Wendy McElroy On Roman Polanski
From Wendy McElroy…
I’ve been asked where I stand on the Polanski case. With so many dimensions to the case, I will be brief and comment only on a few.
First, I believe a rape occurred.
Second, the victim — now in her forties — has asked repeatedly and without duress from Polanski to have the matter dropped. She has settled a civil case with him. She has publicly forgiven him. And, for me, that settles it. The victim should control whether a prosecution occurs. Period.
Third, it is a scathing damnation of our legal/court system for the victim to claim that the system traumatizedher far more than the rape itself. The authorities should not be allowed to continue ‘raping’ her.
Fourth, I do not believe Polanski received a fair trial. I think there was clear and extensive misconduct by the judge (and others) in the original proceeding.
Fifth, I recommend the HBO documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” without which I do not believe prosecution would be occurring.
Sixth, the state is clearly pursuing prosecution not for the victim but on its own behalf because Polanski fled its jurisdiction and lived well thereafter. In short, Polanski has flouted authority and ‘authority’ is pissed.
Seventh, this is an example of the U.S. imposing legal jurisdiction around the world. A bad precedent is being set.
Eighth, I do not believe that Switzerland has not received a quid pro quo for nabbing Polanski.
Ninth, it is fascinating to watch political reactions. E.g. the founder of ultra-progressive Feminist Majority thinks Polanski should not be arrested. According to the L.A. Times “My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.” Amazing.
Tenth, you know how sick you were of hearing about Michael Jackson… Well, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Wendy McElroy
ifeminists.net
Source
| More from Anthrope1
Stumble It!
“The victim should control whether a prosecution occurs. Period.”
The imbecility of this proposition can be equalled ony by the aplomb with which is has been offered. This is a criminal case, which first and foremost means that it’s not the victim vs the offender but the people (state) vs the offender. This has already been discussed and explained ad nausean over the last week or so, and yet here we have another self-confident scribbler offering up same old nonsense. There are very good reasons why crimes of this sort are crimes against the society not just against a particular victim, like for example that punishment, among other things, implied deterrence, but hell, I’m not going to get into this again, it’s already all over the web explained by people more eloquent than I am, and in addition, if this conceited scribbler above managed to ignore them, what chances do I have to succeed.
Simillar to DV laws where, even if the victim refuses to cooperate, the State has ‘must prosecute’ laws……as if women are invalid, immature, children who cannot decide themselves what is best in their own personal situation.
As a society, we’ve bought hook-line-and sinker that rape victims suffer permanent psychological damage and that its a crime 2nd only to murder. I believe this to be the exception, not the rule.
You know what? If some guy offered $500,000 (which is what Polanski’s victim settled for) to all virgins willing to be brutally violated when they least expected it, and they had to sign a permission form in advance, I bet the line of voluntary “victims” would be a mile long.
Finally a voice of reason. I am tired of the idiotic lynching mob. Thank you Wendy.
“She has publicly forgiven him. And, for me, that settles it”
Rape is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. To deal with rape as a civil offense is to strip the accused of the right to representation, the right to a presumption of innocence and the right to a standard that evidence must be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
“In short, Polanski has flouted authority and ‘authority’ is pissed”
When an accusation of criminal conduct is made, the state has an obligation to pursue that accusation to the point that a conviction is made or it is determined that a conviction cannot be obtained given the available evidence. The alternative to this obligation is for public servants to pick and choose those crimes which will be pursued, the obvious scope for corruption and lawlessness here should be self evident. Outrage is far more sensible where the state is unmoved and uncaring when the perpetrator of a crime simply walks away scot free and lives well.
“this is an example of the U.S. imposing legal jurisdiction around the world”
Not at all. A crime was committed in America against an American citizen. The appropriate place for that crime to be tried is in America. Extradition of an individual who has fled the jurisdiction in which they have committed a crime is entirely uncontroversial and amounts in no way to the sort of extraterritoriality you imply is being pursued. It should never be sufficient to leave the nation in which you have committed a crime to avoid the just and righteous punishment associated with that crime.
Moreover, there is literally nothing that the justice system can do for the victim. She is beyond the help of judges, lawyers, juries and policemen (but not of family and friends). The people who can be helped will never be known. We will never hear their stories and we will never lament the crime committed against them because by punishing the guilty we will prevent those crimes from being committed in the first place. It is for the victims of those uncommitted crimes that Roman Polanski must be brought to justice. So that some other 13 year old girl or boy need not ever accept a financial payment from his or her abuser. So that some other 13 year old girl or boy need not be subjected to the indignities of a trial which their abuser makes a mockery of by fleeing overseas. These are the people we CAN protect. These are the people we MUST protect.
The biggest “problem” with the article is the fact that the very Feminists who are bemoaning the prosecution of Roaming (spelling intentional) Polanski is that they, the Feminists, DEMANDED ( IN CAPITALS) that Rape prosecutions proceed automatically, even if the victim did not want the case to go to court.
The following quote is what the Men’s Rights Activists have been trying to get across for DECADES now:
“The victim should control whether a prosecution occurs. Period.”
Why, YES, and it took until now to realise that? Shucks, the Feminists are slow learners. In ALL cases, the (alleged) victim has the right to control whether the prosecution proceed, with the possible exception of where the “victim” cannot answer for themselves.
In practice, this is NOT the case if the victim is female, and it’s a case of rape, or domestic violence, or the million-and-one OTHER crimes men are accused of.
The other jaw-dropping point few seem to have picked up on is the cavalier, almost dismissive attitude towards this rape:
“My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”
Like more funding for Feminist research to “prove” how awful men are and how men deserve to be exterminated, right?
A victim can be paid off or intimidated into “forgiving” the offender. How does this help the next, future victim? Then the next offender will think, all right, I’ll get away with it too, worst thing I’ll pay or hire hoodlums to scare them, either way I got enough money, so where’s my jacuzzi and quaaludes and a ticket to France, let’s get right to it. And guys like Weinstein – they’re defending this sort of thing like it’s nothing, a trifle, so that makes me think maybe there doing it themselves only more discreetly, after all they’re local and know “the ropes” which P. as a visitor maybe didn’t. From what I read in biographies, there’s been always mob involvment in Hollywood, so who knows what takes place there, it’s a state within a state, an inbred republic with everyone on the take, judges, experts and so on. Notice how he was immediately found OK, not a pedo, not a trheat, not likely to reoffend. Ha! Then he goes to France and “dates” a 15 yo, like he’s some sort of desireably young man, c’mon, he’s been using his position to forcibly extract what he wants from people around him. What a vile old fk, string him up.
Joe P., about “If some guy offered $500,000 [...] to all virgins willing to be brutally violated when they least expected it, and they had to sign a permission form in advance, I bet the line of voluntary “victims” would be a mile long.”
How can you be so sure? Second, at least they would have an opportunity to refuse the offer. And also, he *didn’t* offer this girl anything, he offered to take pictures (for some fashion mag, not porn) and then with the help of boose and drugs turned the situation around to have what he wanted. And “which is what Polanski’s victim settled for” – she had to sue him for it, ten years after the fact, and it’s unclear whether he ever paid. You’re looking for excuses for this swine. There aren’t any, calm down.
The only quesion I have is why didn’t the French do anything when he fled there. I can’t believe that in France it’s OK to drug up a 13 yo and do the deed forcibly. That is an interesting question.
If some guy drugged my 13 year old and then raped her there wouldn’t even be a trial. He would be dead and not around to rape another chld.