Samantha Geimer, Polanski's victim, doesn't back prison time for the director

[madmusic]

September 27, 2009 | 10:55 am

Roman Polanski's efforts to have a 30-year-old rape conviction dropped has an unlikely advocate in his victim, Samantha Geimer.

[anonymous171]

1. Too bad. He needs to go to jail, just like every other rapist. nt

[madmusic]

2. Write her a letter and straighten her out. nt

Tell her how wrong she is.

[lala_rawraw]

9. it is very simple and very common...

she does not want to be victimized anymore

[Hawkeye-X]

32. Exactly. She has moved on and has reiterated that she doesn't want to bring it up again

and have the press get in her face and force her to relieve the memory. I'd rather let Polanski go if she is serious about this.

Rapist or not, he already pled guilty, and did time already (47 days, if I remember right), and Ms. Geiner feels that is enough.

Hawkeye-X

[Yupster]

99. And besides that, hasn't

she already reached a large monetary settlement with the child rapist?

[EmilyAnne]

31. Why? She has the right to her opinion. nt

[Oregone]

26. Some rapists are dead. Putting them in jail would be very unsanitary

[brentspeak]

3. Violation of the law is a crime against both a victim and society

The State reserves the right to seek justice on behalf of society in general

[Teaser]

4. lots of abused wives don't want their husbands in jail either.

.

[paulsby]

34. bingo. that is my experience and i've arrested SCOREs of domestic abusers

i would say the MAJORITY of victims of domestic violence (ime) do not want their husbands in jail, or even prosecuted at all.

the prosecutors DO take into account victims' desire to prosecute or not, but it is not (by any stretch) a sole factor in their decision to charge or not.

nor should it be.

[proteus_lives]

5. Doesn't matter.

It's bigger then her. Rapists belong in prison.

[seabeyond]

6. kids raped, beaten by dad dont want him to have prison time. wives say no to prison. so? nt

[depakid]

7. The vengeance obsessed don't care about her wishes

nor any continuing harm that's inflicted on her and her family as a result. All they care about is their pound of flesh.

At any cost.

[seabeyond]

8. again, i told you the position, yet ignore. how honest is that.... oh not. nt

[Thickasabrick]

10. Scary isn't it? I just read that there are over 1,000 rape kits waiting

to be processed in LA County but due to lack of funds, they sit.

[depakid]

11. It'll be an expensive case that in the end, benefits no one

[seabeyond]

44. yet, here we have someone ready for sentencing and here it sets on shelf ready to be done. nt

[Odin2005]

12. Deterrence is not vengeance.

[Forkboy]

17. Punishment isn't deterrence.

Not defending Polanski, just saying that putting people in jail isn't a deterrent against the same crime being committed. It's one of the fallacies many on the pro-death penalty side of the equation seem to believe in that debate. But there's still rapes, murders and assaults everyday, even though we have jails full of such people. Their punishment isn't now, and never will be, a deterrent to those who wish to do such things. Punishment/justice IS vengeance, though that word conjures up the idea that the person on the receiving end of said vengeance somehow doesn't deserve it, when often times they do. But don't kid yourself into thinking that if Polanski gets thrown into the Gray Bar Hotel that it'll somehow deter other rapists from acting. It won't.

[Odin2005]

19. So Kissinger should not be tried as the war criminal he is because he is an old man?

That Nazi war criminal that recently got extradited from the US to Germany should not face justice because (as hid lawyers and family said) "he is a old, sick man"?

[Forkboy]

20. Why is that anytime someone starts a post with ,"So.." that whatever follows is never the case?

I didn't say Polanski shouldn't be tried. I said punishment isn't deterrence, and it isn't. Will arresting Kissinger stop war crimes? No. Will arresting Polanski stop rapes? No.

You said it was deterrence. It isn't.

[paulsby]

35. that's a false argument

your argument goes since doing X won't eliminate Y, then X is not a deterrent.

