Today on Blogcritics
Home » Filmmaker Roman Polanski Arrested on 31-Year-Old Warrant

Filmmaker Roman Polanski Arrested on 31-Year-Old Warrant

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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. 

Powered by

About Robin Kavanagh

  • Flo

    this is just outrageous.

  • http://waftingcurtains.wordpress.com 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.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Who is paying for the extradition?

  • 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.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ 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.

  • http://www.pizzastoneshop.com 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.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ 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!

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    What does their gender have anything to do with their opinions, Roger? I mean other than a crutch for your condescension.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No condescension. But the two of them were women, so I addressed the two women.

  • http://1000thingsaboutjapan.blogspot.com/ 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.

  • http://waftingcurtains.wordpress.com 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.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ 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.

  • 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!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ 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?

  • Robin Kavanagh

    May I remind everyone that personal attacks are verboten on BC?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Robin,

    We have Comments Editors to see to that. They delete any comments or parts of comments they deem inappropriate.

  • Tim

    Criminal got arrested. Would anyone say anything else if he wasn’t a celebrity?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://mizbviewsfromthetower.blogspot.com 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.

  • Cannonshop

    #25 An anonymous schmuck who killed somebody would be already-back-in-prison (or on death row, depending on the state) without a glitterati list of celebs trying to get them off, or anyone talking about ‘forgiveness’ (other than the occasional often-ignored activists who ALWAYS turn up.)

    And yeah, it’s a sex-crime. SOME of us out here think that Predators who abuse little girls should be removed-even if their victim is kind and christian enough to forgive them. What he did was Predatory, he doped her with Quaaludes and Champaign, screwed her, then did her again-up the wrong hole. This is what, a forty-something man at the time, doing it to a seventh grader at the time.

    While it MIGHT be acceptable in whatever part of Europe condones such things, it’s not acceptable in OUR culture (which is where the crime happened), and somehow, since he was taking pictures of her for sale earlier (including partial and full nudity shots), I doubt it was his first offense, or that he refrained from further activity of the sort. It’s what they call “Unlikely”. If he was a NON-Celebrity, he’d have not even gotten the Plea deal-he’d have been sent to a California State Prison as what he is-a Child Molester.

  • STM

    I agree Cannon, if it was you or me or some ordinary Neville Nobody we’d have been hung, drawm and quartered. The whole point of the rule of law by which our socities depend (and why they are such stable democracies) is that NO man (or woman) is above the law, not even the Queen of England or the President of the United States.

    That is the key to the whole thing: NO man …

    And I can tell you that whatever part of Europe thinks it’s OK and condones (I suspect they might have a fondness for cheese baguattes though) such things, it’s not that part from which America is descended, nor the part from which we are descended also.

    It’s a sex-crime, one that by the looks of it goes even beyond the old law we used to have here which came from England that went by quaint name of “carnal knowledge” (of a minor).

    It’s a bit beyond that. And yes, it’s predatory. I’d want to throttle a 40-year-old bloke who did that to my kid.

  • zingzing

    you guys continually gloss over the victim’s wishes. why is that?

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    What were the circumstances whereby a 13 year old girl was at a Hollywood party?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Moms dropped her off, Chris.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I’d just like to say that I’m losing my faith in the American system of justice in general (nothing to do with the Polanski case.)

    Not to justify of course anything Polanski did – I wasn’t there and there still are conflicting accounts as to the manner in which the US court handled the matter – I can’t help but seeing this as a pretense, diversion, to take our eyes off the ball.

    Aside from the all-important differences, what I see is happening is something on analogy with Martha Stewart a while back – sticking it to some celebrities and rich & famous for the sake of impressing it on the general populace that our laws work – while letting the real crooks and criminals go. So any of you who would like to persist in the illusion regarding the US justice system, you go ahead and live your fairy tale. That’s the kind of good citizens your government will need in times ahead. As for me, forgive me for not taking that ride.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good point, Rose. Nobody is saying, of course, that “she asked for it.” But there was a certain culture of which she was a part, a culture which we all know places these people worlds apart from “ordinary folk.”

    Is it to say that anything goes and they’re therefore justified. Of course not. But yes, they do act as though certain laws – especially as regards “morality,” do not apply to them. The very concept of statutory rape is a cultural one, I should say, and not absolute. Customs and mores differ from country to country.

    Are we more enlightened than other societies for regarding statutory rape a crime? I’m certain we are, and it’s a good thing that in our culture the minors are accorded protection of the law. But we shouldn’t always be judging and prejudging each and every case with the same lens harsh lens of the Victorian morality.

    The outrage against Polanski may be justified, but not when it’s not accompanied by a similar or even greater outrage against all those who commit crimes against the whole society – many of our crooked politicians, businessmen, and so forth.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    you guys continually gloss over the victim’s wishes. why is that?

    They don’t really care about the victim, it would seem. The victim states she is suffering because people won’t let it go. So I guess in a sense they don’t mind fucking her over again, as long as it’s for their own just cause–revenge and punishment.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    rather amazing how ill-informed his defenders are.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Surely the most effective way to shut down the opposition – calling them stupid and ill-informed.

    Congratulations for taking the page from the conservative playbook.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    EB: “rather amazing how ill-informed his defenders are.”

    Roger: “…calling them stupid and ill-informed

    I think what you meant to say was “stupid, ill-informed, and probably gay.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I should think you’re lacking in reading comprehension, Sussman. It wasn’t Roger who resorted to using labels and name-calling but yours truly. So why don’t you re-read the comments and come back again – if you have anything intelligent to say, that is.

    And why would you assume anything about being or not being gay? Perhaps you may redirect my to any part of my remarks which suggests any sort of bias.

    (And don’t bring up the notion of “rabid feminism” either. This constitutes no reference whatsoever to sexual orientation.)

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Surely the most effective way to shut down the opposition – calling them unintelligent and also a terrorist.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You know, Sussman. You’re not worth engaging.

  • zingzing

    eb: “rather amazing how ill-informed his defenders are.”

    what about her defenders?

  • Cannonshop

    Zing, “Her” case is over-Polanski pled out in 1977 and double-jeopardy does apply, even for scumbags, so they don’t NEED her testimony anymore.

    The charges, however, were brought not by the victim (or her family), but the State of California. (This is the fundamental difference between civil vs. criminal). Further hearings pretty much ahve to revolve around his flight-he’s already convicted, he took off prior to sentencing.

    Considering that statutory rape is a misdemeanor in California, but Flight and Obstruction are Felonies…he’s going to get more time for trying to avoid serving the nine months for what he pled out for, than he would’ve gotten if he’d simply honored the plea-bargain agreement.

    As for “Her Wishes”, zing…ever heard of “Stockholm Syndrome” (where a victim begins to empathize with their victimizer.)

    Prosecutors have heard of it too… (*and we have NO idea what sort of leverage and/or bribes he’s offered her since being arrested.)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Cannonshop has got tyhe ball on the lazw on this one.

    What I find amusing is all the degraded and slutty Hollywood scum gathering round to defend the “great artiste”. If I had a 13 year old girl doped up with quaaludes and raped, I’d want to cut the rapist’s balls off and let him bleed to death. That would be justice. Then some Hollywood scumbag could make a snuff movie out of it, recording the “great artiste’s” last ravings as he died, and then make money on it. Pure Hollywood.

    Polanski deserves to get what the justice system dishes out.

    And a side note to Roger, – I do not delude myself that the “justice” system in the States – or Israel, for that matter is either just or fair. Nor do I pay much attention to Polansky or let this garbage distract me. I have more important and more pressing things that worry me here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I have an idea, zing. Let Polanski turn himself in, and with the batter of lawyers his money can buy, he would get the right kind of venue – the (Hollywood) jury of his peers.

    If OJ got off scot-free on a murder rap, so can Polanski on a lesser charge.

    It’s called “jury nullification,” if you go back that far, you young “punk” you. So let’s nullify the fuckers.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Cannonshop,

    Do you know what Stockholm Syndrome is? It doesn’t look like it. You’re rationalizing.

