And for the record, it absolutely blows my mind to see so many people–including women! Women!–lining up to support a rich white guy who drugged and forcibly raped a 13-year-old child, then skipped away scot-free1.
—
1 Edited to add: Okay, so he didn’t really get away scot-free. While on the lam, he was forced to endure certain privations, such as spending his time with his movie actress wife shuttling between a luxury penthouse in Paris and an enormous chalet located in an exclusive ski resort in the Swiss mountains, but if he wanted an ironing board or a new set of sheets, could he pop down to a Wal-Mart and get them? Could he?
sigh. He didn’t skip away scot free. He pled out to a reduced charge, and then ran when it became clear that the judge, who wanted to enhance his reputation as a celebrity-buster, was going to void the plea-bargain.
Polanski needs to face justice. But it’s not a black-and-white story the way people want to make it.
I’m with the judge on this one.
If Polanski were poor and black, and ended up in the slammer for a few decades for drugging and forcibly raping a 13-year-old, nobody would say that it was a gross miscarriage of justice and the judge was only interested in burnishing his reputation as a rapist-buster. The fact that the plea bargain existed in the first place is a testament to the privilege that white wealthy celebrities have in the first place. The fact that the judge would get a reputation for being a celebrity-buster simply for enforcing the same standard on a white rich guy that would get enforced on anyone who wasn’t rich, white, or famous is a sad commentary indeed.
The man drugged and forcibly raped a 13-year-old girl. How in the name of God is there any moral gray area here?
Because the gray area has nothing to do with Polanski’s crime itself, but how the punishment that was agreed to by his lawyers and the DA was overruled by a judge looking to make himself famous.
Do you believe that DAs should have the ability to cut deals with criminals to secure guilty convictions?
If you do, then you’re not with the judge. And if you don’t, then you’re significantly impeding the DA’s office.
Polanski pled guilty. He agreed to a punishment. Then the judge, who seems to have been caring more about his reputation than the victim decided to overturn the DA’s decision.
Stop dealing in hypotheticals and deal with facts.
Fact: Roman Polanski did not flee America to avoid his rape trial.
Fact: Roman Polanski pled guilty to illegal sex with a minor.
Fact: Roman Polanski was prepared to receive the punishment that was agreed to by the DA’s office.
He only ran when he believed that he was going to get crucified. Whether or not he should have been crucified is irrelevant. He had cut a deal. He had pled guilty. At that point, justice has been served.
Fact: The punishment he agreed to was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, made possible only by the fact that he was a rich white celebrity.
Fact: The legal system is not predicated on the criminal agreeing to the punishment for the crime.
Fact: A judge is absolutely within his legal prerogative to reject any plea arrangement brought to him by any prosecutor or DA.
Fact: Polanski refused to voluntarily surrender himself to US authorities on many occasions in the past even when it was agreed that he would not face jail time.
The facts are on my side, I think.
Fact: The punishment he agreed to was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, made possible only by the fact that he was a rich white celebrity.
This is not a fact. This is an opinion.
Fact: The legal system is not predicated on the criminal agreeing to the punishment for the crime.
Agreed.
Fact: A judge is absolutely within his legal prerogative to reject any plea arrangement brought to him by any prosecutor or DA.
Sure. But WHY he’s refusing — ie, the CONTEXT of the decision — matters.
Fact: Polanski refused to voluntarily surrender himself to US authorities on many occasions in the past even when it was agreed that he would not face jail time.
[Needs citation.] I have not read this.
From the LA Times:
“Under the terms of the deal, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Judge Laurence Rittenband would determine the sentence.”
Sounds to me like the Judge giving a rapist as much punishment as he was legally authorized was PART of the agreement. And really, the judge would be legally limited to the maximum sentence for the single guilty plea, as opposed to the combined sentences for six, Six, charges.
And “some shrink said prison time is unnecessary” is no reason to violate your court ordered 90 day testing period less than half way though and flee the country when told to return.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-legal1-2009oct01,0,1100452.story
I’ve not looked into it, but like our vlogger mentions, it seems likely that the gross miscarriage of justice was proposed for the mental health of the survivor.
Kickin’ ass and takin’ names. Thank you,
I sent this vid to my Sociology intro students; we’re discussing personal responsibility v. institutional realities. Should be some good discussion.
Wrong. Justice is served when rapists are punished, not when they plead and flee to hide behind dual citizenship.
Polanski could easily have appealed the sentencing. Furthermore, he could have returned to California once that judge was off the bench and another judge might have sentenced him more appropriately.
sigh. He didn’t skip away scot free. He pled out to a reduced charge, and then ran when it became clear that the judge, who wanted to enhance his reputation as a celebrity-buster, was going to void the plea-bargain.
Polanski needs to face justice. But it’s not a black-and-white story the way people want to make it.
thanks for reminding me about this blogger. .he’s the best!
thanks for reminding me about this blogger. .he’s the best!