"deterrent" does not mean it eliminates the possibility of Y.

deterrent means it will reduce the likelihood occurrence of Y

and there are two types of deterrence - specific and general. specific is a given. if you put polanski in jail, it will deter him from raping anybody (well, except for other inmates) while he is in jail.

whether or not people who see him get sentenced might think twice about schtupping miss sally tightpants all of 13 yrs old is another question entirely.

might it deter SOME people? maybe. you can't prove it either way.

fwiw, it is generally accepted in criminology that apprehension on the part of suspects as to the likelihood of getting caught is a stronger deterrent than fear of a harsh sentence, if they do.

regardless, i could give fuck all about deterrence. in this case, i think JUSTICE demands he get a REAL sentence. a year or two would be fine with me.

what is "JUSTICE?" . well, that's a complex topic.

[Odin2005]

42. I follow Immanuel Kant's thinking about justice

Society has a DUTY to punish criminals, deterrent or not. I feel uncomfortable with purely utilitarian arguments.

[armyowalgreens]

69. Kant was wrong.

Retributive "justice" is no justice at all.

I'm not necessarily saying that this applies to Polanski. But you cannot say "Kant" said this or that and expect it to be true.

[joeybee12]

73. Not true at all..plenty of studies show harsher laws and sentencing

does not correlate to a reduction in a certain crime...in some cases, like states that actively use the death penatly, the crime rate has increased after its implementation.

[JackRiddler]

53. Actually, arresting Kissinger would do incomparably more to deter war crimes...

than (re)trying Polanski would in deterring rape.

If you're for the death penalty as deterrence, for example, then you need to understand that it won't make a difference with murder, but it would work wonders on financial fraud. Hang Polanski, I doubt a single potential rapist will identify. Send Madoff and Jeff Skilling to the gallows, that will get attention among their potential emulators.

[scarletwoman]

93. +100! A voice of reason!

My humble thanks.

[Ignis]

63. Because people don't understand the false dichotomy fallacy.

I'd like to say it's more complex, but I'd be lying. :shrug:

[tammywammy]

21. Agreed, good post. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

56. .

deleted

[Odin2005]

84. Something I remembered:

A study posted on DU several times said that 35% of college-age males would commit rape if there were no legal repercussions, so fear of jail time and sex offender status IS deterring rape.

[depakid]

24. There's no deterrent value in a 1977 case today

though there would be in the many cases that are currently sitting in LA County waiting to`be processed.

[Odin2005]

43. Send a signal that if you are a great "artist" you can get away with child rape? BRILLIANT!!!

:eyes:

[armyowalgreens]

70. How many great artists are convicted/ accused of child rape?

Honestly, how many people would this apply to? In order to justify punishment as a deterrent, you must be able to demonstrate that it will actually deter.

[Odin2005]

85. A study posted on DU several times said that...

...35% of college-age males would commit rape if there were no legal repercussions, so fear of jail time and sex offender status IS deterring rape.

[bighart]

74. There is the deterrent value in showing if you did the crime, admitted it and

then ran to avoid the consequences, they may very well catch up to you years or even decades later. The whole "he's an old man now" line really gets me. It's HIS OWN FAULT he is facing this now rather than 30 years ago so boo effing hoo.

[anonymous171]

13. Same with the revenge obsessed folks who want to prosecute Bush

They just need to get over it. Revenge solves nothing.

[tammywammy]

14. And Cheney's old too

No reason to lock up an old man.

[depakid]

37. That's not immediate case with tens of thousands of victims

It's 31 years old- there were consequences- and the victim and her family want to have the matter dropped so it doesn't continue to traumatize them.

(Not that you or some others care about that- nor are able to recognize the difference). Nope- gotta have that pound of flesh to satisfy your own base emotions- no matter who it hurts.

[armyowalgreens]

72. I actually disagree. We must stop the lack of accountability...

If we don't start somewhere, politicians will keep doing whatever the hell they want.

[sabrina 1]

16. Sad, but true. She has stated over and over again

that she was harmed more by the court case than by the incident itself. I can imagine what a nightmare this is for her now, one she hoped never to have to face again. But Nancy Grace is on the case, so the victim may as well resign herself to years of this. I feel very sorry for her as all she wanted was to live her life.

