Academy Award-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested on a sex charge while trying to enter Switzerland Saturday. The arrest stems from an arrest warrant issued by the U.S. in 1978, when Polanski fled the country after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The director had been living in France since then. The director was on his way to the Zurich Film Festival when he was taken into custody. Swiss officials say Polanski is currently in provisional detention, and do not know yet whether or not the director will be extradited to the United States.
Back in 1978, Polanski was accused of giving a 13-year-old champagne and subsequently having sexual intercourse with her at Jack Nicholson’s home (the actor was not home at the time). After pleading guilty and fleeing the country, there had been several attempts to settle the case, but Polanski had refused to attend hearings in the states. Just last year, Polanski’s lawyer attempted to get the case thrown out — citing a documentary that depicts backroom deals between prosecutors and the original judge assigned to the case — but a Los Angeles Superior Court refused to do so, thus opening the case back up should Polanski return to the U.S. and appear in court. The victim in the case, now 45 years old, has requested that the case be thrown out.
Finally! Polanski should have made a real man of himself long ago and faced these charges. There is NO excuse for an adult man having sex with a 13 year-old girl and all of his accomplishments since then, including the Oscar for “The Pianist” are tarnished because he hasn’t “paid his price”.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Polanski DID make a real man of himself by pleading guilty to the charges. But it was the horrible politics of our judicial system that forced Polanski to flee. Are you a myopic Republican?
Pleading guilty makes him a real man? That’s bull. No one forced him to flee. A real man would have stayed and challenged the case. That is why we have appeal courts. There are many innocent people that have been sent to jail and you expect me to feel sorry for someone who is guilty and because he is rich and has foreign citizenship was able to escape his punishment. No way. What kind of “real man” has sex with a 13 year old and then runs away?
Why dont they arrest Steven Tyler of Aerosmith then? He molested a 14 yr old girl, I guess its ok since he had the parents permission.
He plead guilty then ran away. That’s not what a man does- that’s what children do.
Polanski pled guilty but didn’t want probation because he would of had to stay in Calif. for probation, which if I remember was going to be 2 years. He may have worked and had a place in LA, but his real home was France. He didn’t like that he couldn’t go home, so he skipped out and went to France. So he admitted what he did, but didn’t want the punishment. That’s not what a man does. But a real man wouldn’t have drugged and raped a child either. Polanski is a scumbag.
I am not saying the man should go to jail for the rest of his life. If he had faced these charges, and used his lawyers to combat the “corrupt judge” long ago, this would have gone away 30 years ago. What are you? A child-raping democrat?
Hey, AcaseofGeo, I’m a Democrat and I think that Polanski is a perverted creep who deserves to rot in hell.
Dan was stupid for calling you a myopic Republican, but that’s not as bad as calling someone a child-raping democrat.
Spending 42 days in a psychiatric unit does not make that sick pedophile a real man. Are you contending that his force on a 13 year old child is acceptable? And he flead the country and no matter how you look at it that’s another crime in iteslf
This is another case of the rich and famous living a different standard then the rest of us. If any one of us had drugged and raped a 13-yr old girl, pled guilty, and then left the country, we would be tracked down and thrown into jail. I don’t care if he is a famous director, if he did the crime, he should do the time like the rest of us. Fleeing the country is the cowards way out.
It’s ridiculous to act as if the judicial systems always works and ask him to sit in jail while he patiently waits for it to wait when the judge already railroaded him once. There’s nothing about being a real man that says allow yourself to get screwed. That’s stupid. Evolutionarily a real man would do the opposite or his genes would have been out of the gene pool a long time ago. Give me a break. The judge screwed him and, since he was a French citizen and apparently the law wasn’t fast enough, he fled. Legal? No. Advisable? Probably not. But that doesn’t not make him a real man. Stop being silly.
James, please get your facts straight. Polanski fled because he thought that the judge might sentence him to jail. The judge didn’t railroad him. He sent Polanski to the Psychiatric ward for evaluation that was required by law for anyone convicted of sex with someone under 14. He was supposed to be there 90 days, but the judge let him out after 42 so he could go and finish a movie he was working on. Polanski didn’t want to finish his Psychiatric evaluation, nor did he want any other punishment. So he fled. It wasn’t about judicial misconduct, but rather about a man who didn’t think the laws applied to him.
