Polanski etc

Geraldine Ferraro was the Democrat Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1984. Recently, she wrote:

Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70’s. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything … or wait — is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot “forgive” the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.

Ferraro led off her comment piece this way:

“A male is guilty of rape in the second degree when, being eighteen years old or more, he engages in sexual intercourse with a female less than fifteen years old. Rape in the second degree is a class D felony.”

That is the current law in New York. When I was prosecuting these cases in Queens in the 70’s the law required that the child be less than 14. The legislature tightened it. But there is no doubt that California had the same protections for children when Polanski was prosecuted in California for having intercourse with a 13-year-old girl. It still does.

This isn't the usual type of topic for this blog, but two weeks ago I went to work. It was a normal day. I took a bit of a different route, got on a streetcar, and picked up one of those free newspapers.

There was a story on the first page about a 10-year-old who had been sexually assaulted. Someone had been arrested. There was a photograph.

"Merde," I thought. I know that guy.

His case is now before the courts. One can presume innocence, but it's hard. It messes one up.

Quick on the heels of this, Polanski was re-arrested. His case is international.

I hadn't realized that once upon a time, he'd pled guilty. And I'm uncertain what to make of most of the commentary. The New York Times blog debate, for example, that the Ferraro quotation is lifted from, began by posing this:

While it’s clear that the film industry forgave Mr. Polanski long ago, should society separate the work of artists from the artists themselves, despite evidence of reprehensible or even criminal behavior?

This strikes me as the wrong question at the wrong time. His re-arrest isn't about his art; it's about criminal acts he pled guilty to three decades ago.

At the same time, Polanski has unanswered legal questions that he'd like to see answered by the California courts.

Thirty-one years after his confessed criminal acts, due process has not unfolded.

If he had Michael Bryant's PR firm (and is it a stretch to say the ex-AG's integrity?), he would return to California voluntarily and let the process complete itself, fighting vigorously for his freedom, as he has every right to do.

Should we separate the work of artists from the artists themselves? Yes, of course.

But you don't get a pass on criminal action because you're an artist on the scale of Roman Polanski, or on the scale of the other dude.

The work can be assessed and reassessed over decades or centuries. But as individuals, we live in real time, and are accountable for our actions.

For the past three years, I've been tinkering away on a novel, and the justice system is a key element. The protagonist is a judge. He's old, weathered, tired, but he still retains his ideals. He believes in justice, but also that justice is flawed.

When I think about the justice system these days, I often find myself looking at it through the eyes of my protagonist. Or at least asking, "What would the judge think?"

About Polanski and the other newly accused he would think, let's test the evidence. Bring it forward and test it against the rules of the law. Do not try to win freedom through evasion. Be honest, steady and true.

Likewise, he would say that art based on lies is not good art. But art that tests the boundaries of truth may well be excellent.

He would say, "At the end of the day, a decision must be rendered."

Justice can be mean, cruel, and over-simplified. Or even just plain wrong (setting free O.J., for example). But within its boundaries, its systems of signs and laws, it imposes meaning. Art is a constantly shifting conflict of floating, destabilizing signifiers.

Art is about complicating meaning; the law is about clarifying it.

Do I have a point here? I wish I did.

Maybe it's: If you did the crime, you must do the time.

When in doubt, resort to cliche.

I keep seeing that headline about the 10-year-old girl. It makes me retch.

A police source said the victim was alone in the laundry room of a building shortly after the dinner hour Monday when she was allegedly taken into a stairwell.

"She fought tooth and nail as he tried to cover her mouth," a source said. "She put up quite the struggle."

I confess to wondering if it isn't all a misunderstanding. But the reporting so far points to other conclusions. I have met him and enjoyed talking to him, but I fear I don't know him.

The judge would say, that is what the justice system is there for. To sort shit like this out.

http://thenewcanlit.blogspot.com