The House Next Door

Keith, I'm interested in listening to this and plan to do so, but this isn't a Polanski apologia, is it? We can appreciate his films without forgiving him his crimes.

Hi Tom-

It is not an apologia. In my segment, I discuss the films, with a few references to how they might have come from and/or pointed the way to both the hurt caused him and the hurt he himself meted out. Neither Jamey nor Jerry conceived this show as a way to excuse his actions and it was actually planned long before recent events.

Things like this really separate the sheep from the goats. It's perfectly possible that someone can be a talented artist and a pedophile simultaneously. (Does anybody really want to know what some Renaissance artists got up to in private?) Alas, too many famous people think the former somehow excuses the latter, which it simply cannot. I admire Knife in the Water and Chinatown. I never met Polanski and I don't believe he would be my friend if I did.

Remember especially that you cannot be the judge of anyone. For there can be no judge of a criminal on earth until the judge knows that he, too, is a criminal, exactly the same as the one who stands before him, and that he is perhaps most guilty of all for the crime of the one standing before him. When he understands this, then he will be able to be a judge. However mad that may seem, it is true. For if I myself were righteous, perhaps there would be no criminal standing before me now. If you are able to take upon yourself the crime of the criminal who stands before you and whom you are judging in your heart, do so at once, and suffer for him yourself, and let him go without reproach. And even if the law sets you up as a judge, then, too, act in this spirit as far as you can, for he will go away and condemn himself more harshly than you would condemn him. And if, having received your kiss, he goes away unmoved and laughing at you, do not be tempted by that either: it means that his time has not yet come, but it will come in due course; and if it does not come, no matter: if not he, then another will know, and suffer, and judge, and accuse himself, and the truth will be made full. Believe it, believe it without doubt, for in this lies all hope and all the faith of the saints. -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Pevear and Volokhonsky, trans.)

"I find you guilty, counselor! Guilty of betrayin' your fellow man! Guilty of betrayin' your country and abrogatin your oath! Guilty of judgin' me and sellin me out! With the power vested in me by the kingdom of God, I sentence you to the 9th Circle of HEll! Now you will learn about loss! Loss of freedom! Loss of humanity!"

-- Max Cady, Cape Fear 1991

What he did was utterly reprehensible, there is no doubt. In fact, in my view he might well deserve more jail time. However, of all the things Polanksi he might be including, possibly a rapist (whether or not he he committed a forcible rape has not been proven -- the victim's uncorroborated testimony along cannot be considered proof; he is definitely guilty of an aggravated form of statutory rape but usually people don't call people guilty of statutory rape, rapists...except in this sole case), there is zero evidence that he is a pedophile.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. It's in the definition. That's not an excuse, but the use of over-amped language can easily lead to the kind of lynch mob mentality which so often applies in cases like this.

It would be nice if everyone, on all sides of this issue, really thought about the words they were using and their possible impact. Polanski may or may not have been a rapist that night, but he is not -- as I've read in countless articles and posts -- an "admitted rapist." That is a misleading statement unless you throw in "statutory." He is not a pedophile as far as anyone knows, though given this incident and his open affair with the 15 year old Nastassia Kinski around the same time, he was definitely willing to skirt the edge of what most of us would think was appropriate in terms of sex and age differences.

What I'm trying to say is that what Polanski has admitted to is actually quite bad enough -- if the girl's parents had tried to kill him, I would have entirely understood -- but that we should be careful that we actually understand the words we are using before we use them.

Oh, I should add that I'm not really disagreeing with what Dan Harper wrote, but that word "pedophile" in this case like "admitted rapist" tends to drive me a bit batty. Some would no doubt accuse me of hairsplitting -- or of defending Polanski, which is a million miles away from my point -- but words matter to me and they don't get much more loaded than those.

