Sandusky vs. Polanski

Sometime during November of last year, I was over at good ole' Oh No They Didn't where I was reading a post entitled Polanski, Paterno, and the Press.  This was during the time which the whole Penn State debacle started.  The article originated from a site called American Thinker. 

If any one lesson was learned these past weeks from the Penn State scandal, it is that our progressive friends have not quite figured out what is right and what is wrong.
On November 5 of this year, for instance, the Huffington Post broke the news to its readers of former coach Jerry Sandusky's arrest for sexually assaulting minors.  Appropriately, there was no irony in the article, no mirth.
"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly was quoted as saying.
A month earlier, however, the Huffington Post ran a piece by Regina Weinreich on the American premiere of the new Roman Polanski movie Carnage.  Wrote Weinreich approvingly, "At Alice Tully Hall Friday night, where the movie opened the New York Film Festival, audiences cheered Polanski's credit, knowing that this master Academy Award-winning filmmaker would not attend."
At the Zurich Film Festival a few weeks earlier, which Polanski did attend, he received a ten-minute standing ovation and the lifetime achievement award.  Although every sentient person in the film world knows why Polanski missed the New York event, pre-Penn State, they were clearly untroubled.

Here the article talks about the case and the testimony from the victim:

According to the grand jury testimony of Samantha Geimer, Polanski had approached her and her mom about taking photos of Samantha for a fashion magazine.  Impressed and reassured by his celebrity, the mom agreed.  After a couple of outdoor shoots, Polanski and the girl ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house. 

Wrote Polanski in his memoir, Roman, "I could sense a certain erotic tension between the two of us."  At the time, Polanski was a worldly 43.  Geimer was a thirteen-year-old seventh-grader.

At Nicholson's otherwise empty house, Polanski plied Geimer with champagne and had her take her blouse off for a shot in the jacuzzi.  He then gave her a Quaalude.  "Why did you take it?" asked the prosecutor.  "I think I must have been pretty drunk, or else I wouldn't have," Geimer answered. 

Now "kind of dizzy," Geimer still managed to resist Polanski's increasing demands.  "I want to go home," she told him repeatedly.  He would have none of it.  Finally, he cornered her on a couch, put his head in her lap, and started performing "cuddliness" on her -- her word.

"I was going, 'No come on, stop it,' but I was afraid," Geimer continued.  Lacking protection, Polanski sodomized the girl and climaxed therein.  The testimony rings entirely true.  Polanski pled guilty before fleeing and tells much the same story in Roman, though he remains shocked that "I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love."

Given this attitude, the film world's Polanski fans have no reason to believe that he has stopped preying on young girls.  Indeed, two years before the Geimer incident, he had an affair, such as it was, with 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.

............................

Goldstein used the word "misdeed" more than once to describe the child rape that had caused Polanski to flee the country.  In the same article, actor Warren Beatty called the crime a "mistake."

Goldstein concluded that "we" always "forgive [artists] their transgressions" because, in the end, good art trumps bad behavior.  Weinrich came to much the same conclusion in 2011.  "At what point do we say, enough is enough?" she protested of Polanski's seeming persecution.

Weinrich was hardly alone in her indifference to Polanski's crimes.....A month later, the Times editorialized in regard to Penn State, "No one connected to the university should feel anything but shame that the institutional leaders did so little to protect the children involved."

On October 3 of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a celebratory article about the Carnage premiere.  "Mr. Polanski, of course, isn't allowed in the States," wrote the Journal before citing a joke by Polanski's fellow director Paul Feig, "though maybe he's somewhere here disguised as an old woman." 

A month later, the joking was over.  Editorialized the Journal about Joe Paterno, " ... the coach fulfilled his legal obligation, but not his moral duty, to look after the well-being of that child and others who may have been victimized later."

So what's going on here?  How is one more acceptable than the other?

Is it because in some circles, it is seem as natural for an adult male to be attracted to a mid to late pubescent girls due to evolution and biology?  For example, an ephebophiliac is an adult who has a sexual preference "for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19".  The definition goes further in saying: "In sexual ethics, it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old".  Due to most in this age group having physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to these young people is known to be common among adults.  But even then, Polanski (43 at the time) gave a 13 year old girl alcohol to the point of her feeling "dizzy" and then forced himself onto her.  That in itself is rape.  She said "no" repeatedly; she even said that she wanted to go home!  Even if she freely accepted the alcohol, he had no business giving her any of it!  Really it shouldn't even have gotten to the point where they ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house.  

Did people think that because it happened years ago, and the girl - now an adult - as seemingly moved on, that it should no longer be acknowledged?

In this case, why is Sandusky treated differently?  Is it because the victims were boys?  Yes, homosexual behavior between men and boys were acceptable at some point in the past (for example in ancient Greece), but for most of human history, it was not acceptable.  Or is it because most of the boys seemed to have been pre-pubescent (before puberty).  Not to mention that it wasn't just one victim, but at least 8.

In the end, I agree with the article.  Regardless of difference between the two situations, both men were wrong.  People shouldn't just "forget" or not acknowledge what Polanski did.  Yes, I believe that a person who made mistakes and committed crimes can overcome their past and move on.  I believe in redemption.  However the only way to do so is to realize and acknowledge that some of the things you did in the past was wrong and be sorry for the things you've done.  In Polanski's case, not only does it appear that he isn't sorry for his actions, but he doesn't understand why people had a problem with what he did.  He even fled the country to escape imprisonment (though the claim is that he was possibly bamboozled by the courts in some way even though there was plea deal - going off memory here so correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave you with a final quote from the article:

The phrase "double standard" does not do justice to a media that can write approvingly of a slimy predator like Polanski and harshly of an otherwise decent man like Paterno who failed to react to a predator in his midst. 
"Double standard," after all, implies that the media have any standards to begin with.