What I find interesting is that there was one post on the release of the Afghan child, 12 years old when he was captured, separated from his home and family and tortured in Guantanamo Bay for over seven years last week. He is only one of many children, some raped, sodomized in front of their parents, tortured and photographed for the amusement of, who, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush?

That story received very little attention from the same people who up in arms over this one case. I did not see it on Nancy Grace either.

To me, that story should have had at least as many posts as this one, as it has become US policy to torture and rape and kill uncharged detainees and as far as we can tell, it has not stopped. I'll take all this concern seriously when the same out-pouring of outrage is evident on left blogs as there is for this one case.

Blogs that are specifically targeting these atrocities have little traffic. Makes you wonder what the problem really is. Because one 13 year old American child has received years and years of attention, and next to none has been given to those still very young, destroyed lives and not a single person has been held accountable. That is an outrage.

[Hannah Bell]

36. +100.

[Forkboy]

18. The law doesn't operate on the wishes of the victims. It operates on the law.

If a victim says that they wish to move on, the law still applies regardless.

[EmilyAnne]

33. Exactly. And that is a wonderful thing about our legal system. Everyone knows how often the victim

of a sexual crime is sympathetic to his or her perpetrator.

[LanternWaste]

75. What is perceived merely as vengeance by one person...

What is perceived merely as vengeance by one person may just as validly be justice to many others (although I do realize that it is a rather self-validating form of melodrama, even if hidden behind the generic "them, they, and their"...)

Attributing the intentions of anyone other than ourselves is at best, a fool's game-- but there appear to be many good players. :shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

15. She is just pissed that the incident keeps appearing in the news and she has to relive it

She just wants to get on with her life. But he needs to pay for what he did.

[western mass]

22. She sued him and got an "undisclosed settlement"

a fact that this post conveniently fails to mention.

Myself, I would rather have a justice system that prosecutes all criminals, rather than one that only goes after those who aren't wealthy enough to pay off their victims.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Lousy rape apologists.

I'd like to know her what she'd think if it was somebody she cared about who got raped.

Raped...

know...

know...

apologist...

somebody...

system error...

[moriah]

25. This is one reason why rape shield laws are important.

She has been quoted as saying that the publicity is harming her family and that is why she doesn't want him in jail.

No rape victim should be forced to decide between putting their family in the spotlight and prosecuting their rapist.

[Azathoth]

27. Should a priest who once raped a boy be allowed to walk free if the grown boy forgives him?

If Polanski was a priest instead of a Hollywood celebrity / European playboy, I doubt there would be a single DUer defending him.

[aikoaiko]

28. All things taken into account., Polanski needs to face up to the original crime & fleeing punishment

No justice, no peace.

[Skittles]

29. if he had done this when he should have

this would all be behind him now

[old mark]

41. He DID "face up to the crime" - he was sentenced to do time for

psychiatric observation, which he did serve. He was released from the psych hold after 30 days and had to go back to court where his lawyers had been told he would be released on probation. but the judge, undr pressure from the DA's office, renegged on his previous verdict and ordered another sentencing hearing, which is when Polanski left the US. He cooperated with the LA courts and they lied to him, and he felt hw would be lie to again.

It is NOT as simple as most of you believe - please study something about this before you leap.

mark

ADDED: Prosecutor from this first case is now the DA who pushed for this arrest in Europe. Wants publicity to end a career.

[aikoaiko]

52. Presumptuous much? I know all that. The court acted within its discretion -- did it not?

Its really too bad for Polanski, but he didn't have the procedural choice of deciding to no longer trust the court.

If the courts acted improperly (or that is your claim) then Polanski can seek redress with an appeal.

But running away to France, making movies, and enjoying the good life was not the way to handle it.

[old mark]

59. I am generally "presumptuous" when I hear the braying of jackasses.

They seem to be in full chorus over this "issue".

mark

[aikoaiko]

62. He's a fugitive and should be brought to court to finish this up?

Its a matter of principle. If the courts decide that he's served his time (some 40-something days while being observed) then so be it.