    Stockholm Syndrome is not about victims who are not interested in prosecuting their attackers.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop, ruvy, etc. as far as the law is concerned, you’re right. he’s been tried, she doesn’t need to do anything, he fled, he deserves it, he’s a pervert who deserves jail time, etc, etc, etc.

    stockholm syndrome doesn’t quite apply here, as it refers to something quite different… i can see the stretch you’re making, but i don’t think that’s what is going on here.

    all that said, punishing polanski at this point involves punishing the victim and her family. and they don’t deserve it. if she wanted him put in jail, i’d be all for it. but because she doesn’t, and she says that every time this is brought up, it is more pointless torture for her and her family, i have to side with her.

    besides, i like polanski’s films. can’t make movies getting his ass raped in jail.

    as for “jury nullification,” that would be a miscarriage of justice. and that would make a mockery of the court. but i don’t give a shit about the court. thing is, he already pled guilty… and he’s obviously guilty of the flight felony… so, that’s not the best idea at this point either.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Actually, Cindy, according to the following article, the definition appears to be more comprehensive.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Our courts deserve mockery, zing – that was my main point. But the suggestion was kind of tongue in cheek, I admit.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I see you’re not radicalized enough yet, zing. That’s OK, I’ll work on it.

  • zingzing

    roger, that still doesn’t cover this case… well, mostly not. there usual has to be a situation wherein the victim is routinely abused (as in a prolonged kidnapping or an abusive relationship), and deals with in the manner described.

    the only way that fits here is if someone will admit that it is the perpetual torture that the media lays down on her which causes her to side with her one-time abuser. but for it to really fit, she’d have to be media-crazy… almost like she enjoys it… and i don’t think that’s the case.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Maybe there is something else going on, who am I to say. But here is what I mostly see here.

    Some people are willing to indulge in their own desire for revenge and punishment even at the expense of the victim they are supposedly defending. In fact they’ll go so far as to say, it’s none of her concern it’s not even about her. It’s about state interests–as if this makes everything right.

    It’s okay for a state to have an interest divergent from the interest of the victim? Some prosecutor wants to make a name for him/herself. That is the real state interest–political. What kind of justice tells the victim it doesn’t care about her interest?

    Politics and revenge trumps consideration for the victim. Making her a victim all over again. Good luck with your conscience.

  • zingzing

    roger: “But the suggestion was kind of tongue in cheek, I admit.”

    what’s most hilarious is that it is an actual strategy that is routinely used, to some degree or another. loading the jury is a strange practice. but i really can’t see any other system that is better.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I grant you that – only that sexual-abuse crimes are covered by the “definition.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “It’s okay for a state to have an interest divergent from the interest of the victim?”

    Excellent point. But of course the state may desire to make an exemplar out of anything. But why should it? For sake of control, law and order – should I say coercion?

    Of course not. Not the United States of America. We’re beyond that.

  • zingzing

    roger, it doesn’t refer to a one-time thing. it refers to a prolonged, repeating series of abuses. the syndrome refers to how a person copes/survives the ordeal while it is going on, although sometimes it’s strong enough to survive after the events. i don’t think anyone believes that she is suffering from stockholm syndrome, brainwashed herself, etc.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I understand, zing. I grant the point.

  • zingzing

    me: “besides, i like polanski’s films. can’t make movies getting his ass raped in jail.”

    this got me thinking that herzog should go abuse a kid (i kid, i kid), just so he can make a guerilla film in jail…

    or maybe herzog should follow polanski in. polanski was an actor in several films… of course, if herzog followed polanski into jail and filmed, the movie would somehow end up about herzog. always does. guy’s a sick motherfucker.

  • zingzing

    herzog: “roman once told me that ‘that was the biggest mistake of my life and i know it’ll come back around to bite me in the ass.’ i wonder what roman would think if i were to remind him of this irony.”

    herzog: “roman?”

    roman: “yes, werner…”

    herzog: “do you remember when you told me, i think it was in 1982, in paris, at a small cafe, that this, referring of course to the rape, was the, and i quote, ‘biggest mistake of my life nd i know it’ll come back around to bite me in the ass’?”

    roman: “oh, shut the fuck up, werner.”

    herzog smiles, the camera reverses to show polanski’s face, variously angry, sad, resigned, defeated and guilty. herzog smiles again.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Think of Capote’s involvement with In Cold Blood.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    46 – That seems a bit lacking in detail Roger. Don’t you think? Implied in Stockholm Syndrome is the idea of time spent with the abuser/perpetrator. It’s over time spent with one’s perpetrator that the victim comes to identify and sympathize with her/him/them despite being subject to risk/ill-treatment/abuse. It’s theorized as a strategy of the victim to cope and/or remain alive. I am very skeptical of it being applied to the single event experienced by a drugged rape victim, who presumably was not held captive afterword and to extend its impact for 31 years from such a single event.

    The woman in this case says she has dealt with the issues this has caused for her. I suggest it is being used here to discount the victim’s credibility. To make some claim that after 31 years she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and therefore her feelings can be dismissed as caused by damage and therefore irrelevant. It’s being used to bolster and argument. It has nothing to do with the victim. It strikes me as another way of discounting her to proceed with one’s agenda of revenge, without feeling one is betraying the victim. See, one is really supporting the victim–i.e. she doesn’t know what’s good for her.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I understand, Cindy. All I was doing was making a general kind of point that it goes beyond acts of “conventional” terrorism to include all manner of cases whenever prolonged exposure to duress is the defining characteristic.

  • Baronius

    “So perhaps he made a mistake in judgment at the time.”

    Roger, I don’t even know how to respond to that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius – I wasn’t there. Were you? There was booze, drugs, who knows what else? People fuck up. But if you never did, then I have no response either.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Roger, I don’t even know how to respond to that.”

    well, you’re either saying that that’s an understatement, or you’re saying that there wasn’t a mistake in judgement… which wouldn’t be true. although, roger, i must say that the qualifiers (even if they aren’t really qualifiers in the context,) do kinda make the sentence a bit of a target.

    i’m sure baronius is all like “you’re calling rape a ‘mistake in judgment’?” which, of course, it is… i like all the faux emotion flying back and forth.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I have no emotion invested in it, zing. It wasn’t me who dunn it. The qualifier is stretched – no question.

    What I was saying I guess – drugs, alcohol, etc. have their influence and cloud judgment (no less, I suppose, then when you drive away from a bar and think nothing of it, because you’re confident you’ll make it.)

    Besides, I’m certain Polanski didn’t think of it as rape. It may have even been “consensual.” Which is no excuse since she was a minor. Still, “statutory rape” ain’t the same as “rape.” There’s a reason for the qualifier. It’s not there just to pretty up the phrase.”

    But then again, if you’re a saint and never fucked up, then I don’t know what else to say. But you had better watch out, zing, messing with them college girls.

    Are you certain now none of them is underage?

  • Baronius

    I’m 44 years old. My goddaughter is what they call a “tween”. Can I imagine a situation with her in which alcohol and quaaludes turned a session of topless photography into forced sex? Would I want that to happen? Would I write it off afterwards as a mistake in judgement? I assure you the answer to all three questions is no.

  • EagleMan

    I am a man, and I also think that Polanski needs to serve his due sentence, especially since he has admitted his guilt.

    To those who think he’s served his time or “suffered enough,” think about this: In what way did he suffer or serve time? He live in France for 30 years and made movies, earning money. Oh, how terrible it must have been for him.

    But regardless of the time that has passed, the fact still remains that he fled the country to avoid prison. I believe that’s also a crime, for which he hasn’t served time or suffered.

    And Roger, you make claims about people being “law and order” types, only caring about individuals crime and not government, political, or corporate. But you, sir, are the polar opposite, only caring about the government/corporate crimes and not crimes committed by individuals. Both are important to address, and should be treated equally. I don’t think that anyone who breaks the law should get away with it, politician or not.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course I understand. But you were young once, too. And I’m sorry to disillusion you, young guys don’t think of the opposite sex as their daughters. That comes later, if and when they mature. And you may be running a strict house, but let me assure – in great parts of the country the parents have no control over their kids. The kids do what they will and underage sex is a fairly common phenomenon in our society.

    So lets put them all in jail and we’ll have solved the problem.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Do you think he should also be sentenced for violating sodomy laws with his boyfriend, Eagleman? Because he sure did, they both did; and there are witness who are willing to step forward and testify.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    An update.

  • Baronius

    This isn’t two 17-year-olds fooling around. He was 27 years older than that. And she was 4 years younger – at an age when 4 years is a long time.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m aware, Baronius, and I didn’t want to create the impression I’m excusing it.

    Let me ask a question: Would they break the law were they to secretly marry?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    You really do not get it, do you. It’s simple. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Polanski did the crime, ran off and was “imprisoned” so to speak with all those hot French broads for four decades and forgot that the minute he left his bedroom – oops, I mean refuge – he was fair game for the crime he did and fled from.

    Polansky’s crime this time was vanity. He was going to collect an award that would have stroked his ego. And all the slutty Hollywood pricks and scum who also like having their egos (amongst other things) stroked are gathering round “le grand artist” while regular guys, like me want to see the man do the time he should have done.

    The victim should have the sense to go into hiding until this crap blows over. Go visit “Aunt Tillie” in Seattle or something.

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “It’s simple. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

    i think we’re beyond simple at this point.

    “The victim should have the sense to go into hiding until this crap blows over.”

    stupid victim.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “you guys continually gloss over the victim’s wishes. why is that?”

    Because that’s not the way the justice system work. If she wished his head on a platter and his body set ablaze, are you telling us you’d be for that?

    “what about her defenders?”

    What part do the defenders have wrong? You are the one concerned about her having to go through 2-3 trials, but he ran out before the sentencing so what trial do you think is going to take place that would involve her?

    “Surely the most effective way to shut down the opposition”

    Apparently not, as all your following comments prove you wrong yet again on this thread.

    “It wasn’t Roger who resorted to using labels and name-calling but yours truly.”

    Right. I am sure it’s hard to keep track of all you say here the way you s-p-a-m the site with all your blathering but go back to #5, first comment in the thread:

    “And Chelsey is a real gem – a law and order firecracker. She must be a right winger with a Christian heart.”

    and then #12 “And you still come across as a vengeful, unattractive human being”

    Notice any labels or name-calling? And you proved yourself on the Wizard of Oz thread you are a troll.

    “If he were some anonymous shmuck who had killed a person 31 years ago, I think people would be less churned up about him.”

    You’d be wrong. People in CA are all churned about the anonymous Phillip Garrido who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard and held her prisoner for 18 years.

    “perhaps he made a mistake in judgment at the time”

    I am sorry, what part was the mistake: giving a minor alcohol, drugging her, or raping her?

    “It’s okay for a state to have an interest divergent from the interest of the victim?”

    Happens all the time: spousal abuse, parental abuse, incest. Those victims don’t always ask to get out of their situations.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m glad that after great deal of forethought and deliberation, El Bicho had finally sorted it all out. He must be going through his monthly mood of self-righteousness, a state of intoxication or self-delusion or some such.

    So go ahead, EL Bicho! Set everybody aright because, as usual, you know best. And since grant you do honors, let’s all foreclose this discussion and bid each other adieu.

    And since it’s spam as you say, why don’t you try to have it deleted. Perhaps if you cry on Eric’s shoulders, he might acquiesce to your wishes.

    Bravo, El Bicho. A triple olé.

  • zingzing

    weee!

    el b: “If she wished his head on a platter and his body set ablaze, are you telling us you’d be for that?”

    within limits.

    “What part do the defenders have wrong? You are the one concerned about her having to go through 2-3 trials, but he ran out before the sentencing so what trial do you think is going to take place that would involve her?”

    we aren’t even talking about the same thing. i’m talking about what’s she’s going through RIGHT NOW, and what she’s BEEN GOING THROUGH for 30 damn years. this shit gets brought up every couple of years and she gets dragged through the hell of it yet again. yes, testifying in court might be worse, but this is pretty damn bad for a woman who just wants to live her life.

    “You’d be wrong. People in CA are all churned about the anonymous Phillip Garrido who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard and held her prisoner for 18 years.”

    he’s hardly unknown at this point. and you missed the 30 years part.

    “I am sorry, what part was the mistake: giving a minor alcohol, drugging her, or raping her?”

    all of them?

    “Happens all the time: spousal abuse, parental abuse, incest. Those victims don’t always ask to get out of their situations.”

    those are things that go on for a long time. or are a continuing situation. that’s the difference.

    let this poor woman stop having to deal with this, for god’s sake.

  • STM

    Polanski deserves a good smack in the mouth.

  • Doug Hunter

    I wonder if Rush Limbaugh were found to have drugged and anally raped a 13 year old today, and then he paid her off with a handsome sum after which she asked the media to leave it alone, if the same people would be jumping to his defense as are jumping to Polanski’s?

    It’s sickening how politics infiltrates everything and clouds people’s judgements or maybe I’m wrong and the same people would defend Rush. You guys tell me.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s sickening how politics infiltrates everything…

    It sickens you and yet you bring politics into this? Bizarre.

  • Doug Hunter

    Politics was brought into this about 73 comments prior to mine (#5, I’ll help you with the math). I know you’re salivating at the opportunity to practice your snark, but it might be worth actually reading these things before you comment.

    Anyway, I see you failed to address my main question. I have noticed a trend here (and other places) where liberals besides being more forgiving in general hold an especially low bar double standard for their fellow liberals, presumably because they view them as ‘good people’ at heart.

    I wondered if it was Rush Limbaugh who drugged, raped and anally raped a 13 year old then paid her off if these same liberals, here and in Hollywood, would be defending him in the same manner. I don’t personally believe so but it’s not impossible.

  • Doug Hunter

    If you want a pertinent example that may be more to your liking, it’s alot like conservatives finding ways to defend or avoid condemning torture because they agreed with Bush’s politics. It’s sickening that people can’t have an objective opinon about drugging and anally raping 13 year olds or state sponsored torture without first checking to see if they agree with the politics of the offender. That was my attempt at a point, perhaps you don’t see it or disagree with it which is why I asked for people’s opinions.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Fine, Doug.

    Amendment to #79:

    It sickens you and yet you bring politics into this again? Bizarre.

    In other words, if you hate how this and other issues are being politicized, why do you continue to politicize them? Look at your entire posts in #80 and #81. You sure are continuing the rhetoric you claim to despise.

    Anyway, I see you failed to address my main question.

    How could I answer your main question? It’s entirely hypothetical and I can’t possibly guess as to how people on the left or right will react or would have reacted to a hypothetical crime.

    I know I wouldn’t defend Limbaugh, but then again I’m not defending Roman Polanski either. On the other hand, I see no point in reacting to this as though it’s a fresh crime worthy of our most explosive vitriol. I see this issue as the public wanting blood while ignoring what the victim wants at this point.

    I don’t know that Polanski’s politics play into it, really. I don’t know that many of his defenders have checked to see what his politics are, nor am I convinced that Polanski signifies anything to do with the political Left in America at all besides in ways that may have been ascribed to him.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Incidentally, #5 seemed more of an attack on an individual instead of a way to politicize this discussion in its entirety.

    At least that’s how I read it initially before you told me what it was really supposed to be about.

  • zingzing

    doug: “i have noticed a trend here (and other places) where liberals besides being more forgiving in general hold an especially low bar double standard for their fellow liberals, presumably because they view them as ‘good people’ at heart.”

    yeah, that doesn’t cut both ways… you have to be kidding. that’s a pretty ridiculous statement that leaves you open to some pretty easy charges of hypocrisy.

    while i would assume (now that you bring it up) that polanski is a liberal, i’ve never really thought about it. he probably is. but that’s got nothing to do with my pov. in fact, polanski has little to do with my pov at all.

  • zingzing

    ah, #81 does absolve you of the charges of hypocrisy, or at least you recognize it. that’s the way things are. but it’s got nothing to do with this case. (and jordan’s right about you only continuing that which you claim to despise.)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I’m not very interested in Roman Polanski and don’t know what his politics are. I am very interested in the woman and what she wants, as well as being more than tired of the state and it’s aims and how people use it or support it to further their own personal agendas.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #83,

    It was an attempt to get at the heart of the matter and get the discussion going.

  • Doug Hunter

    Thanks for the answers. Perhaps it has more to do with his status as an artist or something. I’m not the first or only person to notice the decidely liberal bent of many of his defenders.

  • Doug Hunter

    Cindy #86

    You have mentioned the role of the victim a couple of times, how do you feel about consensual statutory rape where the ‘victim’ would likely not want to press charges? Do you have some age in mind or is this a blanket concept? How about domestic violence cases where the woman is visibly bruised and battered but doesn’t want to press charges because ‘he’s changed’?

    I’m not trying to be offensive or set up to attack your position, I’m just interested.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In fact, I haven’t given a thought to Polanski’s politics, don’t know what his views are (though I assume he’s not a Rush Limbaugh type, because if he were, we would have known).

    Doug may have a point about the double standard, though. Perhaps if it WERE Limbaugh, the left would be militant about his crucifixion. And no doubt some were when the matter of the prescription drugs case came up (although I was rather indifferent to that matter.)

