HuffPo Blogger Falsely Claims Age of Consent Was 14 When Polanski Raped a 13-Year-Old
At the Huffington Post, Joan Z. Shore writes a ridiculous piece supporting Roman Polanski with this howler:
The 13-year old model “seduced” by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It’s probably 13 by now!)
Is that supposed to be funny? If so, a lot of people took it seriously — and they shouldn’t, because it’s entirely false. The age of consent in California was 18 when Polanski anally raped a 13-year-old child. And it has been 18 since 1913, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in 1981:
California’s statutory rape law had its origins in the Statutes of Westminster enacted during the reign of Edward I at the close of the 13th century (3 Edw. 1, ch. 13 (1275); 13 Edw. 1, ch. 34 (1285)). The age of consent at that time was 12 years, reduced to 10 years in 1576 (18 Eliz. 1, ch. 7, § 4). This statute was part of the common law brought to the United States. Thus, when the first California penal statute was enacted, it contained a provision (1850 Cal.Stats., ch. 99, § 47, p. 234) that proscribed sexual intercourse with females under the age of 10. In 1889, the California statute was amended to make the age of consent 14 (1889 Cal.Stats., ch.191, § 1, p. 223). In 1897, the age was advanced to 16 (1897 Cal.Stats., ch. 139, § 1, p. 201). In 1913, it was fixed at 18, where it now remains (1913 Cal.Stats., ch. 122, § 1, p. 212).
Thanks to Slate’s Explainer for the link to the Supreme Court opinion.
Shame on Joan Z. Shore.
P.S. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation flying about with respect to this case: people saying Polanski had a “trial” (he pled guilty); that the terms of his plea bargain provided that the judge would give him time served (it left the sentence up to the judge); that he didn’t know the girl’s age (he swore under oath he did); that the age of consent was 14 (I just proved it was 18); that the statute of limitations applies (not when a defendant flees pending sentencing); and that Polanski never did it again (we don’t know that, and I don’t believe it). I’ve never seen anything quite like it.
P.P.S. As always, I speak on behalf of myself and not the L.A. County D.A., for whom I work.
The P.S. says it all, Patterico.
The Left seems to love this guy. I’m not sure why. Chinatown?
But watch them wiggle in response to your article….
Eric Blair (184ac1) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:31 pmWell, you make me barf everytime I have to go over to the HuffPo, but for what’s it worth the comments there are overwhelmingly against Ms. Shore’s vapid offerings. One of them explains the history of the age of consent in California and points out that while it was 14 in the late 19th Century, it had risen to 18 by the early 20th Century, well before Mr. Polanski brought his camera and quaaludes to the jacuzzi.
JVW (d1215a) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:31 pmI have a feeling that Ms. Shore is more than a little starstruck by Mr. Polanski. Brrrrr. But then, didn’t we see feminists defending Bill Clinton’s actions toward women?
Eric Blair (184ac1) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:34 pmNothing new here. ACORN is a left wing democrat organization so a democrats approval of the rape of a 13 YO should come as no surprise. Huff & Puff is the same as ACORN, all brain dead democrats.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:36 pmI can only imagine the outrage that all these “reporters” would be expressing if Polanski was, say, a Catholic Priest and had fled before sentencing.
No wonder there is two standards of justice in SoCal–one for celebrities and one for the rest of us.
Calfed (c9fe79) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:37 pmOne of the more sensible commentaries I’ve seen so far:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
Question: I keep reading that Polanski thought the judge would give him 50 years or somesuch. What was the maximum penalty for unlawful sex with a minor then?
Roy Rivenburg (e6deb7) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:38 pmNothing new here. ACORN is a left wing democrat organization so a democrats approval of the rape of a 13 YO should come as no surprise.
And if you don’t believe Scrapiron, just ask Mel Reynolds (“I think I just hit the lottery!”).
JVW (d1215a) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:44 pmIt is good to see that the vast majority of comments, at HuffPo and WaPo are not supportive of a guy who drugged and raped a 13 year old. I think every time Polanski’s name is used it needs to go like this- “Film maker Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl…”
Pat (366dd8) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:51 pmQuestion: I keep reading that Polanski thought the judge would give him 50 years or somesuch. What was the maximum penalty for unlawful sex with a minor then?