Bob: I respect what you're trying to say, and very much agree with the theme behind your argument, but two problems:

1) You've decided to use the societal ("casual") definition for rape (to mean forced sexual assault on an unwilling partner only, rather than sex with someone underage) but not for pedophile. Sure, by the strict definition of the term, pedophile might not (but also might) apply to Polanski. But, then again, but the strict definition of the term, rapist does apply to Polanski. So in outlawing pedophile by its actual definition you're actually underlining why rapist applies.

2) Even if Polanski didn't force himself on a girl who was closer to 9 than to 18, you've left out a key detail: he gave her alcohol and drugs. So even if she didn't say "no," he weakened her ability to do so. If this happened in a college frat house among two 20-year-olds, we'd call it rape (at least by its casual definition), even if "no" was never uttered. (And this doesn't even get into the whole idea of statutory rape law, which is based around the idea that a significant age gap can be as powerful as a choke-hold to an underage child.) Point being, even if the girl was 18, rape is probably the perfectly accurate description, given the drugs. But she wasn't, and if we've decided that "rapist" is too strong a word for someone who drugs and has sex with a 13-year-old, we've lost sight of the deeper meaning of the word.

Again, I agree with the spirit of your argument (the importance of words), which is why I felt the need to take issue with it.

I don't know, Michael -- all I see is an ironic takedown of a sincere gesture. Should the diminishing power of irony so easily come out on top?

Sure, quoting Dostoevsky without comment in a public forum seems a pretty weighty and humourless move (nearly as bad as quoting the Bible, I'm sure, particularly given the spiritual nature of the quote), so I understand that it's practically an invitation to the level-headed ironist in all of us, but consider the quote seriously and honestly for a minute: does it really merit nothing beyond a tongue-in-cheek brush-off?

I'm awfully skeptical of the frothing moral outrage surrounding the Polanski case: it's too easy a rallying point for too many dominant social forces looking to secure their hold on the minds of the American public; I mean, even the usual dissenters can't disagree when it comes to drugging and raping a 13-year-old child!

Worst of all, there's absolutely no arguing with the (genuinely) ironclad logic of the prosecution: given the nature of his crime(s) and his continuing status as criminal, Polanski needs to be brought to justice. No event nor trauma nor contribution to art or society, whether occurring before or after the crime was committed, can be considered mitigating factors in this case. They simply do not matter.

Time does not matter.

The status and desires of the victim do not matter.

Nothing at all matters but the law, the crime, and the attendant consequences demanded for the law's satisfaction.

Trying to argue that the foundation of our criminal justice system (even social order at large) does not rest solely on the legal resolution of the Polanski case doesn't wash either. Because if any one case is allowed to slip through the cracks, then it follows that all other cases could receive similar treatment, and thus, no case would ultimately warrant proper treatment -- so the entire system comes crashing down.

This is all logically valid argumentation. There are no holes, no cracks, no way to gain leverage. It's airtight reasoning. The problem, as I see it, is that a rigid adherence to logic and reason isn't always the correct or appropriate path to truth -- indeed, that the human animal (as a spiritual animal) is not and cannot be maintained by logic and reason alone -- and that in this case logic an reason might very well be leading us off track.

Personally, I found a corrective for my own sense of discomfort and unease in the words of Dostoevsky's Elder Zosima. If you don't, that's fine, but ironically quoting the vicious POV of an infamous movie-villain isn't exactly what I would consider a strong counter-blow.

(Funny though. : ) )

Ed --

Very interesting points, but I don't quite agree.

1. My personal "casual" definition of a pedophile has always meant someone who sexually pursues "children" which in my casual definition is not quite the same thing as a teen -- even a very young one. I think when you say "pedophile" to most people, they think of a someone molesting very young children who are not sexually developed and I personally think the definition has been expanded in "casual" use to go after Polanski and perhaps other highly charged cases. (I'm sure under the correct definition, some "pedophile priests" might not strictly speaking have been pedophiles, though there is no argument that what they did was not a horrendous crime and an evil act.)

