The Roman Polanski Case
Introduction
My admiration for John Dewey, pragmatist, and Ludwig von Wittgenstein, logician, rests on their absolute devotion to facts. Dewey, the pragmatist, worked back from ends; Wittgenstein, the logician-metaphysician, restricted himself to beginnings. They separated sense from nonsense, and exposed false propositions to open up space for truth and reason.
I consider myself a pragmatist, perhaps because I am not gifted enough for Wittgenstein's work. As William James astutely explained, all that pragmatism requires is the discipline to look at results of actions and be willing to step-by-step work through the intervening process. The focus is always on the facts. If my academic field, strategy, were to look for a home within philosophy, pragmatism would be its proper residence.
Now then to the Roman Polanski case, which, predictably, has become a media circus in which various interest groups have chosen to defend or criticize Mr. Polanski. The loudest voices would like us to believe that he is either a victim of life's circumstances and American injustice or he is filthy, sick pederast who should be put away forever. Each position depends on selecting a specific part of the story and spinning out a web of meaning that, in turn, rests primarily on their respective desire either to free or punish Mr. Polanski. These desires care neither for the facts of the case nor for the larger import of Mr. Polanski's actions.
In our examination of the case, we will first describe the disparate, mostly ill-conceived, reactions to Roman Polanski's arrest in Zurich September 26th. We then turn to the facts -- i.e., the legal case against Mr. Polanski in 1997. We set out, as well, the case against the American justice system. With this evidence in hand, we look at the plea bargain and the actual punishment that the accused received. Finally, we evaluate the choices made by Mr. Polanski, the extent of his responsibility for his actions and their impact on others. On this last point, Dewey is quite clear. Ethics and empirical inquiry go together. We judge behavior not based some abstract or a priori universal principle but on the effects of human conduct on others and on the future well-being of society.
The Arrest and Public Reaction
As we all know, Roman Polanski, a French citizen, was arrested in Zurich September 26th on a 32 year old U.S. warrant. Support for Polanski in France was instantaneous. The French minister of Culture and Communication, Frédéric Mitterrand, was adamant: "a film-maker of international dimension .... thrown to the lions for an old story which doesn't make much sense, imprisoned while traveling to an event that was intending to honor him: caught, in short, in a trap, is absolutely dreadful". Mitterand called Polanski "a wonderful man"; about America, he said, there is "a generous America that we love, and a certain America that frightens us. It's that America that has just shown its face." (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926508,00.html)
French artists were also quick to support Polanski. Le Figaro lead with "Les artistes se mobilisent pour la libération de Polanski", reporting that famous director, actors, as key institutions such as the Cinémathèque Française, le Festival de Cannes, la Société des auteurs compositeurs dramatiques (SACD), l'ARP (Auteurs, réalisateurs et producteurs) had signed a petition calling on the Swiss to free Polanski immediately.
In the United States, Variety reported that “The French entertainment industry org Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques claimed that more than 100 filmmakers, writers and thesps -- including Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, Darren Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, Jonathan Demme, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Pedro Almodovar, Wim Wenders, Tilda Swinton and Tom Tykwer -- had signed a petition demanding that Polanski be freed.” (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009308.html?categoryid=3745&cs=1).
Following this initial outpouring of sympathy for Polanksi, responses have become more guarded. The Directors Guild of America, a key institution in the U.S., has refused comment, as have other U.S. institutions. And in France, public opinion has been negative.
In addition, among French filmmakers, one prominent voice has spoke out against Mr. Polanski is Luc Besson, who works frequently in the U.S. and is best-known for "The Fifth Element" and the blockbuster Transporter series and Arthur and the Invisibles. If these works were the sum total of Mr. Besson's accomplishments, he might be simply dismissed as pro-American. However, in the mid-80's, Mr. Besson was a highly-regarded "independent" "serious" writer-directo, winning Cesar Awards for "Subway" and "The Big Blue". Within the French film industry, Besson is both respected and disliked for his crossover success with French "art" films and American "mass market garbage". Besson commented:
“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit,” Mr. Besson said in a radio interview with RTL Soir. “Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen.” He added, “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.” (http://www.liberation.fr/culture/0101594034-luc-besson-la-justice-doit-etre-la-meme-pour-tour-lemonde) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html?hp)
Today, September 30th, four days into the crisis, the French media report that opinion on the case in France is divided. "The French intellectual elite" (not my term) support Polanski. French politicians divided between themselves with the left pro-Polanski and the right who want to go after "the pederast" (Le Pen's term, not mine). The French public, Le Figaro reports, is rather more anti than pro, stoked up by Le Pen and others of his ilk.
As is to be expected, among those with firm opinions on the case very few have actually read the legal document the case rests on. To this, we now go.
The Legal Case Against Mr. Polanski
The facts of the case (Case No: A334139, People of the State of California, Plantiff, vs. Roman Polanski, Defendant) as set out by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office on January 6th, 2009, depict a premeditated rape of a 13 year old girl by the defendent, Roman Polanski, then 43. You may read the case yourself. The Deputy District Attorney David Walgren's filing in response to Mr. Polanski's motion to dismiss on-line at http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:eLwiW0Zzv54J:hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/0106polanski_motion.pdf+david+walgren+january+6+AP+motion+filed&hl=es&sig=AFQjCNEa_ldG3qY8gRPBttzClkFHB7DoBQ
Having read the case, I have little doubt that Mr. Polanski raped the victim, Samantha Greimer. Ms. Greimer, who has publically asked that the case against Mr. Polanski be dismissed, confirmed her testimony in a 2003 interview with ABC television. Mr. Polanksi has admitted that what he did was wrong, but has stuck to his story of consentual sex with a minor.