Where are you reading that?
He had sent him for a 90-day diagnostic. The prison released Polanski after 42 days. The judge then told the lawyers he intended to send Polanski back for the remaining 48 days of the full 90. That’s when Polanski fled.
I’m taking this from Polanski’s motion.
Where is this 50 years B.S. coming from?
Patterico (64318f) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:52 pmJoan Z. Shore was born in New York City, graduated from Vassar College, and has lived most of her life in Europe. She has been the Paris correspondent for CBS News and Voice of America, and has written for The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous magazines. She co-founded Women Overseas for Equality (Belgium) and currently gives lectures and workshops on her book, “Saging — How to Grow Older and Wiser”.
Karl (246941) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:52 pmSo she’s co-founder of “Women Overseas for Equality”. WOE? Is this a joke? Is she trying to do to Huffington Post what O’Keefe did to ACORN?
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:52 pmBetween your posts, Patterico, and the Salon piece and “Smoking Gun” coverage, I’ve certainly learned enough about Polanski to hope that he rots in a very hot corner of hell. Thanks for helping to set the record straight.
Could your office to set up some sort of official FAQ to respond to the mis- and disinformation that’s been going around?
Abner Gromble (bb5a4d) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:53 pmComment by JVW — 9/28/2009 @ 10:31 pm
And then of course there it is in Patterico’s post too, but I guess I can only claim that my eyes glaze over every time I read a legal citation.
JW
JVW (d1215a) — 9/28/2009 @ 10:55 pmI can understand people thinking he didn’t get the usual trial, and perhaps is entitled to appeal and further consideration.
I can not understand the number of people I see actually excusing his behavior. It’s shocking. It’s the kind of thing pedophiles tell themselves – she wanted it, she looked older, she was close to the age of consent, she’d been in a relationship before, her mother knew. All stuff thinking people would normally reject. It’s just sick.
MayBee (4a75f2) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:00 pmWhere is this 50 years B.S. coming from?
Reuters, for one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLS29720420090929
…But Polanski believed the judge might overrule the plea and sentence him to as much as 50 years in jail.
Roy Rivenburg (e6deb7) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:07 pmThere is a tremendous amount of misinformation flying about with respect to this case
And he hasn’t even been extradited yet. Things will be getting a whole lot crazier once Polanski returns to US soil ( if he does, Obama might cut a secret deal to kill this thing and let the rapist go ). There are a lot of lefty perverts who are skittish right now about admitting their respect for Polanski’s perverted history, but they will be pulling out all the stops once it becomes real to them, if he’s returned to the US.
j curtis (baef6f) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:10 pmI think the “50 years” also came from these 2003 comments by the victim in the LA Times:
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:11 pm“Where is this 50 years B.S. coming from?”
“A grand jury has indicted Roman Polanski, director of “Rosemary’s Baby” and other macabre movies, on six counts of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl at actor Jack Nicholson’s home.”
“Conviction on the charges lodged Thursday could send Polanski to prison for up to 50 years.”–WAPO 3/26/77
Apparently, he could have gotten 50 years if he’d been convicted on all charges.
I don’t know what the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor was in the 1970s, but the maximum sentence now would be four years, and a $25,000 fine.
Under current law he could also have been charged with aggravated sexual assault on a child (because she was under 14, and he was more than seven years older than she was), for which he could recieve LIFE in prison. Again, I’m not sure if that was true when the crime was committed.
See California Penal Code, sections 261-69 for all the gory details.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269
Dave Surls (dec7fb) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:17 pmWow!!
Shore
and Applebaum
Odd. The very first sentence of her post reads as follows:
Click on the link in that last sentence, and you’ll see a Washington Post story that contains the following passage:
both went to the Dan Rather School of Journalism.
like peas in a pod.
Baxter Greene (af5030) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:34 pmYou know, I was wondering…
Since, I suspect, Joan is of at least the age of consent, I wonder if she would consider it a “seduction” if I were to ply her with booze, drug her, and the rape and sodomize her after she repeatedly told me “no”…
I somehow suspect that she would not consider it such.
