Roman Polanski Arrested in Switzerland
Late last year, director Roman Polanski had filed a complaint with the Los Angeles Superior Court to have the outstanding charges of sexual misconduct against him dismissed. The charges date back to 1977, when Polanski was accused of luring 13-year-old Samantha Geimer back to Jack Nicholson’s house where they had sexual intercourse (although he claimed it was consensual, she was underage and drugged). Polanski fled the U.S. and has lived in France ever since, unable to return under threat of being arrested. Although his request to have the case dismissed was denied, the judge agreed to retry him, if he appeared in court. That never happened.
Now, today, it appears that authorities have taken steps to resolve the case once and for all. After arriving in Zurich, Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, he was arrested. Festival organizers had planned to present Polanski with a lifetime achievement award, but now he is being detained with the possibility of extradition to the United States. Ouch! It seems crazy that the man may now finally face charges after so long. I’m not even saying the charges were undeserved, but after 30 years, people change and the world moves on. What do you think, is Polanski finally getting what was coming to him, or does the U.S. justice system simply have something to prove?
Comments (54)
Honestly, If both parties claim it was consensual then there is no reason for this 30 years later. If the woman feels she wants to continue this process then maybe, but it seems to me both parties have moved forward.
Posted by Andrea on September 27th, 2009“What do you think, is Polanski finally getting what was coming to him, or does the U.S. justice system simply have something to prove?”
A little from column A, a little from column B.
What he did was fucked up back then and it’s still fucked up now. Time hasn’t changed that. I like Rosemary’s Baby and all, but come on…the guy deserves whatever he’s got coming to him.
Posted by Rian on September 27th, 2009>> after 30 years, people change and the world moves on.
That’s true but it doesn’t change the fact that he was never punished for his crime. A 44 year old with a 13 year old is molestation pure and simple even today. The fact that he skipped out on his prison term for 30+ years doesn’t mean what he did no longer matters.
It’s more than just charges by the way, he plead guilty. Doesn’t matter if the victim has “moved on” since punishment in the criminal justice system is not contingent upon the victim’s positive feelings or forgiveness.
Posted by Damndirtyape on September 27th, 2009I actually don’t even know a whole lot of details over the whole case. My position on Polanski the whole time is that I reserve the right to enjoy the movies he’s made since then, like the Pianist, and won’t pretend it’s bad art just because of what happened over 30 years ago.
I don’t care about the ‘moved on’ thing though either, because it’s weird to have statutes of limitations on severe crimes. I remember there were a number of catholic priests who got off because it took too long for the kids – who were only 7 or 8 – to come forward. that’s fucked.
Posted by Goon on September 27th, 2009Absolutely getting what he deserves. He knew he was guilty or he wouldn’t have disappeared. You can’t have justice system where people can just avoid it until goes away.
Posted by Justin on September 27th, 2009He should go to prison for his role in Rush Hour 3.
Posted by Ovenball on September 27th, 2009it doesn’t matter how long it has.. that doesn’t erase the crime he committed. he is getting what he deserves!
Posted by modesilver on September 27th, 2009a pedophile can get an american academy award, but cannot travel the world?! that’s how efficient american system is
)))
Posted by mazoni on September 27th, 2009@ although both parties claim it was consensual
really I’ve not heard this before?
This source completely contradicts that: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/03/20/features/story1.html
If he gave a 13 girl qualudes and champaign and then had sex with her while she said no then he is a vile child rapist.
Posted by Rusty James on September 27th, 2009If she’s considered it consentual all this time then my opinion completely changes. At that point he’s being charged for having sex with the state’s permission. Which is bullshit.
Posted by Rusty James on September 27th, 2009It was not consentual. First of all, she always maintains she said NO and he refused to listen to her so finally she gave up saying NO. Second, he drugged her. Third as a 13 year old, she isn’t legally old enough to have consentual sex with a 44 year old man.
It’s sick to have to sit here and read people argue that because he had a tragic life and because he’s an “artist” he should somehow get a free pass for raping a child.
Posted by becca on September 27th, 2009If I did the crime, fled, and was caught 30 years later I would still have to face the punishment. Why should Polanski be any different? Let’s pretend for a minute that he is not some great movie maker, if this was just some random dude whose story got printed in the news because of a slow news day we would probably all be thinking, that sounds about right.
