The Geimer/Polanski story has gone through some twists. The line this blog took in the first post was to wonder why her filing of a request not to pursue him over the matter was ignored, particularly as she was clearly stressed by the eternal lack of closure on the matter.
It seemed to your humble correspondent that it was more a matter of closure for her rather than a result for him. Thus, if he’d returned and faced the music, it would have had the same result as if the charges had been dropped.
This blog felt, at that time, that there were two main issues:
1. The attitude amongst the vehement that the man is a sleaze who needs to be brought to justice, no matter what it takes and whatever laws are bent to achieve that end;
2. The resentment among European nations of the Americans trying to push their agendas onto the rest of the world and the tendency for European nations to try to block anything the American’s want, irrespective of how worthy it is.
Now there are two quite strong contentions being made:
1. As Kristine said: “He pleaded guilty!” Yes, he did, largely to spare the victim a trial, which would have been traumatic but in retrospect is nothing compared to the pain that she says the courts have caused her. People plead guilty for all sorts of reasons.
2. As Lord T said: If he’s extradited, the Americans have reinforced the precedent that anyone can be airlifted from anywhere in the world to American soil. Planes can be forced to land on American-friendly territory and the person taken.
If the person is a foreign national, e.g. French, then there has to be a case made against him/her. This can take years and what to do with the person meantime? He/she can’t be released onto American soil as an alleged criminal, he/she can’t be flown back because that person will either be tortured/killed or else will scarper.
Therefore, as in Gunatanemo, the only option is to keep the person there at the American taxpayer’s expense and without recourse to intervention from his/her home country.
Of these two contentions, the first one has puzzled a few people. One would expect, in the normal run of things, that women, by and large, would be gunning for Polanski, even as far as calling for the death penalty – raping a 13 year old, after all. Instead, many women are saying, as Allie has pointed out, about the LA Times:
Some of the industry’s most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed.
“My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”
The feminists are seemingly saying that there should be some sort of compromise. How bizarre is that? Similarly, the men, whom you’d expect to soft-pedal on this, are the most vehement for due process and I had to actually block one comment by Lord Nazh, getting stuck into one of the women.
So, everything seems to be on its head and traditional gender roles seem to have been reversed. I’m transferring current comments from my old site to here and closing off the thread over there.