Wow, I like that guy too.
Yup, it is mind boggling to me too how people try to sweep what Polanski actually did under the rug. He drugged and forcibly raped and sodomized a child. If he was a regular person and not a famous rich director then they would be petitioning for him to not be able to move into their neighborhoods.
Wow, I like that guy too.
Yup, it is mind boggling to me too how people try to sweep what Polanski actually did under the rug. He drugged and forcibly raped and sodomized a child. If he was a regular person and not a famous rich director then they would be petitioning for him to not be able to move into their neighborhoods.
I’m with the judge on this one.
If Polanski were poor and black, and ended up in the slammer for a few decades for drugging and forcibly raping a 13-year-old, nobody would say that it was a gross miscarriage of justice and the judge was only interested in burnishing his reputation as a rapist-buster. The fact that the plea bargain existed in the first place is a testament to the privilege that white wealthy celebrities have in the first place. The fact that the judge would get a reputation for being a celebrity-buster simply for enforcing the same standard on a white rich guy that would get enforced on anyone who wasn’t rich, white, or famous is a sad commentary indeed.
The man drugged and forcibly raped a 13-year-old girl. How in the name of God is there any moral gray area here?
Sort of, yes – there’s a Walmart in Dublin, Ireland, and quite a few in Deutschland.
*cough*
Yeah, but do you know how much it costs to call the airport and have them fuel the jet so you can fly to Dublin? This man suffered!
Sort of, yes – there’s a Walmart in Dublin, Ireland, and quite a few in Deutschland.
*cough*
Yeah, but do you know how much it costs to call the airport and have them fuel the jet so you can fly to Dublin? This man suffered!
Because the gray area has nothing to do with Polanski’s crime itself, but how the punishment that was agreed to by his lawyers and the DA was overruled by a judge looking to make himself famous.
Do you believe that DAs should have the ability to cut deals with criminals to secure guilty convictions?
If you do, then you’re not with the judge. And if you don’t, then you’re significantly impeding the DA’s office.
Polanski pled guilty. He agreed to a punishment. Then the judge, who seems to have been caring more about his reputation than the victim decided to overturn the DA’s decision.
Stop dealing in hypotheticals and deal with facts.
Fact: Roman Polanski did not flee America to avoid his rape trial.
Fact: Roman Polanski pled guilty to illegal sex with a minor.
Fact: Roman Polanski was prepared to receive the punishment that was agreed to by the DA’s office.
He only ran when he believed that he was going to get crucified. Whether or not he should have been crucified is irrelevant. He had cut a deal. He had pled guilty. At that point, justice has been served.
Yeah, he repeatedly raped a child. But dude – he’s like, gifted, and stuff.
Yeah, he repeatedly raped a child. But dude – he’s like, gifted, and stuff.
I don’t have anything to say about Roman Polanski, but I’m glad you posted this, because it let me to this hysterical piece of genius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bieDx14M-m8&NR=1
Oh, man, I will never stop laughing.
The best part about that video is watching the ridiculous kitty in the background.
I don’t have anything to say about Roman Polanski, but I’m glad you posted this, because it let me to this hysterical piece of genius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bieDx14M-m8&NR=1
Oh, man, I will never stop laughing.
Fact: The punishment he agreed to was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, made possible only by the fact that he was a rich white celebrity.
Fact: The legal system is not predicated on the criminal agreeing to the punishment for the crime.
Fact: A judge is absolutely within his legal prerogative to reject any plea arrangement brought to him by any prosecutor or DA.
Fact: Polanski refused to voluntarily surrender himself to US authorities on many occasions in the past even when it was agreed that he would not face jail time.
The facts are on my side, I think.
Fact: The punishment he agreed to was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, made possible only by the fact that he was a rich white celebrity.
This is not a fact. This is an opinion.
Fact: The legal system is not predicated on the criminal agreeing to the punishment for the crime.
Agreed.
Fact: A judge is absolutely within his legal prerogative to reject any plea arrangement brought to him by any prosecutor or DA.
Sure. But WHY he’s refusing — ie, the CONTEXT of the decision — matters.
Fact: Polanski refused to voluntarily surrender himself to US authorities on many occasions in the past even when it was agreed that he would not face jail time.
[Needs citation.] I have not read this.
I’ve not looked into it, but like our vlogger mentions, it seems likely that the gross miscarriage of justice was proposed for the mental health of the survivor.
A) Good, solid rant with some well thought-out points.
B) I’ve spent the last half hour watching his blogs. I have a new net crush. He’s SMART.
He has a gift for discussing complex, nuanced issues while still being hilarious. And also hot (she said shallowly).
I SAID he was hot (smart=hot, right?), so I can’t go with the shallow bit.
also not about Polanski
yes, HOT!
