Patterico's Pontifications

9/27/2009

WaPo’s Anne Applebaum Botches the Facts as She Whines About Polanski

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:47 pm

Anne Applebaum writes of “The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski” — even though her post shows that she doesn’t have the slightest clue about the facts of the case. Because the Washington Post (like the L.A. Times) has the habit of revising content without telling readers that it has done so, I am going to quote her entire post:

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland — the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators — that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Here are some of the facts: Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren’t famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.

Ha. If he weren’t famous, he never would have gotten a slap on the wrist for anally raping a 13-year-old girl.

Or didn’t you know that, Ms. Applebaum? Because I missed that part in your recitation of the “facts” — which, by the way, inaccurately states that he had a “trial.” He did not. He pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, in return for the agreement to dismiss several other charges, including rape and sodomy.

UPDATE: Well, well. It turns out that Applebaum’s husband is a Polish politician who is currently actively lobbying for Polanski’s freedom. Seems that Applebaum did not mention that. Details here.

UPDATE x2: As I make clear on the sidebar and in other posts on this issue, while I work for the Los Angeles County District Attorney, I do not speak for him in any official capacity whatsoever. I write this post as a private citizen, and I express no opinion on what sentence Polanski should receive.

Comments (78)

78 Responses to “WaPo’s Anne Applebaum Botches the Facts as She Whines About Polanski”

Because I missed that part in your recitation of the “facts”

Reminds me of death penalty articles that completely ignore the crime for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, and the name(s) of the victim(s). Sometimes I’ll find those pesky little details in paragraph 16 or 17, but far too often they don’t even receive a mention … because they get in the way of the writer’s purpose to arouse sympathy for the cold-blooded killer.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 4:59 pm
The point about the victim having forgiven Polanski may be interesting, but it’s irrelevant to the legal status of the case. To determine or waive punishment based on the victim’s willingness to forgive would result in unequal justice.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:03 pm
You do know that this is a campaign for a pardon or commutation, don’t you? From a governor who has received any amount of “campaign contributions” from Polanski’s friends and even from Polanski himself through proxies, but still needs political cover.
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:08 pm
I remember Larry Lujack , who was the most popular dj in Chicago at that time doing his “Cheap ,Trashy Show Biz Report, and quoting Polanski , “People keep harping that she was 13. In fact,she was only 3 weeks away from being 14.” Then ,he was overcome , with snorting laughter.
By the way Patrick,is Ms Applebaum advocating a statute of limitations on child rape. Because, I wish she would just come out and tell us if she is.
corwin (427300) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:10 pm
He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

I’ll paraphrase what America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh wrote in his book No Mercy about another child rapist:

“I do not believe that people who commit these crimes have the right to pardon themselves. God can absolve [Roman Polanski]; the state can decide not to pursue [Roman Polanski]; the victim can find it in her heart to forgive [Roman Polanski]; but [Roman Polanski] does not have the right to pardon [Roman Polanski]. He does not have the right to say, I committed this crime, but I think I’ve turned into a pretty nice guy, so I hearby grant myself immunity from prosecution, on the condition that I will never ever do it again, cross my heart. And that’s good enough for me.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:14 pm
for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

If that’s the case, let him make those arguments in court. But it’s up to the court — not the convict — to decide whether to mitigate his sentence.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:17 pm
Apparently Applebaum believes that there are sufficient justifications for child rape.

She also appears to believe there are sufficient justifications for avoiding legal consequences for a select few.

Somehow I suspect if Roman Polanski were not Roman Polanski, Ms. Applebaum would not be running to his defense. But who knows, perhaps there are others who are without fame and fortune and not a Hollywood darling who have also committed equally reprehensible crimes that she will be going to bat for. I’ll have to keep checking her column…

Mostly, I’m just thankful she is only a journalist and therefore her powers to do damage to society at large are very limited.
Dana (863a65) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:20 pm
I am glad that I am not the only person who noticed this and found it sickening! The French government’s reaction alone is nauseating.
jacob ort (6b960b) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:24 pm
Those who know me know that I think all child and domestic abusers should be castrated and hung by the nearest yardarm, but that said, I have mixed emotions about this arrest.

