Look, I’m as conservative as they come. Does that make me right-wing? Fine, have a nice time with the label. But here and now, let’s be clear: Roman Polanski is not a right-left issue. The defense coming from the “art world” in general isn’t an expression of left-wing, or even liberal, values, it’s an expression of depravity.
Am I being too subtle?
Roman Polanski was charged with multiple felonies, all stemming from having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Will you please read that again? 13. The age of consent in California, since the early 1900’s, has been and is 18. Polanski, at the time, was in his 40’s. Any sexual conduct between him and her would be a felony. The age gap aggravates the offense, compounding the possible sentencing. If Polanski had been 18 at the time, it would have been bad enough, but 43…?
Now, add the alcohol and Quaaludes that he introduced into the mix, shake well with both vaginal and anal intercourse, and voila, the crime.
Polanski was charged but reached a plea deal, reducing everything down to a single count of unlawful sex with a minor. When you cop a plea, you have concluded both the trial and conviction phase of the process. All that remains is sentencing, following by possible appeals.
In California, when you enter a plea, the judge very carefully warns you that he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, bound by any promises made by either the prosecution or the defense. He is free to impose what sentence he sees fit for the crime you are pleading guilty to.
This is never shocking news, it’s stated clearly in court when you enter your plea. Your understanding is a requirement for the plea to be accepted by the court. If you say, “Huh, really?” then the plea is null and void and you’re back to getting ready for trial.
Apparently Polanski didn’t like this and he skipped the country.
So let’s review: Plead guilty, was facing sentencing (potentially very stiff), ran away instead. Understand that; Polanski was effectively tried and convicted of unlawful sex with a minor. That’s the result of a plea. That’s not an issue.
If this were anyone else – right, left, white, black, Roman Catholic priest, whatever – there wouldn’t be an issue. Even the French would be screaming, “Hang heeem!” But, zoot alours, he is the great artiste, we must forgive his desire to stick his penis in the anus of little girls.
No. No, we do not.
The basic concept is covered succinctly by Hollywood itself, spoken with concise precision by Baretta (oh so ironically played by Robert Blake): If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Polanski did the crime, he’s due to do the time. He can now, as he could have done then, appeal any sentence handed down by the court. In California, he could even have been freed on bail pending appeal (unlike Federal court, where you go to prison pending appeal).
Instead, he ran, and he, along with his league of cheerful, amoral apologists, seeks to dictate the terms of his case. Doesn’t work that way. Come into court, Mr. Polanski, and that means, “Welcome back to California!”
(For a reasonably complete history of the case, go here. It tends to give too much credence to a recent documentary, though, so I also recommend this as a counter-point.)
Comments