Roman Polanski Arrested

[Cinephrenic]

Correct me if I misread somewhere that ,she was a model too?

[tartarlamb]

Correct me if I misread somewhere that ,she was a model too?

I thought I was being cynical for thinking that a lengthy, 2-paragraph "apology" was perhaps not very sincere. But your helpful cultural insight and innuendo just keep coming.

I don't care if Polanski serves time, my admiration for his films and my sympathies for him as the victim of two of the most terrible mass murders of the 20th century notwithstanding. The question isn't really if Polanski deserves a second chance -- he's a rapist and he doesn't -- its whether or not the US justice system does. At the end of the day, the only resolution to this crime was in civil court because the criminal courts were too corrupt to properly prosecute what should have been a cut-and-dry case. I feel very sorry for Polanski's victim and for his new family now, but why waste breath defending him?

[HerrSchreck]

What are you basing this on-- do you actually have any statistics to support this, and what is the source for these? I'd also be interested to know what percentage of underage mothers of children produced by rape bore their children, as opposed to those who bore them. Of course these scenarios don't apply in this case, since Polanski forced anal sex upon the girl and there was no resulting pregnancy (if I'm not misinformed).

You are correct on the Polanski case -- there was no pregnancy.

I was offering up the cases of pregnant teens because that is one area in statistics where the books can't be cooked (along with the murder rate -- statistics on rape, statutory or otherwise OTOH are notoriously unreliable): if the girl was pregnant below a certain age, rape occurred. Period.

Teen pregnancy stats: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If statutory rapists were being jailed, there would be hundreds of thousands of them in jail every year for just those rapes that resulted in pregnancies. Obviously there aren't. I'm too lazy to google for social services approaches to under age of consent teen pregnancies but there were reports in the usual media sources (The Economist, NY Times, New Yorker, NPR) about infighting with those who wanted the fathers on the hook for child support (monetary/child rearing responsibilities) prevailing over those calling for criminal sanction. If you are genuinely interested, I suspect you can use "the google" just as well as I can.

Yes, yes, you're talking about boyfriend/girlfriend situations-- where teens are having sex with one another and-- too dumb horny and careless to use condoms-- a baby pops out. That has no relevance to an adult taking a child by subterfuge, force and violence, as in Polanski, and is not something worth googling here.

We're talking about Child Rapists, Ted, not Teen Sex.

[Lemmy Caution]

I don't care if Polanski serves time, my admiration for his films and my sympathies for him as the victim of two of the most terrible mass murders of the 20th century notwithstanding.

The Manson killings, while sensational and shocking, wouldn't even rank as the worst mass murders committed this week. I know we all exaggerate to make a point, but don't let the American media infect your brain.

And cinephrenic apologized for his harsh and inappropriate language, I don't think he has to apologize for or change his opinion (no matter how wrong-headed it may be).

Lastly, it's always a bad idea to give bail to a guy named Roman.

[tartarlamb]

The Manson killings, while sensational and shocking, wouldn't even rank as the worst mass murders committed this week. I know we all exaggerate to make a point, but don't let the American media infect your brain.

Not really the substantial portion of what I was saying, but thanks for splitting the hair and condescending to give me advice about how not to poison my brain.

[Cinephrenic]

I'm not defending Polanski. I'm intelligent enough to seperate his personal life and his films. Honestly, I don't give a shit if he goes to jail (as it will change anything). I'm not going to change my opinion just because I upset a few members on here. I just apologized for the harseness. I'm just not too sensative to her situation. I don't find her as innocent as many want to make her. If he married her with her parents consent, it wouldn't have been pedophilia, right? You telling me a 13 year old is too small to make out what sex is? Maybe she can't run for politics, but sex? We as Americans try children as adults when it comes to murder, no?

[Orphic Lycidas]

At the height of the trial, I think the case was very similar if I remember rightly. I know it greatly divided fans into sections of those that turned their back on him completely and believed he was guilty, those in absolute denial with "Michael is innocent" cards waving around outside the court and his home throughout, and those that did connect his background to the case and allowed that knowledge to help understand why a person would do what he was accused of. I'm not sure if this would have been the same split (or in the same numbers) if Jackson confessed, but I would be very surprised if there was not a legion following him with their support still, who did (in some small part) excuse the crime for his horrible history.