But she need not fear. I, unlike Polanski and dear Joan, am possessed of a moral compass, and thus she is forever safe.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:35 pmI still think that some more victims will come out of the wood work.
Can’t resist that spotlight or a chance to get money in civil court.
Or maybe they will come forward and call Polanski out for the sake of justice.
Maybe…..
Baxter Greene (af5030) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:39 pmAh, but Scott! What if you were a famous movie director? Then it would be different!
It’s maddening. Polanski is twisted little creature. And yet the Mr. Chow set defends him.
Eric Blair (184ac1) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:40 pmJoan Z. Shore writes a ridiculous piece supporting Roman Polanski
Merely a variation of one of the idiotic liberals who did backflips and contortionist routines to excuse, for example, Bill Clinton.
Keep in mind that ass-backwards reactions from the left — in which sympathy ends up going to the bad guy instead of the good — are evident time and time again in the area of judicial matters and criminality in particular.
What’s really contemptible about people like Shore is they undoubtedly believe their ideology infuses them with a lot of love, caring and humanity.
Mark (411533) — 9/28/2009 @ 11:42 pmThe comments over there are heavily against Shore and Polanski.
Jim S. (6ffa53) — 9/29/2009 @ 12:49 amIt is curious as to why some lefties are sticking their necks out to defend this jerk. Is it their misguided sense of compassion for those that have “suffered enough” at the hands of our too cruel criminal justice system? Neither an executioner nor an imprisoner of child anal rapists shall we be?
Icy Texan (43c637) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:05 amAll should be sickened by the respect given to this child molester. Hopefully, he will be extradited and imprisoned.
krusher (d7ca19) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:57 amThe crime at the heart of “Chinatown” is the rape of child. (That’s the meaning of “My sister… my daughter.”) It’s meant to show how immoral old Noah Cross is. It’s not meant to be praiseworthy or forgiveness-worthy as in the Polanski-Applebaum moral code.
tehag (c2d2a8) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:10 amA question: (forgive me if it’s been asked before…but) assuming stars travelled to Europe and dined with the fugitive…bought him dinner or something.. could they be arrested for aiding/abetting a fugitive? If so, perhaps Hollywood might want to be a tad more circumspect regarding this case.
Just a thought.
Americano (211c00) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:18 amWhat has being a democrat got to do with any of this?! I am a democrat and I think he should go to jail. What has any of this got to do with ACORN or President Clinton!? Are you people insane?! There is no connection. Polanski broke the law, raped a child, pleaded guilty, fled his punishment and should be caught and punished accordingly.
How can you connect that with any of these other things or make it a left right issue? The people who are forgiving of him, like the people who were forgiving of Jackson for similar stunts, are Hollywood people, who, like most of the world, take care of their own. The fact that most people in that town are also liberals doesn’t connect the two issues in any way. You are mixing your interpretations, and badly. Get a grip.
annie ory (758514) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:22 amWhat does it matter what the age of consent was? She didn’t consent. She repeatedly said no.
KB (4e0dda) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:51 amWhere is this 50 years B.S. coming from?
California was switching to determinate sentencing at that time (as were many other states). Maybe Polanski was eligible under the new three-level law which might not have been settled yet, or was still under the old one year to life scheme? Does anybody have a copy of California’s 1977 statutes?
nk (df76d4) — 9/29/2009 @ 4:24 amAnnie, you clearly haven’t been paying attention if you think there aren’t democrats calling for this rapist’s release. Many of them calling for Obama to fix this somehow.
Why, oh why, would people bring up Bill Clinton when they talk about an old man using his power to sexually exploit a young girl? I can think of a reason.
Dustin (0bdb72) — 9/29/2009 @ 4:38 amNote the increasing ages for consent – was that an example of society protecting women more and more? That’s certainly what was thought back in 1913 – back when women received the right to vote.
If so, what does Shore’s attitude suggest now?
Pulanski has seduced the entire feminist movement.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:21 amre Pat, #8:
Actually, I prefer reerring to him as “Roman Polanski, who was awarded an Oscar for Best Director after drugging and raping a 13 year old girl.”
