dirac

Thanks for the reports on 'Clavigo,' everyone. I'll have to check it out on video. Yes. Dancers who turn and turn and turn and grin and grin and grin.

I should note my earlier mention of statutes of limitations was not truly relevant here, as this was not an uncharged crime. As far as I know there is no statute of limitations on the issue of Polanski’s conviction and flight – he’s a fugitive avoiding extradition, he can be picked up for that and the extradition request is perfectly valid and reasonable, legally speaking. Cuts both ways. The hole digger wouldn’t have had the connections and wherewithal to skip to France and wouldn’t have had the deep pockets to keep high powered lawyers on the payroll. It is possible he would have gotten a plea agreement, given the high bar that rape victims were forced to jump back in those days, but he wouldn’t have had the level of legal representation available to Polanski to help him obtain it. From what I understand, however, the U.S. is notoriously uncooperative when extradition requests are on the other foot......

Leonid & dirac, I didn't say it should be forgiven, I said in my posts above it was a heartless, unforgivable act that the weaker person carries with him or her the rest of their lives, that the subtleties of rape being discussed were a bit too much, that Polanski should be punished, he should serve real time in a prison cell -- (no mobile phones, no deal making from prison) and he should live to get out and live a chastised afterlife. But this shouldn't be compared to Pinochet who had thousands of students dropped from airplanes into an estuary and caused lifetime heartbreaks for their families (and Kissinger said he wasn't doing enough!). Jack Abbott I believe was the American writer who was released from prison on the recommendation of Norman Mailer and others. A friend of mine came across the body of the man he had just killed early one morning on east 5th or 6th, lying surreally outside a cafe ... Quiggin, I was about to amend my last post addressing leonid to point out that you had not asked for 'forgiveness' and would have done so had you not beaten me to it.

leonid, I think Quiggin has already made a reasonable point clearly enough. Let's not flog a dead horse.

An article on the current state of the English department. Thoughts? I would be interested to hear the opinions of any BTers who’ve had any (relatively) recent experience in the humanities department or are currently studying literature and related subjects - or who might have chosen to do so but elected not to. Older BTers with recollections of English departments of the past are also welcome to chime in.

Thank you for those links, cubanmiamiboy. I hope someone at BT can attend and tell us about it.

abatt, thanks for posting. There are articles and posts earlier in this thread that have explored the question. It seems to have been a variety of changing laws and facts on the ground that created a sort of perfect storm situation. Quiggin, it's rare for me to disagree with you on anything, but I have to say I don't have any problem with bringing Polanski back to face the punishment he skipped the country to avoid. If they can deal with it in Switzerland, fine. If not, that's okay, too, although I have no more stomach for the spectacle than you do. Is he Pinochet or Eichmann? No, of course not. But Polanski's crime is considered serious enough as a legal matter for statutes of limitations to be waived, and as E Johnson pointed out usefully earlier in the thread, it's not the first time someone has been nicked after a long period on the lam, although people as rich and influential as Polanski generally manage to get the business dealt with before it reaches the proportions attained by this case. If there's a circus, I fear Polanski has only himself and his lawyers to blame. (I don't think he will ever wind up back here in the States, however.) Polanski hires a friend of the Attorney General. I'll bet Holder is thrilled.

, I'll say. Hugo may have mentioned something about Valjean's chalet in Gstaad, but perhaps I missed it.

Ed, did you ever see it?

The draconian nature of some of the new laws is certainly disturbing. There does seem to be a certain tone-deafness in some of the reactions coming from the ranks of the politically and artistically prominent, and not only Americans. Not only do many seem unfamiliar with or indifferent to the details of the case, but they give a strong impression of coming forward to the aid of a fellow member of an exclusive club whose manners and mores cannot be comprehended by the great unwashed.

Thank you for posting, Patrick. A quote from the obituary:

It's like the Perils of Pauline. 'Perils of Tosca'?

Please let's keep to the topic of this specific matter. We've been doing a good job on this thread so far. Let's keep it up. Thanks.

Thanks, Nanarina. Have others seen the production?

I think we have had sufficient exegesis of the meaning of 'brutal' in this context and would like to request that it end here. Thanks to all.

Let's keep blue and red state politics out of this discussion, please. You are certainly correct that the laws concerning statutory rape have on occasion been misapplied, Sandy, but it is doubtful that this is one of those cases. What the girl described is in fact rape by any definition of the term. As far as I know, no one, including Polanski's most fervent defenders, has ever suggested that she was lying under oath or brought her account into serious question. I think kfw's use of the word 'brutal' was accurate, given the details which the girl provided and which have not been disputed, and not carelessly chosen. Regarding Polanski's plea deal, the laws back then placed a much higher burden on the accuser in such cases, and Polanski's attorneys had made it very clear that they intended to explore the girl's sexual history and follow every such avenue, as lawyers will do, of course. Update in The Los Angeles Times: Related.

The It's-been-32-years argument cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? For 32 years he's been evading punishment for a brutal rape (Salon had the details yesterday) of a 13-year old girl. I don't know if he can be sentenced for evasion or not, but that's 32 years of ethical, if not legal, misconduct. I'd be curious too, Quiggin. Apparently Polanski's side has been driving recent events, as articles posted earlier suggest, by trying to get the case thrown out without Polanski having to show up, and it is possible to question the wisdom of poking the DA with a stick like that ("Hey! You're not chasing him hard enough! We think you're covering something up!") regardless of what you consider to be the merits of your argument. It does cut both ways, potentially. There is an argument that as a rule fugitives should receive a harsher, not lesser, degree of punishment because in addition to the original offense they have flouted the law by taking off.

Good or bad, it's publicity.

In this case much of the relevant information is in the public domain. There is no such thing as a perfectly cut-and-dried case but there are plenty of known facts out there for intelligent discussion. Thanks to sunday and others for posting more articles, and thanks to everyone who's posted so far!

I'd like to thank you all for keeping the tone civil and avoiding the personal on what is potentially a very contentious topic.

Polanski has been pretty careful over the years in avoiding countries that might extradite him. I suspect he became complacent about Switzerland, but the US-Swiss relationship has of late been tenser than usual over tax issues. Probably the recent activities of Polanski's own lawyers and supporters to get a deal cut have been hurting him more than helping him. (Also, when people are reminded of what Polanski actually did, there is a tendency on the part of many not to feel terribly sorry for him. At the time of the initial charges Polanski also made some remarks that could politely be described as ill-advised – he's never done much to help his own cause.) Very true. (Edited to add: I was posting at about the same time as you, kfw, but you make good points.)

Q&A with Campion from The Onion's A.V. Club.

We should avoid personal remarks such as the foregoing, which suggest that the addressee is lacking in sensitivities possessed by the person posting such comments. I take your point that there have been worse crimes, Sandy, but it was still a crime. Polanski’s victim has indicated a desire to move on, for various reasons, but there is a reason why charges are brought in the name of the people or the state and not individuals – because such behavior is a crime against society and not just one person. In other words, her views on how the state should handle the case are in a sense irrelevant.

You've summed up the matter succinctly enough, IMO. It will be interesting to see if he's actually extradited.

More .