ProMundis BlogPost
Polanski: Compassion towards the Offender, no Regret for the Action or towards the Victim
12. April 2010 von Schirrmacher · 5 Kommentare
Let the big ones get away
The Zurich film festival, the Berlinale and many other art and media people are protesting the arrest of Roman Polanski. More remarkable is the sympathy they have with the offender. In not a single press release or statement has one read that it is detestable to sexually abuse a 13 year old girl who is purposely given drugs.
Here is the background history: 1. Roman Polanski confessed to giving drugs to a 13 year old at a party at Jack Nicholson’s home in 1977 for the purpose of sexually abusing her. 2. Polanski was convicted under law for this action in 1977. 3. In 1978 Polanski fled from imprisonment. 4. Since he possessed French citizenship in addition to American citizenship, and France did not extradite him to the United States of America, he was able to elude imprisonment for three decades while in France. 5. Efforts on the part of Polanski’s lawyers resulted in a new hearing being granted, but Polanski refused this due to the fact that he would have had to set foot on American soil. 6. Admittedly, the victim had forgiven Polanski publicly in the media and would have halted the proceedings. Still, since when is it that the victim and not the courts decide about such an issue?
What do we learn from this:
- Whoever is rich and famous can assume that his friends will get him out of a jam, even if it is the case of raping a minor and fleeing imprisonment.
- The media lets the big ones get away, fortunately it is not always the same with the police and the legal system. The media are increasingly attempting to replace or influence the courts. The unlucky one is he or she who cannot be considered a media spectacle.
- Our society has become so accustomed to all sorts of sexual excesses that the rape of a minor is treated as a peccadillo, at least by adults.
- And again, it is the offender and not the victim who receives sympathy.
The Judeo-Christian message of a just legal system: “God does not show favoritism” has a more difficult time of it than ever.
Prof. Dr. theol. Dr. phil. Thomas Schirrmacher, PhD, DD, (born 1960) is speaker for human rights and executive chair of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, speaking for appr. 600 million Christians. He is also director of its International Institute for Religious Freedom (Bonn, Cape Town, Colombo) 
Well Mr Schirrmacher, I’m afraid you got it all wrong from top to bottom in regards to this case.
First up, Polanski didn’t ‘confess’ to drugging her, and neither was there a ‘party’ at Nicholson’s home where he supposed to have raped or abused her. It was a private photoshoot.
Neither was he ‘convicted’ of either acts – he pleaded to one count of unlawful sex on the mother’s pressure after the prosecution didn’t have a case of rape, since the evidence they held refuted her allegations, or they in fact would have had a trial. No evidence, no trial.
He also never held American citizenship, only French for having been born in France.
The ‘hearing’ you mentioned was over ten years ago and Polanski only refused to attend it on the grounds of the judge wanting to televise a possible probation sentencing, not to avoid punishment. The case was corrupted from day one, and now even more with crooked DA Cooley on the legal ball and another judge who didn’t sentience Polanski in absentia months back.
Besides, the so called victim did not only ‘forgive’ him, but in recent interviews made it clear that he did not harm or rape her, just had sex with her, which you obviously didn’t hear of either. She even petitioned several times the case be dropped.
There never was any ‘victim’ – only lies – and Polanski only fled the court after the judge reneged on their plea bargain after ten months of stringing him along. He had in fact done his agreed time at Chino, and that’s why the Swiss blocked extradition, since the LA courts had lied to them, and is the reason why people rallied to his defence and deserves all the ‘sympathy’ he can get.
All in all, an entirely incorrect assessment of the situation on your part.
Dear friend, I tried to check your information on the web, but did not find sources that back up your story. So I would be glad to receive some weblinks from your side.
After all these months of debating this in/famous case, or even years, and I was there when it broke in fact to know better, it’s more than well known that there wasn’t any ‘party’,
Maybe a look at this article first would help you on the way,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2712371.stm
and then I’ll be happy to discuss this very long and highly in-depth blog
http://novalislore.wordpress.com/2009/12/
to establish the facts, and where the information was obtained from. I.e., mainly from the in/famous smokinggun site, other more objective articles, many interviews given by both, documentaries, and most of all several published biographies on Polanski – incl. his own, which describes the events as they had occurred.
Following your first link I read the BBC News story. I cannot see that it contains any fact that I reported otherwise.
Than I read your own blog, which is available for every reader of my blog now. It is a pity that in a book length text you give no sources. So one can believe you or leave it. I especially would be interested about your sources for the many, many details about the feelings and thoughts of Polanksi, the judges, the attorneys, media people, and all people involved. Did you interview them personally?
As I said before – the sources are clearly stated in my previous comments, all you have to do is retrieve and retrace them, online, in book form, decades of material at the taking, all of which are freely available. NL’s research is based on these facts – unlike yours – and I for one was there to even remember them like he does. Thanks for leaving my comments.