    To clarify, Doug – yes, it is a political issue with me, more of a political issue than anything else – which is the only reason why I took the opposite position that has been expressed. Why?

    I can’t any longer separate the US justice system, its aims and doings, from the behavior of US government – chronic behavior I must add. We’ve had too long a tradition of corruption, collusion and protecting the real guilty – people who are guilty of crimes against society and humanity, whether in the area of business or corrupt politics, or unjust wars, to be suddenly so outraged about crimes committed by individual persons. So yes, for me it is the matter of the big picture and a great disconnect.

    I see as as the greatest hypocrisy for the US government to be so focused on individuals’ crimes while the people who really fuck us and sodomize us time and again are running the show and are scot-free. So yes, it’s this disconnect that I’m mainly addressing, nothing else – the duplicity, the disconnect, the falsity of it all, and the tactics of diversion.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Doug,

    It is you who are politicizing the issue more than I – and in a trivial sense – when you refer to him as an artist and make the liberal connection. Polanski being famous is an important feature of this case only to the extent that its a highly visible one. At least in my case that’s the import of it (I can’t speak for anybody else). So by stressing this, all you’re doing is caricaturing the opposition and ignoring the real important point(s), as per #90, for example.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    how do you feel about consensual statutory rape where the ‘victim’ would likely not want to press charges

    I would like to work toward a society where people are human beings, not objects. In such a society (as in the head of healthy human beings today), children are not sexualized by adults. I am not much interested in better ways to clean up the mess created by the current state of human sickness. Consensual relationships: If I were 13 years old and I decided to sleep with a 40 year old man, I don’t think it is the business of the state. I would rather have a world where 13 year olds don’t find any need to sleep with 40 year olds. But, I don’t see how locking someone up in this case serves any purpose.

    How about domestic violence cases where the woman is visibly bruised and battered but doesn’t want to press charges because ‘he’s changed’?

    The society we have breeds this. It does nothing to cure it. Prisons are places of pure punishment that make people more inclined to commit more horrible acts against each other. I don’t feel that sending people to prison is going to help anyone at all. This system doesn’t work. People calling for each other’s blood isn’t what’s needed, imo. We need to find ways to become more human, not less. And these state solutions are all about keeping people less than human.

    Will locking up some guy help the victim, if she believes he is ‘changed’? Will it help him to come to some understanding about himself? If not (and I think not) then, why do it? In fact, I am sure this whole locking everyone up thing only serves to continue most of what it’s claimed isn’t wanted. If crime isn’t wanted, why do things that create more of it?

    So, what would I do? I would put an end to ghettos, poverty, homelessness, and profit, create places of support for victims where they can come to their own conclusions.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “If crime isn’t wanted, why do things that create more of it?”

    Because it creates the necessity for the existence of the state.

  • Baronius

    This isn’t about the power of the state, or profit, or unjust wars.

    Farsightedness is an eye problem in which the individual is incapable of focusing on what’s right in front of him, but can see greater distances with accuracy. I think that some political philosophies are similar. When a man rapes a child, there is no big picture. There’s just the rape of a child.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To you it isn’t. To me it is – not the crime itself but the fact that you’re getting so worked up about it that you don’t see the larger picture. And the reason is – you don’t want to.

    You want to fuck them gently – with kindness.

  • Doug Hunter

    #92 Thanks for the answers. The desire for ‘fairness’ exacted through revenge is a powerful motivator and extremely difficult to overcome. For example, if someone tortured and killed my family, yet somehow it could be proven that he would never do something like that again, I would want him to suffer some sort of punishment anyway.(social ostracization at them very minimum)

    That’s seems like an almost insurmountable human emotional reaction, perhaps you have more faith in people than I do. It would take several billion of us acting on our best behavior to eliminate that sort of thing, it seems like one bad apple could start the cycle over completely.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t think Cindy’s response (necessarily) reflect how she feels about all criminals and all crime. At least in my case, it certainly doesn’t.

    But I’m drawing a radical position here – for general consideration and for heuristic purposes.

    You can’t take your eye off the ball and keep on putting all blame on individuals while the state is a murderous entity.

  • Doug Hunter

    Or maybe you see the concept of crime morphing from the idea of ‘bad’ to the idea of ‘sick’ or ‘mentally defective’ where hospitalization or other treatment would replace prisons (hopefuly in much smaller numbers). Am I on the right track?

  • Doug Hunter

    “keep on putting all blame on individuals while the state is a murderous entity.”

    You’re onto something there. Just like corruption in general, I don’t have an answer as to how to change it. A poor individual robs $50 from the corner store likely gets caught and goes to a brutal prison and emerges a more violent criminal, a middle class person ups their insurance and burns down their house netting $100K and might get caught and sent to a country club prison. The rich and well connected rob 8, 9 , and 10 figure amounts from the public and only rarely sacrifice an exceptionally ridiculous crook like Madoff to calm the wolves.

  • zingzing

    doug: “I’m not the first or only person to notice the decidely liberal bent of many of his defenders.”

    as the conservatives slide into their dominatrix boots, searching around for their whips, tucking an errant testicle back into their tight, shiny, leather man-panties.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s exactly my point, Doug. I’m not defending the criminals, just arguing for restoring a sense of proportion.

    It’s easy to be pointing fingers at anybody and everybody. It’s a tremendous defense mechanism and eases the conscience. Best of all, it stops us from thinking. For as long as our wrath is turned against individual persons – the derelicts, the psychopaths, the mentally insane – we won’t have to look at other kinds of crimes, perpetrated day in and day out by the rational people, people who we esteem and value. Not to mention the fact, we’re made to feel better because there’s worse scum than us.

    So yes, I’m presenting a kind of radical picture. And my reference to the state as a “murderous entity” was for dramatic purposes and certainly in need of qualification. It was only to make a point. But the point, nonetheless stands, if we care to examine the larger picture.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m not the first or only person to notice the decidely liberal bent of many of his defenders.

    Now there’s a surprise. His defenders are for the most part his film industry colleagues, who, as conservatives often whiningly remind us, tend to be of the liberalicious persuasion.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I had no idea, zing, that Polanski was into the sadistic-masochistic trip.

    Come to think, you should join forces with Danny Devito, the character from LA Confidential.

    Hush hush, off the record and on the qt.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “liberacious?”

    You should see The Libertine with Johnny Bench.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    sorry, baseball was still on my mind. It should be Johnny Depp, of course.

  • zingzing

    johnny bench? the baseball player?

  • zingzing

    ahh, ok. i was really looking forward to the prospect of johnny bench in a movie called the libertine… that would have been great in some way or another.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not as good as Steve Garvey would have made. Mr. Clean.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    This isn’t about the power of the state, or profit, or unjust wars.

    Eliminate domination, eliminate the problems associated with domination.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    96/98 – Doug,

    I’m thinking about an answer. I started twice.

  • Cannonshop

    Okay, let’s go back and look at Zing’s argument centred on the damage being done to the victim in this case…

    Who makes it a circus and reopens the traumas?

    Yeah, Polanski’s DEFENDERS do. If he were just some middle-class, middle-management asshat who did it and ran, it’d be page three news, no celebrity defenders or hot-hot-hot scandalmongering, nobody but MAYBE his attorney calling her a slut…

    Is the picture becoming more clear? The guy skipped on a PLEA bargain, because he was afraid the Judge would toss the deal out in the sentencing phase.

    The victim, on the other hand, gets to be saturated with it all over again..because Roman Polanski’s this bigshot film-director with lots of vocal friends who’ll MAKE it a nice, long torture session as they erupt forth in singing his praises and repeating whatever vile bullshit they think will make him look better in comparison to the people trying to enforce the LAW, and in the process making the arguments they’ve already made, including denigrating the lady’s parents, calling her a slut, etc. etc.

    She wants to be left alone-and that is EXACTLY what the defenders of this french turd are counting on-using his victim’s misery index to save his corrupt little ass.

    So…not only did he stick his rod in her holes, he’s getting to use her for a condom the second time.

  • Cannonshop

    It’s called “Enabling Behaviours”, by the way. If you allow them to go on, you don’t have a Justice system AT ALL-and yeah, it’s going to revive traumas and make the victim miserable. IT shouldn’t, but what Polansky and friends are counting on, is using the memory of the crime on the victim to act as a lever to save him in the court of public opinion-regardless of the damage revisited on the person he victimized by the process.