I was gang raped 40 years ago by a group of frat boys, 2 of whom went on to become doctors. None were ever charged, let alone convicted. If I was notified that any one of them was now under arrest, I would be the one running. I refused back then to allow myself to be their victim and I sure wouldn’t appreciate the gov’t or anyone else trying to turn me into one now so they could have their own legal satisfaction. I can sympathize greatly with the woman in this case now. She is not the same young girl, she has a new life, she has learned to live with what happened and put being a victim behind her and she does not want to have to live thru it all again. Already I can see how all the legal types are demanding Polanski’s scalp but with no thought to the havoc this will wreck on the only person who should have the say.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Are we to assume Ms Applebaum did not read the transcript of the trial? Or is it that 30 years later and all the hardship Polanski went through more than offsets the raping of a 13 year old girl. Anally raping a 13 year old girl.

This makes me so mad I could spit!
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Sara, the arrest of Polanski does not “wreck” any havoc on the victim of his crime that has not already been. Polanski pled guilty and skipped out before sentence was entered. The justification for the arrest is to enforce the integrity of the judicial system.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:38 pm
How dare we try to send boys to prison for killing both their parents! After all, they’re orphans! We have to feel for all their problems!

I know, that’s different, but…

All Roman Polanski’s troubles after he raped a young girl were his making as he ran away from the law. Pity him? How about spit on him instead?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:41 pm
The justification for the arrest is to enforce the integrity of the judicial system.

Ah, the “integrity” of the California legal system. LOL. And you were serious. There is no integrity in the Calif. legal system.

However, I do understand why they did it, I agree Polanski is an A-#1 dirtbag, but to say this woman won’t have havoc wrecked again on her life is naive to the extreme.

She got her pound of flesh out of the dirtbag with a large cash settlement and she is satisfied. What can possibly be served in jailing the guy at this late date except to make those still living in the fantasy that the law must be satisfied so justice is done feel better? There is little justice in the law, in case you haven’t noticed.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:48 pm
during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

Oh, Yes. The POS has paid for his crime. living the life of a celebrity and frequently vacationing in the luxury resort of Gstad.
I missed where Applebaum noted that he had his way with the girl by plying her with champagne and a Quaalude.

I guess the champagne makes it okay though, eh?

If this airhead is representative of the state of Professional Journalism, I strongly recommend a SELL position on all media stock and a BUY on the internet service provider of your choice.
MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:51 pm
Sara (Pal2Pal),

I think you make a valid point however, as heartless as it sounds, the justice system can’t focus on the victim. It can listen to and try to help victims, but ultimately the focus has to be on the alleged perpetrators.

If we institutionalize concern for victims as a deciding factor in whether charges are brought, perpetrators will have an even greater incentive to pay off or threaten victims to remain silent. And that will not only cause victims even more pain but it will also make it easier for perpetrators to escape justice.

Finally, I don’t know what will be done in this case but I don’t think it’s good to make policy based on one California celebrity.
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:55 pm
Dana,
Mostly, I’m just thankful she is only a journalist and therefore her powers to do damage to society at large are very limited.

One journalist yes, but collectively they have great power to do mischief, by misleading and lying to the public, who then elects politicians like The Messiah based on that disinformation.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:55 pm
free mumia! free eichorn! free manson! free bobby blake! free polanski! mikey jackson paid out $20+ because he was not a pedophile. can’t we all just get along? what does mary jo think of fat teddy croaking from brain cancer and leavcing her to asphyxiate decades earlier?

why do sara and her ilk feel any compassion at all for polanski? the victim already faces more public exposure. why not castrate roman the anal bandit of children and set him free? would his defenders here and over at althouse’s blog be ok if their own child or grandchild had been raped up the bunghole by the poor widdle holocaust survivor? oh right, he used butter so it would fit into her young butt easier. oh, maybe she wanted it. oh, i’m sure the aclu thinks he should get a pass. don’t they support nambla and the right for children to have sex with adults?
sara types are ostriches and apologists for heinous criminals. justice would find roman in stir with a 300 pound bunkmate who loves being fellated and sodomizing old oscar-winning polacks. jajajaja
aoibhneas (8776b7) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:01 pm
Sara, your comment is not responsive to mine. As silly as you find the idea, although you seem to have no actual rebuttal, it does undermine California justice to see that a celebrity can escape a criminal sentence by escaping abroad. The real system without any integrity is France’s who refused to extradite Polanski without justification.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:07 pm
In this case (I don’t remember other sarah contributions, but do remember she made some), I don’t think it appropriate to add “and her ilk” to the commentary. Even for me, and everyone will agree I have no social skills, that is over the top.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:09 pm
The Acorn videos show how prevalent the idea is that this kind of behavior is ok. Several offices would basically be supporting our intrepid reporters in doing things similar to what Polanski did and for a profit no less. So I’m not surprised at all the fuss trying to defend him.

