Can We Just Put Polanski in Jail Now?

Roman Polanski should already be in prison for raping a 13 year old girl in 1977, but he has managed to escape justice by fleeing to Europe. Now he’s giving us yet another reason to think he’s a world class asshole and a serious misogynist by spouting crap like this:

Roman Polanski says the birth control pill has had a “masculinizing” effect on women and that the leveling of the sexes is “idiotic”

The director made the comments Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival, where he came to premiere “Venus in Fur,” a film adapted from the David Ives play which stars Polanski’s wife and toys with the subject of gender.

Polanski said the pill has “changed the place of women in our times” while talking to reporters. He further lamented that “offering flowers to a lady” has become “indecent.”

Pills that incapacitate 13 year old girls so you can rape them? Awesome. Pills that allow women to control their own sexuality and reproduction? Terrible! What a sick, demented and horrible person. He should be in prison.

"Care to cite this map you're referring to?"

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"My goodness. They've supported the idea for a hundred and twenty years. Who rewrote chemistry ..."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming
"Yeah? Well MY Eskimo friend can beat up YOUR Eskimo friend...One would think that the ..."

Christian Con Man Disproves Global Warming

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raven

    IIRC, Polankski once admitted to being attracted to young girls. Very young girls.

    In other words to being a pedophile.

    He should be getting up there in age by now. And will die soon and the world will be a better place.

  • That was 35 years ago: I suspect that the statute of limitations has run out. Plus what Raven said.

  • Trebuchet

    That was 35 years ago: I suspect that the statute of limitations has run out. Plus what Raven said.

    No. He accepted a plea bargain but fled before sentencing because the judge was considering sending him to prison instead of giving him probation as per the plea bargain. He’s officially an escaped convict, I think.

  • chris69

    The statute of limitations does not apply, since he plead guilty to the charges and then fled the country before his sentencing.

  • busterggi

    More likely the RCC will name him an honorary Bishop. If it had been an underage boy it’d be a full Bishop.

  • dingojack

    Trebuchet, chris – are you lawyers?



  • Trebuchet

    @dingo: Nope, just reading Wikipedia!

    There is no statute of limitations governing the case because Polanski had already been charged and pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a minor.[47] A complicating issue for resolution of the case is that failure to appear is in itself a crime.[48]

  • slc1

    I’m not clear about this. As I understand it, the judge rejected the plea bargain, which seems to mean that there was no conviction.

  • The statute of limitations stops running as soon as you charge a person.

    And yes, I’m a lawyer (and former prosecutor).

  • The legal case isn’t cut-and-dry. I watched a documentary on this at one point.

    Polanski did undergo a psychiatric evaluation and was expecting, under the terms of his plea agreement, to receive probation. He claims that the judge at the time said that the 42 days he spent at Chino prison while undergoing the psych evaluation was sufficient for his sentence.

    Read the wiki entry above and also Polanski’s statement at

  • dingojack

    Raven – sorry to be a pedant but:

    “IIRC, Polanski once admitted to being attracted to young girls. Very young girls.

    In other words to being a pedophile”.

    This is a non sequitur in multiple ways.

    1).’being attracted to young girls’ does not necessarily make one a pedophile (creepy and not suitable to allow your child to go on a photo-shoot with, certainly….). The relevant question is how young did Mr Polanski mean?

    2) Mr Polanski’s possible pedophilia (a psychological issue) has no bearing on rape (which is a legal matter) – thus such a statement is largely irrelevant.

    3) .Such as statement is speculative in relation to this crime. It neither proves nor disproves either version of events (they differ widely, what a surprise. But ask yourself, which would have have the greater need and capacity to lie? A totally unknown 13 year old girl or a rich and famous film director?)

    I’m a little disappointed, but I certainly get the anger.. I’d rather get him legally dead to rights so there’s no hope of him wiggling out of it using the services of a good attorney and a legal loophole or two.


  • bullet

    While we’re at it, can we say fuck David Ives for letting his work be directed by this asshole and then appearing at Cannes with him?

  • fullerena

    This is just your regular friendly reminder that Polanski publicly stated that he was only being punished because everyone else was jealous of him for raping a thirteen year old child. Also, they’d totally have let him off if he’d just killed her, “But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls – everyone wants to fuck young girls!”

    dingojack, I think that if someone claims to be attracted to young girls and then drugs and rapes a thirteen year old girl, it’s not really necessary to argue semantics and claim that maybe he didn’t mean thirteen, maybe he just meant young eighteen year olds, and you can just call him a paedophile.