Do you not think he should appear before the court to finish this legal matter?

[TorchTheWitch]

97. the psych eval was not a formal sentence

He was to do a 90 day psych evaluation but completed only 42 (not 30). The purpose of the psych eval was to help the judge determine what the sentence would be. Hours before the formal sentencing Polanski fled the country because he believed for whatever reason that he would be sentenced to actual prison time (which he would have been and SHOULD have been). Polanski himself was the one who said that HE believed that the 42 days he spent in the psych eval should be all the time he should serve even though a psych eval is NOT a formal prison sentence. We don't know if there WAS any sentencing deal as part of the plea deal, and given that the plea deal dismissing all the other charges except the one for sex with a minor was extremely lenient as well as the ruling for the psych eval was for the purpose of helping to determine what his formal sentence should be there is little to no reason to believe that there actually was a sentencing deal that the judge signed off on and one that would have allowed Polanski walk away from ANY formal prison sentence (again, a psych evaluation is NOT a formal sentence).

Given the fact that the maximum sentence for the charge Polanski plead to is only a couple of years or so (today it would be one year in county prison or 2-4 years in state prison) how is it possible that the judge could have sentenced him to 40-50 years??? Had the judge done so, it would have been thrown out and so would the judge. What judge would willingly throw away their career particularly by doing something that would never fly anyway? There's a reason we have sentencing guidelines and maximum prison terms... so whackadoodle judges can't give outrageous sentences for more minor crimes out of spite or personal reasons or whatever. Forty to 50 years in prison is what Polanski could have been facing had he gone to trial and been found guilty on all of the original charges. To believe that the judge was going to sentence him for the likely sentence he would have faced had he been found guilty on all of the original charges at trial for the one charge he plead down to particularly when the maximum sentence for that one charge is only a few years is absurd on its face.

[EmilyAnne]

30. Good for her. But, it doesn't matter. That's why its the State of California vs. Polanski.

Its good that she has forgiven him.
Its good that she not be burdened with anger.
It doesn't change that he broke the law and ran from the consequences.
We are a nation of laws.

[GreenArrow]

81. "We are a nation of laws."

But seldom a nation of justice.

[t0dd]

38. Forget it, madmusic. It's Democratic Underground.

[madmusic]

39. What town... is this?

[pnwmom]

40. Because she said she doesn't want to go through it anymore and she's sick

of the publicity.

[LisaL]

48. It's not up to her.

It's the state of Ca vs. Polanski, not Samantha vs. Polanski.
It was her vs. Polanski when she reportedly settled a civil case.

[pnwmom]

88. I agree completely. All prosecutions are in the name of the state,

because it is in the interest of all the people -- not just the victim -- that justice be done.

[Barack_America]

45. Well, I'd assume she'd get a chance to speak during the sentencing.

Isn't that how it normally works?

[DefenseLawyer]

46. For many, life is black and white

or more accurately, other people's lives are black and white. When it involves their own lives or their own sons and daughters, well, it's very complicated, there's a lot that you don't know and don't understand. There are reasons and feelings and actions and well, it's just complicated. But for everyone else? Fuck them. It's black and white.

[shireen]

54. +1

totally agree.

[LisaL]

47. And so? It's not up to her.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. How much did he pay her in the out-of-court settlement?

:shrug:

[LisaL]

50. I have no clue. It would have been completely up to her

on whether or not settle a civil case. Criminal case- not so much.

[justiceischeap]

51. For those that are against bringing him back for the rape

How about the fact that he broke the law by leaving the US? There's another law broken. Because he had enough money to flee the country, that makes his fleeing okay. Because he didn't like that the judge changed his decision (which obviously wasn't written in stone or he couldn't have changed it) it was okay to run from the consequences?

What are you saying to any young girl who has been raped when you say, forget it. It's an old case, so it doesn't matter any longer. You're sending a horrible message to other rape victims with your Polanski apologist attitudes.