Just as Polanski can’t pardon himself, neither can he determine the punishment he gets. That is the state’s prerogative, and they haven’t extracted their payment for the crime. The state is obligated to collect. All the suffering he has experienced is either not related to the crime or is a result of his running from punishment and shouldn’t count toward the punishment the state needs to impose. This guy owes the public some pennance and hasn’t paid that debt yet, and it is still due whether or not the girl forgave him. His crime wasn’t just committed against her, but against all of society. If we let it go, then we are giving assent to all those who will follow in the same kind of behavior. We can’t afford to do that.
Jeff (7ef9ec) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:10 pm
oh, i’m sure the aclu thinks he should get a pass. don’t they support nambla and the right for children to have sex with adults

No, the ACLU does not support adult-child sex. The ACLU supports the right of nambla to advocate for the legalization of adult-child sex.

(FYI: At one time I belonged to the ACLU. I quit when I realized how far they had strayed from their professed mission.)
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:13 pm
Applebaum almost sounds like she would have held the 13 year-old girl down for Roman.
j curtis (baef6f) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:15 pm
All of the comments to the article are critical of Applebaum.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:17 pm
One journalist yes, but collectively they have great power to do mischief, by misleading and lying to the public, who then elects politicians like The Messiah based on that disinformation.

Bradley, point taken, however, I like to believe that journalists (MSM) are progressively having far less influence on the public because people have and continue to smarten up and are becoming more savvy and wary of the MSM than ever before.
Dana (863a65) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:18 pm
where are NOW and the rest of the feminazis on this? Surely Polanski, being a super talent, holocaust survivor whose one family was gassed at Auschwitz and his wife and child brutally murdered, has suffered enough? Oh, I forgot how all those libtard women defended rapist Bill Clinton’s right to bonk women not his wife. Someone here surely recalls the one media wench who said she’d gladly fellate him for all he did for abortion rights. Besides, powerful men have powerful appetites.
aoibhneas (8776b7) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:21 pm
why do sara and her ilk feel any compassion at all for polanski?

Excuse me? Sara and her ilk? Where did you presume I feel even an iota of compassion for Polanski as far as this case is concerned. Are you nuts? Perhaps you should go back to my first comment at #9, where I prefaced my remark with: “Those who know me know that I think all child and domestic abusers should be castrated and hung by the nearest yardarm, but that said, I have mixed emotions about this arrest.”

Sara who cannot speak for the “her ilk” contingent, sympathizes with the victim here, especially since the most egregious of the charges against Polanski were dismissed with the plea bargain and what is left does not seem to warrant putting the woman thru it all over again.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:23 pm
Sara, your comment is not responsive to mine.

I did my best to answer but it is a hard go when you started from a false premise.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:27 pm
To the contrary, Sara, you started with a false premise.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:34 pm
yeah right, the victim who was raped is being revictimized if Polanski pays for his crime. Oh, you mean he already paid because he gave the victim cash in a civil case settlement? Right, money talks and camel dung walks. The cheese-eating surrender monkeys sure show endless sympathy for Americans who flee from justice. Yeah, Ira Eichorn was innocent of killing the girlfriend stuffed in a barrel stored in his attic. And a sensitive soul such a Polanski had no problem joking after the fact about his sexual feats with the 13 year old. If there has to be a different standard for the rich and famous, at least confiscate all their wealth and have a mechanical contraption that duplicates the pain he inflicted on the young girl.
aoibhneas (8776b7) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:39 pm
SPQR: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because I do not accept your premise of: “The justification for the arrest is to enforce the integrity of the judicial system,” since I do not believe there is any integrity in the Calif. system whether a celebrity or an average Joe is in the dock. I also don’t agree that sending someone to jail is necessarily justice for the victim. In this case, it obviously is not since she is not on board with Polanski’s arrest and is satisfied with the punishment she inflicted on him when hitting him in the pocketbook.

