because it has compassion.... We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.” So says studio co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, as quoted by the L.A. Times. Well, all right then. From now, I’ll just defer to the movie industry for all my moral judgments. Because, you know, all those telethons.
Thanks to Patterico and InstaPundit for the pointer.
Crunchy Frog says:
Why am I not seeing any compassion for the then-13 year old girl that was raped?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 9:59 amGabriel McCall says:
Charity begins at home.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:02 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Damn straight. How many telethons has the Pope done?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:04 amDotar Sojat says:
Sheesh
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:07 amOren says:
For all Hollywood’s failures, at least they were out ahead of the rest of the nation on our irrational hatred/fear of homosexuality.
FWIW, I think the Polanski thing revolves around the fact that HW is a small place and that animus from the wrong people can quickly turn into career death. It’s absolutely shameful.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:07 amloki13 says:
Long version:
I think many people in the arts who succeed have to have a strong ego. A strong sense of self. A strong belief that *they* matter, and that *they* are good enough, smart enough, and doggone, people like them.
Short version:
*puke*
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:08 amR Gould-Saltman says:
OK, I’m trying to find the actual “interview”, so I can see in what, if any, context, Weinstein made this claim, in rtesponse to what sort of question, and whether it’s in fact as totally nut-job as it sounds.
The LA Times simply says “an interview”; it doesn’t say when, or by whom. While the London Independent editorial is easy enough to find, the “interview” isn’t.
Anyone have a link to the whole interview, rather than the three-sentence bite?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:18 amAngus says:
Neither side is showing any compassion for the 13-year old. She’s said for years that she wants the charges dropped and the case over so she can finally put it behind her.
Polanski should never have been let out on bail in 1978 in the first place once he pled guilty.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:20 amanonymous says:
I have dealt with paroled sex offender housing issues in southern california for the last few years.
An interesting question is whether Polanski would be required to serve a typical parole sentence. Currently, even if one serves less than a year in jail for a sex crime, the typical length of parole is three to five years. During this time the parolee is GPS’d and is required to attend group counseling. Given Polanskis admitted numerous relationships with underage girls it would be hard for him to avoid.
Also, the parolee has to reside more than 2000 feet from school/park which has driven most of them into homelessness. Fortunately for Polanski he would be able to afford a home that falls into one of the very few areas that actually fit this requirement.
Finally, some of the parolees I have spoken with scoff at the Polanski defenders’ argument that the crime occurred so long ago. Many sex offenders on parole are being punished for a crime like DUI or assault that is not a sex crime. Nevertheless, if they have an old conviction for a sex crime from the 70s and even in some cases from the 60s, they are treated exactly the same as a brand new sex offender.
The disparate treatment Polanski is getting really is galling. I’m not saying this to defend sex offenders but at least let’s treat them equally.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:26 amguy in the veal calf office says:
Success within the legal profession requires members to mute their politics and religion, avoid street language, not drink on duty, display slavish commitment to clients, utilize jargon and adopt a world view (precedent matters, rules matter, but economic models don’t matter, religious morality doesn’t matter). We self-select like that.
Hollywood self-selects, too. If you don’t like it, stay out and ignore it. Or just mock it, I guess.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:29 amOren says:
She has absolutely no authority to drop the charges on behalf of the State of California.
The right to punish criminals derives from the State’s interest in Justice, not the victims interest in retribution.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:30 amChrisHo says:
Since she sold the rights to the rape after the fact? Isn’t that what a settlement implies?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:34 amPhelps says:
Let’s see, when a disaster hits, Hollywood says compassionate things, while the military actually goes out and does compassionate things. So by his logic, the military has an even better moral compass.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:34 amDangerMouse says:
Again, this kind of arrogance should come as no surprise to anyone. Hollywood libs are just louder and more rich than your standard lib. They ALL believe that they’re better than YOU. The kind of mentality is apparrent from the moment they adopt their political philosophy, because it’s one and the same. Read “Vision of the Annointed” for more details.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:37 amFederal Dog says:
Even if she said something like this, the matter is already behind her. All’s he on for is sentencing. She is not required to testify at any sentencing hearing. If he is additionally prosecuted for his flight, she is not involved in that either.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:38 ammrcausality says:
Why is there always confusion and surprise about these reactions? Human beings are self-interested creatures that must, in the vast majority, rely on social bonds within subset(s) of the population distinguished by common purposes. These purposes in of themselves create diverging moral standards as their ends must somehow be justified. If the stakes are high enough (e.g. self-preservation), few will sacrifice their livelihood to conform to a different set of standards even if the rationale for doing so is overpowering.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:39 amRedman says:
Typical celebrity dodge.