I think he now has a LOT of new net crushes. Count me among them.
The first time I was introduced to Jay Smooth, I ended up watching all his videos, one right after the other. Man, when I grow up, I want to be as smart as he is!
Oh quit fishing,!
You know you are!
Naah, in all honesty, I don’t think that’s true. I think he’s probably smarter than I am.
I’m cool with that. I don’t have any particular ego investment in being the smartest kid on the block. I’ve got a fearsome memory and it’s stuffed full of lots of stuff, but that’s a little bit different from having the kinds of cognitive skills this guy has. The way he is able to express his ideas is just brilliant.
I’m actually re-watching a lot of his videos as I gear up to start producing my podcast, because I wouldn’t mind taking some plages from his playbook–he’s really, really good.
A) Good, solid rant with some well thought-out points.
B) I’ve spent the last half hour watching his blogs. I have a new net crush. He’s SMART.
From the LA Times:
“Under the terms of the deal, Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor in exchange for the other charges being dismissed. He agreed that Judge Laurence Rittenband would determine the sentence.”
Sounds to me like the Judge giving a rapist as much punishment as he was legally authorized was PART of the agreement. And really, the judge would be legally limited to the maximum sentence for the single guilty plea, as opposed to the combined sentences for six, Six, charges.
And “some shrink said prison time is unnecessary” is no reason to violate your court ordered 90 day testing period less than half way though and flee the country when told to return.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-legal1-2009oct01,0,1100452.story
Wrong. Justice is served when rapists are punished, not when they plead and flee to hide behind dual citizenship.
Polanski could easily have appealed the sentencing. Furthermore, he could have returned to California once that judge was off the bench and another judge might have sentenced him more appropriately.
He has a gift for discussing complex, nuanced issues while still being hilarious. And also hot (she said shallowly).
I SAID he was hot (smart=hot, right?), so I can’t go with the shallow bit.
Dude~ That is probably the best breakdown I’ve seen on the entire thing. AWESOME video 🙂
Dude~ That is probably the best breakdown I’ve seen on the entire thing. AWESOME video 🙂
Anyone who was not famous/rich or white would not have been offered that plea deal
No? And here I thought that it was the Family who proposed a plea to save a young girl from the trauma of being forced to give up her anonymity and testify in court. I didn’t realize that her rapist’s complexion entered into their decision making process.
Yes, he was/is rich and powerful. Yes, that means he’d have been able to mount a pretty powerful defense. Yes, his money & power came to him easier due to accidents of birth, but to say that he was only offered the plea on what would have likely been a nearly impossible case to defend simply because he’s white is insulting to the family who originated the proposal.
I mean, do you Honestly believe that any family would care more about a rapist’s melanin content than their recently violated daughter’s mental health when it comes to bringing the bastard to justice? Really?
The family didn’t offer him a plea deal because he was white, they offered him a plea deal because his rich white celebrity status afforded him the public spectacle they were trying to avoid for their daughter.
Had he not been a rich white celebrity, the trial would not have been the circus that they were afraid of and they would have felt (whether it was true or not) that they judge was more likely to rule in their favor.
Do you honestly believe that racism has been eradicated and that there is no such thing as the White Privilege, contrary to all sociological and anthropological data?
No, that’s not what i said at all. All i said is that you could very easily remove the white from your statements and they would still hold true.
It’s wrong that due to accidents of birth (skin, who his parents were, who he knew growing up, etc) helped put him in a position of power, and I don’t deny those, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the fact that he was in a position of power which would have made a trial too painful. Fighting a rich & powerful black, asian, hispanic, native, or [insert non-white ethnicity here] would Also have made a trial too painful.
Less likely, based on the cross ethnic distribution of money and power (w.p. in action), but still the plea would have been offered, because by far the most important thing was the money and power that this bastard (who also happened to be white) wielded.
It wasn’t his “rich white celebrity status” that drove the plea, but his “rich celebrity status (that he almost guaranteedly acquired more easily for being white).” That is the difference i’m going on about.
I reiterate my point about OJ having a rough time of things even after he “won” his court case
It’s wrong that due to accidents of birth (skin, who his parents were, who he knew growing up, etc) helped put him in a position of power, and I don’t deny those, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the fact that he was in a position of power which would have made a trial too painful. Fighting a rich & powerful black, asian, hispanic, native, or [insert non-white ethnicity here] would Also have made a trial too painful.
I definitely get what you’re saying, and we’ve seen in other cases (OJ Simpson being an obvious example) that wealth and power offer formidable legal protections to anyone, regardless of race. If it had been Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones, it’s likely he’d still have considerable Hollywood support.
But I think ace plays a role in this particular case simply because American society has always been a little twitchy and weird about issues of race and sex. Had a wealthy, powerful black man been accused in the 1970s of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old white girl, I have a suspicion that there would be a different sort of public response, and that the DA might have been a bit less willing to cut a deal, simply because of America’s historical weirdness around race and sex.
