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.

About these ads

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

3 Comments »

“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
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

About

The dankprofessor blog is devoted to the love of knowledge and to the knowledge of love.

And the dankprofessor blog was just ranked the second best higher ed blog in the U.S.

For a more visual and sensual blog, see dankprofessor’s womeninblackandwhite.com

FEATURED POSTS

Blog reports on and examines sexual politics in higher education with a focus on issues regarding sexual consent, particularly the attempted repression of student-professor consensual sexual relationships. Thie blog reflects a commitment to the values of liberty, freedom of association, freedom of speech and privacy; such are values that are under increasing attack, both intellectually and policy wise in all too many universities which have embraced a culture of comfort in the framework of a velvet totalitarianism.

In addition, the blog at times will go beyond the university and sexual politics to issues that merit our attention. Whatever the issue the dankprofessor blog will not be constrained by any ideological orthodoxy, sexual or political correctness. Hopefully, this blog will bring together persons who value liberty and freedom even in university life.

The dankprofessor is Barry M. Dank, an emeritus professor of sociology at California State University, Long Beach, where he taught students and engaged in various forms of professorial dissidence for some 35 years.. In his earlier years, he wrote and pontificated on issues related to homosexuality and specifically on coming out and the development of a gay identity. In 1977 he became famous/infamous for his LA Times article on the anti-homosexual campaign of Anita Bryant. Later he focused on interracial relationships and on student-professor relationships. He is the Founding Editor of SEXUALITY AND CULTURE, published by Springer NYC. During his 35 years as a professor and four years as an in-residence grad student at the University of Wisconsin, he openly engaged in propinquitous (as in propinquity) dating, dating students and having many wonderful friendships with many of his students and their families. During his early years in academia he married the daughter of a professor in the Sociology Department at the University of Wisconsin. Presently he is living in the artist village of Tubac in southern Arizona.

The dankprofessor welcomes input from blog readers. Confidential emails should be sent to him directly at- dankprofessor@msn.com The dankprofessor will respond to all personal emails.

Leads on relevant stories will be greatly appreciated.

Guest commentaries should be sent to the same email address for consideration for blog publication.

The dankprofessor is available for campus/class presentations on sexual politics in higher education.

Archives
- April 2011 (4)
- March 2011 (7)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
- November 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (2)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (3)
Categories
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

Dankprofessor’s Weblog

A weblog examining sexual politics in higher education and beyond.