  • dingojack

    I was not in any way impugning any-one’s opinion of how the law works. I was asking to gauge how much weight to place in the various opinions, that’s all.


  • Polanski said the pill has “changed the place of women in our times” while talking to reporters.

    Indeed it has. It has changed us from being shackled to pregnancy and child-raising against our will into people who may freely choose these things at points in our lives when we prefer them– or not at all.

    If Mr. Polanski doesn’t like that, he is invited to go fuck himself.

  • dingojack

    Actually, no, no you can’t. Rape can be about sexual fixation or about power. Is Gerry Sandusky* a pedophile?



    * Apologies if I spelt that incorrectly

  • fullerena

    He’s sexually attracted to children and has drugged and raped a thirteeen year old woman. If he was just raping for the feeling of power it’s safe to say he wouldn’t wax poetic about how sexy children are to him.

    If you can’t call him a paedophile, what standard of proof is required? He seems to hit all the requirements.

  • fullerena

    I mean, just because rape is about power doesn’t mean that someone who rapes a child isn’t a paedophile. They can be both. Jerry Sandusky, for instance, is a rapist and a paedophile. The two are not incompatible!

  • dingojack

    Uh – nobody was claiming that ‘pedophile’ and ‘rapist’ can’t be compatible, just that one doesn’t automatically mean the other.

    What standard is required? A sexual fixation on prepubescent children above the age of toddler-hood. Raping a child is not proof of pedophilia in itself.


  • busterggi,

    More likely the RCC will name him an honorary Bishop.

    Except he is an atheist, so I don’t think he’ll be appointed to the RCC clergy.

  • fullerena

    Just curious, do you own a thesaurus?

    From his public statements (and his actions, including raping a child) he certainly seems to be attracted to young children. Not toddlers though, so I guess it’s completely wrong to call him a paedophile. Would you prefer hebephile? That’d be the official medical term, I suppose, if you were a psychiatrist. Are you? I’m not. Do I have to use the official psychiatric definition at all times, or can I speak English without needing the precision of professional jargon? In English, there’s a bit of debate as to the high end of paedophilia, but pretty much everyone I know would call someone who drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl and talks about how sexy thirteen year old girls are a paedophile.

  • fullerena

    Also, he’s not a rapist because he’s a paedophile, and he’s not a paedophile because he’s a rapist. No-one’s claiming that, especially not me. I’m claiming he’s a paedophile because he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl and talks about how sexy such children are, and that he’s a rapist because he drugged and oh you get the idea.

    He’s not one because of the other, he’s both because of a third factor – his acts and words.


  • frog

    The fact that Polanski has not returned to the USA, even to collect his Academy Award, suggest to me that his legal counsel, at least, believe he would be arrested if he came here.

  • dingojack

    If you’re you’re gonna claim that he’s pedophile it helps to actually have some idea what a pedophile is.

    Don’t just follow the mob, picking up stones and shouting ‘stone him, stone him” on the basis of a one-dimensional caricature, a faulty concept of the law and what you imagine constitues justice. If you want to throw him in jail, fine. Just do it nice and legal so there’s absolutely no wiggle room for escape..

    Show me the evidence and I’ll follow that.


  • fullerena

    I’m not a judge? He is a paedophile by the common usage of the term. Yes, for the purposes of justice and the legal system I’d rather have his every interaction with the legal system done perfectly according to the letter and spirit of the law, with absolutely no loopholes, but I am not part of the legal system, and this is not a court. The evidence is more than clear enough – he drugged and raped a child, bragged about it, and publicly states that he is attracted to young girls.

    Insisting that everyone follows strict courtroom standards of evidence before describing him according to his words and actions is ridiculous trolling.

  • dingojack

    Follow the evidence, coldly, dispassionately, impartially. Allowing yourself to be swept along in the mob is only muddying the waters by letting facts not in evidence to cloud justice*. (not just you specifically, but generally)..

    I contend that he should serve out the proper sentence for rape and fleeing justice – with no possibility of claiming ‘bias’ or ‘denial of a fair trail’ or ‘denial of natural justice’ (or some other nonsense) to escape again.

    If he’s going down, he’s going down right.



    * OK a little of a mixed metaphor there, but in mitigation, it’s past 5am local.

  • fullerena

    And what on earth does that have to do with this? This isn’t a court, and the evidence available is more than sufficient to show that he’s a paedophile. It may not be enough to get a watertight conviction in a court of law, but he tends to flee those anyway.