Why would people who believes in Jackson's innocence be in "absolute denial"? The first allegations brought against him in '93 was obviously the work of a consistent failure of a man who sought to destroy Jackson's reputation because of his jealousy over Jackson's friendship with his son and his wife. It was known early on that the boy denied any wrong-doing on Jackson's part until he was drugged by his father and changed his story. If you're not familiar with the details there is October 1994 GQ article by Mary A. Fischer entitled "Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story": http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. All of this was public knowledge long before he was accused and taken to court in 2005 by a family with a long track record of extortion. I'm not sure if I'm misreading you bu are you saying that his background should have led people to naturally suspect he was a pedophile? His father's abuse struck me as evidence of the complete opposite. Jackson suffered from arrested development; a natural product of his history of parental abuse (Jackson's professional psychiatric evaluations came to the same conclusion regarding his state of mind and found nothing that would suggest pedophilia). My natural reaction at the time was that children don't usually molest their play buddies. His current and previous accusers took advantage of a certain naivete among the general public who used Jackson as a scapegoat for their own prejudices against someone who was "weird," "effeminate," and refused to grow up. If they didn't like his persona then they were quite content to find a justification for their prejudice, no matter how absurdly unlikely the pedophilia accusations were in the first place. No doubt the mass media played in a roll in replacing analysis of the evidence with pure sensationalism. When Jackson was found not guilty you could almost sense the disappointment in many circles despite an open-and-shut case. This has nothing in common with the Polanski case. Polanski is a self-confessed rapist. What I don't understand is how any European nation could have refused to extradite him until now.

[Orphic Lycidas]

True, but it's not like he raped a 8 year old. The bitch knew what she was up to and Polanski made some irresponsible choices as an adult. They chasing him like a international fugitive on the run for murder. Give me a break..

This is the single most repugnant thing I have ever read on this board. I'd expect to hear someone spouting something like this in a high security prison cell or a message board for right-wing extremism. Not here.

[tartarlamb]

I'm not defending Polanski. I'm intelligent enough to seperate his personal life and his films. Honestly, I don't give a shit if he goes to jail (as it will change anything). I'm not going to change my opinion just because I upset a few members on here. I just apologized for the harseness. I'm just not too sensative to her situation. I don't find her as innocent as many want to make her. If he married her with her parents consent, it wouldn't have been pedophilia, right? You telling me a 13 year old is too small to make out what sex is? Maybe she can't run for politics, but sex? We as Americans try children as adults when it comes to murder, no?

I don't know how many ways you can rephrase "blame the victim." I don't think child marriage is an institution that ought to be emulated, and yes, I am telling you that a 13 year old girl is too young to understand what is going on, especially since this young girl said "no" repeatedly. You can argue whether or not this girl is "innocent," but that fact is, its not her innocence that's in question. She is a victim, not a criminal.

[tartarlamb]

davidhare, certainly you can agree that whether its 13, 26, or 39 years, rape is rape.

[Cinephrenic]

This is the single most repugnant thing I have ever read on this board. I'd expect to hear someone spouting something like this in a high security prison cell or a message board for right-wing extremism. Not here.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Right-wing extremism? Do you even know what you are talking about? You think i'm defending adults to have sex with minors? Is that what you got out of my post? Any scientist can tell you that there is a clear distinction between a 8 year old and a 13 year old teenager. First of all, she is at a age to have children and too have sex biologically. Socially and culturally, we have consequences for young women to have sex, no doubt. I'm not saying what Polanski did was good or he was a victim, but i'm also saying that she isn't innocent either. Just because she is legally a child, we should parade behind her and blame sexual offenders only? Parents don't have any responsibility?

I think people are confusing the distinction between rape and satutory rape. Not all Rape is rape. My understanding of the trial was not about rape, but having sex with a minor (satutory rape)?

