How to solve a problem like Polanski
By Adam Goodall
8th October 2009

In case you haven’t heard, Roman Polanski was picked up at a Swiss airport last week on a four-year-old international arrest warrant. The warrant relates to his pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in the Los Angeles Superior Court on April the 13th, 1977. He pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with a girl less than 18 years of age who was not his wife. He acknowledged that he knew the girl – his victim, Samantha Geimer – was 13 when he performed sexual acts on her three times against her consent. He acknowledged that the judge – Justice Laurence Rittenband, a brilliant and influential jurist who had graduated from the New York University School of Law too young to sit his bar exam – had not yet decided the sentence Polanski would receive, and would decide it based on all the facts, including the plea bargain.

Shortly after his pleading guilty, Polanski fled the country. He fled to Europe, where he has lived the last thirty years, making Oscar-winning films, remarrying, starting a family, and living a relatively good life.

His arrest last week comes after thirty years of hunting, and after five aborted attempts at extraditing him back to the US from various countries. Knowing that there was international warrant out for him, he publicly advertised that he would be in Switzerland to receive a lifetime achievement award at a film festival. This was discovered, and the US placed diplomatic pressure on Switzerland to arrest a man who felt so secure in that country, he owned a house there.

The debate that has been birthed of these events has been hard-fought, passionate – and severely misguided. This has no longer become an argument about Polanski fleeing a legitimate sentencing. With the aid of Polanski’s crusading lawyer, Douglas Dalton, and Marina Zenovich’s documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the argument has now become about Judge Rittenband and his purported misconduct.

When Dalton resumed his fight to get the charges against Polanski dismissed in 2008, one of his key arguments was that Judge Rittenband had been inappropriately counselled by former prosecutor David Wells, which Wells revealed in an interview in Zenovich’s film. Such misconduct, if true, would be more than sufficient grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal – but a September 30 article published on news site The Daily Beast saw Wells retract the statements he made in the documentary.

So what really went down in the chambers of publicity-hungry Judge Laurence Rittenband back in 1977? “All that happened was I brought the newspaper with the picture of Polanski at Oktoberfest [before his 42-day evaluation] into court and handed it to the bailiff,” Wells told me. “I told the bailiff, ‘Here, give this to the judge.’ Did I know it would tick him off? Yeah. It ticked me off. Polanski was thumbing his nose at everyone.”

“When [Judge] Rittenband saw the photograph of Polanski out on the town…he blew up. Said, ‘Screw the deal, he’s going to state prison.’ And he said it straight to a reporter from The Outlook. Polanski’s lawyer found out about it, of course. And that was that. He never showed up for sentencing.

(Clark, Marcia. ‘Polanski’s Lost Alibi.’ The Daily Beast. September 30 2009.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/)

Wells’ retraction undermines Dalton’s case substantially. While telling Judge Rittenband that Polanski was “flipping him off” could easily be considered to be inappropriate counsel, simply handing Judge Rittenband a publicly-available newspaper with a picture of Polanski on the cover is much harder to prove as inappropriate counsel. Immediately, Rittenband’s alleged misconduct is called into question.

Many have argued that Rittenband was intending to toss Polanski’s plea bargain out, and that this was more than enough reason for Polanski to flee. However, it is at the very least implied in section 1192 of the Californian Penal Code that judges have the discretion to dismiss plea bargains. Furthermore, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines state that plea bargains are subject to the approval of the Court – if the Court does not agree, the plea bargain does not stand. While I am not 100% certain that this was the case in 1977, it is highly likely that it was, as plea bargaining is not something that has been subject to much intense legal discourse.

Rittenband did not want to let Polanski off the hook. He had given Polanski the opportunity to leave the country to make a film during the trial – something very few alleged child rapists are allowed to do – and he perceived Polanski’s ‘Oktoberfest’ picture, taken during the time, was making a mockery of him. He did not agree with the plea bargain, and was determined to see Polanski go to jail. If some of what Zenovich’s documentary alleges is true – that Rittenband gloated at a country club that he would “put that little blank blank Polanski away for life”; that he kept a book of press cuttings involving the most high-profile cases to come before him – then yes, he was biased.  But Rittenband, who died in 1993, is not here to deny any of this.