The Case Against the American Justice system
The handling of the case by the Los Angeles Police Department (L.A.P.D.) and the D.A.'s office appear to have been less than exemplary. The plea bargain between the D.A.'s office and Mr. Polanski's attorneys, recommended a 90-day psychiatric observation, after which time the defendant would be freed. However, following a 42-day psychaitric observation in Chino prison hospital, Polanski was released only to learn that Judge Lawrence Rittenband, in charge of sentencing, was planning to send Mr. Polanski to a prison term.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Polanski fled the United States. Mr. Polanski’s unpleasant experience with American justice was subject of, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired", a HBO documentary aired in 2008.
During the three decades years that Mr. Polanski was a fugitive, the L.A. District Attorney's Office made several unsuccessful attempts to arrest him. Nonetheless, why they moved now in Zurich is unclear, though the D.A.'s Office insists that they would have acted earlier had there been the right opportunity and has provided a timeline of their efforts to detain Mr. Polanski.
In sum, it seems clear that Mr. Polanski was subject to capricious, and possibly unfair, treatment by the California criminal justice system. During these last 32 years, Mr. Polanski has sought to have the charges dismissed on several occasions.
Crime and Punishment
Mr. Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. He was never tried for that crime. Instead, via a plea bargain, he was convicted of having sex with a minor, and served 42 days in a prison psychiatric ward.
I have long opposed plea bargaining in criminal cases, as it institutionalizes dishonesty within the justice system. Like Mr. Polanski, men and women are asked to plead guilty for lesser crimes in exchange for not be charged for greater crimes; often the lesser crime is simply an invention. Without plea bargaing, Mr. Polanski would have been tried for rape and either convicted or declared innocent.
Plea bargaining became standard procedure in the U.S. during the high-crime 1960's. Considered a "necessary evil" in the U.S., plea bargaining is banned in many countries. Nonetheless, several European countries, among them France, have experimented with plea bargaining for the same reasons as U.S. -- relieve court overloading and battle organized crime. Justice, it turns out, is an expensive exercise in freedom.
And What About Mr. Polanski?
The arguments that have been made on Mr. Polanski's behalf mix the following elements:
1. 32 years have passed.
2. Mr. Polanski has suffered terribly (I will not recount the murder of Sharon Tate or Mr. Polanksi horrific childhood).
3. Judge Rittenband was using the Polanski case to make himself famous.
4. The entire case was marked by violations of due process, and there is no reason to believe that if Mr. Polanski returned to the U.S. that he would be treated fairly.
5. The victim has asked that the case be dismissed.
All these statements are true. Now we must answer the question of whether they are exculpatory.
Let us begin with the fifth reason. The charges against Mr. Polanski were brought by the "People of the State of California” not Ms. Geimer. We are, collectively, victims of any criminal act. Rape is a special and exceptional example of why this is so. Every time a girl or woman is raped, the freedom of every girl and every woman is aggrieved. Every time a girl or woman is raped, the freedom of men and women to interact without fear is diminished. The sexual act – private, intimate, vulnerable, glorious and sacred – is estranged from us and our collective humanity is thereby diminished as well. Ms. Geimer’s continued distress merits our concern and sympathy; however, insuring that rapists are properly brought to trial, prosecuted and convicted is of greater weight.
The fourth reason – due process violations – is a serious issue. There is, however, legal recourse. This legal recourse must be effective. The complaint that the U.S. legal system does not guarantee due process is a serious charge that, too often, is true. It is also true that the French, Italian, German, British, etc. suffer from serious flaws in their due process. It is debatable whether the U.S. system is worse than others in the developed world. As I argued in my opposition to plea bargaining. Justice is expensive. In a free, open, and complex society, justice will always be expensive. We all need to pay up.
The third reason, Judge Rittenband’s motivations are part of the due process argument and do not require additional explanation.
Reasons one and two can be handled together. Personal suffering is never a justification for causing harm to others. Having fled, Mr. Polanski is responsible for the time that has passed, not the California courts. Nonetheless, the elapsed time and who Mr. Polanski is today (suffering included) do affect what happens now. These questions, I would argue, are the province of the California courts and should be decided accordingly. My recommendation is that Mr. Polanski be extradited to California where the prosecution and the defense will present their respective arguments. This time, with the whole world watching, we expect due process to be awarded greater respect than it was last time.
Finally, the renewed suffering of Ms. Geimer and her family, as well as the pain felt by Mr. Polanski’s wife and their two children, are the responsibility of Mr. Polanski alone. Unlike the suffering inflicted on Mr. Polanski by the psychopathology of the Nazis and the Manson sect, the pain of the Geimer family and Mr. Polanski’s family are the product of Roman Polanski’s will, desires, and choices. The curious title of the 2008 documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” was meant to refer to his being “wanted” by the law in America, and “desired” as an artistic and cultural icon in France. The sad truth is that Mr. Polanski is wanted in America because of his own desires. As is true of all men and women, Mr. Polanski is a machine for producing desires, both good and bad. We choose. Mr. Polanski chose. He made the wrong choices.
In criticizing Mr. Polanski, Mr. Besson made a choice as well. No doubt, he understood that his statement would radically change his relationship to Polanski, and the relationship between their daughters. The French film community will see Mr. Besson differently, and there will, most likely, be events at which the two men coincide. Further choices will be made. Ethical maturity, Dewey argued, is the result of reflexity about the choices we have made. It is, perhaps, not just an bizarre coincidence that in Besson's 1994 film, The Professional, that when the 12 year old heroine, played by Natalie Portman, asks a much older man to be her first lover, he politely refuses.