[tartarlamb]

I think people are confusing the distinction between rape and satutory rape. Not all Rape is rape. My understanding of the trial was not about rape, but having sex with a minor (satutory rape)?

She said no to Polanski's advances.

[Cinephrenic]

Then this is a rape case, and not just a sex with a minor. I heard Polanski bought Neverland Ranch.

[MichaelB]

So - draws breath - rape is not a single or simple concept.

True as a general philosophical argument, but it's pretty clear-cut here. Victim was 13 = statutory rape. Victim said no (repeatedly) = actual rape.

[tajmahal]

I'm curious about the American legal system's plea bargian process. While the accused has the option to plead guilty to a lesser charge, does the (alleged) victim have any recourse to challenge the plea-bargain? If I were a victim of a violent crime, would I have to stand by, powerless, and watch the accused use the legal system to gain a lesser sentence?

[Tom Hagen]

Like a good number of things, it depends on the state. Many states have statutory or constitutional provisions that give victims certain rights in the course of a criminal trial, including the right to be heard - and to object - at a defendant's sentencing. They don't have "veto" power over a plea bargain, but strenuous objections would certainly make a court think twice about ratifying a plea bargain.

As for the Court's role, in almost all jurisdictions the Judge is supposed to assure that procedural formalities are complied with. The Court takes note of the factual basis for the plea, sees that constitutional rights have been advised and waived, asks whether the plea is voluntary and if unusual or improper promises have been made to the defendant, and determines if other parties (including victims) should be heard on the record. The Court sentences after receiving the plea, generally deferring to the recomendations of the lawyers who have struck the plea bargain.

[Mr Sausage]

Anyway, can we perhaps draw a distinction between pedo- and ephebophilia - the latter refers to pre-legal teens (which can indeed be 12 or 13 in some cultures) but sexually mature kids who were sexually admired by - for instance - the Ancient Greeks, generally the men for the boys. There IS a distinction between early teens and sub teens and it must be and usually is discerned in criminal trials and sentencing.

I find the use of the term "ephebophile" here confusing. For the ancient Greeks, an ephebe (ephebos) was specifically someone between the ages of 18 and 20, and therefore no longer engaged in pederastic relationships (as the younger member, at least). In what context is this distinction made? Is the term legal, or historical, ect.? Also, am I right to assume that "sexually mature" means having gone through puberty?

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Whenever the Polanski case comes up, with all the condemnation and defending that arises, I'm always reminded of the Noah Cross quote, in a Polanski movie no less -

"You see, Mr. Gitts, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they're capable of ANYTHING. "

What's interesting is how baldly John Huston plays that character, especially considering Polanski's troubles and Huston's own suspected relation to the Black Dahlia case.

I'm inclined to think the worst of any celebrity/politician/clergy/etc because they have, in general, all abused their powers and privileges and gotten away with it for decades, centuries, even millenia. Now, it seems more and more acceptable for abusers of power to simply flaunt it in our faces, because, frankly, what can we do about it? We're just the little people; laws and morals and right and wrong don't apply to the people upstairs.

[Sloper]

I also found Kate Harding’s post (which tavernier linked to earlier) very persuasive, though uncomfortable reading. However, this bit raises a few questions:

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.

The would-be populist appeal to ‘the people’ of ‘every state’ here is pretty obnoxious. I’m not sure that what’s happening now really serves the interests of any people, except those who think that Polanski is ‘scum’ and that he ‘deserves’ to rot in jail. Those people may well be in the right, but I find myself completely unmoved at the thought of their being disappointed. And it’s clear – because this is the point Harding is addressing – that there are quite a few people being done an active disservice by the revival of this case, including Polanski’s and his victim’s families. (I can’t find out how old Geimer’s kids or Elvis Polanski are, but Polanski’s daughter is sixteen.) So this stuff about ‘the people’ seems like bullshit to me.