My personal feelings about Polanski’s actions are much different than what I think is judicially fair for this case and this former victim. And please don’t insult her by coming back at me by saying she is still a victim.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:49 pm
yeah right, the victim who was raped is being
revictimized if Polanski pays for his crime

No, she is being revictimized by people like you. She will be revictimized if he is brought back to the States and we have 24 hour non-stop coverage and more court appearances. It is starting already, but apparently your hate of those with money or celebrity is too intense for you to stop and think what this woman will be put thru in the next few weeks/months if he is extradited. Sad.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:56 pm
why would the actual victim be reguired to answer any questions from anyone? The dude was already sentenced before, no? He already admitted guilt. To me he’s the scum of the earth and has lived high on the hog the past thirty years. I am not jealous of his celebrity and believe many of the hollyweird elitists are assclowns. ‘Tis a pity Roman was not the Manson followers’ victim rather than his wife and unborn child. He seems to have gotten over all that easily enough if he needed to rape little girls soon enough. I wonder how many of his supporters actually wish he’d have given them unlawful carnal attention ??? LOL
Yes. I’m sure if the famous Polack rapist was poor, he’d have been given get out of jail free pass long ago. Oddly enough, yahoo news thinks this current Swiss thing will mean Mr. Child butt fecker will soon have his freedom and return to hollywood in all his glory.
aoibhneas (8776b7) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:08 pm
your hate of those with money or celebrity is too intense for you to stop and think what this woman will be put thru in the next few weeks/months if he is extradited. Sad

Sara, you objected when someone falsely attributed a perspective to you: “why do sara and her ilk feel any compassion at all for polanski”? And then you turn around and falsely attribute to your opponent the idea that his perspective is shaped by Polanski’s fame and fortune.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:22 pm
“He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.”

I’m getting all weepy.
Dave Surls (cafb98) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:23 pm
wait a minute.
Dude is already convicted. LA county could have sent Dog the Bounty Hunter over to fetch him back years ago if they cared to.
There won’t be any trial.
Well except maybe to tack a few more decades on his sentence for taking the Mexican blackbird.
papertiger (bd6c91) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:24 pm
in professional stigma

Which studios/actors/producers have refused to hire him due to his status as a convicted rapist?
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:27 pm
Again, the media protects Democrats, Terrorists, and perverts.
PCD (2870d5) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:31 pm
There is no reason for the victim to “go through this again”. The trial was over a long time ago. Polanski was sentenced and ran away before reporting to prison. He gets off the airplane and goes to prison to complete his sentence. Period.
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:31 pm
[…] an earlier post I noted substantial inaccuracies and omissions in a post by Washington Post pundit Anne Applebaum […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » In Advocating for Roman Polanski, Anne Applebaum Fails to Mention That Her Husband Is a Polish Politician Actively Lobbying for Polanski’s Freedom (e4ab32) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:33 pm
why would the actual victim be reguired to answer any questions from anyone?

Huh? Have you read any blogs today? Have you heard what is being said on the TV? She doesn’t have to be asked a single direct question by the courts/law enforcement, etc, but the old/new media will be all over this case 24-7. Nutbags on both sides of the issue will be out in full force. She can expect (as can he, but he deserves it) death threats, harassment, and all kinds of trash talk and sliming. You watch. Anna Nicole, Michael Jackson, Vick, OJ, anyone remember those? There was no Internet or Cable or even talk radio like today back when Polanski was first charged. Very different world today. I can already see the satellite trucks camped out on her front yard. Does she have a husband/children/parents? God help them if this goes forward here in the States.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:33 pm
Sarah, two questions:

Given that Polanski has already pleaded guilty to the offense in question, and doesn’t need to be retried on that charge now, why do you think that finally bringing him to justice will be a huge trauma for his victim?
Just how many years on the lam does one have to spend before his crime becomes a non-crime? And why on earth should we reward those criminals who manage to escape justice for so long before finally being caught?

OK, I guess that was three, but whatever.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:34 pm
See the update. Turns out that Applebaum has a little undisclosed conflict.
Patterico (64318f) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:35 pm
And then you turn around and falsely attribute to your opponent the idea that his perspective is shaped by Polanski’s fame and fortune.

I don’t think so. He is claiming that Polanski’s celebrity status is why he gets away with anal rape of a 13 year old. SPQR=”to see that a celebrity can escape a criminal sentence by escaping abroad.”
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:39 pm
I know a guy named ramblin Bob
He liked to rape gamble and rob
He thought he was the smartest guy around
But I found out last Monday
That Bob got locked up Sunday
They got him in the jailhouse way downtown.