    Following the evidence coldly, dispassionately and impartially clearly shows him – to beyond the standard of evidence of normal discourse – to be a paedophile and a rapist.

  • dingojack

    And here’s a newsflash for you – Pedophilia isn’t actually a prima-facie crime. Statutory rape is a crime, producing, distributing, selling and owning kiddie porn is a crime. Pedophilia isn’t, no matter how much you;d like it to be.

    What’s all that got to do with it? Well, apart from giving you a nice warm glow on, all this anger isn’t achieving anything at all except stirring up the feeding frenzy. I’m not interested in the two-minute hate, I’m interested in justice for the victim. And since this thread is about the legal issues around this 35+ year case that’s what I’m talking about. If you want to get your Texas necktie party vibe on perhaps this ain’t the forum for you.


  • fullerena

    I’m… what? I’m not saying that he’s a criminal because he’s a paedophile? Are you even reading?

    The actual post doesn’t seem to be about legal issues, either. The comments include some discussion of the legal issues, and you getting upset at the thought that someone might call a child-rapist a paedophile. “Texas necktie party,” really? Please reread your first post in the comments here. Even you call it pedantic – I’d call it pedantic bullshit myself, but hey.

  • fullerena

    Oh. I’m sorry. I mean your second post. Please don’t dismiss my entire post as false because I made a small mistake!

  • gridlore

    While Polanski is a scum, his legal case is complicated.

    He made a plea deal. This was agreed to by both sides and by the trial judge. However, Polanski got word that the judge was going to ignore the deal and impose a harsh sentence. This, in of itself, would have been enough to void the guilty plea (obtained under false promise) and get the charges thrown out. However, Polanski panicked and fled the jurisdiction. Bad move on his part.

    Any lawyer worth his salt would have had the appeal based on judicial maleficence served before the baloney sandwiches at County Jail. Judges can reject plea agreements. The can reject them for any reason up to the point where they gavel the case closed. They cannot agree to a deal, get the plea, then impose greater sentence than was agreed on by all parties.

  • laurentweppe

    The fact that Polanski has not returned to the USA, even to collect his Academy Award, suggest to me that his legal counsel, at least, believe he would be arrested if he came here.

    Countries do not extradite their own citizens. That is, so long as Polanski, a french citizen remains in France, France is legally obligated to not extradite him: that’s part of the protection every state own to their citizenry*

    Polanski also can’t be judged in France for the rape because of the non bis in idem rule: you don’t judge a person for the same crime more than once.

    This as been the case since 1977 and that’s the reason he flied to France and not to Canada or the Bahamas.

    So long as he remains in France and doen’t commit any new crimes, he can’t be arrested, but as soon as he leaves Mariane’s dominion, well, let’s just say that the bullet came very close last time he went to Switzerland

    *Unless the demand comes from another member state of the European Union: in which case, european citizenship supersedes national citizenship.

  • imthegenieicandoanything

    It it will do someone good, I’ll go along. It’s a horrifying thing when great artists are horrible, criminal people, but certain crimes don’t allow for any clemency at all, especially with the attitude Roman has about it.

  • Pieter B, FCD

    He’s quoted at another site as saying

    I think that the Pill has changed greatly the woman of our times, ‘masculinizing’ her. I think that it chases away the romance from our lives and that’s a great pity.

    Because there’s nothing quite as romantic as drugging and ass-raping a 13-year-old. Gotcha.

  • Countries do not extradite their own citizens.

    Actually, many countries do that all the time. You can believe that if you ran across the border into Canada, axe-murdered a family of four, then hightailed it back across the border, the feds would have no problem sending you back to Great North to face trial, American citizen or not. It all depends on the treaty your country has with the nation in question.

    Seven countries refuse to extradite their own citizens. France is one of them. The others are Brazil, Czech Republic, the Peoples Republic of China, Taiwan, Germany, and Japan. The rest will, assuming they have an extradition treaty with the United States.

    Of course, if you manage to get to a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the USA, like say, North Korea, you’re safe. The downside being, you have to live in North Korea.

  • iangould

    “He should be in prison.”

    Or mandatorily committed to a psychiatric facility.

    The problem is that due to prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, he never got to present evidence regarding his mental competence.

  • slc1

    Re iangould @ #37

    Let’s not forget that Polanski was not in good mental shape due to the vicious murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family.