Do you donate to charity?
Well, I donate my TIME.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:46 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Is that what a settlement implies? Well I’ll be darned.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:50 amThe Unbeliever says:
So... they’re confusing huge flashy events with morality? What about the millions of individual contributions made without central organization?
Uh, no, the United States Armed Forces were there for those victims. They were offloading water and emergency rations within 24 hours after the 2004 tsunami, they conduct search and rescue operations after earthquakes, etc. It may make the Hollywood crowd uncomfortable to think they’re constantly being shown up by the guys with guns, but...
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t give them credit for Sean Penn’s “efforts” after Hurricane Katrina. Let it never be said that America’s entertainers failed to entertain us during tragedies.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:58 amMark N. says:
That’s true, but defenders of that position should make clear that they are interested in the rights of the State of California and Justice, not motivated out of compassion towards the victim.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 10:58 amxx says:
The best part is that the only person in that article who’s talking sense is the producer of Scary Movie and Soul Plane.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:03 ampete says:
There is also the issue of deterrence, both in deterring Polanski from finding new victims (which he has reportedly done) and from letting other potential rapists and parole jumpers know that the state will still come after them even if they run away for a long time. With the number of celebreties who have committed pretty serious crimes like this thinking that their money and power will always act as a get out of jail free card, that is actually a pretty important factor here considering the publicity of the case and social status of the rapist.
I have compassion for the victim in the case and fault Polanski for continuing to evade justice and drawing this out, but understand that we also should try to minimize future rapes and going after cases like this contributes to that goal. I also have compassion for the nameless other potential victims who have not yet been victimized, while the Weinsteines of the world do not seem to care about them as long as there is money to be made off of the rapists.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:13 ampete says:
This case also really reminds me of the Cartman Joins NAMBLA episode of South Park. Quote from the wikipedia summary:
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:18 amKazinski says:
I think Polanski must have been talking about Weinstein when he said:
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:34 amLugo says:
I bet Hollywood is going to go to the mat to prevent the extradition of these decrepit 80-something year old Nazi concentration camp guards. Their crimes happened such a long time ago! Haven’t they suffered enough? Where’s the compassion???
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:35 amtim maguire says:
Thank god for the telethons because, lord knows, nobody else was doing anything for the victims of 9/11
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:36 amVader says:
Allah Pundit nailed it:
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:40 amegd says:
On the issue of deterrence, I don’t understand (from a deterrence/judicial philosophy perspective) why celebrities get lighter sentences for similar charges than non-celebrities. Since celebrities are high-profile individuals, shouldn’t they get the book thrown at them?
“Celeb. arrested for marijuana possession, sentenced to 8 years in prison” would have a larger impact on marijuana possession than “Celeb. arrested for marijuana possession, sentenced to 4 hours community service.” Especially when, among the non-rich and famous, 8 years in prison is more common than 4 hours community service.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:43 amkrs says:
Yeah, you could cut the irony with a knife. I can’t believe anyone would say “Hollywood has the best moral compass” and actually mean that.
To be fair, some people in Hollywood feel strongly about some things as a matter of morality, and they sacrifice a lot of time and money toward what they see as the right thing. Some of them donate a lot of money to charity, visit troops in war zones, visit children in hospitals, or otherwise genuinely try to do good things without the ulterior motive of drawing attention to themselves.