Um…it doesn’t take a Republican to consider his arrest as just desserts. Give me a friggin break.
Whatever the corruption, the man had sex with a 14 year old. Can you not fathom the severity of his transgression. Time may have healed all wounds for the victim who recieved a nice little settlement but that doesn’t change what he did.
Nice that he has the money to decide our judicial system wasn’t going to take nice care of a child rapist. (Yeah, it wasn’t rape-rape, it was only rape–40 yr olds should not have any sort of sex with teenagers ever.) Regular people have to deal with the system, not spend decades living well and bitching about America’s morality.
I’m not a Republican. I’m a mom of teenagers. There’s a reason his actions are against the law. Running, and then never fixing this for decades? Guilty is guilty.
Is it wrong to feel bad for him because he is a holocaust survivor?
the man served 45 days in prison for this charge as part of plea deal that the judge then reneged on, so Polanski fled. He has been punished enough for this, the case should have been throw out or settled a long time ago. I feel nothing but pity for this man who’s entire family was murdered in the holocaust, spent most of his childhood in Auschwitz, and lived through the brutal murder of his pregnant bride by the manson family.
He served 45 days for sodomizing, raping, and drugging a 13 year old child who begged him to stop.
People like you, who feel that his sentence was long enough, and feel sympathy for this pedophile and rapist, make me fear for society. Your lack of morals and common human decency is very disturbing.
Well Karina, people like you, who judge others so black and white, are also a reason to fear society.
Lala, those like you who excuse criminal behavior because someone has talent are truly disturbing.
PS…There are plenty of people who live through tragedy who then DO NOT go on to rape teenage girls. That’s a poor excuse for pity.
And because he’s had such tragedy in his life, it’s okay for him to rape children? That he gets to visit the darkness on everyone else? Just because he’s a victim doesn’t mean he can’t victimize other people. He’s been playing this victim card all his life. Time to man up and take responsibility for his crimes and then running.
LOIS……my extreme apologies you are absolutely right and I was wrong to say that to Dan. It was heat of the moment.
Lois my apologies you are right I shouldn’t have said that. Sorry.
Let’s hope his “works of art” are tarnished by his being a fugitive from the law. It is unbelievable, only in Hollywood would they idolize a rapist.
Yes, what Roman Polanski did was wrong on sooo many levels – this we all know. However, he did face the charges. He never would’ve fled had the judge not been corrupt and out for attention. Everyone likes to just gloss over that part of the story.
Yeah, we’re so caught up with the part where he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, we forget about the evil prosecutor and judge who gave a 90 day reprieve to travel abroad and finish his film. How can you say he “faced the charges” when he used that opportunity to flee the country and avoid sentencing?
You don’t even know what you are talking about. He did not drug and rape anyone. the sex was completely consensual, yes it was wrong cuz she was a child. But I don’t think he was aware of that. She was a model at a photo shoot with him as the photographer. No one was there to look out for her. He made a mistake and he has paid for it.
You’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. It’s been stated over and over again that he drugged, raped and sodomized her while she begged him to stop.
I guess to you that kind of behavior only deserves a 45 day sentence?
Shame on you.
don’t worry, he’ll beat it.
He probably will beat it. Not because he’s innocent but because the victim is tired of being bothered by the media all these years. Everytime Polanski is in the news, like promoting a new movie, they put her name in there and mention the rape. For the sake of the victim, they’ll close the case.
Yep, because there are two sets of laws in the world: one for the rich, and one for the rest of us. And don’t forget the Hollywood PR machine chugging away. And they wonder why we consider them amoral/immoral? Honestly, I’m sick of it. I’m sure a lot of guys in jail would be great artists if only given half the opportunities that Polanski has had in his dark and weary life.
The judge was corrupt? The allegation was that an ADA not assigned to the case, spoke to the judge about what he thought sentencing should be. And that allegation wasn’t even made until 30 years after Polanski fled.