Furthermore, that doesn’t change the fact that Polanski fled the country. Instead of appealing Rittenband’s inevitable decision like a normal person would, and instead of airing his grievances in that appeal, Polanski used his money and his connections and ran. He committed a cowardly, illegal action in order to avoid more jail time than he was expecting as someone who had, as the evidence had pointed to, raped a thirteen year old girl.

Harvey Weinstein, the ringleader of Polanski's public Hollywood defence.

Now he’s back in custody, and it has taken very little time for a substantial number of actors, producers, directors, writers and practitioners of cinema across the world have come out in defence of him. A petition to free Roman Polanski has collected over 400 names, including those of David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Pedro Almodovar, Woody Allen (who probably doesn’t help Polanski being there), Emma Thompson, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Sam Mendes, Wim Wenders, Darren Aronofsky, Tilda Swinton, Penelope Cruz, Jeremy Irons and Natalie Portman. Harvey Weinstein has spent every waking moment defending the man. Yet their arguments range from the facile to the downright harmful.

“It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.” (The petition.)
Translation – Film festivals should be extraterritorial locations, under no state’s jurisdiction.
Why is this wrong? Like it or not, film festivals occur in countries. These countries have laws. If a film festival is deemed to be an extraterritorial location, free from any state’s laws, then the consequences could be dangerous. Would the same argument be being made if a respected director had killed someone at a film festival?

“The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one can know the effects.” (The petition.)
Translation – Switzerland’s neutral! It has been since World War 2!
Why is this wrong? International relationships are far more complex than that. Germany’s not a fascist state any more, why does Switzerland necessarily have to be neutral on every matter that comes before it?

“His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.” (The petition.)
Translation – Unlawful sex with a minor and fleeing sentencing is not a case of law.
Why is this wrong? I don’t think I even need to explain why.

“But in the case of Roman Polanski, anyone who’s bothered to follow the history of his case in any detail is likely to conclude that (a) he’s already paid a great deal for his crime…” (Jonathon Rosenbaum)
Translation – Roman Polanski has already paid a great deal for his crime.
Why is this wrong? Roman Polanski spent 42 days in prison being evaluated. A few weeks later, he fled America. Since then, he has started a family, he has made award-winning films, and he has become rich and successful. Apparently, this constitutes ‘paying a great deal’ for raping a child (as the evidence very heavily points to).

“(b) the interests of journalism and the entertainment industry in this matter usually have a lot more to do with puritanical hysteria and exploitation than any impartial pursuit of justice.” (Rosenbaum)
Translation – We want him arrested because we’re mad about punishing people who rape children, rather than any impartial pursuit of justice.
Why is this wrong? Funnily enough, punishing people who rape children is kind of in pursuit of justice.

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape.” (Whoopi Goldberg)
Translation – Pretty much speaks for itself.
Why is this wrong? The victim’s testimony is why it’s wrong. If what Samantha Geimer related to the jury in that witness stand is not rape-rape, I do not know what is.

“"We're a different kind of society, we see things differently ... would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.” (Goldberg)
Translation – Europeans have sex with children all the time. Also, I don’t like that my 15-year-old daughter got pregnant.
Why is this wrong? I think you know why.

One of Polanski's stoutest supporters, Whoopi Goldberg.

“Whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.” (Harvey Weinstein)
Translation – What Polanski did was not really a crime.
Why is this wrong? Again, the victim’s testimony is why it’s wrong.

“The theory going around is that the reason Switzerland cooperated and acted on a longstanding extradition order with the United States this time was because of their own troubles in the financial crisis.” (Weinstein)
Translation – Really, the Swiss aren’t in this for justice.
Why is this wrong? The USA is in this for justice. Which is why an international arrest warrant was issued.