    When you let rich people who’re famous pull this, it doesn’t EVER stop.

  • STM

    Again, I agree with Cannon.

    What on Earth is going on here. This bloke has broken the law, and the crime in my view is if not heinous, very predatory.

    And the law is the law.

    There’s nothing else to it. He deserves to be punished, no matter how long ago it was.

    I don’t believe there is a statute of limitation on this.

    But as Cannon points out … he’s rich and famous, not a Nevile Nobody – so of course, a different law applies.

    That sucks big time and it’s not a path America should be going down.

    Fine to forgive (and yes, we know hos other tragic circumstances), but don’t tell me this bloke has already paid any debt to society in this particulart instance.

    And like I say, if it had been my daughter, part of the punishment would be a good hard smack in the mouth.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “So…not only did he stick his rod in her holes, he’s getting to use her for a condom the second time.”

    Great show, Cannon. You’re showing your erudition. That statement alone tells it all – who you are and where you’re coming from.

  • Cannonshop

    Roger, there’s a place and a time for erudition-when talking about theoretical futures, higher political philosophy, and that sort of thing.

    When people are defending a child molester because he’s got a couple oscars on his shelf, when what he did becomes ‘acceptable’ to some merely on account of it being three decades ago, and when the obvious ‘hook’ in the scam, is dragging the whole thing through the papers in a way that’s calculated to make the girl he victimized just “Wish it would go away”?

    At that point, Roger, being tactful is no longer appropriate, it just becomes another layer of obfuscation that serves the cause of the perpetrator.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, you’re surely driving home the point in vivid colors.

    I wasn’t defending Polanski’s action, BTW – only addressing the hypocrisy of the US government.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But even more so, Cannon, the obsession of the many respondents with “law and order” while the government itself is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

  • Cannonshop

    So…go after those high crimes, Roger. ANY system is subject to abuse-systems don’t possess self awareness, it’s like blaming the hammer for the crap workmanship of the carpenters. We’ve got a pretty good hammer, Roger-it’s the guys we as a society have entrusted to use it that are the problem you’re (mis)using this case to illustrate.

    What you seem to be missing, is that the arrest of Polanski isn’t an abuse of the system-it’s how it’s supposed to work. Him getting AWAY with it (and plea-bargaining a lesser charge) is the malfunction. His being able to count on friends to manipulate the victim, and make a try on public opinion, is a malfunction.

    This isn’t about an Innocent man being accused of something heinous-the man admitted openly in court that he did the crime-minus evidence of coercion, the plea stands. This is about a guilty man avoiding punishment through his having both wealth, and fame.

    Unlike O.J. there’s not much chance that this was a case of over-eager cops trying to frame up the evidence, nor was it entrapment as in the Randy Weaver case.

    There’s no statute of limitations on rape, Roger, even date-rape or drug-assisted rather than weapons or physical violence rape.

    He doped a kid, he used her for a sex toy, and he ran when it looked like the judge was going to punish him instead of giving him a pass, now he’s back in custody, with MORE charges thanks to his flight.

    The system’s actually WORKING this time.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Again, you’re saddling me with an argument I did not make.

    It’s interesting, however, how dismissive you’re being about rampant corruption in high places and low to be reducing it to the simple question abuse which we had better tolerate because it’s commonplace.

    It’s precisely this kind of hypocrisy that I’m combating and this set of priorities.

  • zingzing

    yes, cannonshop. it certainly would be better if he were quietly and secretly disappeared. that would solve the problem. glad you thought of that one. argentina wants you on the phone.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    96/98 – Doug,

    I am not really able to offer an idea of a workable solution within the system as it stands. I am suggesting that the way the system is set up, it will create these problems. So, what is the answer? I think that to the extent that I actively participate in, accept the tenets of, and promote the things that keep this particular game working–that is the extent to which I will be supporting a world that creates people who are more likely to torture and kill your family.

    I would like not to do that. So, I have to try to step outside that game where possible. It’s not dependent on my faith in human beings (which I hope to have more of some time, but still don’t have much of now). Some people have a lot of faith in their fellow humans, I really envy them. At the moment, I see even the best most honorable people as having a long way to go.

  • Baronius

    This conversation reminds me of the underpants gnomes on South Park. The underpants gnomes had an almost-perfected three point plan to make a million dollars:

    1) Steal everyone’s underpants.
    2) ?
    3) Make a million dollars.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Good thing the underpants gnomes didn’t have a plan to create a terrible place to live, then all they’d have to do is:

    1) go with the flow

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    This all gets very amusing – this and all the bullshit about the 2016 Olympics – side shows to distract you from the reality of the FDIC having gone broke (as of 1 October), the fact that the “agency” that guarantees pension funds is damn near broke and all sorts of other lovely news….

    Do carry on screaming at each other with your heads in the sand. Maybe your voices can penetrate the sand….

  • Baronius

    Huh? Cindy, my comment doesn’t mean that I’m happy with human nature. It just means that these online speculations about how to change human nature haven’t gone anywhere.

    As a Christian, I have a more radical view than you do of the problem of human nature, as well as its solution. It’s also a far more humble view, because it includes addressing my own flaws, and putting the blame for them where it belongs, squarely on myself. “Radical” thinkers always seem to find a scapegoat.

    They also miss the fact – both logical and historical – that the gravest crimes are committed by those who set out to change the human nature of others. As for me, I’ll stay as far away as possible from any ideology that claims that the root cause of rape is something other than the rapist.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Huh Baronius? I’m not sure any speculations go anywhere whether online or not.

    So, what’s your more radical view of the problem of human nature and its solution?

    And I have my doubts about your humility, by the very nature of the fact that you are pretty presumptuous about what I have or have not addressed. Your complaints about radical thinkers seem invented.

    They also miss the fact – both logical and historical – that the gravest crimes are committed by those who set out to change the human nature of others.

    Examples?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    For example: Jesus is one of the most radical thinkers I could imagine.

  • Cannonshop

    #120 Gee, Zing, maybe what he did shouldn’t be a crime at all,right? Or maybe we can add a proviso to the criminal code that grants exemption from the law for anyone who’s got an Oscar, Grammy, or Emmy on their shelf?

    Would that suit you better?

    There is ZERO doubt Polansky did what he did-he admits doing it, after all, and nobody beat a confession out of him first (which would be, in addition to brutal and mindless, inadmissible in even the most crooked court in the U.S. at the time, or at very minimum grounds for a stay and an appeal for someone with Polansky’s money, fame, and influence.)

    Here’s the problem, Zing…this is NOT about an Innocent (or even POTENTIALLY Innocent) man here, this is a GUILTY man who was captured after a very long time safely-out-of-reach of the Justice system.

    What your whole defense is really saying, whether you like hearing it or not, is that in your world, it’s okay for rich, powerful, famous men to molest children, then live the high life for thirty years making millions and evading sentencing for their crime. THAT is the OUTCOME of your position, Zing, it’s the Consequences of letting THIS oscar-winning director walk.

    What’s next, Zing? A Politician with the right views and lots of influence maybe? how ’bout a Banker who does lots of philanthropy? What if it was Bernie Madoff that sodomized that little girl? How ’bout your favourite congressman?

    No. Enough with giving famous or wealthy (or both) people a ‘pass’ on crimes they commit brazenly, in the open, without fear of consequences. Roger’s comments about corruption are valid here-it’s that corruption that’s ALLOWED this to BE a debate at all-because rich and famous people have managed, through their wealth and fame, to do as they damn well please where people who AREN’T rich and famous still have to face the Law, and the consequences. We are not a society of Feudalism, or Castes, where the law applies to the lower castes but not the upper castes.

    Either you have Laws that are there to apply to, and protect, everyone, or you don’t. End-stop.

    If Roman had been a fifteen year old boy who slipped a thirteen year old girl some roofies and did the same thing, he’d be facing hard time. Period. This was a forty-year-old man who gave her the seventies equivalent of a Roofie Rape-Quaaludes and champaign instead of Rhoypnol and Mad Dog 20/20, but it’s the same methodology, only it’s worse because he wasn’t a teenager with an underdeveloped mind, but one of the premier film-directors in Hollywood, a grown man, in middle age, who’d abused not only the girl’s trust, but her mother’s.

    (Honestly now, if Quentin Tarantino offered to take pictures of your daughter, would you think he was going to drug, rape and sodomize her?)