Polanski and the DA’s office had made a plea deal for probation. There is no proof that the judge would have changed that recommendation at sentencing. So Polanski didn’t flee because he thought the judge was “corrupt” but because he didn’t want to accept any punishment.
They claimed the judge reneged because the judge wanted him to go back to the psych center for more evalutions. The charge that he pled to usually meant a 3 yr prison sentence. The plea agreement was that he would go for a psych eval and then get probation. Polanski went for the 42 day in patient eval, and then was let go. He and his lawyers thought that should be his whole sentence, but the judge wanted him to go back to the psych center for another couple of weeks. If he wasn’t famous he would have been sent to jail.
It is important to know that the original charges would have sent him to jail for life. They let him plead to one charge in exchange for dropping the others. Spending 42 days in a psych center is a joke for what he did. And Polanski didn’t want to spend another couple of weeks there so he fled the country. Three decades as a fugative because he didn’t want psych help.
Who cares what the usual sentence was. Honestly. He had a plea deal, the prosecutor agreed to it. FYI that’s generally WHY people plea. You don’t plea to get the usual sentence. He left because the judge went WAY outside of his bounds as a judge and, as even the prosecutor admitted, likely committed judicial misconduct. That’s a real miscarriage of justice and an affront to the legal system. f
Tom, the 3 years IS the lesser sentence. The charge carried a 20 year sentence. They usually let people plead down to 3 years. But they promised Polanski probation. The judge was thinking of rejecting that deal, as is his right.
When a plea deal is made, it is made by the defendant with the DA. The DA can only promise to recommend the agreed upon sentence to the judge. The judge has the final say, and can reject a recommended sentence. It you read the plea allocution, Polanski said he understood that the judge had the final say in sentencing and that any agreement made with the DA didn’t have to be followed by the judge.
People don’t always get a lesser sentence for the charge they plead to. Sometimes you plead to one charge in order to get others dropped, but you agree to the full sentence on the one charge. Polanski was charged with 6 felonies, which would have sent him to jail for 50 years to Life. He agreed to plead to one charge in exchange for having the others dropped. The one charge he pleaded to had a maximum of 20 years, but most plea bargains resulted in a 3 year sentence. Polanski wanted probation. He was afraid he wasn’t going to get it so he ran away.
Please read the original statement by the victim, it is very clear that this man groomed her. He took her pictures, then asked for semi-nude pictures, plied her with champagne, normalized nudity in the jaccuzzi, and then slipped a quaalude into her drink before raping and sodomizing her, despite her verbalized wish to go home and saying “no” over and over.
If a priest had done this to a 13 year old boy we wouldn’t say “oh, it was consensual” or “we should let him off because he’s a Man of the Cloth”. We would drag him before the courts.
Plenty of guilty criminals (which is what Polanski is) come before a judge who demands a pound of flesh. Polanski is not above the law, and I don’t think he’s suffered for the past 30 years eating french cuisine, bonking french actresses, frolicking on the Riviera, and making millions on his movies.
Just chill, everybody! Don’t you know that ‘the heart wants what the heart wants’? Award-winning filmmakers should not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Polanski is a visionary, doesn’t matter that he’s scum.
For all that I admire this guy as a director, the fact is that he did this crime and should answer for it. But I am torn, only because the victim herself long-ago asked for an end to the prosecution because she felt like the publicity had been more destructive to her life than the original rape. (Also, she and Polanski long ago reached a civil settlement.) I am very torn as to what justice would require here but am inclined to put the victim’s wishes first. (I might feel differently about this if there had been reports of Polanski behaving similarly since, but apparently not.)
The girl was just trying to move on with her life. No matter what he RAPED a CHILD. He deserves to be punished.
Every other article seems to mention “an out-of-court” settlement between Polanski and the victim. Probable translation = $ for speaking out against his punishment.
And I never said otherwise, Lindsey. My point is only that I think the victim’s wishes count for something. Justice that involves ruining her life all over again isn’t worth it, IMHO. But if she voices support for the current prosecution, then I will support her. I just think we all need to consider her feelings above everything else.