‘Justice’ is a much more challenging term. I am uncomfortable with the idea that anyone ‘deserves’ simply to be punished for doing something wrong, and I do think in an ideal world the justice system would be more understanding of circumstance than it is. This isn’t an ideal world, and I realise that in practice the law has to punish people and send them to jail, and if this had happened to Polanski back in 1978 then, as David says, none of us (including me) would have a problem with it. I guess Polanski’s career would also have been definitively over, which illustrates the point that if someone is punished they are perceived as deserving it (even if they don’t), whereas if they are not they are perceived as not deserving it (even if they do). And perhaps there is some value in the idea that Polanski’s punishment now would send out an important message about how ‘no one is above the law’, and justice ‘catches up’ with them eventually.

But it doesn’t feel like that’s the message being sent out here. It’s all very well for Fecke and Harding to gaze into the horizon and talk about this abstract term, ‘justice’, but as well as being blind (in the sense of ‘impartial’) justice should also have its eyes wide open to context and circumstance. And even if a few people see this as ‘justice being done’, the fact that there are so many questions around this (even if those questions are misguided) means that it is far more likely to be perceived by most of the ‘people’ Harding champions as wanton self-mockery on the part of the justice system.
Not only did that system fail to deal fairly and consistently (and justly) with Polanski (and, more importantly, his victim) in 1978, putting him in a position from which he understandably fled, and stretching out her agony and humiliation for years and years and years... Not only that, but the same ‘justice system’ has now decided to catch up with Polanski 31 years later, when both he and his victim have families and lives to get on with, when no practical good can be served by such an execution of justice, and when in fact a good deal of harm can be done by it. The time for ‘justice’ to be served was 1978 – surely the question now ought to be a pragmatic one about whether any form of justice, pragmatic or abstract, is being served now?

And yes, I admit I may be pontificating about this because I like Polanski’s films.

[Zazou dans le Metro]

Would people be so willing to defend him if he was a plumber?

Maybe "Joe the Plumber"

Well we certainly wouldn't be debating it at all here on a film forum but
you could always subscribe here and ask..http://www.ukplumbersforums.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Amidst all the inevitable placard waving and moral indignation is it only the French media that has the question' why now' at the top of the agenda?
Granted Polanski's french citizen /celebrity status fuels this line of enquiry but as David Hare noted paedophilia( and patriotism) are sure fire winners to get that mob mentality all stoked up.

[bigP]

At the height of the trial, I think the case was very similar if I remember rightly. I know it greatly divided fans into sections of those that turned their back on him completely and believed he was guilty, those in absolute denial with "Michael is innocent" cards waving around outside the court and his home throughout, and those that did connect his background to the case and allowed that knowledge to help understand why a person would do what he was accused of. I'm not sure if this would have been the same split (or in the same numbers) if Jackson confessed, but I would be very surprised if there was not a legion following him with their support still, who did (in some small part) excuse the crime for his horrible history.

Why would people who believes in Jackson's innocence be in "absolute denial"? The first allegations brought against him in '93 was obviously the work of a consistent failure of a man who sought to destroy Jackson's reputation because of his jealousy over Jackson's friendship with his son and his wife. It was known early on that the boy denied any wrong-doing on Jackson's part until he was drugged by his father and changed his story. If you're not familiar with the details there is October 1994 GQ article by Mary A. Fischer entitled "Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story": http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. All of this was public knowledge long before he was accused and taken to court in 2005 by a family with a long track record of extortion. I'm not sure if I'm misreading you bu are you saying that his background should have led people to naturally suspect he was a pedophile? His father's abuse struck me as evidence of the complete opposite. Jackson suffered from arrested development; a natural product of his history of parental abuse (Jackson's professional psychiatric evaluations came to the same conclusion regarding his state of mind and found nothing that would suggest pedophilia). My natural reaction at the time was that children don't usually molest their play buddies. His current and previous accusers took advantage of a certain naivete among the general public who used Jackson as a scapegoat for their own prejudices against someone who was "weird," "effeminate," and refused to grow up. If they didn't like his persona then they were quite content to find a justification for their prejudice, no matter how absurdly unlikely the pedophilia accusations were in the first place. No doubt the mass media played in a roll in replacing analysis of the evidence with pure sensationalism. When Jackson was found not guilty you could almost sense the disappointment in many circles despite an open-and-shut case. This has nothing in common with the Polanski case. Polanski is a self-confessed rapist. What I don't understand is how any European nation could have refused to extradite him until now.

