Candice Bergen | 10/05/2009 12:00 am
Candice Bergen: An Alternative Punishment for Roman Polanski
In response to: Should Roman Polanski go to prison?
The Roman thing is complicated as we all know. It brings out the dark, avenging side of America, yet it is a crime. It was absolutely a criminal, indecent, amoral act and should be acknowledged and in some way paid for. But he is a brilliant, gifted artist. He is a father. And he is 75. How much time should he serve? And why is he not allowed to be home in Switzerland under house arrest? With his kids? Why in prison? What should not happen is his being made an example of with a harsh sentence. There should be a resolution that factors in his contributions and his age. Prolonged house arrest?

























277 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Hey Judy:
Actually, he did agree to compensate the victim to the tune of $500,000. NONE OF WHICH has been paid. To date with interest he owes her well over $600,000. Also, the original decision of the court was for him to be confined for I believe appr. 90 days while he underwent a psych evaluation. When the evaluation was given to the court after appr. 45 days, the judge determined that RP should go back to jail to finish out the original sentence, (appr. 45 days). What did this "talented" man do? HE LEFT THE COUNTRY, NEVER PAID THE COMPENSATION he agreed to, and now apparently, HE’S the victim. He has avoided coming back to the US all these years BECAUSE HE BROKE THE LAW and knew he’d be arrested.
What it boils down to is: He raped a child, defrauded her out of compensation, got a slap on the wrist in court FOR RAPE, fled the law and the country but we should forgive and forget because he’s 75 years old.
Now somebody tell me, WHY should he be given a lighter or alternative sentence?
I mentioned in one of the posts that he should pay her and also do about 2000 hours of community service. My point was that because of his celebrity he might get off without doing any jail time because the jails are so full of murderers and drug cases that they let celebrities go after a week or so. If he did community service here in the U.S. he would be embarrassed and pay his debt to society. If, as had been originally suggested, he do house arrest, he could still do work at home so I didnt like that suggestion.
The rest of us would get jail time right off the bat and wouldnt have been allowed to leave the Country. We would have had our passports taken away right then and there so I am glad they have waited patiently all these years to get him. There is more to this story than meets the eye and I am wondering if the powers that be want all that to come to light. It will be interesting to see how this resolves itself.
When the evaluation was given to the court after appr. 45 days, the judge determined that RP should go back to jail to finish out the original sentence, (appr. 45 days).
________________________________________
Where did you find this bit of twisted truth? Roman Polanski was ordered to undergo evaluation to determine if he required treatment. And was ordered confined for up to 90 days. He was released after 42 days. That did not "leave" additional days for him to serve. The judge decided that he would go ahead and "resentence" him and broadcast that fact all over Los Angeles and broadcast it using an anti-Semitic reference to Roman Polanski and that was the point Roman Polanski decided to leave the country. To flee the Nazis once again. He called an airline and drove to the airport and boarded a plane, passport in hand, and left the country. And I honestly don’t blame him. I didn’t blame him then. I don’t blame him now.
The judge should have been removed from the bench and prosecuted himself. I am sorry but all of this was common knowledge at the time and I suspect even the district attorney’s office at the time was appalled despite the current district attorney’s office avoiding the subject. A judge in our country should not be allowed to agree to an agreement and then disregard the agreement and "resentence" the person. Even the victim in this case has acknowledged that.
That is a matter of double jeopardy. Apparently that doesn’t matter. Just as it doesn’t matter that the victim, and she was a victim if not a rape victim, is being revictimized or that her children and his children are being victimized as well.
All any of you want to do is burn a witch at the stake. Schadenfreude at its worst.
You are correct Lin, WHY should this rapist be given any lighter of a sentence? There is no good reason. Because he is a Director? Can these people be any more shallow?
He is a RAPIST. He sodomized a child a 13 year old girl child, because he could. I find the Hollywood defense of this man one of the most disgusting things that I have yet to see those Hollywood types do. They have really done it now, so many that have spoken out for this RAPIST are going to watch there popularity drop like a rock.
I’m making a list and none of them, or anything that they represent will get my money.
They are a hypocritical lot.
In coming back to this site due to replies to my comment, I find it more than interesting that the same people who believe RP should be forgiven or blame the victim, are the people on other sites who want to basically burn David Letterman at the stakes.
What’s going on here? Raping a child is OK. Having a relationship with a consenting adult is NOT?
Who’s kidding Who here? Are these people schills for various sites?
Whichever, BEWARE: THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
I agree with everything you said Lin. The child (now an adult) said she forgave him, that does not releive him of his evil deed. If he were not RP what would the government and law be doing or saying? He would probably have been in jail long agp!
ws/10-10-02
He went a little nuts. Most of us would have as well. Some of us did as well. Some things are so horrific the only way to deal with them is to go a little nuts. His judgement was clouded. As all of ours is at times when dealing with horrific things in our lives. Some of us. Not all of us. Some have no idea what it is like. And so they sit around in judgement over other people’s clouded judgement. As I recall the story, he was in London talking with someone about a mutual friend who had just died and he commented, playing off a line from a nursery rhyme. "Eenie, meenie, minie mo who will be the next to go." And then the phone rang. He went a little nuts. We all would have. He is not a rapist or a pedophile. He was not a rapist or a pedophile. He was as Anjelica Huston put it merely an unhappy man. Who was still a little nuts.
After the plea agreement was reached and agreed to by the court and by the judge he left the country in order to complete a film. And returned and reported to Chino. He acted honorably and responsibly per the agreement. Which is more than anyone else, it seems, did.
Giving a 13-year-old champagne and Quaaludes, then having sex with her is not "going a little nuts." It’s pedophilia, and it’s rape.
Yes, Polanski is a brilliant director. Yes, what happened to his wife and baby-to-be was horrific.
The fact remains that Polanski also committed a heinous crime, then compounded that crime by fleeing the country to avoid the sentence. Why should he be given a pass?