Justice isn’t only about the victim. It’s about making a criminal pay for what he’s done. This man hasn’t done that. He committed a heinous crime and justice dictates that he pay for it.
The legal system is not a pick and choose system. If you commit a crime you pay for it. It does not matter if the victim claims they don’t want to press charges. They could have someone threatening them.
Apparently she has no problem w/ it being brought up again, b/c I heard she was on the radio????
Good for her if she went on the radio and talked about it. She deserves to voice her opinion on the fact that he’s FINALLY been arrested after all these years.
Well, actually, it is a pick and choose system. Any time that interpretation is involved, there are bound to be inconsistencies. Just ask my friend who faced much more severe consequences for his DUI than did, well, just name any celebrity. Just ask Martha Stewart, who the courts made an example of even though they had previously handed out lesser sentences to similarly(or more) egregious offenses.
Exactly, he fled like a coward after pleading guilty to drugging and raping a child in multiple ways. He got a plea bargain and only admitted to one count of ‘unlawful sex’. Sounds like he got a good deal to me. The only sympathy I have is with the victim. She has been the long suffering one in all of this, though no fault of her own.
Agreed Jess. The victim is the one who has been punished all these years. I can’t believe that the press put out the name of a person who was raped at age 13.
The press didn’t put her name out until she came forward and told everyone it was her.
As soon as she turned 18, various members of the press put her name out there without her permission. Some more respectable media outlets did wait until she came out herself, but by that time her name was already known.
The French press put her name and picture in the paper right after Polanski was arrested.
Yes, it was wrong for him to do it, but these charges are so old and even the victim is asking for the charges to be thrown out. She’s an adult now, who has had enough life experience to make decisions like this. These charges are supposed to bring justice for the victim. If she doesn’t want it, why waste our money prosecuting him?
LOL rape. It’s not a big deal or anything.
Yeah Lindsey, because that’s EXACTLY what she said.
Criminal charges are not to bring “justice” for the victim but to bring justice for society at large. That’s why the case was “The State of California v. Polanski” not “Victim v. Polanski”. The civil court is where the victim brings the case, and she did in this case.
You want to bet on how many people in the state of California still want to press this thing? As for the original prosecutor who represented the state, yeah he not only was for the plea deal but is against presing this case again. The girl who was actually raped has stated, numerous times, that she specifically does not want Polanski reprosecuted, the case re-opened or any further legal action. She wants it to go away. You want to poll people in the state of California and see how many of them want Polanski rearrested? This case ceased to be the State of California v. Polanski a long time ago and became a case of one, bored prosecutor who had nothing to do with original case sitting in an Assistant District Attorneys office with a hard-on to prosecture a celebrity and bored, judgemental people to demand you throw the book at him so they can get their proverbial pound of flesh. Period. Legal? Possibly, probably not given the initial judge’s misconduct. In any way worth the waste of time? Not even remotely.
My stalking case was the absolute first following the CA stalking law prompted by the stalking and murder of a famous person in CA. Once the DA got a hold of it I was no longer the Victim but became a Witness to the crime. I could have opened a Civil Case against my stalker, but I absolutely could not deal with this trauma.
The Roman Polanski case was one that reopened old wounds for me and is doing so again. Like his victim, I am much older now and I’m sure I would want all the attention to just go away. You do not want to relive those feelings, you do not want to be forced to. It’s bad enough when you have a flashback triggered by a smell, a sound, a spoken word, an image.
My heart goes out to this woman and I hope Roman Polanski rots in hell.
He drugged and raped a 13 year old child which is a serious crime whether it happened 30 years ago or not. The victim cannot decide what consequences he will bear for his crime.
Uh, she got millions in a settlement in 2003, she is bound to that settlement to advocate for his dismissal. He raped her, she said it, he admitted it he needs to go to jail.
Some people need to learn the facts. No matter what crime you do you deserve a fair trial, something Roman was not given. Roman Polanski has been a dark mark on the American legal system. He has been given a 30 year punishment when he was originally given 90 days. Free Roman this is gone too far!