Posted by Itchy-Finger on September 27th, 2009It’s odd that Polanski is one of those people who both excites and disgusts me. His films (particulary “Chinatown”) are fantastic, but his seedy personal life disgusts me.
Posted by John O'Neil on September 27th, 2009yeah, if he wasn’t POLANSKI THE FILMMAKER we all would be screaming for his blood still…the guys on TO CATCH A PREDATOR don’t get an ounce of sympathy, because they are no-bodies…and they didn’t even get to have the sex.
Posted by Bob The Slob on September 27th, 2009Okay, yes this is a tricky situation, and I don’t want to get into another Observe & Report argument over what constitutes rape, but from what I know Polanski was never convicted of rape. However, I am definitely wrong in saying it was consensual; as becca stated, Geimer is quoted as saying, “I said no several times, and then, well, gave up on that.” I have corrected this above. Geimer and her family did, however, say that they didn’t want to press charges.
What is at issue here is whether or not Polanski actually served his full sentence or not. He did, in fact, do some time in prison for psychiatric evaluation, but he skipped the country before his final sentence was handed down because it was believed that the judge was going to give him an even harsher sentence due to the media pressure.
Posted by Sean on September 27th, 2009What does it matter whether or not she consented? She was THIRTEEN..
Jesus if someone talked your 10 year old cousin into having sex would it be ok because she did it willingly? If 13 is ok to have sex then, why not 12.. why not 11.. why not 10?
Society has laws and standards and he willingly violated a kid to get his rocks off.. end of story.
Posted by Damndirtyape on September 27th, 2009Having sex with a consenting 13 year is wrong but it’s a different crime than sex with a 7 year old. As your own analogy concedes when you change the age from 13 to ten. It’s a lesser crime, one not worth digging up 30 years after the fact.
Our society has is in stark denial of this; but biologically (as well as psychologially) that 13 year old girl is closer to a grown woman than a ten year old girl.
This of course is completely verboten and taboo to talk about in our society, a hold over from our prudish, sexually warped victorian ancestors. It’s a silly and useless stigma though. All of us Europeans are the product of a long line of 13 year old girls traded off as baby factories to their first cousins.
I do think the practice is socially regressive and the act immoral. Not because the girl isn’t competent to decide for herself (authoritarian nonsense) but because the adult should know better. This new fangled idea that your life up until the age of 18 is a pristine citadel of innocence is a total fantasy, made up by and for the benefit of adults. It’s an illusion that will completely dissolve the minute you talk to an actual 13 year old.
Your slippery slope logic is completely useless: if 18 is ok, then why not 17… why not 16?
18, 13, 55 they’re all arbitrary numbers.
Again, this is all in theory, since as far as I can determine she didn’t consent.
Posted by Rusty James on September 27th, 2009Who cares?
Posted by Henrik on September 27th, 2009Really, how many 13 year olds do you know that are capable of making decisions that can have life long repercussions? There is a big difference between being PHYSICALLY mature and MENTALLY mature.
Regardless, we are supposed to be nation of laws, not people…he needs to be sentenced and serve his time. We still hold nazis/war criminals accountable, pedophiles shouldn’t get off either.
Posted by Justice on September 27th, 2009>> Your slippery slope logic is completely useless: if 18 is ok, then why not 17… why not 16?
Yea your right..how stupid to think that there is no developmental difference between a 13 year and her 44 year old “boyfriend” LOL. Likewise, your 5 year old cousin and the 16 year old neighborhood boy should be screwing as well since hey, age is just an arbitrary number, right?
Why are you ignoring the fact that human brains evolve and develop to certain level at specific age ranges. 15-18 is a standardly accepted range in modern societies where sexual relations are not inherently harmful. A 6 year old is physically capable of pulling the trigger on a gun, but that doesn’t mean they are mature enough to comprehend the ramifications of pulling that trigger. Sexual promiscuity in children is the same thing.
So sorry, just because you know some screwed up 13 year old girl with messed up parents you have your eye on it’s not ok to ignore those “prudish laws” as you call it and sleep with her because 300 years ago when people were lucky to live to 45 they got married off at 12 and 13.
Posted by Damndirtyape on September 27th, 2009By insisting on peddling in reductio ad absurdum arguments you concede the validity of my point.
Posted by Rusty James on September 27th, 2009We should have sent the marines to France to extradite him from those latino degenerates.
