Roman Polanski and the Rule of Law

I’ve been struck by the differing views in Europe and the United States regarding whether filmmaker Roman Polanski should be extradited. Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old girl in Los Angeles, and he then fled the United States in 1978, just before being sentenced. He lived openly in Paris and traveled and worked in Europe for 30 years before recently being arrested in Switzerland, where he remains in custody.

The sentiment among European politicians and artists seems to be that the extradition attempt is another example of uptight, moralistic Americans at work. Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, said Polanski was being victimized by vengeful Americans and their Swiss lackeys. The President of the German Film Academy was especially outraged because Polanski, an internationally acclaimed director, was arrested at a film festival. Franz Wagner, a German columnist, noted Polanski’s mother had died in Auschwitz and argued that Polanski should therefore be released “because he has suffered enough.” Perhaps the silliest comment came from French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy. He thought Polanski, 43 at the time of the rape, should be forgiven for “a youthful error.”

Few of the European apologists or commentators have reflected how Polanski’s flight was an affront to the American justice system. Having pled guilty to rape, Polanski basically skipped bail and then continued to thumb his nose at the judge and courts for decades. This type of behavior is a more troubling matter for many Americans, given the central place a belief in the rule of law has in the dominant ideology. The rule of law is of course also held dear in Europe, but the Polanski affair makes clear Europeans are as likely to draw a sense of right and wrong from nationality, history, and a respect for art as they are to rely on a court of law.

This Post Has 9 Comments

  1. Gordon Hylton

    It is extremely disturbing to read but the Smoking Gun website has published images of the grand jury testimony in the Polanski case 32 years ago.

    No matter how much one admires Polanski’s work or sympathizes with his family’s mistreatment by the Nazi’s, one cannot read this and reach any conclusion other than that he should be returned to the US for incarceration.

    With all due respect to Whoopi Goldberg, this was “rape rape.”

  2. Sean Horkheimer

    “…but the Polanski affair makes clear Europeans are as likely to draw a sense of right and wrong from nationality, history, and a respect for art as they are to rely on a court of law.”

    Even limited to European politicians and artists, I’m fairly certain there are numerous Europeans that have voiced their opinions to the contrary. Luc Besson, for instance, did not sign the circulating petition from various film directors (Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese) supporting Mr. Polanski.

    Here’s a link to a New York Times article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html

    “France Divided Over Polanski Case”

    There doesn’t seem to be a uniform sentiment for all Europeans (or even Americans, for that matter). Are there differing views? Certainly. But let’s not paint an entire continent with the same brush. We Americans would feel a slight annoyance should the Europeans ever characterize us in such a broad manner.

  3. Colin Shanahan

    What Mr. Polanski did was reprehensible. However, the actions of the Judge at his trial also discreditable. The HBO Documentary ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired’ lays out how this Polanski’s trial played out.

    The circumstances of Polanski’s life, from his early life in Nazi occupied Poland to the gruesome death of his wife and unborn child, were fresh in the minds of many Angelinos. There was some fear that like so many other celebrity trials, Polanski would walk. The parties agreed that Polanski was to have a psychiatric evaluation and would be released. After completing the evaluation, the Judge reneged and Polanski fled.

    This case should not be held out as an example of American Rule of Law.

  4. Martin Tanz

    I am a little late to the party on this. I work as a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee, and the conduct that Polanski admitted to as part of his plea, if committed today, would get Polanski locked up in a state prison for a good long time, at least 8 or 10 years would be my estimate. Polanski got a sweatheart deal because he was a rich and famous director, and bolted because he didn’t want to risk doing even a couple of months in jail.

    I have represented clients who got 5 or 6 years for far less reprehensible conduct, like sex with an underage girl where she consented and he didn’t know she was underage. Curiously, no European intellectuals or Hollywood celebrities ever came to the defense of any of these guys.

  5. John Butler

    The law doesn’t get much play in this law school blog. It seems the nature of the allegation exempts posters here from the odious task of discussing the law.

    The author of the article fails to mention the circumstances surrounding the case. The judge made a deal with Polanski. In exchange for jail time for a psychiatric evaluation, the judge stated he would not be sentenced further. The judge reneged; Polanski boogied.

    The original prosecutor agreed with this account of what took place, before and during his testimony under oath — despite the fact the prosecutor disagreed with the judge’s original sentence.

    The Swiss asked for the official transcript of the testimony. LA DA Garcetti refused to supply it (knowing its contents). The Swiss then denied Polanski’s extradition to the U.S.

    Folks doing research on the case might stumble here and be misinformed. This is an attempt to correct the record.

  6. John Butler

    Gordon Hylton: Do you believe that grand juries are analogous to trials?

  7. Gordon Hylton

    For what it is worth, I think testimony under oath is testimony under oath, whether it happens at a conventional trial, before a grand jury, or before Congress. I also believe that while not always truthful, testimony under oath should be taken more seriously than mere rumor or innuendo.

  8. John Butler

    Gordon:

    Testimony under oath in a Grand Jury cannot be subject to cross examination. Of course, it beats rumor and innuendo. But you seem to be avoiding the trial analogy question I asked you.

    Do you have any knowledge of or an opinion on the legal issues I raised on 7/25/14? Would you prefer not to?

  9. Gordon Hylton

    If what Mr. Butler says is true, then he has a valid point. The trial judge would have acted improperly. However, there are other ways to address that issue rather than just flee the country.

    I should point out that this is not my post, and I was commenting primarily as a citizen outraged by Mr. Polanski’s comment. I also realize that we are under an admonition not to throw stones, and I suppose that I am guilty of that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.