Um, he brought that punishment on himself. Twice. First, when he raped a young girl. Second, when he fled the country. If he wasn’t given a fair trial, he could have filed for dismissal or retrial. His answer was to continue violating our laws.
Polanski pled guilty. You only have a trial when you maintain that you are not guilty. A trial is to determine guilt or innocence. When you plead guilty you have already established that determination. Polanski admitted that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. All that was left was the sentencing, which was agreed would be probation for Polanski.
What 30 years punishment has Polanski received? He was a citizen of France, and simply left the US to go home. He’s spent 30 years living in his own country, working in his chosen field, and having a wife and children. This is punishment?
Brian, jail was going to be waived if he went for an inpatient psych evaluation and treatment, and that he would just do probation. He spent 42 days in a psych ward and he thought that would cover the 90 days of jail time. Because the judge wanted him to go back to the psych ward they considered the judge to have reneged. But the judge wasn’t asking him for anything more than what Polanski had agreed to.
He pled guilty. No airing of facts was needed at the trial stage. The only question was sentencing. If he felt that the judge’s actions were unfair, he should have appealed, not fled.
It’s about incentives, we should not signal to anyone in the U.S. that if they commit a heinous crime like this, they can get away with it by fleeing the country. We can’t set a precedent like that. This guy is not above the law, I don’t care how much time has passed.
If he wasn’t a famous director, people would call him a coward, and say he’s disgusting.
Sal you are so right.
This is so old WHO CARES. This case was all about the publicity and a media hungry Judge who couldn’t have cared less about the victim.
Right, who cares that he admitted that he drugged and raped a child? The judge was egotistical, so Polanski should go free! The judge let Polanski leave the country for 3 months during the proceedings so he could finish a movie. This obviously shows the judge had it in for Polanski, so he had no choice but to get away from this evil, evil judge!
FINALLY!
His crime was disgusting and heinous. I’m glad to hear that he’s finally paying for it.
Your an idiot.
Anyone who uses “your” for “you’re” should not be calling anyone else a idiot.
AN idiot. Sorry, good grammar, bad typing
LOL, you’re the idiot JoJo (not only because you can’t spell) for thinking that someone who committed such a crime doesn’t deserve to pay for it.
Leave the man alone.I mean for f***s sake even the woman (the rape victim) wants the case thrown out.He’s 76 years old so forget about it and let the man go back to france.He’s one of the best directors, i mean he gave us “Chinatown” and “The Pianist”.
Exactly how talented do people have to be for us to overlook raping children? Michael Jackson was clearly talented enough. You’re saying Roman Polanski is a good enough director that he can rape a child every now and then?
Michael Jackson was innocent. There is nothing to overlook. People were trying to take advantage of him. Leave MJ out of this.
Moe, he could have given us Casablanca, Citizen Kane, etc., and it wouldn’t change the fact that he is a CHILD MOLESTER. He should have done his time instead of fleeing. He plead guilty, then fled. He needs to do the time just like any other rapist / child molester.
I say agian, what about Steven Tyler???????? He molested a 14 yr old and has gotten away with it for a LOOOOOOOOONG TIME.
JoJo, you keep writing about Steven Tyler. I’ve never heard of anything about Steven Tyler raping a 14-yr-old. And even if it’s true, how does that have anything to do with Polanski?
I’ve never heard the Tyler rumor either, but that’s neither here nor there. Let’s assume Steven Tyler committed the crime you’re suggesting. Go back to preschool, JoJo. I believe that’s when I learned that two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess you missed that day.
Moe, talent has nothing to do with it. He may be a talented director but he is also a child rapist. His talent doesn’t make raping a child OK.
He is a pedophile, plain and simple. I normally don’t see things in black and white, but this is pretty obvious. He had sex w/ a child. I don’t care how talented a person is. What if this was your daughter Moe? Justifying your opinion w/ Chinatown and the Pianist also made me throw up in my mouth a little!
Moe, easily one of the stuipidest things I have ever read.