“It is a shocking way to treat such a man. Polanski went through the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family.” (Weinstein)
Translation – Polanski’s life has been full of tragedy, so he gets one free rape.
Why is this wrong? You may notice my writing is getting angrier and angrier. That’s because I’m getting angrier and angrier. No matter how much turmoil you’ve been through in your life, no matter if you’ve survived the Holocaust and your wife has been murdered, you do not get a free pass. Furthermore, the rape occurred in 1977, a full eight years after Tate’s murder, and Polanski groomed Geimer before sexually violating her three separate times – not the behaviour of a distraught man caught up in the tragedies of his life.

“In those circumstances, most people could not contribute to art and make the kind of beautiful movies he continues to make.”
(Weinstein)
Translation – Polanski came back from tragedy to make beautiful films.
Why is this wrong? Because being a good artist is not a justification for having your hands washed of any crime.

If the above indicates anything, it’s that many still have a hard time separating the artist and the art. Picasso abused his son. Wagner was a vicious anti-semite. Riefenstahl was an unabashed fascist. Yet we do not deplore their art – we celebrate Guernica, The Ring of the Nibelung, Triumph of the Will. Likewise, we do not hold those people up as paragons of society because of their art – they may have been geniuses, yes, but surely Harvey Weinstein would agree that Wagner was still an ugly human being.

However, the distinction is not being made here. Polanski may have made The Tenant, Repulsion, Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown and The Pianist – but that does not change the fact that he raped a young girl, knowing she was 13. That does not change the fact that he skipped the country and fled punishment the moment he felt he was about to get a harsher sentence than he had wrangled for. That does not change the fact that he has escaped justice for thirty years. He could have made a brilliant film each year, every year, from 1980 until now, and it would still not change these facts. Polanski has lived a tragic life, yes; Polanski is an award-winning filmmaker, yes – but neither of these things justify washing his hands of his crime.

Perhaps the best argument for Polanski’s release is the victim’s wishes. Samantha Geimer has gone on the record saying she forgives Polanski and does not wish to see him go to trial, and her wishes should undoubtedly be taken into account – at Polanski’s sentencing. I take this because the case is not Geimer v Polanski; it’s the People of California v Polanski. When one commits a felony such as perverting the course of justice or unlawful sex with a minor, the case is not isolated to the victim and the offender. Child rape, statutory or otherwise, is a societal harm, and there are more important matters at play here than just Geimer’s wishes, as callous as it may sound. It sets a bad precedent for future rape cases, as victims can easily be pressured to ‘forgive’ their rapists in order to get them lighter sentences; and it sends the message to offenders that if they can avoid justice long enough for their victim, tired of not having closure, to ‘forgive’ them, then they’re home free. Much more is at play here than Polanski and Geimer, even if the case is primarily about those two.

At the end of the day, whether justice is served is reliant on Switzerland. Paperwork must be done, the Swiss must decide whether to extradite, and appeals must be heard against the extradition order. There’s a long way to go yet before Polanski gets to Los Angeles, if he gets to Los Angeles at all. But one thing is clear – none of this would be in question if Roman Polanski was not Roman Polanski. There exists a strange and disturbing disconnect in the debate surrounding this case, because those against Polanski’s arrest would not be anywhere near this loud if Polanski were not an award-winning film-maker. Were Polanski a salesman, a janitor, a teacher, or a priest, those same people who are calling for his freedom now would be calling for his incarceration. It raises questions that are hard to answer – questions about the nature of celebrity, questions about the nature of art, and, when one takes into account the influence of Marina Zenovich’s documentary on the case’s current state, questions about the effect of film in cases such as these. One thing is for sure – justice can only be served if everyone takes off the rose-tinted glasses, stops treating Polanski as Polanski the auteur, and starts treating Polanski as Polanski the human being. Only then can things proceed in the manner they should.