"Why would people who believes in Jackson's innocence be in "absolute denial"?" Sorry that is noted. Badly phrased. What I meant was during the court case there were allegations put forth and there were ardent supporters who did not believe one word said against Jackson.

Just for the record, I stated myself that the connection to the Polanski case was moot, in that Polanski confessed to a crime, Jackson did not, and was acquitted to-boot. I was merely responding to a previous post; the reason being, that Michael Jackson was another high profile child abuse case, that created much anger and uproar from both sides of the camp (those who staked his innocence and those who staked his guilt). Some would say that just because he was acquitted does not suggest he was innocent. Similarly with Polanski, if the court drops the suit upon extradition to the States, some will say that he never served his time and walked away from a crime he had admitted to. And for the record, wasn't Jackson at one stage ready to pay the settlement with the first accusation (before the enlightening tape recording from Evan Chandler turned up)?

That is a good point about Jackson being accused by a man who wanted to damage his reputation out of jealousy, sure, but i'm not sure if you are suggesting that paedophillia can only happen out of total lucidity and mentally stability. As far as Jackson was concerned (and I may not have stressed enough that I had no opinion one way or another in regard to his guilt or innocence), his mental well being was certainly a factor discussed among the public and the press at the time of the trial. As far as being in a state of arrested development, Jackson had an extraordinarily damaging introduction to sexual awareness that must have proved stilting to his developmental faculties, and most probably left him in a heavy state of sexual repression (a disorder that has in some camps (Mary E. Odem and Jody Clay-Warner) been suggested can lead to acts of rape). So with the boys, he seemed to take on a psychology where he played the persona of both friend and father figure to the children of Neverland, a home he created to give children everything that he himself never had; peace, enjoyment and someone who cared for them. In a damaged mind, it is possible a man or woman can take feelings of love and protection to a physical action that they don't understand crosses the line, and yes that is true, it would be hard to imagine children molesting their buddies, but, Jackson was not a child, not physically and we have no idea to what level mentally. I think you are confusing the idea of a man having a repressed child-like mind with him actually being a child, which is far far from the case. Remember, that despite your saying that the boy involved denied any allegations, he did tell a psychologist and police "that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer's genitals". Did this happen? Who knows. The courts said it did not because the defence gained a strong case with the arrival of the taped recording that the father had a vendetta and was out to ruin Jackson, but he did not state that the boy suffered no abuse. If he said so another time, i'm sorry I have not seen or heard that evidence, but as far as the damage in court went, that was the legal minefield the father fell into. But I would stress that Michael Jackson was not a child.

As far as my inviting Michael Jackson's trials into the Polanski case, it was purely just a response to a previous post, without comparison. I have stated with Jackson's regard and that in response to the Polanski case the difference is legion, and I have no qualms stating that Polanski commited a grievous crime against a young girl who deserved to live a life without her own scars. However, as both Jackson and Polanski are/were faced with the same accusation, it is notable that both carried wounds from their past that can help in the field of psychology to understand and possibly catch sexual predators down the line, and should not be discounted. To quote Dr Judy Kuriansky (talking about Jackson and his childhood in regard to the accusations of child abuse),

"Sometimes the law and psychology are at odds: the law's job is to find guilt or innocence, psychology's is to explain why people are the way they are, without judgment...We don't excuse child abusers (or murderers for that matter) under the law because they've had an abusive childhood or bad breaks. But understanding their past gives us some solace in understanding why people may do what they do, and even in some cases, tremendous compassion for what should happen to them."

Just one last quote in regard to the importance of psychology and crime. Asked if he had the ability to make Hitler change his ways, Michael Jackson replies: “Absolutely. I know I could. You have to help them, give them therapy, teach them that somewhere, something in their life went wrong.”