“He’s one of the best directors, i mean he gave us “Chinatown” and “The Pianist”…”so forget about (raping a 13yr old) and let the man go back to france”. That’s like Brian’s logic that a man living under no penalty other that not returing to the US has “been given a 30 year punishment” Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
Agreed and to those saying the victim now wants to ‘move on’ and put this behind her DOES NOT mean he then all of a sudden magically gets off the damn hook! And how do we know that he hasn’t done it again?! He could be still raping little girls aka Gary Glitter I seriously doubt getting away with something this despicable REFORMS anyone. Just ask a person who was violated by a Catholic priest these perverts live to ruin their poor helpless victims lives and the fact he is so ‘celebrated’ just makes him all the more arrogant and thinking he is above the law.
If only Hitler had stuck to Art while ordering the holocaust he would be applauded by people apparently.
What deal with the devil have the Swiss made? Anyone who knows this case knows that the publicity seeking, ego maniacal, judge (who was also known as an incompetent boob) acted improperly, lied and then reneged on a legal agreement (if someone had done that with him, he would have thrown the book at the them). The girl involved in the case (now a woman in her forties) has forever maintained that the press coverage is far more embarrassing than the incident itself and has always wanted the case quietly dismissed against Polanski. But since the Christian Taliban have effectively taken the bulk of the US courts, perceived morals transgressions (even cases over thirty years old) demand that the “evil ones” be burned at the stake, or the next best thing that is allowable under the law.
Anyone who’s paid attention to the idiocy and nonsense in the US the past number of years is not too surprised by these hysterical witch hunts (though this case makes even the most cynical critic drop his jaw in disbelief) but for the comparatively free and level-headed Swiss to be aiding and abetting in this absurd idiocy makes one wonder what ugly backdoor deal the Swiss authorities have made and for what reason. Perhaps it has something to do with the demand from the current US administration for the Swiss government to release confidential bank information on private customers, a violation even the Swiss government doesn’t demand of its banks. The excuse that the US is looking for “tax evaders” rings quite false, unless the authorities view not getting their payoffs as the gravest of crimes, considering criminals of all ilk have forever used off shore banking to hide the most heinously obtained funds. Regardless of the “justification” it’s just more of the US’ empire building.
Where are all the previous administration’s critics? I was no fan of the war mongering and other crimes committed then and have seen no reason to suddenly view the new administration’s continuation and expansion of those same crimes as suddenly okay. Partisanship is such an obscene joke, the gullible public falls for the ruse while the criminal empire continues to expand.
zflynn: Of course. The sufferings of thousands under the Taliban are precisely comparable to the situation of someone
who admitted to raping a child, then fled the country and spent three decades leading a life of luxury and success in Europe. Those are EXACTLY the same thing.
Honestly, it is that kind of hyperbole and appalling disrespect to real victims of persecution that makes people with views like yours so very unpersuasive and difficult for thinking people to take seriously.
Conspiracy much?
I was speaking to zflynn, just so there is no confusion….
zflynn, the judge didn’t reneg on the plea deal. It has been alleged, 3 decades after the case, that he might have changed the sentencing from the plea agreement. It’s nice that 30 years after the case people have came up with allegations against the judge that give Polanski a retroactive reason for fleeing. It’s now all about what the judge might have done, rather than what the child rapist actually did.
I guess they had to wait for the judge to die so he could explain or defend himself. More cowardice from Polanski’s camp.
Thats too bad.Whats going to Happen next?
Isn’t there statute of limitations?
I think the statute of limitations means there is an amount of time during which a charge must be brought. However, once the charge has been brought, it remains “active” until it’s been tried in court or dismissed.
His crime is being a “fugitive”, not the molestation. I believe they want him because he fled.
He pled guilty to the molestation, so he was already convicted. He would still have to complete the sentence for that charge, as well as face the new charges for fleeing.
I saw the documentary and from that understand that alot of shadiness went on during Polanski’s trial. But the man still assualted (at the time) a teenage girl. That in itself is disgusting. People were ready to lynch Michael Vick and Chris Brown for their crimes, but Roman Polanski gets a pass for raping a child because he’s a good director? WOW! I say bring him back to the US. Granted this probably won’t go anywhere once he is extridited back. But still it’s unfinished business that needs to be dealt with. Not about race, but how we view celebrity.