Anyone who was not famous/rich or white would not have been offered that plea deal
No? And here I thought that it was the Family who proposed a plea to save a young girl from the trauma of being forced to give up her anonymity and testify in court. I didn’t realize that her rapist’s complexion entered into their decision making process.
Yes, he was/is rich and powerful. Yes, that means he’d have been able to mount a pretty powerful defense. Yes, his money & power came to him easier due to accidents of birth, but to say that he was only offered the plea on what would have likely been a nearly impossible case to defend simply because he’s white is insulting to the family who originated the proposal.
I mean, do you Honestly believe that any family would care more about a rapist’s melanin content than their recently violated daughter’s mental health when it comes to bringing the bastard to justice? Really?
Yeah. In order for *one* criminal to get their comeuppance, half of the other criminals get to commit another crime of the same type for free just for not being the exact same type of criminal.
That’s not justice. That’s not even vengeance. That’s a warped travesty that makes ordinary vengeance look like lollipops and rainbows, akin to other prisoners temporarily escaping to slaughter one’s family and friends as punishment for murder. Okay, maybe not quite on the same level as that in this case, but much the same principle. Jeez.
Yeah. In order for *one* criminal to get their comeuppance, half of the other criminals get to commit another crime of the same type for free just for not being the exact same type of criminal.
That’s not justice. That’s not even vengeance. That’s a warped travesty that makes ordinary vengeance look like lollipops and rainbows, akin to other prisoners temporarily escaping to slaughter one’s family and friends as punishment for murder. Okay, maybe not quite on the same level as that in this case, but much the same principle. Jeez.
The best part about that video is watching the ridiculous kitty in the background.
I’m not going to lie, this whole travesty has been a wonderful teaching moment on everything wrong with the American justice system. Like so:
1. Rich? Famous? White? Do people think the law applies to you? Guess which one of those questions is answered ‘no’. How many people signed a petition for Micheal Vick saying ‘it wasn’t dog fighting-dog fighting’.
2. Plea bargains. The reason we have them is so that a judicial system overburdened and overbooked with criminal cases can save time. Why is it overburdened and overbooked? The legislation of morality, the war against drugs, and a nation of lawyers.
3. Punishment of sexual offenders. 18 year old getting a consensual blowjob from his 15 year old girlfriend? Sex offender. Older person who drugs and rapes an underage girl? Sex offender. Difference between the two in terms of job prospects, living situations, social stigma, etc? None. (Unless you’re rich, famous, and white, as mentioned before)
4. Politicization of the judicial branch. Why the fuck should a judge even be thinking about his renown when deciding whether or not to try a case? Because he needs to look good when someone above him resigns. Because when you don’t have the skill, the fame will do just as well.
I would love if the high profile-ness of this case resulted in some kind of judicial reform. But that’s the same thing I’ve said before every high-profile case.
Difference between the two in terms of job prospects, living situations, social stigma, etc? None. (Unless you’re rich, famous, and white, as mentioned before)
I would think that living outside of US jurisdiction might have a little something to do with why he isn’t subjected to the Cruel and Unusual lifelong punishment applied to so called sex offenders.
Note: i say “so called” because in some cases i can’t see the offense (the willing underage GF who is now happily married to her BF a decade later…)
No, actually, if you’re rich, white, and a celebrity, you don’t have trouble finding a job or housing even if you don’t escape to another country after you’ve served your time.
When you serve your very short time in prison, everyone has to register as a sex offender for life. If you don’t already have gobs of money and prestige and power, you can’t get a job and there are jurisdictions that limit where you can buy or rent a home.
But if you have lots of money, have white skin, and have fame to back you up, you don’t need to ever go through the job process to not be hired somewhere and you can buy enough land anywhere you want that doesn’t interfere with the laws prohibiting where you live.
And if you’re famous, people forgive you for drugging and forcing a 13 year old child who was clearly saying “no”, and even defend his position that he didn’t *really* do anything wrong.
Please, point out any case of a poor black man who gets the same privileges and I’ll withdraw my position. Even OJ, who was black but rich, was stigmatized after his trial (which he won) and his career suffered for it.
Again, i’m not saying that powerful people don’t receive perks they’re not entitled to, but that being able to flee the country such that you don’t have to exercise those perks (which would, in this case, have involved filming exclusively on locations where children don’t frequent, likely meaning having to make some studio [you suggested building it himself, from his own money?], and the area around it, adults only, etc). And again, including white skin with the significantly more powerful factors (fame, fortune) is distracting. Michael Vick (whose crime is irrationally derided more) is playing football again, showing that fame undoubtedly helps.