    Drugged people can not give consent, Children can not give Informed consent. In 1978, when the crime occurred, “Sex Ed” consisted of a few leftover black-and-white films about Venerial diseases that were made by the War department, and a textbook description of how a sperm fertilizes an egg, condoms were something you purchased at the drug store (hidden behind the counter) and in seedy bathrooms, nobody’d heard of AIDS yet, and the doctor could give you a shot for most anything you, as an ADULT might catch at the orgy.

    Megan’s Law didn’t exist, “Adam” wasn’t even in production, and missing kids weren’t even showing up on milk-cartons. Famous Director=trustworthy authority figure in 1978, not “Potential Rapist, don’t leave near children unattended”.

    “Justice is Blind” means “Justice doesn’t care who you are, just what you did.”

    Being Famous and revered as an entertainer is NOT a license to violate little girls, nor is it a license to obstruct justice while making millions of dollars and hanging with the Glitterati of Europe and the Americas.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop, sorry you had to go on a long rant about fame, but you completely miss my point. i don’t give two shits about polanski. i haven’t really even said anything about him on this thread. who he is has nothing to do with my point of view. he could be anyone. he could be you.

    here’s the facts as i see them. it was 30+ years ago. the victim wants him to be left alone, because his fame causes her to be tortured by the media. if the victim is being victimized and tells you how to stop it, listen to her.

    that’s how i see it. so all your pontificating about fame doesn’t matter at all to me. i don’t give a shit about awards or stature or any of that. never have i even said anything remotely close to that. and i never said it was ok for anyone to abuse children, so you can fuck your dog with that one.

    a victim says stop, you stop. that’s my point. so take the rest of whatever you think i think and chuck it.

  • Baronius

    “Examples?”

    Torquemada
    Cromwell
    Robespierre
    Lenin
    Mao
    Pol Pot
    Jim Jones
    bin Laden

    I’m iffy about putting Hitler on the list.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius’s exercise of razor-sharp, Jesuit logic (as per epistle #125 to Cindy):

    Statement #1: As a Christian, I have a more radical view than you do of the problem of human nature, as well as its solution.

    Statement #2: I’ll [therefore] stay as far as possible from any ideology that claims that the root cause of rape is something other than the rapist.

    Statement #3: “Radical” thinkers always seem to find a scapegoat.

    Alcibiades himself would be proud of Baronius’s argument, consider it in fact his greatest triumph not only for having effectively conflated radicalism with crass fundamentalism, but also creating utter chaos when taking it back. It’s truly a rhetorician’s feat.

    Never mind that Saint Thomas Aquinas would disapprove of the unscrupulous practices on the part of his followers. If winning the argument is the object, leave it to Herr Baronius to befuddle, to bedazzle and to confuse.

    And that’s from a person who, by his own admission, is more rigorous than most when it comes to the business of self-account and examining their own conscience:

    “It’s also a far more humble view, Herr Baronius assures us, “because it includes addressing my own flaws.”

    Consider the masterstroke. In one short exposition, “scapegoating” has been declared “radical,” then “fundamental,” and then “radical” again. And all that in the spirit of Christian charity and good will towards men, accompanied all along by the most humble of postures and rigorous self-examination. Justice has been declared triumphant without the benefit of mercy – because there are no extenuating circumstances. It is a white and black universe of the saints and the sinners, the righteous and the wicked. And Herr Baronius, in his infinite wisdom, metes out justice to the lesser mortals before the Judgment Day.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Bar,

    Quite a list of bad guys. So, what does that tell you? I’m sure I must have missed some point here.

    Here’s my list of people who tried to change human nature:

    1) Jesus
    2) Buddha
    3) Gandhi
    4) MLK
    5) Muhammed
    6) Most philosophers that ever lived (you don’t need me to write there names down do you?).

    So, the point is ???

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    zing,

    Your argument about the victim’s wishes is well-taken from the empathy’s point of view (and to that extent it should be considered). However, it won’t wash in the larger scheme of things because “the state” has an obligation to act regardless. You may discuss and dispute some of the finer points of the alleged or presumed obligation, but unless you do and defeat the state’s claim(s), you’re argument is bound to be less than convincing.

    If the facts of the case, such as we know, are accurate, there’s no question of Polanski’s guilt and that he’s criminally liable. But what you can effectively strike at is the energy and vigor on the part of all those who cry for punishment and yes, vengeance. It’s their prioritizing that ought to be more disturbing than anything else.

    Think of the witches’ trials in Salem and the atmosphere of mass hysteria. It’s this kind of mindset that’s most revolting and objectionable. Modern version of American Puritanism.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    The state is illegitimate and has no rights to make claims of any sort.

    There, I just defeated the states claims.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, it takes more than that to convince Cannonshop and company.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Framing legitimate discussion so that it is confined to the state’s claims, interests, and obligations is directly supporting those who act on vengeance. I find that problematic. It’s acquiescing to power. It’s invalidating any other way.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Correct, but they’re not aware of that.

    But even apart from the theoretical question of the necessity for the state apparatus, even in anarchistic situations, there remains a practical problem as to what to do with those who cause harm to the peaceful and cooperative community. And this practical problem has to be addressed.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, most of those people didn’t try to alter the nature of human beings. MLK, for example, sought a more just world, but didn’t try to change human nature. The Buddha tried to lead people to an understanding of human nature. Muhammmad was a bully. He never sought to change people, only to force people.

    Jesus claimed that through his death, individual humans could be altered, freed from the bounds of sin. Lenin sought to change human nature by changing the political and economic structure. Robespierre believed that a society based on reason could redefine humanity.

    Not make people better. Not make their lives better. Alter what it means to be human. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. A conservative like me starts from the assumption that the core of human nature can’t be altered. We’re capable of good and evil, and always will be. If I understand you correctly, you’re of the opinion that a change in societal structure will free man from the burden of his nature.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Roger,

    I personally find some ideas within Restorative Justice to be worthwhile. I’m not fond of its marriage to policing though in some places. I like it as it exists outside the framework of the state.

  • Baronius

    Roger, you’re right that my argument wasn’t structured. But I think it was possible to follow it.

    A philosophy may assign fault to an individual or the society, or make some allocation of responsibility. While I believe that a societal structure can steer people toward good or evil, I believe that it cannot compel us. Every decision is an act of individual free will.

    You seem to be arguing the opposite, a kind of sociological determinism. At least Cindy is. You may be arguing something different, a middle ground that holds both individuals and society responsible. If you are, you’ve failed to articulate it clearly.

  • Doug Hunter

    Zing, I’ll address to you the same question I did Cindy. I’m not setting up some attack or rant I just want to know to try and understand other people’s ways of thinking

    In the case of spousal abuse let’s say, if the visibly abused and beaten victim does not want to press charges and wishes for the issue to go away should the state still intervene?

  • Doug Hunter

    “You may be arguing something different, a middle ground that holds both individuals and society responsible.”

    I think the entire thing is a spectrum. Different people require different levels of steering to ensure they don’t become hazards to themselves and others. The problem is that in the push to ‘solve’ all of societies problems we are forced towards the lowest common denominator and must subject everyone to increasingly stricter control by the state.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nice concept, Cindy. Definitely should become part of future discussions (within the Foucault framework). Still, allowance has got to be made for (at least temporarily) “incorrigible” cases. Even if the individual is, for the argument’s sake, amenable to rehabilitation, the practical problem still remains: what to meanwhile.

    Ostracism (or expulsion from the community) are the fist, least “punitive” measures that come to mind. There may be others. But the point is that even an anarchistic community must somehow protect their members from incurring harm – while the rehabilitation process continues.

    Any thoughts?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Bar,

    I probably should have left Muhammad out of it, I don’t really know anything about him. So, I’ll scrap him.

    I agree we are capable of good and evil. Human nature then has potential to be different things. Changing human nature then, for me, is nothing more than effecting our potential. So, no not this:

    If I understand you correctly, you’re of the opinion that a change in societal structure will free man from the burden of his nature.

    I believe that in order for the best in human nature to be actualized, an environment that supports that best has to be actualized. Our domination oriented society fosters the bad potential in human nature. If this culture is seen as the parent, then it’s children are likely to be very unwell. So, a change in any societal structure would definitely affect human nature, the way I define it, and it always has and continues to do so.