If a successful film director is allowed to break the rules then anyone with money can break the rules too? (hmm..michael jackson…?)
Posted by sukosuko on September 27th, 2009first OJ now this
Posted by kris on September 27th, 2009Charles M. did what he did 40 years ago but i don’t see him running around doing films…
And by the way Manson had a better case than Polansky has..
Manson did nothing.. it was those crazy chicks..
…and considering the fact Manson claimed to be God.. so probably he was just trying to save a 13 year old kid from being fucked by a Polish-french guy..
Posted by kyriacos on September 27th, 2009does the U.S. justice system owes him a medal or smth..
According to the victim: Geimer Polanski asked Geimer’s mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, “Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.” She added, “It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.”
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.” She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!”, and then I didn’t know what else to do,†she stated.[26]
Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[27][28][29] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[30]
Hard Candy Guilty!
i mean.. as we all know Greg used to be a Sassy teenager imagine if Polanski invited Greg for a Vogue cover. would you like to see Polanski performing various sexual acts on him?
Hm Sean?
Posted by kyriacos on September 27th, 2009Thats why God gives zits to Teenagers.. so that perverts like Rusty James can’t fuck them.
..its only ok to Fuck zipless 13olds..
Thats how god would wanned it to be..
Posted by kyriacos on September 27th, 2009i think Reed & Roman should go on a date?
Posted by jaime on September 27th, 2009She said she’s gotin over it! let’s all do the same.
Posted by Machete on September 28th, 2009What Sean said up there and everyone ignored. The question isnt if he is guilty or as to what he did, its if he has already served his punishment.
Polanski, his laywer and the prosecuter thought they had cut a deal with the judge and that the punsihment would be the 48 days he spent in jail.
The judge then turned around and wanted to give Polanski a longer sentence which caused everyone involved didnt think was right and Polanski fled.
Posted by Niklas on September 28th, 2009so i fuck a kid and i go to jail-hotel for 48 days?
Posted by kyriacos on September 28th, 2009“It seems crazy that the man may now finally face charges after so long. I’m not even saying the charges were undeserved, but after 30 years, people change and the world moves on.”
….dude, are you out of your fucking mind? Obviously the girl hasn’t moved on. That was a 13 year old kid!!! My cousin is 13. Can you even imagine someone close to you being raped by a 44 year old man. And not only did he rape her, but he fled the country avoiding prosecution.
They are still finding old Nazi’s and prosecuting them for crimes against humanity, guess we should let them go. because, you know. it has been a long time and they’ve probably thought about what they did.
Justice does not have a calendar attached to it. just because the time between the crime and now is great does not mean the crime is any less significant. If anything it should be more severe because he’s been “on the run” if you will. I can’t help but ask my self Sean (or any of you who are willing to let this guy go), if this wasn’t a director but just a guy who lived down the block, would you be so willing to “turn the other cheek”? Well I hope not because it could of been your little sister this guy put his dick in.
However, I will say that even though this guy deserves prosecution, that maybe the US could focus on getting someone a little more….prominent. Like terrorists. I mean, (whew) roman Polanski out of the way, next up, Osama bin laden, or ahamidenjiad.
yes I feel comfortable in saying the us will sleep tonight safe and sound.
Posted by Rick on September 28th, 2009Well (a) she has moved on, and (b) he did serve time (although arguably not enough). It just seems like it’s more about the U.S. wanting to get him back for making them look foolish.
Posted by Sean on September 28th, 2009….serve time? what time? he’s been living luxurious in france!!!
“According to the victim: Geimer Polanski asked Geimer’s mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, “Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.†She added, “It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.â€
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the Mulholland area home of actor Jack Nicholson in Los Angeles. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,†Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.†She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!â€, and then I didn’t know what else to do,†she stated.[26]
Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[27][28][29] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[30]”
this does not sound like someone who has moved on to me.
and once again, the law does not and should not take in account people feelings now opposed to when the crime was comitted. He pled guilty. He mollested and raped a 13 year old girl. he should atleast get 1-5 years. you avoided the question sean. if this was your little sister, and it’s been 40 years with the man on the run. would you want prosecution. weather her years of pain and counseling to get over a tough personal tragedy in her life?
but watch this is what’s going to happen. sense france and one more country are calling for his freedom. president obama. the president or prime minister or what ever of switzerland, sarkozy, and the victim are going to all get together labled under “the wine summit”. and discuss this. and Obama will give in because he’s a pussy.
