Friday, October 2, 2009

Thespians outcry over Polanski misguided

For several days I have tried to escape the dribble surrounding the Roman Polanski debacle. Many in the Hollywood cabal are coming out in defense of Roman Polanski. On the View this week Whoopi Goldberg said, "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape." Seriously, since it was not "rape-rape" it is okay for Roman Polanski to run from the law? Plus, what is "Rape-Rape"? Roman Polanski was charged with furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18, rape by use of drugs, perversion and sodomy. The court documents do not show anything about "rape-rape". The charges stem from events that took place at Jack Nicholson's home when Polanski was accused of giving a 13-year-old female champagne and Quaaludes.

The following is dialogue that took place during the 1977 grand jury proceedings:

A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was OK.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, 'No.'

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, 'Well, you'll be better.' And I go, 'No, I won't. I have to go home.'

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'Keep away.'

Now, from what I recall once a person says "No" any sexual activity after that is considered rape. Perhaps I am wrong but I don't believe I am. For 31 years Roman Polanski has lived, worked, and played in Europe until his recent arrest in Switzerland on a 1978 fugitive warrant. The odd part of this entire affair is that a plea bargain had been struck prior to Polanski's flight. The lawyers of the 13-year-old victim pushed for the plea bargain because they wanted spare the child of testifying thus making her identity public.

The plea was to recommend probation and a series of restrictions but no jail time was allocated. Regardless of the plea, Roman Polanski ran from the law and lived in Europe while mocking the L.A. Court System. The question to ask is; Why now? Why after 31 years, years that the victim has moved on from, are authorities looking to arrest Polanski and extradite him back to the United States. Surely the plea bargain that existed in 1977 no longer exists because of his 31 years on the lam. For people, like Whoopi, to defend a self-proclaimed rapist, yes he did admit to raping the 13-year old child, is insane. Why isn't there a strong push to have Whoopi, and others, removed from the limelight or boycotted?

Certain facts are not in dispute. The simple fact is that Roman Polanski feared this plea bargain fell apart and hid in Europe, well not really hid, for 31 years. Even though the victim has moved on, justice is required by the citizens of California. As a father of a 13 year old daughter, I am outraged that anyone is defending Roman Polanski. I understand that in previous posts I defended Drew Anderson, city worker of Waconia, but he did his time and continued on his life without becoming a repeat offender. Now some may say that Roman Polanski had not repeated either. Okay, but he never served time or completed his plea bargain –which was going to be a slap on the wrist – instead he ran from the law and mocked the citizens of California by living a lavish lifestyle in Europe.