He’s in the jailhouse now.
He’s in the jailhouse now.
I told him once or twice
Stop playin cards and shootin dice.
He’s in the jailhouse now.

Ahh yee ohh layee heeeee
ahh yee ohh layee heeee hooo
ah yee oh lay he hoo ah yee oh lay hee hoo
ah yee oh lay heeeee

the yodel solo included in honor of our good friends the Swiss.
papertiger (bd6c91) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:45 pm
Given that Polanski has already pleaded guilty to the offense in question, and doesn’t need to be retried on that charge now, why do you think that finally bringing him to justice will be a huge trauma for his victim?

I think I answered this at #40.

Just how many years on the lam does one have to spend before his crime becomes a non-crime? And why on earth should we reward those criminals who manage to escape justice for so long before finally being caught?

How does one answer this? Any crime, how ’bout stealing a loaf of bread? This crime? My understanding is that he negotiated a plea bargain that pretty much dropped the rape charges, but does a plea bargain go away as soon as he went “on the lam?” Or, is he only responsible for serving whatever min. sentence the reduced charges from the plea bargain apply? I don’t know.

Since the initial news report said he wants to “appeal,” I take that as meaning the original plea bargain is in place and it is that sentence he would be appealing? How much time was that going to carry, what penalties? Is he a bail jumper or an escapee? Would he now face a new trial? Lots of questions from a non-lawyer.

When you read Patterico’s recounting of the original crime, you want to kill the guy, or at least I do, but if we are talking the reduced charge from the plea bargain, the extenuating circumstances, his lack of any other criminal record, and weigh the woman’s interest against the max. interest of Polanski, I don’t see how anyone benefits, least of all the “integrity of justice,” by extradition.

And where are they going to put him anyway. Calif. is in the process of releasing tens of thousands of their prisoners due to overcrowding and a lack of money to maintain such a large prison population. Is societal revenge against Polanski, not the victim’s wishes, so strong that we are willing to release murderers in order to make room for this guy on a 31 year old sex crime? Just asking. Not making any pro or con statement.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:54 pm
Sara: He is claiming that Polanski’s celebrity status is why he gets away with anal rape of a 13 year old. SPQR=”to see that a celebrity can escape a criminal sentence by escaping abroad.”

No, the comment (#29) which you quoted and responded to(#31) was written by aoibhneas, not SPQR.

At any rate, belief that a celebrity can get away with a criminal sentence is not a sign of hatred of fame or fortune. Rather, it’s a belief that everyone convicted of a crime should face justice
regardless of whether they are rich or poor, famous or anonymous.

The point is not whether
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:56 pm
Sara, you would make the perfect southern California resident with your belief that celebrity is a free pass to crime.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:59 pm
Sara, you would make the perfect southern California resident with your belief that celebrity is a free pass to crime.

I am a California resident. A Southern California resident, not to be confused with a Northern Calif. moonbat.

Don’t insult me. I could care less about celebrity. I could care less what happens to Polanski. As I said, if it were up to me, it would have been castration. I despise rapists and domestic abusers of women and children since I’ve been on the receiving end of both, rape and the abuse. I don’t give a damn what they do or what their status is. But I also have great compassion for a woman who went thru hell as a barely past puberty young girl who is now a middle-aged woman and has said she does not want a circus in her life at this time of her life. How hard is that to grasp?
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:08 pm
This animal got a gift with three years at a time when California had indeterminate sentencing and people were getting one year to life or five years to life for much less serious crimes. Time for him to die in prison.

But I also have great compassion for a woman who went thru hell as a barely past puberty young girl who is now a middle-aged woman and has said she does not want a circus in her life at this time of her life. How hard is that to grasp?

Not at all hard. You’re nuts.
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:18 pm
Comment by Sara (Pal2Pal) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:08 pm

Must say I don’t understand. Thought her name was not being released in media reports? I understand that it’d be very difficult to take the phone off the hook for several weeks while the guy comes back and is taken to jail (the trial and its sentencing have already taken place). Though I won’t second guess her preferences, she, though she was the victim of the original crime, is not the only interested party here. Not only is there the justice system precedent to think about, but…

Is anyone thinking of the past victims of child rape who watched this guy get a free pass and are not so healed as this woman seems to be? Or of future criminals who think skipping town before sentencing is worth the risk? Child rape is a very serious crime and it seems to me that “let him stay in France,” all due respect to people here, gives a terrible message all around.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:31 pm
A Southern California resident, not to be confused with a Northern Calif. moonbat.