Sean P (da7912) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:43 amPatterico –
“The age of consent in California was 18 when Polanski anally raped a 13-year-old child.”
Per the documents at Smoking Gun, Polanski raped her both vaginally AND anally. I think that’s why some of the news accounts have it that he drugged, raped, and sodimized her.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 9/29/2009 @ 5:46 amIt is heartening that the majority of the comments at Applebaum’s blog at the WAPO call her out for her mendacity. There is still some hope for this country.
BT (78b929) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:00 amAlthough it’d be easy to write Shore off as another angry Vassar College lesbian feminist who may harbor feelings of the need for young sexual exploration and liberation as part of the identity of a young womyn, it’s hard to reconcile her defense of Polenski with her previous writings. For instance, check out this 2006 commentary of hers:
Let’s be honest — we have taken women out of the factory, out of the kitchen, out of the maternity ward only to turn them, again, into sex objects. Sixty years ago, they were pin-ups or calendar girls; today, they’re advertising gismos and media bimbos. This isn’t progress — it’s promiscuity parading as freedom. And the biggest danger is that this shallow, cynical view of women ends up making them thoroughly interchangeable, dispensable and, ultimately, vulnerable.
This is not simply a feminist issue; this is a question of where we place our values. As long as we encourage and reward women solely for their entertainment value, we are turning them into dolls and puppets. We are denying their human-ness, and our own. We are creating a seraglio society.
What are we to make of this, other than we’ve found yet another feminist with completely inconsistent views? The abject failure of feminists nationally to stand up to the abuse of Bill Clinton to a young intern, using the power of his position (and certainly not his good looks) to carry out disparaging and diminishing sexual acts that subjugated Monica provided us with an awakening to the profound contradiction of feminist philosophy vs. feminist political identity. The latter is all that matters; to be a feminist is nothing more than identifying as an angry woman who embraces leftist causes. The movement has no credibility to speak to any aspect, nor to claim legitimacy in defending women.
HatlessHessian (cca288) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:14 amMany of his defenders have said something along the lines of “he never did it again.”
Well, technically, that may be true, but his taste for much younger women remained fully in place after he fled to Europe.
See “Kinski, Natassja”:
That would sometime in 1979.
TC@LeatherPenguin (e511e4) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:21 amBut he is well intentioned!!
HeavenSent (01a566) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:27 amIf you’ve ever wondered why a liberal should never be a judge, juror or elected official, this episode should enlighten you.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:35 amWhat has being a democrat got to do with any of this?! I am a democrat and I think he should go to jail. What has any of this got to do with ACORN or President Clinton!? Are you people insane?! There is no connection. Polanski broke the law, raped a child, pleaded guilty, fled his punishment and should be caught and punished accordingly.
How can you connect that with any of these other things or make it a left right issue? The people who are forgiving of him, like the people who were forgiving of Jackson for similar stunts, are Hollywood people, who, like most of the world, take care of their own. The fact that most people in that town are also liberals doesn’t connect the two issues in any way. You are mixing your interpretations, and badly. Get a grip.
Comment by annie ory — 9/29/2009 @ 3:22 am
I’m sure there are some, like you, who are genuinely outraged. However, viewing this through the the prism of politics isn’t really a stretch. The outrageous defense of the pedophile is coming from those who exude leftiness. Watch any newscast but Fox, you will see indifference at best, with strident defense of Pedolanski and misinformation the order of the day.
I’m not seeing much of that from the right.
Both sides have had bad guys. The difference has been how each has dealt with them. Howard Baker told Nixon it was time to go. Newt was shown the door when he was no longer an asset to the nation. The right in SC is screaming for Sanford’s scalp. But the left, you explain away the likes of Kennedy, Clinton, Frank, Dodd, ACORN. In Florida, an impeached and removed judge is elected to the US House.
Not a stretch to make the connection.
Matador (ad4464) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:44 amFor the sake of argument, let’s say the Polanski apologists’ arguments about her age are correct, even though they are not.
So what? She testified that she told him “no.” Repeatedly. I thought “no” meant “no.” If that is no longer the standard, then a lot of guys should be getting out of jail, since apparently “no” now means “yes.”