Posted by Rick on September 28th, 2009I don’t have a little sister.
Polanski was sentenced to 90 days in Chino State Prison for psychiatric evaluation, and was released after 42 days. He did serve time.
And the victim herself doesn’t want justice!!! Doesn’t that mean anything?
Posted by Sean on September 28th, 2009So what are you saying Sean? if he just gave her a part on his next film everything would be ok?
NO its not Ok..
I ts not ok to fuck kids just because you got a hard-on a bad time..
No wonder TAXI driver is not on your top 100 list..
Posted by kyriacos on September 28th, 2009I never said it was okay. I’m just playing devil’s advocate and saying that according to the original sentence, justice has already been served.
Posted by Sean on September 28th, 2009psychiatric eval is not the same as spending time in a cell with lavell and jesus.
and i’m asking you to go out on a limb here. i think you are just avoiding the question. i said IF your sister. or if you had a sister how would you feel about this guy. and weather she want’s charges or not, the state still has the duty to press charges because he broke the law.
Posted by Rick on September 28th, 2009If it was my sister I’m sure I would have wanted him to receive a much harsher sentence, but that doesn’t change how the U.S. justice system works. As per his plea bargain, the judge felt that the harshest sentence they could get was to make him serve time under the guise of psychiatric evaluation. So that’s what they did.
Posted by Sean on September 28th, 2009so if he carried out that sentence why did he run? because in order to for him to have a second harsher sentence the case would have to be kicked too the court of appeals. only then can a judge over turn the judgement of only a 90 (served half) of his eval.
Posted by Rick on September 28th, 2009Sean, you don’t get to negotiate your sentence from afar. I saw the doc. you probably are referring to and you are leaving out the fact that Roman probably would have skipped town prior to the “psychiatric evaluation” time and only volunteered because he believed he would avoid “hard time”. It wasn’t set and he fled. In reality he should get additional time for fleeing, no one has mentioned that.
On the motivates of the justice system, celebrities always are at risk of harsher prosecution due to the P.R. it benefits the D.A.s and the crimes involved. Micheal Vick and dog fighting, Plexio Burress and concealed weapons in NYC it is part of being and celebrity and not exclusive to the U.S.
In reports I’ve read, Roman may have done this to himself as the LA police have said Roman has appeared more careless with his travel in that last few years probably due to his belief the public’s opinion was on his side. He could be hold up in Switzerland for a long time if he doesn’t volunteer to go to the US, which he won’t. He will fight it from there.
Posted by rus in chicago on September 28th, 2009They make it seem that he fled in part because he felt he wasn’t going to get a fair judgment due to the media pressure, which was definitely becoming a factor as time went on.
But yeah, there are a lot of possibilities here. I had heard that recently the L.A. judge told Polanski he would not get more prison time if he just returned to face his sentence. But who knows now.
And yeah he had a home in Switzerland and apparently had been shooting his latest movie there so it’s not the first time he had left France.
Posted by Sean on September 28th, 2009Legally, there is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor.
Posted by nate on September 28th, 2009I just heart Polanski is gonna shoot Hard Candy 2 – Revenge of the fugitive.
Posted by kyriacos on September 28th, 2009“After 30 years, people change.”
Gotta love those liberals! Good grief.
Hope he ends up serving a nice long prison sentence. Also hope the guards are on break when the other inmates show Roman what it’s like to be raped.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on September 28th, 2009I’m really surprised most of the people posting here are for punishing Polanski. When I opened this post I expected to see more “live and let live”, “f*ck the US” type posts. guess, child welfare still counts for something in the blogsphere…
now if we could just save Diablo Cody
Posted by rus in chicago on September 28th, 2009“live and let liveâ€
wow….what a wonderful concept. you know what. I agree…let’s run with this. Why do we have any laws? we can all get along. let’s get rid capitol punishment and jails and guantamo bay. we don’t need em anymore, because were just going to live and let live. someone robs you. hey, let live. someone kills your family, hey, let live. someone rapes your 13 year old sister, let live.
Posted by Rick on September 28th, 2009I think he was pleasantly surprised Rick, not upset that there weren’t “live and let live” posters.
Adjust your fire.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on September 28th, 2009Polanski is a victum of the right wing agenda. Our country has better things to do than to chase after him for something that happened a long time ago. He paid his dues by being restricted from traveling to USA. Let it go. Lets move on. Gemier even wants the charges dropped and Polaski left alone. Why is Switzerland cooperating?