Again, see what i’m doing here? I’m pointing out that it’s not the “he’s white which made all this easier to acquire” factor that’s most important. It’s there, certainly, but it’s served 90%+ of what it’ll do for him by the time he gets in trouble.
As to OJ he Was rich (3-6 million on defense lawyers will put a dent in anybody’s savings, never mind the civil settlement), and I would point out that the only requirement that needs to be met for anyone to be found not guilty is that 12 specific people needed to believe that there was non-zero chance that the prosecution’s case wasn’t completely proven. Not even was wrong, but Not Proven. Meaning if every juror said that there was a 99.5%+ chance he did it, they had to acquit. Looking at the evidence list, that number seems plausible. Indeed, the fact that he was acquitted of two counts of murder despite the large amount of evidence against him (many poorer people, both white and not, have been convicted with less) implies that skin tone plays a lesser role than Money and Fame.
And in counter point to OJ’s ridicule, what about Paul Reubens? He was white, rich, famous, and ridiculed. Skin tone didn’t keep people from ragging on him.
If you take even a cursory glance at the statistics for arrests and convictions by race, non-whites are overwhelmingly more strongly represented in both arrests and in proportions of convictions.
This is all basic data and old news. To deny that race doesn’t give someone extra privileges is to either intentionally ignore that data or to be living under a rock (or that same white privilege).
And if anecdotal stories give any weight, I can tell you from personal experience that how authority figures treat me has changed based on which of my ethnic heritages I choose to reveal and which accent I choose to use. When I’m passing for white, I get much better treatment. When I’m passing for hispanic, the treatment is noticeably worse, even within the same encounter.
And to prevent accusations of confirmation bias, I was also a sociology major and have studied the data that is readily available. Non-white suspects receive both higher number of arrests and higher number of convictions proportionally.
You have apparently missed the point where I am also not claiming that his being white is the sole factor. But it is an important one.
never did i say it wasn’t, but since you’re a sociology major, can you confirm my understanding that white people are also disproportionally wealthy?
I have repeatedly stated that skintone (an accident of birth) makes it easier to gain the power and money that enables you to get off the hook. I’m not questioning that at all. What I’m saying (and have been the entire time) is that at the point in time where you are brought before a judge, you’re either lucky (rich/famous/powerful, and thus likely to get off the hook), doubly lucky (having won the social/skintone lottery making it easier for you to have acquired money/power/fame, or re-acquire it if necessary), or screwed (unless you’re demonstrably innocent).
While being white makes a lot in life easier (such as becoming rich/famous/powerful), actually being rich/famous/powerful does a Significantly better job of easing a life, regardless of your skin tone. So, adding in the extra information that the rich & famous (and thus unduly privileged) guy has a particular skin tone is about as relevant as his HS alma mater, where he was born, what he studied in school, or who his family were or knew.
All those things had an impact on how this so-called man got to where he was some 30 years ago, but as of that point in time, they didn’t matter nearly as much as the fact that he had (and continues to have, disgustingly) sufficient resources which he could bring to bear so as to ruin a little girl’s life a second time.
Sorry, but the studies continue to show that skin tone, even after adjustment for income and/or equivalent income, does, in fact, skew results of arrests and convictions.
You’re just wrong on this one, apparently totally blind to the discrimination still faced by minorities.
You’re just wrong on this one, apparently totally blind to the discrimination still faced by minorities.
I was wondering how long it was gonna take you to notice. I’m not picking on you. Just marvelling at your perseverance in the face of impossible odds. 🙂
I’m not going to lie, this whole travesty has been a wonderful teaching moment on everything wrong with the American justice system. Like so:
1. Rich? Famous? White? Do people think the law applies to you? Guess which one of those questions is answered ‘no’. How many people signed a petition for Micheal Vick saying ‘it wasn’t dog fighting-dog fighting’.
2. Plea bargains. The reason we have them is so that a judicial system overburdened and overbooked with criminal cases can save time. Why is it overburdened and overbooked? The legislation of morality, the war against drugs, and a nation of lawyers.
3. Punishment of sexual offenders. 18 year old getting a consensual blowjob from his 15 year old girlfriend? Sex offender. Older person who drugs and rapes an underage girl? Sex offender. Difference between the two in terms of job prospects, living situations, social stigma, etc? None. (Unless you’re rich, famous, and white, as mentioned before)
4. Politicization of the judicial branch. Why the fuck should a judge even be thinking about his renown when deciding whether or not to try a case? Because he needs to look good when someone above him resigns. Because when you don’t have the skill, the fame will do just as well.
I would love if the high profile-ness of this case resulted in some kind of judicial reform. But that’s the same thing I’ve said before every high-profile case.
“Women!–lining up to support a rich white guy who drugged and forcibly raped a 13-year-old child, then skipped away scot-free1.”
