Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Entertainment

Question of the Day | 10/05/2009 12:30 pm

Should Roman Polanski go to prison?

Candice Bergen, Liz Smith and Joan Ganz Cooney discuss the fate of Roman Polanski.
Wikipedia

Image by Film Servis Festival Karlovy Vary
Candice Bergen

Candice Bergen | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Candice Bergen: An Alternative Punishment for Roman Polanski

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?
comments277 Comments
Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney: Polanski Should Just Face It

I wish he’d come to the States and accept whatever punishment was meted out, do time if that is what was decided and get this behind him and us.
comments11 Comments
Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Liz Smith on Roman Polanski: Formerly the 'Most Detestable Creature Imaginable'

I don’t know what to say about Roman Polanski.

For years I felt he was the most detestable creature imaginable – drugging and having sex with an underage girl, then fleeing the law. Then about a year ago I saw the HBO documentary on him and it seemed he was railroaded by a really crazy judge and a not-so-perfect Los Angeles prosecuting system. But after that, when he was offered a deal by the very law that had convicted him, he still didn’t come back to the U.S. to face the music. Now – I just don’t know. I see nothing served by his going to prison. On the other hand, even if he is an artistic genius, that doesn’t exactly clear him. And the law is the law.

comments42 Comments
Read more about: crime, Roman Polanski

180 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

B Clark
Should Polanski pay some price?  Sure.  Drugging and raping a 13 yr old girl is horrible.  That being said, he is one of such an enormous crowd of offenders out there.  I just did a Sex Offender search for my zip code and came up with a total of 450 of them (not including those who had been imprisoned).  Did he kill her? No.  Did he kidnap her, keep her hidden in a back yard and father 3 children on her? No.  Did he provide her with sex, drugs and rock n roll for 10 years while being her father and working with her in a band? No.  If you assign the criminal a number, and the victim a number and purely look at the facts of the case, and then similarly look at other like crimes, then you can assign a punishment that is just like what everyone else goes through.  I don’t know if there is a statute of limitation on rape cases.  With 450 sex offenders in my zip code (and wouldn’t it be nice if they ALL skipped out of the country?), it seems like a common enough crime and they should be able to put aside the fame of the criminal/victim and deal with it.
By B Clark on 10/05/2009 5:04 am
Obediah Fults
Just curious…how many Registered Killers and Registered Thieves live in your zip code?  Oh, wait — those people aren’t on a registry!  College boys arrested for peeing behind a tree and parents who have "bath-time photos" become Registered Sex Offenders in this country, though.  Wow, oh wow.
By Obediah Fults on 10/05/2009 5:41 am
B Clark

Are you saying you don’t believe sex offenders are really that common because some of them have been convicted for trivial crimes?  Maybe you are saying child pornography is not such a big deal?  Bringing theives and murderers into it has nothing to do with sex and the laws surrounding it.  In some countries an 8 year old girl can be sold into marriage (and does it really matter if her husband is 18 or 45?) and in the laws of that country she is his property to do with as he pleases.

(Just wondering, is anyone out there going to chime in with the "big government has no business regulating my sex life - get government out of my pants/bedroom" argument?  Aw common - someone out there has got to say it!)

Rape  - at any age - is nasty.  Those who would rape a child, or groom them into ‘consensual’ sex acts are not nice people and there are more of them out there than you would like to think about.  And they are let out of prisons because large scale warehouseing of people is expensive and few want to keep them there (pay the taxes - build the prisons - hire the guards - to do so) despite the continued danger they are in any community.  In summary - children are put at risk because it is cheaper that way.

So why should Polanski do jail time any less (or any more) than anyone else who has committed the same crime?

By B Clark on 10/05/2009 7:53 am
Obediah Fults

Gee, I don’t remember saying anything about Polanski doing jail time or not.  (For the record, I think he should.)  And yes, I am saying that the witch hunt for real sex offenders and pedophiles has escalated to outrageous proportions of paranoia by including and labeling all offenses (major, minor, or trivial) in one category.  Also, I was saying that — if we’re going to register sex offenders — let’s register killers, thieves, spouse abusers, drunks, drug pushers, and every other criminal (and/or undesirable) element of our society who might be waving to us from the front porch next door.

Stop putting words in my mouth (or on the typewritten page).  If you want to bring up another aspect of discourse, don’t do it by asking, "Are you saying…?"  I didn’t say anything about child pornography (Eewww-yuck!) so get your mind out of the gutter and stop accusing me of taking positions I never stated.

I just want to know if I need to lock up the steak knives when my neighbor drops in.