CC (ab3fb6) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:50 amLeading off at TC@LeatherPenguin’s link:
“A few years ago the German-born Nastassia Kinski seemed just another teen trinket in Roman Polanski’s notorious collection of Lolitas.”
The link goes to a 1981 story by that hardly-rightist People mag, which speaks glowingly of Polanski as it relates some of his life’s story but somehow not mentioning his fugitive status.
So, Polanski probably … well, as Kinski put it, “educated” many more under-age adolescent girls.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:55 amannie ory – the unfortunate thing is that increasingly, people are going to categorize you with the company you keep. Your party went to the social extremes decades ago, embracing the fringe of deviant behavior. Whether you personally associate with that or not is mostly irrelevant; just as your president, Speaker of the House and mainstream media is calling soccer moms protesting an out-of-control government as Nazis, gun-toting haters, racists and teabaggers (the last being a curious projection of leftist sexual perversion upon the right in an act of mental violence akin to thought-rape), the right has a preponderance of evidence that the left is a society of perversion.
What’s probably more difficult for you to personally defend is that you’re a thief. You voted for thugs to come into our homes and steal our property. There’s no way you can advocate “free” health care, income redistribution and all the other goodies that constitute the core of Democratic belief without knowing secretly where it comes from: your government steals it at your direction, takes its cut, and appropriates it out to those who vote for Democrats.
So while being a Democrat means being associated with perverts, deviants and other psychologically unwell misfits, being a Democrat means being a thief and a parasite. Today, walk around and imagine everyone is looking at you for what we know your kind to really be; a tapeworm upon society. Perhaps you can then imagine why we no longer appreciate how much the tapeworm eats, and how determined we are to rid our nation of it.
HatlessHessian (cca288) — 9/29/2009 @ 6:56 amAccording to Whoopi, he did not rape-rape her. I am not sure what the doubling up of that means, or how it differs from just good old fashioned rape. Whoopi is disgusting, to be sure.
JD (46cf2b) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:30 am[…] And Huffington Post is trying to push the lie that the age of consent was 14 in California when Polanski committed his crime. The age of consent was 18 in California when Polanski raped his 13-year-old victim, and had been since 1913. […]
Whoopi Goldberg: Oh, Come On. It Wasn’t “Rape-Rape” | Bucks Right (ca0931) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:35 amJD,
Whoopi Goldberg is an even more inspirational figure than Ear Leader. She is living proof that you can be butt-ugly, dumber than a sack of bricks, more filthy than a cesspool, and still succeed on television.
nk (df76d4) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:39 amPatterico,
I have some tips for future reference in providing links to Supreme Court decisions, decisions by the federal courts of appeal, and to provisions of the United States Code: by using the legal citation in an algorithm for creating the URL. Starting with the shortest, the algorithm for creating a link to a U.S. Code provision is as follows:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/title/section.html. Example, the link for 5 U.S.C. section 7323, part of the Hatch Act, would be: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/7323.html
The algorithm for the Supreme Court is much lengthier:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/resource.org/US_reports/US/Volume/Volume.US.Page_1.html. The URL for the decision you referenced, Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981) would be: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/resource.org/US_reports/US/450/450.US.464_1.html
The algorithm for a court of appeals decision reported in the F.3d is as follows:
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/resource.org/fed_reporter/F3/Volume/Volume.F3d.Page.html. For example, the URL for the decision in Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) would be: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/resource.org/fed_reporter/F3/400/400.F3d.785.html
The algorithm for cites to the F.2d are the same, except you substitute F2 for F3.
I realize that, except for the first one for the U.S. Code, these algorithms are somewhat convoluted. But if you create Autotext entries for them, they are easily recalled and used.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Tim K (7e41e8) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:52 amI just saw Arianna Huffington on MSDNC defending Acorn along with the talking head.
Their tack was Acorn’s offence isn’t nearly as important as the “crime” of using public funds to bail out the banking system.