    It’s saying nothing more than one’s environment definitely effects one and the outcomes that are likely for one. We are at once both effected by the society that has been created and the cause of its continuation. Acting differently, we may create something different and allow a better potential for human nature to emerge. Acting the same, we reinforce what is. So, it’s pretty simple–if you want to see violence and selfishness and evil in human nature–keep on keeping on. You want to change human nature, change what you think.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t argue the opposite, Baronius – not if you think I’m ready to abrogate the notion of free will and individual responsibility. However, even human justice system, imperfect as it may be from the vantage point of an all-encompassing consciousness – God’s, let’s say – makes allowances for departure from rigid applications of “free will” and “individual responsibility” concepts. There are mitigating circumstances and, quite rightly, they are and ought to be taken into account.

    The deeper point perhaps is that while I may not disagree with you as regards the eschatological perspective – one that, shall we say, might prevail on “the Judgment Day” – as a fallible human being, endowed besides with less-than-perfect consciousness, I cannot bring myself to act as the judge, the jury and the executioner. It’s not my prerogative. As a human, it behooves me therefore to be riddled with doubt.

    Consequently, there is a certain disconnect between what we may believe the case ultimately is and how we must act. And I don’t see how this gap can ever be bridged.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Considering that we just saw a politician who probably committed negligent homicide get buried without serving one minute worth of hard time, shielding himself from the exigencies the rest of the world faces by using his name, I guess it makes sense to demand another member of the rich and famous who deserves jail time, to get jail time. Since there is no issue of guilt – that has been decided – there is no issue of a trial. There is merely the issue of sentencing. In short, I don’t see what the big deal is about. Let the schmuck go to jail, and let’s be done with it.

    Let justice be served.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I think the removal of the conditions which create almost all crime and brutality is a good start. Solutions can’t be divorced from circumstances, as I see it, Roger. Communities can make decisions based on what reality they are faced with.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Is ‘free will’ really free?

  • zingzing

    doug… you’ve asked that question before and it was answered. this isn’t a similar situation. the victim is not currently being abused. she doesn’t have to be afraid of the abuser. it happened 30 years ago. it’s the media (and the courts) that are abuser her now.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Still, decisions have to be made what to do in certain cases. You can’t just relegate the problem to the nether land or sweep it under the rug. The measures may have to be different and less “oppressive” under the circumstances, but you have to admit the eventuality that they may be needed (justified?)

    Likewise, you cannot be fudging (forever) with “free will.” To do so would be tantamount to saying that individual or social change are not possible.

    (Is the battered housewife unfree to change her situation simply because she fails to take the necessary steps and/or see her situation more clearly? Is the practice of self-delusion any kind of proof to the effect we’re not free?)

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “There is merely the issue of sentencing. In short, I don’t see what the big deal is about.”

    because it’s far more complicated than that. polanski’s lawyers are in court right now try to get the original case dismissed on procedural grounds. then there’s the fact that the judge originally said he was going to give a light sentence in exchange for the guilty plea, but then backed out of his agreement. then, because of this, polanski fled (a felony). so, no, it’s not simple. and you don’t know what the big deal is.

    this case is a legal minefield. polanski has money. it happened 30 years ago. it could go on for years. daily reminder for the lady victim: you was raped!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing,

    The media may be the victim’s abuser now. But don’t shuffle this off on the court or the judge. They have a job to do, to attempt to enforce the law. As I pointed out earlier, the victim, if she is smart, will “visit Aunt Tillie in Seattle” – or find some lawyer frind to get some kind of injunction keeping crapheads papparazzi from bothering her. Polanski fled justice for what ought to have been (but wasn’t) a felony. He deserves to do time.

    If Polanski want to spend his entire fortune fighting the justice he deserves, he deserves to go broke and die destitute putting lawyers’ kids through school and paying for their mistresses. Plenty of far better people than Polanski have died broke and destitute without having committing any crimes at all.

  • Doug Hunter

    Roger #150

    So we’re back to old familiar roots of our differences. Since free will leads to both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ choices and ‘bad’ choices can’t be tolerated, freedom can’t be tolerated. You can try to imagine a world where all 7 billion of us choose ‘right’, but all I see is a world of overbearing and controlling authority where all decisions are made for us. Is freedom to do only the ‘right’ things really freedom at all?

  • zingzing

    ah, ruvy… judge, jury and executioner… and loving it!

    “As I pointed out earlier, the victim, if she is smart, will “visit Aunt Tillie in Seattle” – or find some lawyer frind to get some kind of injunction keeping crapheads papparazzi from bothering her.”

    stupid victim.

    “Polanski fled justice for what ought to have been (but wasn’t) a felony. He deserves to do time.”

    he only fled because the judge went back on his word.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    You also have to understand Baronius’s point. He says, for example, “we’re capable of good and evil, and always will be. If I understand you correctly, you’re of the opinion that a change in societal structure will free man from the burden of his nature.”

    I happen to agree with the first part, because even the “best” of us, and under the best of circumstances, are capable of “evil.”

    But I disagree with the second part, insofar that a change of societal structure is, I believe, a positive contribution in that it may tend to make most of us “better” than we would have been otherwise.

    Of course, Baronius is no position to grant you this, before if he were, he would be hard pressed to justify our need of God, the Redeemer. To grant you the point would be tantamount for him to admit that he could pull ourselves by our own bootstraps – with or without God’s help.

  • zingzing

    doug: “all I see is a world of overbearing and controlling authority where all decisions are made for us.”

    no you don’t. what controlling authority made the decision to write that? you’re overstating you case.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Roger,

    @155, I thought I understood and answered Baronius at @144, no?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing,

    he only fled because the judge went back on his word.

    If Jonathan Pollard had been smart, he would have fled, too. But he didn’t and the judge went back on his word, also. Pollard has been rotting in jail for a quarter of a century while spies who have done far more egregious damage to American security walked after seven.

    What’s your point? A fleeing convict was apprehended. Let the fucker do time. It’s better than what Polanski deserved, getting his balls slit off and allowed to bleed to death.

    Let Polanski face justice.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The only reason why you find equivocation here, Doug, is that you’re imputing some kind of absolute meaning to freedom. I can’t subscribe to any such concept, unless we’re talking a Robinson Crusoe type of scenario where, for all intents and purposes, the individual’s action don’t matter one way or another.

    Such of course is not the human predicament. And therefore in any social setting, individual freedom must be properly restricted if only because of the presence of others (in short, individual actions cannot be divorced from their effects). It’s the nature and/or the details as regards what should count as “proper” restriction that is subject to debate, not the fact of it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, you did. I only provided what I think are Baronius’s reason(s) why he’s committed to his position.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #155: because if he were . . .

  • zingzing

    “What’s your point? A fleeing convict was apprehended. Let the fucker do time. It’s better than what Polanski deserved, getting his balls slit off and allowed to bleed to death.”

    yes! and then we can really begin to torture him, right, ruvy? you are the possessor of one fucking creepy mind.

    but my point is what i wrote above, and which you ignore. it’s far more legally complicated than you make it out. it seems like you’re not even sure what he’s been charged with. do you know? (hint: it’s not rape.)

    if this does go to trial, there’s a large possibility that he’ll get off completely on a technicality. or he could end up serving the lenient sentence he was promised when he agreed to the plea bargain.

    “Let Polanski face justice.”

    you won’t be happy with the justice he receives. no one will. he won’t be properly punished whatsoever. but the victim will (again)! so we can all be happy.

    seriously though, that bit about letting him bleed out through his balls was very disturbed. you’re like a 15 year old kid sometimes.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    An instance of the US justice at work.

  • Doug Hunter

    “no you don’t. what controlling authority made the decision to write that?”

    I was speaking in a hypothetical world where everyone did the ‘right’ thing. If the ‘right’ thing was to type that then by definition everyone would be doing it and I would therefore have no choice.

    Right now we have some freedom therefore I can type as I see fit even if it does piss some off setting off a cycle of anger and bad feelings. Because of the cyclical nature of violence and oppression any possible utopia most be strictly controlled by a very powerful authority lest one bad apple in several billion ruins it. That is one extreme, you can likely imagine the other chaotic extreme as well.

    Once you realize that either extreme is fucked, it’s simply a matter of degree and I lean farther towards the side of freedom than most.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    150 –

    I didn’t think I swept anything under a rug. I trust that communities in a free society will come up with solutions they feel are appropriate. For me to devise what those solutions would be, divorced from the circumstances, would be counterproductive, imo.