By Obediah Fults on 10/05/2009 8:47 am
B Clark
I’m not accusing.  I’m asking for clarification because it’s not clear what you were trying to say.  Child bathroom pictures (you did bring it up) is considered by many to BE child pornography.  I think sex offenders should all be in jail, but they are not and they are not going to be.  And once they’ve paid their debt to society, are they reformed or cured - I doubt it.  Because you ask about registering other types criminals, I can’t tell if you think it’s effective or not for sex offenders.
By B Clark on 10/05/2009 9:10 am
Obediah Fults

Okay, let me try to be as clear as I can possibly be.

The sex offender registry is (was) a good thing.  Its effectiveness has been polluted (watered down) by including too many people whose offenses were minor (or even trivial).  Now, I think it’s meaningless — except to those who are on it.  I want to know who the dangerous people are (all dangerous people).  But I don’t care about the guy who mooned a sorority the night before homecoming.  (He’s a "sex offender" too.)

I know three sex offenders, all three now finished with probation.  Two are fully reformed and remorseful for their stupid (horrible) actions; the third one, I’m not so sure.  At least he continues voluntary therapy and I’m confident that he’ll never re-offend.  He knows now, that the way he was raised (and treated) was not normal.

A sex offender registry would be a useful tool if it meant anything.  But it doesn’t mean what it did any more.  It’s too inclusive.

And…IMHO, anybody who thinks family photos of kids in a bathtub are "child pornography" is a pretty narrow-minded individual.  (I know you said, "considered by many", so that wasn’t directly aimed at you…unless the shoe fits.)

I hope that clarifies my position.  I have a headache now. 

By Obediah Fults on 10/05/2009 10:03 am
Roger from Ohio

I just wanted to let you know that I understood your position before you were asked to clairify it.

This post was very to the point, If someone doesnt understand your point now, just wants to argue.

Thanks for sharing. 

By Roger from Ohio on 10/05/2009 5:41 pm
Lila Kuh

Obediah, FWIW, I agree.  There was a family here in my city a few years back who took their little kids to a lake for vacation and the kids went skinny-dipping.  An over-reactive photo developer called the cops, and the kids were removed from the home just because of the pictures - which had no sexual content.  Eventually a judge with some common sense prevailed and the family was reunited, but think of the trauma to kids and parents alike.  This may be an extreme case of how wrong things can go, but it should serve as a warning for exactly what you are describing. 

By Lila Kuh on 10/05/2009 5:06 pm
albert miller
All those things you mentioned have been classified and assigned to  Earth prison. There are also other classifications that have been assigned to Earth prison…….so called "normal people".
By albert miller on 10/07/2009 1:48 am
Frank Somsel
B Clark: Its too bad we didn’t have more prisons for the scum that have been paroled. Child molesters or other criminals are wired to commit crimes again. Chils molesters, rapists, or violent criminals of any kind should spend the rest of their lives in prison, without parole. Send them all to a deserted island 4000 miles away from any land. No housing, no food, no medical, nothing.
By Frank Somsel on 10/05/2009 11:48 am
Chris Glass`
I think that society has a double standard. If you are brilliant at what you do some people want to make allowances for deviate behavior. Take a look at some of the well known people that have never paid the penalties of average citizens for their transgressions. This goes across the spectrum from entertainment to politics and sports. If these people had to face the music for their actions we might have a better society.
By Chris Glass` on 10/05/2009 7:45 am
Scarlett Ohara Mitchell
Brilliance is subjective and not everyone thinks Polanski is brilliant. (I am agreeing with your point!)
By Scarlett Ohara Mitchell on 10/05/2009 10:08 am
Andy C
A pedophile is a pedophile and should be branded as such, literally.  I believe they should have a tattoo on their face, perhaps forehead so that all will know to avoid this creature; this villain; this aberration of humanity.  I have no use for their side of the story when we’re speaking of children; innocent children who are victimized by these monsters.  Should he do jail time?  Why not?  Of course he should just as any other person who does these horrible deeds would be pilloried.
By Andy C on 10/05/2009 8:26 am
Joanne Barrier
He needs to accept the punishment and the girls parents needed to be charged for child endangerment and punished also.  He needs to give every cent he’s made since the incident to a fund assisting children who are vicitms of this type of crime.  Being "brilliant" does not give a person a pass for any crime of this nature.
By Joanne Barrier on 10/05/2009 8:34 am
macwoof woof
this is the first time i have heard this, about the girl’s mother being charged for child endangerment. . I agree.
By macwoof woof on 10/05/2009 11:14 pm
« first‹ previous123456789…next ›last »