As a resident of Northern, I would point out that Southern California has its share of moonbats as well.
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:31 pm
Not at all hard. You’re nuts.

Maybe so, or maybe I have better insight having walked in similar shoes to the victim in this case and have a better perspective than a bunch of men, half of whom probably weren’t even born yet when this offense transpired.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:32 pm
Your fragility is yours, nobody else’s. Certainly not society’s.
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:43 pm
Maybe so, or maybe I have better insight having walked in similar shoes to the victim in this case and have a better perspective than a bunch of men, half of whom probably weren’t even born yet when this offense transpired.

Comment by Sara (Pal2Pal) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:32 pm

Though I don’t accept the premise that only women have legitimate standing to comment on this, I understand you to be saying that’s your premise, so…I’m a woman. Do you have a reply to me?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:43 pm
I don’t understand what’s gained here by trying to push Sara(Pal2Pal) around. She’s got a different POV coming from a perspective which she has explained. She is not a moonbat or a troll. I can vouch for that having crossed paths with her at other venues.

I suggest respectful disagreement for those who take issue with her position, but your mileage may differ.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:50 pm
In this case (I don’t remember other sarah contributions, but do remember she made some), I don’t think it appropriate to add “and her ilk” to the commentary. Even for me, and everyone will agree I have no social skills, that is over the top.

Me, earlier in this thread. Combined with daley, who is much more diplomatically astute than me, I think that’s enough support to call off the dogs and actually be even-handed with Sara.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:55 pm
I suggest respectful disagreement for those who take issue with her position, but your mileage may differ.

Comment by daleyrocks — 9/27/2009 @ 8:50 pm

I do obviously agree with you and John that the disagreement should be respectful. Have not seen Sara in other venues so I don’t have the experience that you do. I would just submit that her comment at 8;32 seemed fairly dismissive, and therefore not too respectul, of the men commenting on this issue.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:01 pm
Though I don’t accept the premise that only women have legitimate standing to comment on this, I understand you to be saying that’s your premise, so…I’m a woman. Do you have a reply to me?

Good grief, no, no, no. Being a woman has nothing to do with it. Men can be raped and sodomized too. It has to do with being very young when something like that happened, putting it behind you as best you can and then having it all dragged thru the mud again with all kinds of people chiming in about the “integrity of justice,” society’s need for revenge, or some such.

If you can tell me that you’ve been thru such an experience and I don’t mean just the rape/sodomy, but the whole nine yards of publicity and trial, dealing with police whose first question is “what did you do to deserve it,” and the aftermath and survived in tact, I’ll be there for you too.

If they do bring Polanski back, I’ll not shed a tear if they put him away for life, which they won’t. I will be very sad for his victim and what she will be forced to tolerate so that “society” can have its pound of flesh and feel good about itself.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:03 pm
I agree, noyk, that Sara was highly dismissive of the male perspective, and inappropriately so, as males have been raped before, and in the exact same way the 13-year-old was. But her story was enough for me to decide even-handedness was appropriate.

If Sara doesn’t want to be even-handed on the issue, that’s her problem. But that shouldn’t prevent everyone else from being even-handed toward her on the issue.

And, to be clear, I care about the victims of crime. Up until the sentencing phase. If the victims have chosen to defend the culprits, sorry about their (the victims’) luck. Throw the book at ’em (the culprits). And OT law says throw more than the book, throw rocks until the dude gives up and quits breathing.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:09 pm
Okay, my lack of diplomacy showed as sara posted while I was writing.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:11 pm
Sara has a blog with well over a million visitors and she tweets every day and is an active commenter on many popular right-of-center blogs. I’ve been around here on and off since this blog posted its first post and I’ve been online for over 20 years. Just for FYI. I am disabled and in a wheelchair thanks to a brutal attack by two men and when I was still a young teen I was raped, beaten and left for dead who thought it was hot to “do a virgin.” I do not talk about that very often as it is painful to dredge up, but I don’t shy away from it if the subject warrants it. Again just for FYI. Oh, and I’m probably old enough to be a mother to most of you and maybe even your grandmother.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:11 pm
Sara (Pal2Pal) – Actually I think there are a bunch of us semi old farts on this board, chicks included.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:17 pm
I, for one, have a due date. 😉 I am due to become a grandfather in February.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:22 pm
Good grief, no, no, no. Being a woman has nothing to do with it. Men can be raped and sodomized too.

