6 ms·

Whenever discussing Polanski's late career and the acclaim or scorn he has received, it must be mentioned that the girl in question has (later, when she grew up

Whenever discussing Polanski's late career and the acclaim or scorn he has received, it must be mentioned that the girl in question has (later, when she grew up) expressed that she does not wish that Polanski be prosecuted or further punished by the industry.

draw_down 6y ago
Yep, nobody wants to talk about that. She even has gone further, and denounced the people who wish to use her trauma to score political points. Nobody cares -- her trauma is important only insofar as it is useful to them. They think it belongs to them, not her.
ohashi 6y ago
He still raped a 13 year old. Why is anyone trying to defend or excuse his behavior? I don't care if Jesus came back from the dead and forgave him, it's still not OK.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  May I also add it's very common for victims of this type of abuse to make statements like that, particularly if they are abused as children. A sort of Stockholm syndrome takes hold and they begin to empathize with their rapist and feel bad that they face punishment for their crimes. Don't take that statement as a report on his innocence but rather a compliment to his well practiced grooming skills, if anything its evidence that this probably wasn't the first time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    I urge you to read her own remarks. She does not sympathize with Polanski, and she would not feel bad about whatever he experiences. But she finds it an act of violence against her, an opening of the wound afresh, when third parties opine on the case.
- ta_dau 6y ago
  Yeah, like: Raping is bad. If you rape anyone you deserve to rot in jail. But drugging someone to rape them is particularly vile. But not only did he drugged and raped a woman, that woman was not a woman but a girl. A 13 year old one. For the life of me I can't understand how people defend this guy. I mean, all his pedo rapist friends in the entertainment industry obviously wouldn't be too hard on him, but everyone else. Also, did anyone ever ask Jack Nicholson how an unaccompanied minor got into his party?
trhway 6y ago
you miss the important aspect here - her opinion of the situation is formed after having been traumatized and as such may be the direct result of the trauma. I'm not a psychologist, and it is just my layman understanding that treating a traumatic event as less serious than it really was is one of the coping machinery of our brain. Basically the perpetrator, among everything else, may have damaged the victim's ability to evaluate such crimes and situations in the way that untraumatized people would evaluate it. There is a reason why "the people" prosecute such crimes without much regard for the victim's opinion.
skissane 6y ago
> the girl in question has (later, when she grew up) expressed that she does not wish that Polanski be prosecuted or further punished by the industry. I think Samantha Geimer has been doubly victimised – first by Polanski, then by a legal system which cares more about itself than about the interests and wishes of the victims it is supposed to protect. I think Geimer feels, that as Polanski's victim, she should have some say – some power over – what happens to Polanski. But society doesn't want to give her that power. Polanski made her powerless then, and the system makes her powerless now. And when she complains about the system making her powerless, people misinterpret that as either some defence of what Polanski did to her (which she doesn't agree with and wishes never happened), or start (horribly unfairly and cruelly) dismissing what she has to say as the result of "Stockholm syndrome" or "grooming". https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer-roman-polanski-unlawful-sex-email https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer...
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly. (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)
  - skissane 6y ago
    > I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly The state holds a monopoly. All the victim gets, is the right to be consulted by the prosecution, but the prosecution is free to ignore the victim's opinion, as they have done repeatedly in this case. Geimer asked the courts to drop the case, because she was sick of the whole thing and wants it to go away. The court refused, because it isn't about her, she's just the victim: https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa > (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.) The case in question is only about what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer, not about what Roman Polanski did to other people. Indeed, other women have said that Polanski abused them (Valentine Monnier, Charlotte Lewis, Renate Langer, Marianne Barnard). But, this prosecution is only about what Polanski did to Geimer, which I think means Geimer's wishes ought to be respected by the prosecution. If Polanski were to be prosecuted for what he did to one of his other victims, Geimer would have no say in that, and she wouldn't claim she is entitled to any.

draw_down 6y ago

Yep, nobody wants to talk about that. She even has gone further, and denounced the people who wish to use her trauma to score political points. Nobody cares -- her trauma is important only insofar as it is useful to them. They think it belongs to them, not her.

ohashi 6y ago

He still raped a 13 year old. Why is anyone trying to defend or excuse his behavior? I don't care if Jesus came back from the dead and forgave him, it's still not OK.

willcipriano 6y ago
May I also add it's very common for victims of this type of abuse to make statements like that, particularly if they are abused as children. A sort of Stockholm syndrome takes hold and they begin to empathize with their rapist and feel bad that they face punishment for their crimes. Don't take that statement as a report on his innocence but rather a compliment to his well practiced grooming skills, if anything its evidence that this probably wasn't the first time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  I urge you to read her own remarks. She does not sympathize with Polanski, and she would not feel bad about whatever he experiences. But she finds it an act of violence against her, an opening of the wound afresh, when third parties opine on the case.
ta_dau 6y ago
Yeah, like: Raping is bad. If you rape anyone you deserve to rot in jail. But drugging someone to rape them is particularly vile. But not only did he drugged and raped a woman, that woman was not a woman but a girl. A 13 year old one. For the life of me I can't understand how people defend this guy. I mean, all his pedo rapist friends in the entertainment industry obviously wouldn't be too hard on him, but everyone else. Also, did anyone ever ask Jack Nicholson how an unaccompanied minor got into his party?

trhway 6y ago

you miss the important aspect here - her opinion of the situation is formed after having been traumatized and as such may be the direct result of the trauma. I'm not a psychologist, and it is just my layman understanding that treating a traumatic event as less serious than it really was is one of the coping machinery of our brain. Basically the perpetrator, among everything else, may have damaged the victim's ability to evaluate such crimes and situations in the way that untraumatized people would evaluate it. There is a reason why "the people" prosecute such crimes without much regard for the victim's opinion.

skissane 6y ago

> the girl in question has (later, when she grew up) expressed that she does not wish that Polanski be prosecuted or further punished by the industry. I think Samantha Geimer has been doubly victimised – first by Polanski, then by a legal system which cares more about itself than about the interests and wishes of the victims it is supposed to protect. I think Geimer feels, that as Polanski's victim, she should have some say – some power over – what happens to Polanski. But society doesn't want to give her that power. Polanski made her powerless then, and the system makes her powerless now. And when she complains about the system making her powerless, people misinterpret that as either some defence of what Polanski did to her (which she doesn't agree with and wishes never happened), or start (horribly unfairly and cruelly) dismissing what she has to say as the result of "Stockholm syndrome" or "grooming". https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer-roman-polanski-unlawful-sex-email https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/18/samantha-geimer...

sokoloff 6y ago
I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly. (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)
- skissane 6y ago
  > I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly The state holds a monopoly. All the victim gets, is the right to be consulted by the prosecution, but the prosecution is free to ignore the victim's opinion, as they have done repeatedly in this case. Geimer asked the courts to drop the case, because she was sick of the whole thing and wants it to go away. The court refused, because it isn't about her, she's just the victim: https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa > (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.) The case in question is only about what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer, not about what Roman Polanski did to other people. Indeed, other women have said that Polanski abused them (Valentine Monnier, Charlotte Lewis, Renate Langer, Marianne Barnard). But, this prosecution is only about what Polanski did to Geimer, which I think means Geimer's wishes ought to be respected by the prosecution. If Polanski were to be prosecuted for what he did to one of his other victims, Geimer would have no say in that, and she wouldn't claim she is entitled to any.