Dankprofessor’s Weblog

A weblog examining sexual politics in higher education and beyond.

LA Times and the Polanski danger

The LA Times in its editorial of October 31, “Polanski’s Victim is not Judge and Jury” presents various arguments as to why Polanski’s victim’s call for the case to be dropped against Polanski be ignored.

However, the Times editorial does go beyond the fringe in terms of their following statement-

 ”Even if Geimer no longer holds a grudge against Polanski, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t pose a continuing danger to others.”

Polanski representing a continuing danger to others!  There is not a scintilla of evidence that Polanski over the last 31 years has done anything of a dangerous nature.

Now if the LA TIMES takes its editorial function seriously and really considers Polanski dangerous, why do they support his forcible return to the United States?  Shouldn’t they be arguing that Polanski be able to return to France?  And if it turns out that he becomes a danger in France then it would be a French problem, not an American problem.

Also see follow-up post- Targeting Polanski in jail or prison.

November 2, 2009 - Posted by dankprofessor | Roman Polanski, rape, sex, sexual politics | | 3 Comments

3 Comments »

  1. “Polanski representing a continuing danger to others! There is not a scintilla of evidence that Polanski over the last 31 years has done anything of a dangerous nature.”

    Your argument is specious and glib.

    Polanski is a convicted and admitted child molester who has yet to show any remorse that I’m aware of.

    Further, immediately after jumping bail, he was involved in an intimate relationship with a 15 old girl.

    Years later, he indicated in an interview that he evidently still has a proclivity for “young girls” when he said that “everybody wants to f— young girls”.

    To say that there’s “no evidence” that he’s an offender ignores the fact that there’s also “no evidence” that he’s not.

    Finally, the crux of the Times editorial wasn’t even that Polanski was a “danger”.

    The quote is: “Even if Geimer no longer holds a grudge against Polanski, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t pose a continuing danger to others.”

    It goes on to say: “Crimes are committed not just against individuals but against the community. What’s more, Polanski is a fugitive. He fled when he became worried that the judge would renege on a plea deal. That offense — hopping a flight to Europe rather than appearing in court — was not perpetrated against Geimer.”

    So, you’re taking one snippet out of context and building your argument around that.

    The Times summarizes their position: “But people accused of serious crimes must be apprehended and tried and, if convicted, must face their sentences. That’s an old and sturdy principle, and we’d like to stick to it.”

    Agree or disagree?

    Comment by anon81552 | November 5, 2009 | Reply

    • My post was clear that my commentary was soley focused on he Times assertion that Polanski is dangerous.
      Such is an argument which is without any support. The argument is specious. Of course, one can be an offender without representing a danger to others. If Polanski goes to prison, the public will not be any safer.

      What continues to separate us in terms of our perspectives is that I do not believe that the application of law necessarily represents justice; the two are separate entities or principles. In the present case, I believe the enforcement of the law will only lead to more suffering for both Polanski and Geimer.

      Comment by dankprofessor | November 5, 2009 | Reply

  2. Typical inflammatory BS, I read it. I’ve seen it Times and Times again. Also in the NY Times, the big mainstream papers feeding the public more lies or incorrect ‘facts’. Even Wikipedia’s RP entry isn’t all that ‘neutral’ anymore in tone. But of course they can do it to ‘him’. The biggest criminal on the planet at this moment. No wonder everyone’s vilifying RP. Public danger, yeah right. Where are all the other abused children shouting he raped me then, I ask.

    And too right, that it will cause them only more suffering – and too many more trying to stop this witch-hunt. You know, if I were Geimer, I would call for a press conference and finally tell people what the hell happened to shut them all up. Am I being too emotional about this? I doubt it.

    DeMoy

    Comment by demoy | November 8, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »