of how much time does he get for fleeing justice. It'll be fun seeing all the Hollywood big-shots crowd around, defending one of their own.... What a degraded lot.
24 - Cannonshop
#23 some people seem to think if a perpetrator's an esteemed 'artist' that just about ANYTHING is excuseable, including child molestation, rape, etc. etc.
Personally, I have a big issue with it taking 31 years to put this turd in a cell, awesome movies or not.
A really good movie just isn't enough to justify allowing a guy who knowingly and consciously used a pre-teen for a condom. He belongs in GP at San Quentin, with "Child molester" tattooed on his forehead. There are other, good, even "OMIGOD" good directors out there who DON'T drug little girls, take dirty pictures of them, screw them, and cap it off with a bout of plowing their back end.
Put Polanski the Predator In Prison. No stops, no plea-bargains, no time-served, no minimum security, put him where he BELONGS, in a REAL prison, one that doesn't have golf-day or tennis courts or conjugal visits.
25 - Jeanne Browne
As a woman...as a person...I think what Polanski did was despicable and I won't lose any sleep over his incarceration if it comes to pass. I also don't believe there should be a statute of limitations on any heinous crime; I'm still all for punishing Nazi war criminals, even if they're feeble and in wheelchairs.
But there's something about this Polanski business that just doesn't feel right. It SHOULD make a difference that the victim is saying "enough already." Frankly, I think the public "outrage" has more to do with the fact that this was a sex crime and he's a celebrity. If he were some anonymous shmuck who had killed a person 31 years ago, I think people would be less churned up about him.
Societies, like individuals, have to pick their battles, and somehow this just feels like an old, tired war.