[Echo In Light]

55. POLANSKI!!!

[subcomhd]

57. Polansky

[Orsino]

58. She must not be denied her constitutional right to determine sentencing. n/t

[NashVegas]

60. So What. That Changes Nothing, In Regards to the Apologists

Who continually insult the public by dismissing the seriousness of Polanski's actions.

[madmusic]

64. Geimer is as much "the public" as you are, so why call her an apologist?

Did you read her declaration?

http://www.talkleft.com/legal/polanskivictim.pdf

Do you still think she's an apologist?

[NashVegas]

67. What Does This Change?

And what in that affidavit lessens the seriousness of Polanski's crime or excuses his act of rape upon her?

[madmusic]

87. So now you are accusing her of excusing him? I didn't get that from the declaration. nt

[NashVegas]

89. No, I'm Asking YOU How Geimer's Desire to Move On With Her Life Decreases the Seriousness

of the crime that was committed against her.

[madmusic]

95. I don't know. Are you saying you think she is minimizing the seriousness?

I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. Seems to me she weighed all the factors and came to a rational conclusion from her point of view. She does not have to minimize the seriousness to do that.

[NashVegas]

98. "I Don't Know"

Should've just stopped right there...

[blues90]

61. then that should be the end of it.

It's been 31 years and it is her wish to drop the charges if she wants to get past it or has who has the right to question what she wants?

[NashVegas]

66. delete

wrong place

[noiretextatique]

77. it's the state of california vs. polanski

it's not her case to drop.

[TexasObserver]

65. The victim's wishes should be paramount.

She filed a compelling document in court recently in which she detailed how she felt about the original case, how she felt about the original plea deal, how she felt about the ongoing attempt to get Polansky, and how she had tried many times to get the DA to drop the matter. She talked about how much she didn't want to have this back in this news. Now, it's back in the news. She has said that what the DA is doing to her is worse than what Polansky did.

[BREMPRO]

90. Agreed. This isn't about justice, this is about ego of the prosecutors and publicity for their

careers.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/polansk... /

"Newser, Michael Wolff advances the theory that Polanski was done in by the movies, in particular “Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” the documentary the director’s supporters find persuasive and his critics find utterly unconvincing. L.A. prosecutors, goes Wolff’s reasoning, found it embarrassing.

Prosecutors ignored Polanski for 30 years because it was a terrible case in which the prosecutor’s office and the sitting judge, in the interest of getting publicity for themselves, had conducted themselves in all variety of dubious ways. But then, last year, a documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, came out detailing all this dubiousness. So the first motivation for going after Polanski now, as it so often is with prosecutors, is revenge—Polanski and this film makes the DA look bad. The second is that the documentary reminded everybody that the LA prosecutor must be turning a blind eye to Polanski, wandering freely in Europe—hence the arrest now is the prosecutor covering his ass. The third is—and it’s curiously the success of the documentary that made the LA prosecutor’s office realize the brand name significance of the case—press. The headlines now sweeping the world are the prosecutor’s ultimate benefit. Many careers are suddenly advanced."


Geimer wants the case dropped and forgave Polanski long ago- her wishes should be compelling

"But, as Gailey(Geimer) has said herself, Polanski has been punished. He lost what was, at the time, a glittering career in Hollywood. He has been publicly humiliated. His name is associated by many people as much with that sex offense as with all his cinematic achievements, from Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown to Tess and The Pianist. He has also suffered separately in ways that few people who stand in judgment of him can understand, in that his then wife, Sharon Tate – who was eight months pregnant with their child – was murdered in vile circumstances by the Charles Manson gang in 1968.

What will be served by Polanski being extradited to the US to stand trial? Gailey will have her privacy invaded once more as the details of the case, already posted in prurient detail around the world, receive more coverage. The case itself is already mired in confusion as a result of allegations of judicial misconduct at the original trial and is unlikely to have a swift conclusion. Some lawyers will benefit, but who else?"

The only people who gain by his arrest are the lawyers, corporate media and tabloids. The last thing we need right now is another celebrity case clogging up the public airwaves. We all lose from the distraction while the media focuses its eye away from health care etc...

