Polanski editorial proves the WaPo is clueless


Today’s Washington Post editorial on the Roman Polanski case is a classic illustration of the utter lack of understanding that seems to fuel a mainstream media caught up in sensationalizing trivialities while simultaneously displaying a monumental ignorance of fact.

Let’s start with the headline:

Director Roman Polanski escapes accountability for raping a 13-year-old.

Wrong.

Roman Polanski reached a plea agreement with the judge and the prosecution and fulfilled every part of it. He plead guilty to statutory rape and surrendered himself at state prison — the Orwellian-named California Institution for Men at Chino — where he served the agreed-on incarceration spelled out in the plea agreement.

Polanski did precisely what he and all the parties to the prosecution agreed he must do in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement. He did not “escape accountability.”

The headline of the editorial is therefore a lie, a statement consciously made in exact opposition to the truth it pretends to describe.

Now let’s consider the rest of the editorial:

SWISS OFFICIALS who refused to extradite director Roman Polanski to the United States to face punishment for a long-ago sex crime said they didn’t have enough information. Maybe they neglected to read the undisputed testimony of a 13-year-old detailing how Mr. Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized her. Maybe they overlooked the transcript of Mr. Polanski’s court hearing in which, pleading guilty to a lesser charge, he acknowledged knowing his victim had yet to turn 14. Or perhaps they missed his unsettling explanation to probation officers of how sex with the girl “was very spontaneous.” Maybe in Switzerland the law is not offended when a criminal flees before sentencing.

Another concatenation of falsehood. The Swiss ministry said they did not receive information on a critical meeting between the prosecutor, his superiors, and the judge in which the prosecutor had sought to have the judge removed from the case because of his official misconduct.

The Swiss had the details of the case itself; what they wanted was the official record of a meeting where the prosecutor himself had alleged judicial misconduct.

The Swiss Justice Ministry announced Monday that it was denying the U.S. request for extradition and that Mr. Polanski, who had been under house arrest, was free. As part of a plea agreement with Los Angeles prosecutors, Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty in 1977 to having sex with a 13-year-old girl to satisfy far more serious charges of rape and sodomy; he fled the country in 1978 when he feared the sentencing judge might send him to jail. The director, acclaimed for his filmmaking skills, lived with impunity abroad until he flew to Switzerland to pick up an award in September and California authorities seized the opportunity to seek his extradition. His native France, where he lives, does not extradite its citizens.

The Swiss rejection of the U.S. request, which cannot be appealed, was a surprise. The government grants the vast majority of extradition petitions, and even Mr. Polanski’s lawyer said the decision was “not expected.” Switzerland Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about sentencing procedures used at the time of the case. This technicality essentially proved a convenient excuse for a Swiss government caught up in a wave of protest from European intellectual and political figures sympathetic to Mr. Polanski. French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterand said that Mr. Polanski was being “thrown to the lions for an old story that doesn’t really many any sense.” He’s made terrific movies, in other words; he’s one of us; why can’t the Americans get past this obsession with holding child rapists accountable?

Mitterand was right. The case didn’t make any sense. A judge who had made an agreement then breached it unilaterally and without legal cause after the defendant had carried out every part of the agreement. There is no disputing this point.

But the Post’s editors presumably wanted to stage what an old friend has described as an ornamental rage, to fire a few hypocritical shots across the bow of a target they had created out of either ignorance or willful deceit.

All of which has nothing to say about the appropriateness of the settlement, something law students and celebrity hounds can debate ad infinitum. But all the argument won’t change the simple truth: Roman Polanski did not escape responsibility. His victim didn’t think so, his prosecutor didn’t think so, and even the judge didn’t think so at the time the deal was made.

Let’s hope the Post’s editors don’t escape responsibility either.

For more on the case, see esnl‘s previous posts and Marina Zenovich’s documentary, Roman Polanski, Wanted and Desired.

About these ads

5 responses to “Polanski editorial proves the WaPo is clueless

  1. michellefrommadison

    Polanski wins again. Is that true justice?

    • Polanski didn’t win. He plead guilty, served time in prison, and paid civil damages to the young woman, who has stated repeatedly that she did not want the extradition. In addition, he suffered a deep blow to his career, cut off from Hollywood, which is still the world’s capital of big budget cinema.

      If the victim doesn’t seek further punishment, and if all parties reached a plea agreement, and then a judge who’s best friend was a mob lawyer decides to renege after the defendant goes to prison and undergoes the mandated psychiatric evaluation [which concluded that no benefit would be served by additional prison time, as did the Los Angeles County Probation Department], how is that a win for Polanski?

      The only potential “winner” in this whole latter-day mess was the Los Angeles County District Attorney, who boosted his media profile just as he was launching a run for Attorney General.

      Nobody else won, except the cause of justice, when the Swiss Minister of Justice rightly held that Polanski should not be extradited for the benefit of a face-saving effort by a long-dead judge and the political ambition of a country prosecutor.

  2. This is worth a read:

    http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest

    The basic point: Polanski raped a child. His defenders who try to trivialize his crime (i.e. Whoopi’s classic, ‘It wasn’t rape-rape’) forget this fact. He drug and raped a child.

    And then he fled before sentencing. The deal wasn’t finalized, the judge was not barred from changing the sentence (judges are not bound to accept plea deals). It was a bad deal to begin with because — remember — he drugged and anally raped a 13-year-old child while she begged him to stop. The judge hadn’t passed down the sentence yet, Polanski simply expected he would be sentenced — had he not fled before sentencing — to what amounted to time already served at that point.

    Still, I’ll even grant you that the actions of the judge may raise some questions, but all the Polanski supporters seem all too happy to ignore that what we’re talking about here is the rape of a child.

    • Actually, it’s arguable the judge was obligated to fulfill the bargain because Polanski had already fulfilled his end. He had already spent the time in prison and the judge himself had accepted the deal before Polanski went to prison. Yes, Judges aren’t obliged to approve a deal negotiated between prosecution and defense, but this plea bargain was arrived at with the judge’s direct participation. Polanski had completed the agreed-upon sentence, on which the judge had agreed. Indeed, which the judge had proposed.

  3. Yayson is one of the typical ignorami who still have no clues about what really happened . A teenager, who could pass for 20, & the examining doctor described as an ‘adult female’ is certainly NOT a ‘child’. Plus, as per medical findings THERE WAS NO ‘RAPE’ let alone double sodomy. FACT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s