Wednesday, September 30, 2009


In 1977, the renowned movie director Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles. He admitted guilt and skipped the country to avoid prison.
He has basically been free ever since. For a recounting of the story, see Steve Lopez's column in the Los Angeles Times today, 9/20/09.
Polanski was (and probably still is) a sexual predator, and if the law is to have any meaning, he should pay for his crime.
I wonder how many other children he has raped or seduced over the years he has been free.
Why do people get outraged over sex criminals and perverts, and yet have a different reaction when the man is a bigshot?
Isn't it obviously wrong for a grown man to take advantage of his celebrity and use it to gain access to a child?
Celebrities have enormous personal power.
Polanski misused his.
I doubt if the girl's mother would have allowed him access to her if he wasn't famous. She probably hoped he'd put her in one of his movies.
By the way, have you seen his movies?
In "The Tenant" a severed head rises and falls in slow motion endlessly, one of the sickest scenes in all moviedom.
Have you seen his version of "Macbeth"?
Severed limbs all over the landscape.
Sure, he escaped the Nazi Holocaust.
Sure, his wife and unborn child were murdered.
But does that give him the right to rape young girls?
Where do we draw the line?
Should we turn over our children to famous pedophiles for their sport?
If the law has any meaning, Polanski should come back to L.A., where the crime occurred, and take his punishment like a man.
If he is a man.
As they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.