I’m thinking Acorn must be a whale of a story to induce Huffington’s latent fiscal conservatism.
papertiger (b28aae) — 9/29/2009 @ 8:46 amA. Huffington is just a media whore. She has no core beliefs other than to obtain attention and power.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:04 amJD, according to a male comedian by name of Cho on Comedy Central, women double up on words to change the definition and significance of the word. You’ll have to catch his routine. It is good and women get uncomfortable about a guy breaking the female speech code.
He’s ethnicly a Korean, but speaks with a heavy Southern accent.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/29/2009 @ 9:07 amI see a tiny gem in her defense of Polanski.
(May I add that Europeans have always been, and still are to a large degree, much more discreet about their money than Americans are.)
If you are wondering what that has to do with anything, it means that Europeans are experts at tax evasion and those high tax rates that support the welfare states are only paid by suckers. Suckers like those people who care about statutory rape, for example.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/29/2009 @ 10:52 amThe comments over there are heavily against Shore and Polanski.
Comment by Jim S. — 9/29/2009 @ 12:49 am
Every 10 or 15 comments or so, somebody from this site will actually go over and read what the left thinks. I applaud that. More people on both sides need to actually tune into what the other side is saying, whether they agree or not.
Notice the word “heavily” above.
For the rest of you just making assumptions based on a few Hollywood talking heads — come on. Think for yourselves. Investigate.
As for Polanski: He should face justice. He pleaded guilty to statutory rape and he fled sentencing.
Otherwise I have little interest in this topic. I understand this is a west coast site and the opinions of the Hollywood set might matter more to you. I also know you don’t just confine yourself to politics, and I generally like that.
Myron (6a93dd) — 9/29/2009 @ 1:12 pm“For the rest of you just making assumptions based on a few Hollywood talking heads — come on. Think for yourselves.”
Myron – Glad you never fall victim to tunnel vision based on what Media Matters or Think Progress says about conservatives. Heh!
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:06 pmShore has never been the only CBS Paris correspondent. She might have been a local fixer, doing an occasional story, but she’s just full o’ carp.
Kate (863a95) — 9/29/2009 @ 2:39 pmBTW this is a great piece on the moral issues involved.
http://jezebel.com/5370356/letters-from-hollywood-roman-polanskis-rape-of-child-no-big-thing?skyline=true&s=x
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) — 9/29/2009 @ 3:29 pmPlease don’t blame ‘the left’ for Roman Polanski. He is a product of male privilege. He may have his friends, but for most of us he is a bulging, smelly plastic bag of something non-recyclable, and everyone wants to drop it in someone else’s yard.
Nancy Green (40dbcb) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:02 pmIt’s ‘the left’ that made it possible for people to use the language they have to use to describe the actual crime he committed. It’s the left that fought through shame to demand justice.
I’m pretty sure the implication of “rape rape” is to make a distinction between statutory rape — she consents but she’s young and therefore it’s rape — and forcible rape, which is what we usually mean when we say rape. I assume Whoopi calls the latter “rape rape” to differentiate it from statutory rape.
Given that people are saying the girl did not consent, I’m not sure what the necessity is for making this distinction.
ThinkThink (c0efc7) — 9/30/2009 @ 11:13 amWell, in a “clarification” delivered through the Today Show, Whoopi claimed to be merely making clear what charge Polanski had pleaded guilty to. However it seems to me that the wording was meant to imply that the crime he had committed was somehow less heinous than the child rape that it was. She continues to minimize the crime by saying later in the same segment “… We’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds – the rest of Europe, they’re seen oftentimes- I do know that not everybody agrees with how we see things…”
So she’s saying that there is an extenuating matter of moral relativism here. Age of consent is not 13 here, but perhaps in less uptight Europe?
Well, turns out that in France and Poland, Polanski’s countries of citizenship, they are not so accepting of pedophiles. Especially where the victim is so young and drugs are involved:
French Penal Code-
ARTICLE 227-25
(Act no. 98-468 of 17th June 1998 Article 18 Official Journal of 18th June 1998)
(Ordinance no. 2000-916 of 19 September 2000 Article 3 Official Journal of 22 September 2000 in force 1 January 2002)
The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of €75,000.