Well, “support” is not the right word, but one of the women who is asking that they leave this alone is the woman he raped. Because everytime this ends up in the spotlight, she has to re live it. She says she does not want him “held to further punishment.” Is it her call to make? No. But I think her opinion should count for something. And getting outraged on her behalf 32 years after the fact is a little weird.
The justice system is not just about helping the victims cope; after all, what does throwing embezzlers in jail do to help the people whose retirement funds are now bankrupt? How does spending more of their taxpayer dollars help them.
No what bothers me about this is that he plead guilty, then refused to accept punishment. He lost a civil suit as well, and hasn’t paid a cent there, either. This is righteous indignation at someone flouting the judicial process. The laws should apply evenly to everyone. Rich, poor, powerful, pitiful, black, white, brown, yellow, purple, Everyone should be held to the same standard.
This piece of scum needs to spend his 48 additional days in a psychiatric analyzation facility, while an unbiased judge figures out what further punishment, if any, is appropriate, and he needs to pay out the sum for the civil case (plus interest)
It’s unclear whether or not he paid: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story
He fled from justice when it became clear to him that the judge was planning to ignore the agreement and throw the book at him instead. Apparently deals shouldn’t apply when they’re made with rapists?
“Women!–lining up to support a rich white guy who drugged and forcibly raped a 13-year-old child, then skipped away scot-free1.”
Well, “support” is not the right word, but one of the women who is asking that they leave this alone is the woman he raped. Because everytime this ends up in the spotlight, she has to re live it. She says she does not want him “held to further punishment.” Is it her call to make? No. But I think her opinion should count for something. And getting outraged on her behalf 32 years after the fact is a little weird.
I think he now has a LOT of new net crushes. Count me among them.
Kickin’ ass and takin’ names. Thank you,
I sent this vid to my Sociology intro students; we’re discussing personal responsibility v. institutional realities. Should be some good discussion.
Difference between the two in terms of job prospects, living situations, social stigma, etc? None. (Unless you’re rich, famous, and white, as mentioned before)
I would think that living outside of US jurisdiction might have a little something to do with why he isn’t subjected to the Cruel and Unusual lifelong punishment applied to so called sex offenders.
Note: i say “so called” because in some cases i can’t see the offense (the willing underage GF who is now happily married to her BF a decade later…)
The justice system is not just about helping the victims cope; after all, what does throwing embezzlers in jail do to help the people whose retirement funds are now bankrupt? How does spending more of their taxpayer dollars help them.
No what bothers me about this is that he plead guilty, then refused to accept punishment. He lost a civil suit as well, and hasn’t paid a cent there, either. This is righteous indignation at someone flouting the judicial process. The laws should apply evenly to everyone. Rich, poor, powerful, pitiful, black, white, brown, yellow, purple, Everyone should be held to the same standard.
This piece of scum needs to spend his 48 additional days in a psychiatric analyzation facility, while an unbiased judge figures out what further punishment, if any, is appropriate, and he needs to pay out the sum for the civil case (plus interest)
The family didn’t offer him a plea deal because he was white, they offered him a plea deal because his rich white celebrity status afforded him the public spectacle they were trying to avoid for their daughter.
Had he not been a rich white celebrity, the trial would not have been the circus that they were afraid of and they would have felt (whether it was true or not) that they judge was more likely to rule in their favor.
Do you honestly believe that racism has been eradicated and that there is no such thing as the White Privilege, contrary to all sociological and anthropological data?
No, actually, if you’re rich, white, and a celebrity, you don’t have trouble finding a job or housing even if you don’t escape to another country after you’ve served your time.
When you serve your very short time in prison, everyone has to register as a sex offender for life. If you don’t already have gobs of money and prestige and power, you can’t get a job and there are jurisdictions that limit where you can buy or rent a home.
But if you have lots of money, have white skin, and have fame to back you up, you don’t need to ever go through the job process to not be hired somewhere and you can buy enough land anywhere you want that doesn’t interfere with the laws prohibiting where you live.
And if you’re famous, people forgive you for drugging and forcing a 13 year old child who was clearly saying “no”, and even defend his position that he didn’t *really* do anything wrong.
Please, point out any case of a poor black man who gets the same privileges and I’ll withdraw my position. Even OJ, who was black but rich, was stigmatized after his trial (which he won) and his career suffered for it.
No, that’s not what i said at all. All i said is that you could very easily remove the white from your statements and they would still hold true.
It’s wrong that due to accidents of birth (skin, who his parents were, who he knew growing up, etc) helped put him in a position of power, and I don’t deny those, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the fact that he was in a position of power which would have made a trial too painful. Fighting a rich & powerful black, asian, hispanic, native, or [insert non-white ethnicity here] would Also have made a trial too painful.
Less likely, based on the cross ethnic distribution of money and power (w.p. in action), but still the plea would have been offered, because by far the most important thing was the money and power that this bastard (who also happened to be white) wielded.
