OK, where to start?  Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist.  He plead guilty to Unlawful Sexual Intercourse which was sex with a woman, other than his wife, under the age of 18.  He admitted he knew she was 13 at the time of the assault.  He admitted guilt to "a felony sex offense involving a child under the age of 14...."  He skipped town prior to his hearing on whether or not he is a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender.  I wonder why.  The purpose of that evaluation was to determine if he was a danger to himself or others. 

And the plea deal was taken at the request of the victim's family who didn't want to put their daughter on the stand.  And taken by Polanski because he was accused of making kiddie porn, drugging, and forcibly raping both vaginally and anally a 13 year old child.  By getting rid of the aggravating circumstances and only pleading to statutory rape, he only faced 20 years in prison and/or more in a mental hospital and/or probation.  Polanski did not one day of incarceration for his crime.  He was in jail pending the outcome of his trial.  He fled the country prior to his sentencing.

Now comes Whoopie Goldberg saying he doesn't deserve to be punished because it wasn't "rape-rape" it was only rape.




So she's a spokesperson for Toys'r'us.  They describe her as a child "advocate."  What is she advocating?  Sexual assault of little girls?


In case you can't read it:


And inside the flier:


Maybe Whoopie actually thinks the 13 year old seduced Polanski into giving her Quaaludes and then ass raping her, thereby achieving a personal goal!

Look, Whoopie can think whatever she wants, and say whatever she wants.  But the confession was for rape, and the accusation was for "rape-rape."  Toys'r'us has the First Amendment right as well, and should exercise it in this case to say "You're fired."

Roman Polanski needs to come back to the US to face justice.  Justice deferred is justice denied.  He needs to rot in jail until dead in my opinion.  Give him the 20 he should have gotten prior to his fleeing the country, then give him 20 more for running away.

Now before I get a bunch of comments disagreeing, I think I can address most of the Polanski apologists.

If you say:	I reply:
Roman has suffered enough.	Living life as a free man and being treated like royalty in Paris isn't suffering at all.
Roman was mourning the loss of his wife and unborn child by the Manson "Family."	A tragedy in your life does not give license to commit crimes against others.  By that logic, a bad day at work should get you a get out of jail free card for shoplifting.
There are people guilty of worse who got off scot-free.	Are you suggesting we shouldn't even try to punish people because others have gotten away with the same crime?  Polanski was convicted and fled the country.  By this logic, Charlie Manson shouldn't be in prison because worse crimes have occurred with less punishment.
Roman is an old man now, just let him go.	If he had faced his punishment when it was due, he'd be a free man by now.  Should we let serial-killing mobster Whitey Bulger free just because he's been running from the law for a decade?  He is America's Most Wanted.
The victim wants to just let it go, why shouldn't we?	Because the case is "The People of the State of California" not one person in the State of California.  Criminal trials are for crimes against society.  Civil trials are for crimes against individuals.  This is so rich folks can't just pay money while poor folks go to jail.
We'll be punishing Roman's family.	Maybe he should have thought about that before he started a new family.  Perhaps his wife should have thought about the fact he was a wanted fugitive before marrying him and bearing his children.
He's an artist and artists do crazy thing.	Would you say that about plumbers?  What if longshormen or insurance agents were allowed to drug and rape little girls?
Her parents should have kept her out of that house.	I agree, but it doesn't absolve the blame from Roman Polanski.  It's the traditional rape defense, "She was asking for it."  Yeah, right, she was 13.  If she'd been struck by a drunk driver instead, would you say "Her parents shouldn't have let her walk to the store?"
The age of consent laws are wrong.	Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.  There needs to be some age, and in California at the time 18 was the magic number.  If you advocate 13, I ask why not 11?  Plus, she didn't consent.
Roman didn't know she was 13.  One witness said she could have been any age up to 25.	Polanski admitted in court he knew she was 13.