Well, you must admit you brought up the subject when you wrote “a bunch of men” as if that were relevant. But, OK…

If you can tell me that you’ve been thru such an experience and I don’t mean just the rape/sodomy, but the whole nine yards of publicity and trial, dealing with police whose first question is “what did you do to deserve it,” and the aftermath and survived in tact, I’ll be there for you too.

If they do bring Polanski back, I’ll not shed a tear if they put him away for life, which they won’t. I will be very sad for his victim and what she will be forced to tolerate so that “society” can have its pound of flesh and feel good about itself.

Comment by Sara (Pal2Pal) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:03 pm

Before I respond to this, just want to say that I’m very sorry for what you went through – not only the attack on you (whatever form it took) but the additionally horrifying experience of having police ask you what you did to deserve it. No one should have to go through that, and it’s pretty clear the woman doesn’t want the dredging up that this would provide.

That said, I reiterate that she is not the only interested party in this transaction. And, just as you brought up men as if they had no less standing to comment, now you bring up those who haven’t been victims in the same way you have, as having less standing to comment. All due respect, I do not accept this premise. Though your input is very valuable, others’ perspectives, from non-victim standpoints, are also of value. Also, I don’t agree that it’s just a “society needs to feel good about itself” witchhunt or something.

This gentleman (i think he’s male) makes the point in the other thread much better than I did in this one, but his and my points are the same: we can’t encourage people to try to escape justice with the precedent that if I get away with it, I’ll never see punishment.

I’m glad you gave your perspective of your experience. However, not everyone who has been the victim of such an attack has exactly the same perspective of not wanting it addressed again. Have you considered that some who have been through child rape and haven’t gotten over it now see someone else getting away with it in a big way, and law enforcement newly enabling it. Don’t you think that would be an additional damaging factor for them?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:22 pm
Sara: If you can tell me that you’ve been thru such an experience and I don’t mean just the rape/sodomy, but the whole nine yards of publicity and trial, dealing with police whose first question is “what did you do to deserve it,” and the aftermath and survived in tact, I’ll be there for you to

Is it your position that only those who have been victims of rape or molestation have legitimate standing to comment on this?
aunursa (0e5924) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:24 pm
LOL. Daleyrock, I like to think of myself more as a well seasoned bitch than an old fart, but otherwise … 🙂
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:27 pm
not only the attack on you (whatever form it took)

Sara,

We cross posted. I’m sorry, I didn’t know the nature of the attack on you till your last post. Just didn’t want this to sound flip – I didn’t know what form it took till now.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:30 pm
I really, truly hate the glitches in this commenting system. It’s distressing thinking that a victim of sexual abuse thinks you’re making fun of her because you can’t get a clarifying comment to register about the cross posting.

Have never complained about this till now, but what the FRICK is the problem with comments? And why do they fail so frequently?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:44 pm
#64.

I do not mean to sound as if no one without such horrible experiences has a right to comment or have an opinion. It was not my intention to imply this, only poor writing.

It is also not my intention to imply that a victim’s wishes, in ordinary circumstance, should have preference over the larger societal needs.

It is my intention to say that these are not ordinary circumstances due to the over 3 decades gap that is part of this case and the fact that the world is very different today than it was back then.

In ordinary circumstance, say the same crime, but the perp wasn’t caught, the statute of limitations would have run long ago and the victim would have no recourse. In ordinary circumstances, if the perp were an everyday Joe, no one would give a hoot in hell about this case. It might merit a one-liner in some local rag and that is about it. This is a BIG story because of the celebrity of the perp. In fact, it is a much much bigger story right now today than it was 31 years ago.

It doesn’t make it right how it used to be, but all child abuse and sexual predation is a far bigger story today than it ever was before the Internet and Cable news.

I do realize that not all victims of sexual violence or really any kind of violence against their person will think as I do, but as one who spent several years as a volunteer counselor for domestic violence victims, I do have some knowledge of what it takes to start the healing process and how fragile that healing can be when one has to relive. I’m very familiar, both personally and as a counselor, with what PTSD is all about and how you can think you are healed and then have some stupid event, remark, news story, or even a sound or smell, bring it all back.