But to say that the industry as a whole has some sort of moral compass is just ludicrous. Hollywood is full of examples of what happens when people with no grounding or moral compass get enough money to act on their worst impulses. I’m waiting for the Tom Cruise press conference to announce that Polanski needs to be left alone, and his victim just needs Scientology.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:51 amkrs says:
Vader, I’m laughing at my desk, and hating myself for it, but laughing nonetheless.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:52 amflyright says:
Hey Mr Whinestein:
Celebrities only do what they can get credit for! They do things in public that they would never do if someone wasn’t watching! This is not a ‘moral compass’, it is self-promotion. All of the wealthy celebretards could have just given sacrificial amounts of money to those causes, but noooooo, you do a ‘telethon’ and WE send in the money like good little sheep. Compassion is not a indicator of morality, it is a weak attempt to paint yourself in a positive light as if to say “Hey look! We don’t judge anyone (with the exception of those we disagree with or happen to actually have morals) so we are compassionate” Huh? This is the height of stupidity! These greedy, evil people are sickening to the rest of us and yet, we keep putting our money in their pockets!! I will no longer see any movie that isn’t put out by someone I can support. Someone mentioned “Fireproof” and “Facing the Giants”.....Yep! That’s the kind of entertainment I am going to pay for from now on! I’m so done with Hollyfreaks and their corrupt political buddies!!!! Stick the fork in....yep! I’m done!
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:53 ambillo says:
“I have dealt with paroled sex offender housing issues in southern california for the last few years.
An interesting question is whether Polanski would be required to serve a typical parole sentence. Currently, even if one serves less than a year in jail for a sex crime, the typical length of parole is three to five years. During this time the parolee is GPS’d and is required to attend group counseling. Given Polanskis admitted numerous relationships with underage girls it would be hard for him to avoid.”
Heh. Speaking of parolees, I remember a murder case I once consulted on. A young woman’s body was found nude in a body of water. She had been the victim of a witnessed abduction. At autopsy, the young lady had been throttled and there was evidence of a fight, but there was no indication of actual sexual intercourse. It was hypothesized that the woman had resisted the rape and the attacker had killed her during her subdual. After her death, the attacker did not complete the rape.
The local police went to a local “sex offender support group” and rounded up the usual suspects. They had one guy in mind. He convinced them that he was likely not the assailant with the following argument. He had murdered women (apparently more than one — I didn’t see his complete history) in the past and committed various atrocities upon their bodies. He argued that it could *not* have been he who committed this most recent crime because, as the police well knew, had the women died during subdual that would not have diminished his ardor in the least. It would have excited rather than discouraged him, and he would not have hesitated to have sex with the corpse. Thus, he said, if the the attacker was put off by her death, it couldn’t be him. The police, after reflection, agreed, and he was released.
Gotta love those sexual predators.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:55 amCJColucci says:
I think we can fairly stipulate that Hollywood is full of assholes. None of this ought to be surprising. Contrary to popular belief, however, the political leanings of Hollywood assholes are far from uniform — but they’re all assholes regardless. Funny, though, who caterwauls about the politics of Hollywood assholes and who actually votes for them.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:56 amSabba Hillel says:
What is the punishment for fleeing to avoid sentencing while out on bail. Could the judge drop the original sentence (a full 48 days according to various articles, and impose a 5 — 10 year (I think AI saw that length of time on Patterico.com?) sentence for fleeing bail whil awaiting sentencing?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 11:59 amcaliforniamom says:
The only moral compass Hollywood has is the bottom line. What market will there be for Polanski’s next picture? My bet is three theaters will show it and it will tank in three days. I didn’t see “The Pianist” because it was made by a child rapist.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 12:10 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
Harvey Weinstein claiming any moral high-ground, even as part of a broader industry, is so obscene it should induce acid reflux.
Regardless, there are a number of cross-cutting dynamics to the Polanski case, but it’s an interest barometer of society’s moral compass.
I did a post on that and Mark Geragos’ column on the motivations behind the arrest. Check it out:
http://chaosoutoforder.com/2009/09/29/polanski-the-litmus-test/
Quote
October 1, 2009, 12:28 pmso confused says:
Ok, Hollywood is whacked, but many liberal commentators are sensibly cutting them off, and affirming that making good movies does not earn someone immunity from rape charges.
But being a good liberal legislator does, apparently, earn a free pass for one young woman left to drown while you go back to the party. An occasional attempted sexual assault is OK, too.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 12:36 pmLeo Marvin says:
DangerMouse says:
Irony impairment strikes again.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 12:37 pmDangerMouse says:
Leo apparently thinks it’s impossible to criticize arrogance, because by pointing out arrogance the critic necessarily suggests that he is not arrogrant and thus is better than those arrogant people. The critic of arrogance, thus by definition, is arrogant.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 1:06 pmGordon Langston says:
I guess their fear/hatred of conservatives is rational...