It wasn’t his “rich white celebrity status” that drove the plea, but his “rich celebrity status (that he almost guaranteedly acquired more easily for being white).” That is the difference i’m going on about.
I reiterate my point about OJ having a rough time of things even after he “won” his court case
Again, i’m not saying that powerful people don’t receive perks they’re not entitled to, but that being able to flee the country such that you don’t have to exercise those perks (which would, in this case, have involved filming exclusively on locations where children don’t frequent, likely meaning having to make some studio [you suggested building it himself, from his own money?], and the area around it, adults only, etc). And again, including white skin with the significantly more powerful factors (fame, fortune) is distracting. Michael Vick (whose crime is irrationally derided more) is playing football again, showing that fame undoubtedly helps.
Again, see what i’m doing here? I’m pointing out that it’s not the “he’s white which made all this easier to acquire” factor that’s most important. It’s there, certainly, but it’s served 90%+ of what it’ll do for him by the time he gets in trouble.
As to OJ he Was rich (3-6 million on defense lawyers will put a dent in anybody’s savings, never mind the civil settlement), and I would point out that the only requirement that needs to be met for anyone to be found not guilty is that 12 specific people needed to believe that there was non-zero chance that the prosecution’s case wasn’t completely proven. Not even was wrong, but Not Proven. Meaning if every juror said that there was a 99.5%+ chance he did it, they had to acquit. Looking at the evidence list, that number seems plausible. Indeed, the fact that he was acquitted of two counts of murder despite the large amount of evidence against him (many poorer people, both white and not, have been convicted with less) implies that skin tone plays a lesser role than Money and Fame.
And in counter point to OJ’s ridicule, what about Paul Reubens? He was white, rich, famous, and ridiculed. Skin tone didn’t keep people from ragging on him.
If you take even a cursory glance at the statistics for arrests and convictions by race, non-whites are overwhelmingly more strongly represented in both arrests and in proportions of convictions.
This is all basic data and old news. To deny that race doesn’t give someone extra privileges is to either intentionally ignore that data or to be living under a rock (or that same white privilege).
And if anecdotal stories give any weight, I can tell you from personal experience that how authority figures treat me has changed based on which of my ethnic heritages I choose to reveal and which accent I choose to use. When I’m passing for white, I get much better treatment. When I’m passing for hispanic, the treatment is noticeably worse, even within the same encounter.
And to prevent accusations of confirmation bias, I was also a sociology major and have studied the data that is readily available. Non-white suspects receive both higher number of arrests and higher number of convictions proportionally.
You have apparently missed the point where I am also not claiming that his being white is the sole factor. But it is an important one.
not really about Polanski
Is it good or bad that I want to do naughty, delicious things to this hot man who is smart and articulate and has those luscious lips? I want to.
(p.s. Polanski bad.)
not really about Polanski
Is it good or bad that I want to do naughty, delicious things to this hot man who is smart and articulate and has those luscious lips? I want to.
(p.s. Polanski bad.)
also not about Polanski
yes, HOT!
never did i say it wasn’t, but since you’re a sociology major, can you confirm my understanding that white people are also disproportionally wealthy?
I have repeatedly stated that skintone (an accident of birth) makes it easier to gain the power and money that enables you to get off the hook. I’m not questioning that at all. What I’m saying (and have been the entire time) is that at the point in time where you are brought before a judge, you’re either lucky (rich/famous/powerful, and thus likely to get off the hook), doubly lucky (having won the social/skintone lottery making it easier for you to have acquired money/power/fame, or re-acquire it if necessary), or screwed (unless you’re demonstrably innocent).
While being white makes a lot in life easier (such as becoming rich/famous/powerful), actually being rich/famous/powerful does a Significantly better job of easing a life, regardless of your skin tone. So, adding in the extra information that the rich & famous (and thus unduly privileged) guy has a particular skin tone is about as relevant as his HS alma mater, where he was born, what he studied in school, or who his family were or knew.
All those things had an impact on how this so-called man got to where he was some 30 years ago, but as of that point in time, they didn’t matter nearly as much as the fact that he had (and continues to have, disgustingly) sufficient resources which he could bring to bear so as to ruin a little girl’s life a second time.
Sorry, but the studies continue to show that skin tone, even after adjustment for income and/or equivalent income, does, in fact, skew results of arrests and convictions.
You’re just wrong on this one, apparently totally blind to the discrimination still faced by minorities.
What particularly bugged me was how Poland was acting all upset about Polanski’s arrest, about the same day they passed a law requiring mandatory castration of “child molesters”.
I think it shows people have a habit of imagining criminals as the worst kind of inhuman monsters, so when it’s suddenly someone they “know” all kinds of excuses and exceptions are made, rather than questioning the sanity of the law.
It’s probably human nature; one of my teachers murdered his wife, and in some ways that still doesn’t compute for me.