[ellipsis7]

There is moral complexity to this, the crime is clear, sexual assault of a minor, but there must also be statutes of limitation, and punishment to fit said crime, the pound of flesh of 'The Merchant of Venice', not an ounce more or less, made all all the more difficult to measure as the original judge has considerably muddied the legal waters with his maneouverings... There is also the question of 'justice' being forgiving or vengeful...

Let us remind ourselves of the famous case where Oscar Wilde sued the Marquess of Queensberry for libel (over the words 'posing as a somdomite'), and the outrageous and disproportionate punishment and victimisation that arose out of the following cross examination (as adapted for a screenplay of mine) and the subsequent two trials of Wilde...

Later OSCAR WILDE is in the witness box to be cross examined by EDWARD CARSON, his classmate from Trinity College Dublin, who retains a distinct middle class Irish accent, in contrast with the former’s more anglicised, yet still discernibly Irish, tones.
EDWARD CARSON
You stated that your age was thirty-nine. I think you are over forty. You were born on the 16th of October, 1854?
EDWARD CARSON holds up a copy of his birth certificate.
OSCAR WILDE
I have no wish to pose as being young. You have my certificate and that settles the matter.
EDWARD CARSON
But, being born in 1854 makes you more than forty.
OSCAR WILDE
(sighing)
Ah! Very well.
CUT TO:
Later.
EDWARD CARSON
(picking up a magazine)
Listen sir, to what you describe as ‘Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young’. ‘Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others.’ You think that true?
OSCAR WILDE
I rarely think anything I write is true.
EDWARD CARSON
‘Pleasure is the only thing one should live for.’?
OSCAR WILDE
I think the realisation of oneself is the prime aim of life, and to realise oneself through pleasure is finer than to do so through pain. I am on that point, entirely on the side of the ancients - the Greeks. It is a pagan idea.
EDWARD CARSON
‘If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later to be found out.’?
OSCAR WILDE
That is a pleasing paradox, but I do not set very high store by it as an axiom.
EDWARD CARSON
Is it good for the young?
OSCAR WILDE
Anything is good that stimulates thought at whatever age.
CUT TO:
Later EDWARD CARSON brings up ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray.
EDWARD CARSON
I quote from ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray’. ‘I quite admit I adored you madly, extravagantly, absurdly. I wanted to have you all to myself’. What do you say to that? Have you ever adored a young man madly?
OSCAR WILDE
No, not madly. I prefer love - that is, a higher form...
EDWARD CARSON
Never mind about that. Let us keep down to the level we are at now.
OSCAR WILDE
I have never given adoration to anybody except myself.
(laughter)
EDWARD CARSON
I supposed you think that a very smart thing?
OSCAR WILDE
Not at all.
EDWARD CARSON
‘I adored you extravagantly.’
OSCAR WILDE
Do you mean financially?
EDWARD CARSON
Oh yes, financially! Do you think we are talking about finance?
OSCAR WILDE
I do not know what you are talking about.
EDWARD CARSON
Well I hope I shall make myself very plain before I have done.
CUT TO:
Later EDWARD CARSON raises the matter of a letter to Lord ALFRED DOUGLAS.
EDWARD CARSON (CONT’D)
A letter to Lord Alfred Douglas. ‘My own Boy, Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that those red rose-leaf lips of yours should have been made no less for the music of song than for the madness of kisses’. Why should a man your age address a boy nearly twenty years younger as ‘My own Boy’?
OSCAR WILD
I was fond of him. I have always been fond of him.
EDWARD CARSON
Do you adore him?
OSCAR WILDE
No, but I have always liked him. I think it is a beautiful letter. It is a poem. I was not writing an ordinary letter. You might as well cross examine me as to whether ‘King Lear’ or a sonnet of Shakespeare was proper.
EDWARD CARSON
Apart from art, Mr Wilde?
OSCAR WILDE
I cannot answer apart from art.
EDWARD CARSON
Suppose a man who was not an artist had written this letter, would you say it was a proper letter?
OSCAR WILDE
A man who was not an artist could not have written that letter.
EDWARD CARSON
Why?
OSCAR WILDE
Because nobody but an artist could write it. He certainly could not write the language unless he were a man of letters.
EDWARD CARSON
I can suggest, for the sake of your reputation, that there is nothing very wonderful in this ‘red rose-leaf lips of yours’?
OSCAR WILDE
A great deal depends on the way it is read.