Quote
October 1, 2009, 1:28 pmbellisaurius says:
Legal question. Does polanski get charged by the laws of the time, or current laws, if different sentences and conditions exist (I’m assuming they’re worse, like with offender registration and whatnot), or does ex post facto come into play?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 2:01 pmRandy says:
Mom: “The only moral compass Hollywood has is the bottom line.”
Too true. and true for Wall Street, and the Potomac River. Basically, most places, really.
Oh sure, Hollywood has a strange moral compass. But then, so does most institutions, religious ones included. If you are looking for a real moral compass, devise your own and follow it. It will likely be better than 99% of the other self-proclaimed compasses out there.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 2:02 pmPlugInMonster says:
Conservatives started it with their fear/hatred of “deviants”.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 2:14 pmMatthew Bilinsky says:
Glad to see we’re ignoring a multitude of very interesting issues regarding the Polanski situation to throw sophomoric partisan jabs about Hollywood liberals and conservatives.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 2:17 pmgab says:
How can Dangermoose have posted twice without once mentioning abortion? What is this world coming to?
Quote
October 1, 2009, 2:44 pmGabriel McCall says:
I’m not sure what the law says, but my sense of justice says that since Polanski had the option to be sentenced back then and declined, he has no right to object if today’s guidelines are used instead.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 3:49 pmFedya says:
If you’re a celebrity who’s unpopular with the chattering classes (eg. Martha Stewart), you’ll get the book thrown at you.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:24 pmLeo Marvin says:
No, Danger Mouse, I think it’s arrogant to pretend you can read one mind, much less millions of them.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 5:31 pmNew Pseudonym says:
No one has discussed the procedural status of the Polanski case. From the [probably inaccurate] news reports, my understanding is that Polanski fled when he heard that the judge in the case was about to reject the plea bargain reached with the state’s attorney for a little over a month in jail and would likely impose a harsher sentence. This judge has died in the interim, so the case cannot be returned to its status when Polanski fled.
Can a new judge act as if the plea bargain was still on the table? If the plea bargain is not in effect is not the guilty plea as well? Is an entire trial 32 years after the crime required before Polanski receives any jail time for the underlying crime (ignoring the flight– associated charges).
Quote
October 1, 2009, 6:53 pmArthurKirkland says:
I ascribe the objections to Roman Polanski’s extradition and resumed legal proceedings to a moral blind spot.
Something like tolerance for executing the innocent, or bullying children into acknowledging a god in a national pledge of allegiance.
As I mentioned before, a sentence of two weeks less than the maximum strikes me as appropriate for Polanski.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:35 pmRicardo says:
Please. This article predicted that, based on sentencing guidelines, Martha Stewart would get a sentence between 37 and 46 months in prison. Instead, she got 5 months in a minimum security federal prison (the best possible assignment she could have hoped for) and another 5 months of home confinement. This was apparently the minimum sentence that could be imposed by the sentencing guidelines.
Quote
October 1, 2009, 7:49 pmLoren Collins says:
I’m reminded of Stuff White People Like #18: Awareness:
“What makes this even more appealing for white people is that you can raise “awareness” through expensive dinners, parties, marathons, selling t-shirts, fashion shows, concerts, eating at restaurants and bracelets. In other words, white people just have to keep doing stuff they like, EXCEPT now they can feel better about making a difference.”
Quote
October 1, 2009, 8:55 pmChrisHo says:
I was merely implying she has no standing when it comes to requesting the charges to be dropped as she made a settlement out of court. In my view what she said was, I will not press charges for the rape provided you pay me for the assault. That being, yo
My view is that she threw out her standing when she accepted the money. So she has no basis for asking the charges be dropped because she accepted money from the perp. Regardless, this isn’t about her anymore, it is about the rule of law and one person using their fame and money to avoid paying the penalty for violating the law.
Quote
October 2, 2009, 4:15 ammarkm says:
egd says:
No, a little community service and/or rehab is pretty typical for possession these days. Where it gets tricky is when the prosecutor charges “intent to sell” based solely on the quantity exceeding a rather low limit, never mind that one can smoke up that and more and still be more sober than Ted Kennedy was on an average day. I haven’t heard of that happening to a celebrity. Probably they have “people” to buy and hold amounts large enough for the party for them...
Quote
October 4, 2009, 6:26 pm