Of course, other people may define it differently -- but people misuse words and, of course, sometimes their definition changes over time. That's why we have dictionaries and that's why I actually referred to one for this. But if everyone starts calling "bananas" "grapes," the definition may slowly change but we wouldn't want to simply accept that in matters as serious as this.

As for your second point, they drank champagne and both took part of a Qualude. It certainly aggravates the crime and makes the matter of consent even more somewhat beside the point in a legal or moral sense. Moreover, it could have hit her so strongly that it may explain why there was no physical evidence of rape -- or not.

The reason we can't be sure goes to my next point. I think people who are somewhat younger or weren't aware of the drug culture at the time may have an exaggerated idea of how strong Qualudes really were and may even confuse them with something like roofies, which render people unconscious. "Ludes" were not "mickeys" and were an extremely ubiquitous party drug, frequently consumed with alcohol and pot. Unless you're going to argue that all sex under the influence is forcible rape, your frat house comparison kind of falls apart. (And, by that definition, almost all frat house sex, including masturbation, would be a form of rape.)

Of course, when you're talking about mixing drugs and alcohol, you're getting into some pretty dicey territory and considering how young she was and the fact that she was fairly small (or at least looks that way in the pictures), it's entirely possible that she was strongly affected that she might have been close to passing out -- or not. That would make it rape by any and all defittions. However, again, this is one of many things that can't really be proven about that night which is why, I believe, the DA did not pursue more serious charges.

That being said, it's time to repeat that giving drugs booze to a very young teen is an extremely immoral, destructive, and disgusting thing to do regardless. To me, however, this is exactly the reason we also have pretty strong laws against having underage sex and giving alcohol and drugs to teens for the purposes of having sex with them.

I understand why people want to call Polanski a rapist and what he did might well be a distinction with very little difference. Yet, at the very least we should be able agree that he has not confessed to rape -- except if you define "rape" as sex with an underage person who is under the influence, which however you slice it is quite bad enough to warrant more punishment.

Bob: Quick backs ...

"except if you define "rape" as sex with an underage person"

Uh, yes, if the other person is an adult, I do. That was my point.

Secondly, this line gets to the heart of why people have been able to see Polanski as anything short of a child-preying monster:

"My personal "casual" definition of a pedophile has always meant someone who sexually pursues "children" which in my casual definition is not quite the same thing as a teen -- even a very young one."

Again, she was 13. Alter her age by just a few months and she's 12. Again, she's closer to 9 than to 18. She is a child. Period. Calling her a "teen" -- though technically true -- evokes thoughts of high school students, learner's permits, prom, homecoming, etc. She wasn't close to that. If she'd been 12, the outrage over Polanski's actions would be far more intense than what it is ... which, fittingly, just goes to show the power of words. Alas, not always for the better.

suppose we define rape as sex with someone who says "no" ?

Jason it's been a few days, but one more "quick back" of my own. (Well, as quick as I seem able to make it!)

So, if what Polanski did was "rape" even if the victim had not been under the influence of drugs and provably enthusiastic about having sex with him, then how are to distinguish it from him giving her a roofie and rendering her unconscious or tieing her up and having sex with her at knife point? That's the problem with using one word to describe some pretty dramatically different acts. They might all be evil, but there are obviously gradations here.

As to the question of numbering her age...well, she was also "almost 14" so, how do we factor that into it? Admittedly, these are uncomfortable questions and pretty much beside the point if we accept her testimony as undisputable fact, but I just don't think we can. I actually wish we could because that would make this case a lot simpler.

Roberto -- That's a great definition, but, sadly, we can't just go by the victim's account with no real corroboration. I personally find her credible, but I'm very, very uncomfortable with convicting someone, even in the court of public opinion, simply on the basis of a person's -- any person's testimony. The human mind is malleable a device to fully trust.

would love to hear your thoughts on my own take on forgiving Roman Polanski, in this piece which included Quentin Tarantino and Tyler Perry....

www.loveforthetruth.com/2009/10/06/polanski-basterds-and-a-victims-mentality/