EDWARD CARSON
‘Your slim gilt soul walks between passion and poetry.’ Is that a beautiful phrase?
OSCAR WILDE
Not as you read it, Mr Carson. You read it very badly.
EDWARD CARSON
(angrily)
I do not profess to be an artist, and when I hear you give evidence, I am glad I am not.
This brings OSCAR WILDE’s Counsel, EDWARD CLARKE QC, to his feet.
EDWARD CLARKE
I do not think my learned friend should talk like that.
(and to WILDE)
Pray do not criticise my learned friend’s reading again.
EDWARD CARSON resumes.
EDWARD CARSON
Is that an exceptional letter?
EDWARD CLARKE
It is unique. I should say.
Laughter.
EDWARD CARSON
Was that your ordinary way of correspondence?
OSCAR WILDE
Everything I wrote is extraordinary. I do not pose as ordinary, great heavens.
CUT TO:
EDWARD CARSON then moves onto the subject of young men. Throughout the jury develop a growing feeling of distaste.
EDWARD CARSON
How many young men did this man Taylor introduce to you?
OSCAR WILDE
About five.
EDWARD CARSON
They were young men whom you would call by their Christian names?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes. I always call by their Christian names people whom I like. People I dislike I call something else.
EDWARD CARSON
Were all these young men about twenty?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes; twenty or twenty two. I like the society of young men.
EDWARD CARSON
Have you given money to them?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes. I think to all five - money or presents.
EDWARD CARSON
Did they give you anything?
OSCAR WILDE
Me? Me? Oh, no!
EDWARD CARSON
Did any young men visit you at the Savoy Hotel?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes, at various times.
EDWARD CARSON
Did any of these men who visited you at the Savoy have whiskies and sodas and iced champagne?
OSCAR WILDE
I can’t say what they had.
EDWARD CARSON
Do you drink champagne yourself?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes. Iced champagne is a favourite drink of mine - strongly against my doctor’s orders.
EDWARD CARSON
(sharply)
Never mind your doctor’s orders, sir!
OSCAR WILDE
I never do.
A burst of laughter from the gallery.
CUT TO:
Later the name of Walter Grainger is introduced.
EDWARD CARSON
Do you know Walter Grainger?
OSCAR WILDE
Yes.
EDWARD CARSON
How old is he?
OSCAR WILDE
He was about sixteen when I knew him.
EDWARD CARSON
How did you know him?
OSCAR WILDE
He was a servant at a certain house in High Street, Oxford, where Lord Alfred Douglas had rooms. I stayed there several times. Grainger waited at table.
EDWARD CARSON
Did he dine with you ever?
OSCAR WILDE
I never dined with him. It it’s one’s duty to serve, it’s on’s duty to serve; and if it’s one’s pleasure to dine, it’s one’s pleasure to dine.
EDWARD CARSON
Did you ever kiss him?
OSCAR WILDE
Oh, dear no! He was a peculiarly plain boy. He was, unfortunately, extremely ugly. I pitied him for it.
Murmurs from the gallery. EDWARD CARSON makes the deadly thrust.
EDWARD CARSON
Was that the reason you did not kiss him?
OSCAR WILDE
(angrily)
Oh! Mr Carson: you are pertinently insolent.
EDWARD CARSON
Did you say in support of your statement that you never kissed him?
OSCAR WILDE
(emotional)
No. It is a childish question.
EDWARD CARSON
Did you put that forward as a reason why you never kissed the boy?
OSCAR WILDE
Not at all.
EDWARD CARSON
Why, sir, did you mention the boy was extremely ugly?
OSCAR WILDE
For this reason. If I were asked why I did not kiss a door mat, I should say because I do not like to kiss door mats. I do not know why I mentioned that he was ugly, except that I was stung by the insolent question you put to me and the way you have insulted me throughout this hearing. Am I to be cross-examined because I do not like it? It is ridiculous to imagine that any such thing could have happened in the circumstances.
EDWARD CARSON
Then ask why did you mention his ugliness, I ask you?
OSCAR WILDE
Perhaps you insulted me by an insulting question.
EDWARD CARSON
Was that the reason why you should say the boy was ugly?
OSCAR WILDE is rendered inarticulate. He tries to mumble an answer. EDWARD CARSON continues his staccato interrogation.
EDWARD CARSON (CONT’D)
Why? Why? Why did you add that?
OSCAR WILDE forces a desperate explanation.
OSCAR WILDE
You sting me and insult me and try to unnerve me - and at times one says things flippantly when one ought to speak more seriously. I admit it.
EDWARD CARSON
Then you said it flippantly?
OSCAR WILDE
Oh yes, it was a flippant answer.
But the damage is done as OSCAR WILDE glances round the courtroom full of murmur and hostile eyes.

