Thursday, October 08, 2009


I've been thinking about this since I heard about the petition signed by many of Hollywood's elite to free Roman Polanski. I'm going to boycott those who signed it. Mostly this will be a fairly easy boycott for me. Jonathan Demme has never made a chick flick. Martin Scorsese isn't known for his rom-coms. And I always have hated Woody Allen films. However since Alfonson Cuaron has signed it I will be getting rid of my Harry Potter 3 DVD. Also, I may have wanted to watch G-Force, but Penelope Cruz also signed so that's a no go. I think IMDB and I are about to become BFFs.


Stephen said...

I was against his imprisonment originally, not because I thought he was innocent, but because I thought his victim was against his further persecution, he had already settled the case civilly, and he had an agreed settlement which was reneg'd by the judge.

HOWEVER ~ I then learned a few things:

1) He made a financial settlement with the victim, then didn't pay it. LAME!
2) The judge was going to imprison him for something like 6 months to 3 years (I think that's reasonable, if not light, for his crime).
3) If he is charged and imprisoned in the US TODAY, and California simply holds him to the penal code as of his charge date when he fled, plus charges for fleeing prosecution, I am supportive of his current imprisonment.

I'm no lawyer, judge, or God, but I think a few years imprisonment sounds about reasonable. Something much more than that seems vindictive.

It is irksome that he was invited to Switzerland for a festival, including by government agencies, then immediately imprisoned.

At least be honest about trapping him :)

Peeved Michelle said...

I don't think there are any concessions to be made or circumstance to consider because HE RAPED A CHILD.

Joanne said...

Seriously? Seriously, Stephen?! Are you kidding me? Should a wife beater go free because he has his wife so cowed she doesn't want to prosecute? Should John Phillips not be prosecuted (if he were still alive) for allegedly having an incestuous relationship with McKenzie because she was too drugged the first time and after that she consented? Should Maryann LeTourneau not have gone to prison for molesting the 12 year old boy because he didn't want her to be?

He has spent 30 years living in countries without an extradition treaty with the US to avoid imprisonment. If he were anyone else, would you support the same thing?

And to your final point... if he is so goddamn arrogant that he figured nobody would bother him anymore because he is such a fancyass producer/director whatever that he would go receive an award in person in a country that DOES have an extradition treaty with the US he deserves what he gets.

Peeved Michelle said...


Stephen said...

uhhh... where did I ever say anything about him being innocent or should go free because of his actions???

I never said any of that. And I think you would know me better. Whatever...

I said I don't think it's appropriate to create a punishment that is outside of the settlement between all parties involved, or one that is outside of the sentencing range.

If you want that stuff changed, you should change the legal/penal code, not blow it away based on one judge's decision.

But regardless, I think I was pretty clear that I think he SHOULD be punished with the original sentence, plus an appropriate sentence based on his flight.

Those acting like his punishment is life or death are misrepresenting the facts. I don't have any opinion on Polanski himself, ditto for Phil Spector.

Scum is scum.

You probably hate Woody Allen, too. And he's pretty scummy. He never broke the law though. And I still like his work.

Frankly, seeing Woody Allen defend anybody is a laughable sentiment at best.

That would be like Ted Bundy showing up to defend Charles Manson.

Joanne said...

The judge has every right to reject a plea agreement. It is part of the checks and balances system of the legal system.

A civil agreement has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. Whether or not the young lady in question settled with him for a financial restitution is irrelevant.

Obviously I do have an opinion on Polanski as I do on Spector. That opinion is not to support financially someone who have committed such a heinous crime. Similarly I'm not going to support those who are calling for his release.

Stephen said...

I wasn't tying the plea agreement to the civil settlement, except in as much as that is part of his restitution. If he satisfies all of it, I consider his punishment satisfied. He didn't satisfy any of it, as far as I know, which is doubly-damning.

And yes, the judge has every right to reject the plea agreement. Judges can do all sorts of things. So can juries. That wasn't my point. My understanding is that the judge was not acting in the interest of the judicial system, the victim, or a legal framework. He was acting out of self-interest and in the interest of self-aggrandizing media exposure. Similarly, a juror who is not deciding in good faith, or who is sabotaging the process can trigger a mistrial.

I think there may be some merit to arguing for a mistrial and retrial of Polanski ~ which was more in line with what I was proposing.

Does that justify Polanski fleeing? No. And I am not stating that he should be freed or anything of the sort. I was advocating for a fair and impartial decision based on the facts, the people and laws involved.

And no, I don't think flight should signal guilt. It is a crime in its own right and should be treated separately.

Smearing it all together, throwing a bunch of celebrity names behind it, and turning it into a media circus is exactly what went wrong in the first place.