It’s hard to be sure what actually happened with Polanski, but it sure sounded like really fucked-up “rape-rape” and not some questionable statutory rape charge for otherwise wholesome consensual sex involving a legal minor…
What particularly bugged me was how Poland was acting all upset about Polanski’s arrest, about the same day they passed a law requiring mandatory castration of “child molesters”.
I think it shows people have a habit of imagining criminals as the worst kind of inhuman monsters, so when it’s suddenly someone they “know” all kinds of excuses and exceptions are made, rather than questioning the sanity of the law.
It’s probably human nature; one of my teachers murdered his wife, and in some ways that still doesn’t compute for me.
It’s hard to be sure what actually happened with Polanski, but it sure sounded like really fucked-up “rape-rape” and not some questionable statutory rape charge for otherwise wholesome consensual sex involving a legal minor…
You’re just wrong on this one, apparently totally blind to the discrimination still faced by minorities.
I was wondering how long it was gonna take you to notice. I’m not picking on you. Just marvelling at your perseverance in the face of impossible odds. 🙂
The first time I was introduced to Jay Smooth, I ended up watching all his videos, one right after the other. Man, when I grow up, I want to be as smart as he is!
It’s wrong that due to accidents of birth (skin, who his parents were, who he knew growing up, etc) helped put him in a position of power, and I don’t deny those, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the fact that he was in a position of power which would have made a trial too painful. Fighting a rich & powerful black, asian, hispanic, native, or [insert non-white ethnicity here] would Also have made a trial too painful.
I definitely get what you’re saying, and we’ve seen in other cases (OJ Simpson being an obvious example) that wealth and power offer formidable legal protections to anyone, regardless of race. If it had been Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones, it’s likely he’d still have considerable Hollywood support.
But I think ace plays a role in this particular case simply because American society has always been a little twitchy and weird about issues of race and sex. Had a wealthy, powerful black man been accused in the 1970s of drugging and then raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old white girl, I have a suspicion that there would be a different sort of public response, and that the DA might have been a bit less willing to cut a deal, simply because of America’s historical weirdness around race and sex.
Oh quit fishing,!
You know you are!
Naah, in all honesty, I don’t think that’s true. I think he’s probably smarter than I am.
I’m cool with that. I don’t have any particular ego investment in being the smartest kid on the block. I’ve got a fearsome memory and it’s stuffed full of lots of stuff, but that’s a little bit different from having the kinds of cognitive skills this guy has. The way he is able to express his ideas is just brilliant.
I’m actually re-watching a lot of his videos as I gear up to start producing my podcast, because I wouldn’t mind taking some plages from his playbook–he’s really, really good.
Yes, rich and white. Surely it has absolutely nothing to do with “Hoping to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney offered Polanski a plea bargain” (source, via Wikipedia)
Do you have sources that refute Wikipedia, and the linked sources? I’d love to hear it.
Yes, rich and white. Surely it has absolutely nothing to do with “Hoping to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney offered Polanski a plea bargain” (source, via Wikipedia)
Do you have sources that refute Wikipedia, and the linked sources? I’d love to hear it.
It’s unclear whether or not he paid: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story
He fled from justice when it became clear to him that the judge was planning to ignore the agreement and throw the book at him instead. Apparently deals shouldn’t apply when they’re made with rapists?
And this is part of my problem with the case: simple information like this isn’t part of the public discussion. We have a documentary to go off of, and a few newspaper articles.
So, all I can say is: No, according to the Documentary, there was a serious miscarriage of justice. The documentary claims Roman Polanski was under the understanding that the 90 days would be the sum of the sentence, then he was photographed around a bunch of young and pretty girls, and then the judge said he was going to hold a mock trial (coaching the prosecution in advance) and sentence Polanski to 100 years.
I don’t cite it as reliable, but I don’t know of any other source that actually contradicts the contents. I’d love to hear it if someone has something that actually contradicts the documentary, but I really don’t see anything out there.
And this is part of my problem with the case: simple information like this isn’t part of the public discussion. We have a documentary to go off of, and a few newspaper articles.
So, all I can say is: No, according to the Documentary, there was a serious miscarriage of justice. The documentary claims Roman Polanski was under the understanding that the 90 days would be the sum of the sentence, then he was photographed around a bunch of young and pretty girls, and then the judge said he was going to hold a mock trial (coaching the prosecution in advance) and sentence Polanski to 100 years.
I don’t cite it as reliable, but I don’t know of any other source that actually contradicts the contents. I’d love to hear it if someone has something that actually contradicts the documentary, but I really don’t see anything out there.
haha – i love that guy! he has a point.
i too was disgusted by all the people coming out in his defense – he’s a rapist! plain and simple
haha – i love that guy! he has a point.
i too was disgusted by all the people coming out in his defense – he’s a rapist! plain and simple