Anyway, sorry if I stepped on anyone’s tender toes, but it is hard enough to talk about this crap, if I do, I refuse to be intimidated. It has to be that way.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 9/27/2009 @ 10:08 pm
[…] others have noted, Applebaum gets her facts wrong in her efforts to soft-peddle her pro-child rape post. Polanski […]
What the Washington elite thinks | Hoystory (6855c0) — 9/27/2009 @ 10:17 pm
[…] More media apologists, and some with major conflicts of […]
L.A. Times Defends Monster Child Rapist Roman Polanski : Stop The ACLU (dae8af) — 9/28/2009 @ 3:04 am
[…] Patrick Frey, an assistant district attorney in LA whose office is seeking Polanski’s extradition, notes that Polanski “pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, in return for the agreement to dismiss several other charges, including rape and sodomy.” He and a co-blogger remind us of the graphic details of the case, which belie the notion that Polanski is some sort of victim. Let’s just say that the girl in question was drugged and the encounter was otherwise decidedly less than romantic. (In a separate post, he notes that Applebaum’s husband is Poland’s foreign minister, who is lobbying for Polanski’s release.) […]
Roman Polanski Arrested, Fighting Extradition (139676) — 9/28/2009 @ 4:50 am
[…] Moreover, Applebaum’s recitation of the facts of the case omits the fact that Polanski pled guilty to avoid more serious charges, including rape and sodomy. […]
Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Roman Polanski Fighting Extradition While Apologist Choir Warms Up (b57243) — 9/28/2009 @ 5:24 am
He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma.

Legal fees are now considered part of paying your debt to society? If that is the case, we might as well empty the prisons today and reserve them only for people who don’t pay any legal fees during their trials.
Advocate for Change (08eaae) — 9/28/2009 @ 7:03 am
So you can wipe off the grin, I know where you’ve been

Its all been a pack of lies

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/phil+collins/in+the+air+tonight_20108005.html
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/28/2009 @ 7:22 am
Patterico has this basically correct. Altho, I have not seen any left-of-center blogs defend the idea that Polanski is being mistreated — except for a very strange approach being taken by Jeralyn at Talk Left. Most such sites are not amenable, at all, to Applebaum’s sick apoligia. (And Applebaum is not a leftist.)

Personally, I am dubious of statutory rape laws per se, when the “victim” is post-pubescent and consenting, unless the perp is in a position of authority — say a step-dad or a teacher. But in this case, (in which there WAS NO TRIAL, because Polanski accepted a plea agreement), it seems Polanski fed the 13-year-old a Quaalude in her champagne, and she consistently said “no” to all the things he did to her. That, my friends, is non-consensual, aka, rape.

Ok, maybe the prosecution back then engaged in some untoward conduct. But that does not mean Polanski should not be sanctioned under the CA penal code, as would anyone else under identical circumstances.
Mona (11b3c2) — 9/28/2009 @ 2:18 pm
[…] quotes (but does not link), not the post where I actually discussed her omission, but rather an earlier post that I updated to include a link to that post. That allows her to say: Well, well, it turns out […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Anne Applebaum: Patterico Is “Not Quite As Offensive” As Reader Who Expressed a Wish to Rape Anne Applebaum’s Daughter (e4ab32) — 9/29/2009 @ 7:41 pm
[…] Patrick Frey, an assistant district attorney in LA whose office is seeking Polanski’s extradition, notes that Polanski “pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, in return for the agreement to dismiss several other charges, including rape and sodomy.” He and a co-blogger remind us of the graphic details of the case, which belie the notion that Polanski is some sort of victim. Let’s just say that the girl in question was drugged and the encounter was otherwise decidedly less than romantic. See also the victim’s grand jury testimony, which makes clear the sex was forcible and that, even drugged with alcohol and Quaaludes, she explicitly denied consent. Which, of course, a 13-year-old can not give under the law. (In a separate post, Frey notes that Applebaum’s husband is Poland’s foreign minister, who is lobbying for Polanski’s release.) […]
We Stay On The Subject Of The Mainstream Media And In The WaPo Offices For Yet Another Blogger Ethics Panel « Around The Sphere (5c299c) — 9/30/2009 @ 5:09 pm

9/27/2009

WaPo’s Anne Applebaum Botches the Facts as She Whines About Polanski

78 Responses to “WaPo’s Anne Applebaum Botches the Facts as She Whines About Polanski”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out