    Yes, I see what you mean, fudging forever. And I didn’t intend by that, just for the record, to imply people are not responsible for their actions. I just wanted to point out that I feel there are unexamined beliefs that people have been indoctrinated to have. So, if people take certain ideas for granted, without having ever recognized how they got to taking them for granted, then they are running on a program they never questioned.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Because of the cyclical nature of violence and oppression any possible utopia most be strictly controlled by a very powerful authority lest one bad apple in several billion ruins it.

    Can you say more about that, Doug? What, for example, is the cyclical nature of violence and oppression? How can a powerful authority be the basis for a utopia? (how does that operation work out?) How does one bad apple ruin billions of apples?

  • zingzing

    i’d rather not live in a perfect world because it would be frightfully dull. there was a movie recently called “the invention of lying” or something like that… where everyone told the absolute truth all of the tim. you can see the pitfalls of any extreme.

    “I lean farther towards the side of freedom than most.”

    well, no one is against freedom. maybe, in trying to smooch freedom’s ass, you’ve just leaned so far you’ve fallen over. and then you claim some advantage in freedom-loving. but, what with the way you guys use the word, it’s becoming meaningless. i like sunshine! everyone likes sunshine, dude. it’s hard to live without it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course, Cindy, they take those ideas for granted, and they’re plenty “justified” (shall I say). And yet . . . don’t we also know we should be examining and self-examining? So ultimately, unless you make allowances for exceptional cases, those who are “organically incapable,” is it an excuse? A partial excuse? Perhaps. But altogether, without equivocation?

    Likewise with “trusting communities.” I understand why you’re hesitant to follow the logic true – to avoid the resemblance with the present system(s). But unless we can think and visualize an alternative model (Foucault talks of the need to conceive such a model), we can’t help but think on analogy with what’s presently available.

    And you cannot deny that peace-loving members of a cooperative community deserve some protection from harm. In the absence of being able to take at least minimal measures to that effect, we do suspect, don’t we, the community would dissolve.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “How does one bad apple ruin billions of apples?”

    The seed of rebellion, for example, as per the Lucifer insurrection parable (and consequent expulsion from heaven).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Which is to say, once you admit the possibility of “evil,” you can’t take it away or try to minimize its ultimate potential.

  • Doug Hunter

    “maybe, in trying to smooch freedom’s ass, you’ve just leaned so far you’ve fallen over”

    That’s funny, from my frame of reference (sideways evidently) it’s you who appears fallen over while I stand up. Honestly, I have the awareness to understand that I’m an outlier towards one extreme, probably much more than you are to the other, but that knowledge doesn’t change my preference one bit. I don’t espouse freedom as a buzzword, I really truly have examined the world and feel that word describes best my position on these subjects.

    I don’t like being subject to additional control and regulation because someone else didn’t have the good sense to handle themselves prior to the imposition of those controls and it’s extremely unlikely that you’ll convince me that I do.

  • zingzing

    “it’s extremely unlikely that you’ll convince me that I do.”

    that’s my point. nobody likes additional control over their personal life. nobody. everyone wants freedom. you act like you’ve cornered the market.

  • Doug Hunter

    Roger #170

    Or equally you can’t unlearn that which you have learned.

    If there were some pristine society where words for violence did not even exist nature would destroy it. One person in a billion with a chemical or genetic predisposition would witness a coyote devouring an injured pregnant deer and decide to try that out on a fellow human which he might just enjoy. As soon as that happens humanity will relearn violence and control(or else be slaughtered wholesale by a single deviant)

    It is nature and it can’t be stopped it’s just a matter of degree.

  • zingzing

    to continue… you act like you’ve cornered the market, but you’ve only convinced yourself that you’re being controlled by something that truly has no control over you. so you’re less free.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Roger,

    1) I don’t see in the instruction manual any rule that ‘we should be self-examining’. While I think self-examination is a good thing, I’d rather work with reality than judge people as wrong if they aren’t self-examining. Indoctrinating people against self-examination sort of makes that a big problem, imo.

    a) People should be self-examining.
    b) People are indoctrinated with blindspots that make ceratin kinds of examinations highly unlikely.
    c) Are people expected to be superhuman?

    2) I do conceive of and visualize a model. A model that dispenses with domination. I don’t find it necessary, desirable, or even possible to design every detail down to the ground. My point is that communities can solve problems. They will solve problems in ways they see fit based on the circumstances and what they learn through their action.

    3) The apples question is an attempt to understand what Doug means specifically, not hypothetically. I am a very practical person. I am saying if you want healthy family relationships there are things you can do and things you can avoid doing. If you want to raise a serial killer there are things you can do and things you can avoid doing.

    4) And you cannot deny that peace-loving members of a cooperative community deserve some protection from harm.

    This strikes me as having some implication of helplessness–they need someone to protect them. Communities are capable of protecting themselves from harm. All members of a community, being involved in its day to day operation and in the decisions made, is the most direct way possible of guaranteeing that real problems are resolved in appropriate ways.

    I don’t know what you mean by ‘trusting communities’. What do you see when you say that?

    (bbl, It is a beautiful day for a walk in the park.)

  • Doug Hunter

    “that’s my point. nobody likes additional control over their personal life.”

    Nobody likes poverty, suffering, and death either yet listening to liberals speak you might assume they’d cornered the market on caring for that as well.

  • zingzing

    well that surely backs up your point.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Carry on, zing. I’ve said what I had to say. Nothing further to add.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Nothing further to add.”

    Then there’s no need for a grand declaration.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wasn’t addressing you, Mr Unofficial Censor. Haven’t you gotten in touch with Eric, lately, concerning your beef about the spam on this site?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Aren’t you going to let us know, El Bicho, about the status of your spam complaint? Has it fallen on sympathetic ears? I’m dying to know.

    And a second, rather puzzling question. You kind of died out there, or petered out, after trying to sort it all out for us, apparently to no avail. Has the cat got your tongue?

  • Cannonshop

    162: Strictly speaking, Zing, the “Just” punishment would be for the rights to every movie Polanski’s made since 1978, along with the proceeds and assets (but not the liabilities) to be transferred immediately to his victim’s control, and ownership, permanently, and in a manner transferrable upon her demise to her offspring and heirs.

    that would be something…”CLOSE” to a truly “Just” solution.

    It can’t happen. The next best thing, therefore, is for society to punish him for abusing his position as a trusted member of society, abusing a little girl, and evading the punishment he was (and remains) due.

    Unfortunately, people like yourself are going to make certain that the victim goes through the mental trauma all over again in your eager defense of her victimizer.

  • zingzing

    “Strictly speaking, Zing, the “Just” punishment would be for the rights to every movie Polanski’s made since 1978, along with the proceeds and assets (but not the liabilities) to be transferred immediately to his victim’s control, and ownership, permanently, and in a manner transferrable upon her demise to her offspring and heirs.”

    no it wouldn’t. why would you think that?

    “that would be something…”CLOSE” to a truly “Just” solution.”

    well, it would make her into a prostitute or something.

    “Unfortunately, people like yourself are going to make certain that the victim goes through the mental trauma all over again in your eager defense of her victimizer.”

    that’s some psychology. but it doesn’t work out. let it go. put it to an end and move on with life.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    cannon wants blood and punishment. he’ll even deny reality and claim that it’s people who agree with the victim who are the cause of her trauma.

    i don’t know what to say about a man who would saddle a woman with the label stockholm syndrome just to take away her legitimacy and discount her, so he can pursue his real aim, which is vengeance.

  • zingzing

    “he’ll even deny reality and claim that it’s people who agree with the victim who are the cause of her trauma.”

    that was ridiculous, wasn’t it? so transparent. shows how empty his argument is. i bet he’d love to sit outside of polanski’s cell and taunt him, and i don’t doubt that he’d deny it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, perhaps not vengeance, Cindy, only anger – unresolved emotion for a great many of us, I suspect.

    Which brings me to the point. I would like to apologize to the the ladies whom I challenged early up the thread about their feelings about Polanski and suggested political ideology as their motive.

    I had no right.

  • missingthepoint

    would anyone car as much about this if it had been an older, famous woman, and a sexually viable 13 year old boy? some how i doubt it.

  • http://enspyre1.blogspot.com Leah Jewel Alexander

    It is a very, very sad day when so many people are willing to forget what Polanski did to Geimer. I certainly understand why she wants this case to be dropped and perhaps I would too if it affected my family the way that it does hers, but to forgive is not necessarily to forget. Forgiveness does not call for celebration. I think the problem here is that he used his celebrity and profession to lure his young victim prior to the rape, which is, in fact, a crime.