ARTICLE 227-18
(Act no. 98-468 of 17th June 1998 Article 16 Official Journal of 18th June 1998)
The direct provocation of a minor to make unlawful use of drugs is punished by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.
Where it concerns a minor under fifteen years of age, or where the offence is committed inside a learning or educational institution or, when the pupils are entering or leaving, outside such an institution, the offence under this article is punished by seven years’ imprisonment and a fine €150,000.
Poland-
Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded ‘degenerates’. Tusk said he did not believe “one can use the term ‘human’ for such individuals, such creatures.”
“If somebody is of sound mind, we punish him. If he is sick, we try to cure him — that’s how it works in Polish law. This bill introduces both approaches. As far as I know, this makes our law the strictest in Europe on this issue,”
WARSAW (Reuters) – Poland on Friday (9/25/09) approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups.
Under the law, sponsored by Poland’s center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison
Although Whoopi claims otherwise, I’m glad to see that Polanski’s European countrymen do not “see this differently” (in fact have harsher penalties), and that they are in agreement that young girls should be protected, and their attackers prosecuted.
Stephen Kane (c5bf05) — 10/1/2009 @ 11:44 amSorry, it was unfair of me to assume to know Whoopi’s intention and what she really meant by the “rape-rape” comment. I should say that her wording implied to me a minimization of the seriousness of the crime.
But she certainly meant the rest, and she is just dead wrong.
Stephen Kane (c5bf05) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:25 pmSorry, I neglected to add links.
France
http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=33&r=3741#art16411
Poland:
Stephen Kane (c5bf05) — 10/1/2009 @ 12:51 pmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLP481286
It’s the left that fought through shame to demand justice.
Comment by Nancy Green
Nancy, it is the left that is defending these creatures although I will grant you that many on the left (not the elites but the commenters) are disowning Polanski. Clinton got away with behavior that would never be tolerated in a conservative president. There were “feminists” offering to give him blowjobs as a reward for keeping abortion legal. I can think of no more demeaning comment from any woman.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/5/2009 @ 10:21 amI assume most people here would label me as ‘on the left’ (which I feel is overly simplistic, but whatever). However, I do find Shore’s HuffPo article to be shameful and without integrity. The line “It’s probably 13 by now!” is about as flippant and ignorant as they come.
As reaction to some of the other comments here: Readers of the HuffPo aren’t all brain-dead democrats. You will be hard pressed to find any supportive comment to the HuffPo article. My first reaction to it was to google age of consent laws (hence leading me here). And I would encourage people to tune into ‘dissenting’ sources of one’s own viewpoint, if only so that you understand your viewpoint more clearly.
As for Polanski, I fail to see any travesty of justice that some ‘left’ commentators seem to be alluding to that should make him immune to prosecution. I would be all for letting the jury decide for themselves if it was “rape-rape” – not the court of public opinion. But wait. He already pleaded guilty. So nevermind that.
Mark R (1306db) — 10/6/2009 @ 8:39 am[…] Gigi Goyette, the melodically named former actress who was identified in multiple outlets as having carried on an affair with Schwarzenegger for roughly a decade in the 1990s and after, says she first met—and had sex with—Schwarzenegger when she was a 16-year-old actress in Little House on the Prairie. Schwarzenegger was 28 at the time; the couple later reconnected for their long-term affair. If the first assignation took place in California, where both parties lived at the time, then it was a crime: The age of consent in California is and was 18. […]
An Encyclopaedia Of Every Other Awful Thing Arnold Schwarzenegger Has Done | Defamer Australia (708580) — 5/24/2011 @ 6:48 pm[…] Gigi Goyette, the melodically named former actress who was identified in multiple outlets as having carried on an affair with Schwarzenegger for roughly a decade in the 1990s and after, says she first met—and had sex with—Schwarzenegger when she was a 16-year-old actress in Little House on the Prairie. Schwarzenegger was 28 at the time; the couple later reconnected for their long-term affair. If the first assignation took place in California, where both parties lived at the time, then it was a crime: The age of consent in California is and was 18. […]
An Encyclopaedia Of Every Other Awful Thing Arnold Schwarzenegger Has Done | Defamer Australia (708580) — 5/24/2011 @ 6:48 pm