Being arrested has diminished him once again in the public eye and his family as he was about to receive a lifetime achievement award for his good works. What about his wife and two children? Don't they suffer too? What about the redemption of his career? He's not a danger to society, he's a huge asset. Everyone but the lawyers and the corporate media suffer for this- Polanski, the victim, us- we suffer. So what is the point?

More about Gailey(Geimer):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/28/rom...

"The real victim in this case has called for compassion. But compassion is unfashionable at the moment, so the chances of her voice prevailing may not be great. The desire to exact punishment, regardless of how the actual victim is affected by it, and to justify that punishment with some grandstanding rhetoric, is the fashion of the moment. Child sex, like the Middle East, is a subject where the normal conventions of debate degenerate very swiftly into name-calling and deliberate misinterpretation. There is no reason to believe that this case will be any different. But the victim still has a right to be heard, even if what she says does not satisfy those seeking vengeance."

[scarletwoman]

96. Excellent post. Thank you. (nt)

[redqueen]

68. Is statutory rape one of those crimes where they ask the victim if they want to press charges?

No?

[noiretextatique]

78. state of california vs. polanski

poor woman...i am sure she wants this over. but she didn't file the charges against polanski...the state did.

[redqueen]

80. Sad how easily that simple fact seems to escape some people here.

But then, when you're twisting yourself into knots to defend a rapist... I guess you have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel. As we've seen so very clearly.

I'm glad I wasn't here for the initial outbursts. What an unpleasantly revealing issue.

[Yupster]

100. Maybe Polanski will quickly plead guilty

and a trial will be unnecessary.

[WeekendWarrior]

71. Not Surprising

Back when the case was first in court, the family sent a letter to the judge asking him to agree to a lesser plea and drop all remaining charges against Polanski, for the very same reason. They didn't want all the publicity to make things worse than they already were:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea17.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. As of 2003 she still wanted to see him punished.

QUESTION: If she had died after 2003 but before her new statement should Polanski still go to prison?

If so maybe we should free all the rapists because someday their victims may forgive them.

[Thickasabrick]

79. That is a lie. In 1997 she wrote a letter to the court asking for the

flee charges to be dropped and the original agreement honored which was no jail time. See her letter to the court on smoking gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. OK,then just for sake of argument...

...what if she had died in 1996?

Would we still be fabricating this same lame excuse for sexual violence against women?

[Thickasabrick]

83. I don't understand the question. What lame excuse? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. The lame excuse that the victim's desire for obscurity exonerates the crime.

I've read more than once here today that since the victim just wants the case to go away that Polanski should be given a free ride.

In other words the victim's wishes are the sole determinent for these sorts using the thin veil of Mercy.

Yet, had she not lived to make that statement then they would have no basis for their excuse.

So the question becomes: if the victim's wishes decides all what then if the victim cannot/will not speak? If we take their word for it than mercy is denied.

So my question was: Should we--in the name of Mercy--presumptively do away with a rape conviction based on what we think a victim might want at some future point?

If not then her wishes don't figure into whether or not Mercy should be extended.



Also consider: she wants the case dropped because of the media scrutiny...but the media scrutiny exists only because Polanski is a famous child-rapist and bail-jumper. Had he not been famous there would be no media scrutiny.

[madmusic]

91. With apologies, here is the link

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/polanskis-cause-has-a-backer-in-his-victim-.html

Better late than never?

[Maru Kitteh]

92. Unrecced and SO happy that the rape apologists of DU don't write policy.

And I will be happy as hell when that slimebag finally sits in a cold gray cell.

[LisaL]

94. As been pointed out before, it's state of Ca vs. Polanski.

Not Samantha vs. Polanski.
It's been reported she settled a civil case with him. In a civil case, it would be Samantha vs. Polanski. She could have decided whether or not to sue him civilly, whether or not to settle, etc.
She doesn't get to decide whether or not he should go to prison. That's why we got laws and sentencing guidelines.