Posted by bob smith on September 28th, 2009…”He paid his dues by being restricted from traveling to USA”…
So everything else is pretty much like a Jail..
The poor guy he lived for 30 in a shithole called Switzerland..
with free health insurance..
I think he deserves to fuck another kid for that..
You childmurdering/childfuckers liberals make wanna puke..
Posted by kyriacos on September 28th, 2009I am praying that this POS gets thrown into an American prison.
Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside when I think about the sheer terror this precious, frail, li’l arteest is going to feel when surrounded by gang of 250 lb lifers with nothing to lose and who get turned on by beating rapists to death with their bare hands.
These aren’t your typical liberal, Hollywood sycophants, that, while appearing human, are somehow capable of ignoring the fact that you drug and rape children. No, no, no Roman. These muthaf—ers are going to kill you. Or rape you. Or kill you then rape you. But hopefully, HOPEFULLY, rape you then kill you.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on September 28th, 2009for fucks sake there were plenty of people including myself who you can identify as liberals who are anything but ‘lets let em go and dance around the maypole’ but some of you just can’t pass up any chance whatsoever to go throwing up partisan fences, pointing fingers, painting everyone with the same brush. And topping it off with mindless Switzerland bashing, which isn’t even factually correct about this case as per Polanski’s residence. And you wonder why so many people look at Americans with such scorn?
Listen – there are conservatives who happen to kill and rape and cheat on and abort each other every day. And no matter what Polanski did 30 years ago, it’s hard to respect a dude who uses the word ‘pray’ in salivation of a nearly 80 year old man getting raped and killed… you significantly blur the lines between a sense of justice and pure perverted bloodlust with that shit. I would assume you’ve heard the term “I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy”, but you certainly don’t believe it when the idea of rape and murder makes you feel ‘warm and fuzzy inside’. I sincerely question your demented morality even as you throw up this holier-than-thou act. You have no moral high ground here if you ask me.
** after the fact edit to Rick. A No True Scotsman fallacy? Even more broad generalizations? Sad. Why don’t you look up what party is in charge in Canada before you keep making an idiot out of yourself.
Posted by Goon on September 29th, 2009“When I opened this post I expected to see more “live and let liveâ€, “f*ck the US†type posts.”
You’d think you hadn’t been to filmjunk lately then.
Posted by Henrik on September 29th, 2009“there are who conservatives happen to kill and rape and cheat on and abort each other every day.”
then your not a true conservative goon. and I could go on and on about my un-adulterated loathing about liberals and how they absolutely disgust me because they think that this ass whole already paid his debt to society and it happened along time ago and then you have morons like bob smith who say he’s a victim of the right wing agenda. which I don’t know how you figure that when are government is radically left.
let’s put it this way. if it was any of you people. American, Canadian, eu, where ever your from. say it was you. and you lured a 13 year old girl, got her drunk and high, raped her, then bounced out of the country for 40 years do you think that you’d be extradited back to the united states (assuming that’s where you committed the crime) you bet your ass you would.
fuck this director. he willfully broke a serious law on American soil. and he should pay the full punishment of his actions. but what you have is a Michael Jackson thing and he paid off the girl. sorry but a bribe does not equal justice. nor wipe the slate clean.
and the only reason Poland is calling for his release is because Obama the fuckin idiot got rid of the missile shield we promised them. so yeah, I wouldn’t be on America’s side either if I was Poland.
and as far as everybody hating America. yeah how easy it is to say that when on the world stage something happens, everyone asks for America’s support. when it comes to human right’s, financial aid (though not anymore) humanitarian support, etc….. We have done more for other countries then any other country in this world. so if you don’t like us, that’s fine. stop asking for help from us, which I would willingly deny.
and goon, arnt you from Canada? of course your liberal.
Posted by Rick on September 29th, 2009I’m going to shut down this thread now before it gets out of hand… no offense to anyone in particular. I just hate that politics always have to enter into every fucking discussion here. Just for once it would be nice to have a conversation without the words “liberal” and “conservative” entering into the vocabulary, where people weren’t just reacting based on whatever side they think they need to be on and actually thought about what they were saying.
The world is not black and white. But I guess that’s something only a liberal would say.
Posted by Sean on September 29th, 2009