[Lemmy Caution]

In rape cases, especially for statutory rape, a plea bargain might be intended to shield the victim from: having to testify in court, from cross-examination, identity being leaked, and from having to re-live the experience for a prolonged period.

I'm not sure if that was an issue/consideration in the Polanski case, though I would expect it might be among the reasons that he was offered a plea bargain.

I don't understand those who say that Polanski "understandably fled."
I mean, it's understandable that he didn't want to go to jail, and that he had a foreign passport and the money (and the opportunity) that enabled him to leave.

I think it's understandable that his plea to a much lesser charge and fairly minimal sentencing aroused controversy and public condemnation. And I think it's understandable in light of that that the judge reconsidered the plea agreement.

I also wonder how Polanski sympathizers would feel if he was caught and faced extradition just one year after fleeing. I'm unsure why the fact that he was able to live comfortably and publicly for 30 years -- essentially, fleeing justice paid off well for him -- makes a difference.

[Sloper]

I don't understand those who say that Polanski "understandably fled."
I mean, it's understandable that he didn't want to go to jail, and that he had a foreign passport and the money (and the opportunity) that enabled him to leave.

I think it's understandable that his plea to a much lesser charge and fairly minimal sentencing aroused controversy and public condemnation. And I think it's understandable in light of that that the judge reconsidered the plea agreement.

I also wonder how Polanski sympathizers would feel if he was caught and faced extradition just one year after fleeing. I'm unsure why the fact that he was able to live comfortably and publicly for 30 years -- essentially, fleeing justice paid off well for him -- makes a difference.

I'm certainly not familiar with every detail of the case, but my point was that, since he pleaded guilty on the basis of an understanding with the judge, and the judge then went back on that after Polanski had pleaded guilty, it's hardly surprising that he ran away. I'm not saying Polanski was in the right or that he didn't deserve a sentence, or that it's right for people to flee justice like this, or even that the plea bargain was right or fair, but given that justice at the time was blowing hot and cold and was, as you point out, changing its mind on the basis of 'controversy and public condemnation', I do feel these are factors that strongly mitigate Polanski's running away - not his rape of a teenage girl.

And as I said before, no I don't think anybody would have had a problem if this had all happened one year later. The passage of thirty years doesn't lessen his guilt, but the question is whether extraditing him now does good or harm. That has to be the first consideration, otherwise what's the point? The satisfaction of some transcendent notion of justice should not take precedence over the misery this will cause to Polanski's innocent family and his innocent victim and her innocent family, and possibly a lot of other people as well (I don't mean film buffs). It seems the motives of the people doing this are very questionable (they're certainly open to question), and I happen to think that when the intent is not in fact the pursuit of justice, justice cannot be done. Just my view, and I know it's endlessly debatable.

David, I'm sure you're right about 'power' - but as you say, let's not go there. That way madness lies.

[Oedipax]

Jonathan Rosenbaum posted a short statement re: Polanski's arrest on his blog:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery. [9/28/09]