In 2003, Samantha Geimer wrote an Op-Ed in the LA Times. In the op-ed piece she discusses the rape and expressed three frustrations with life after rape:
Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. But it was also 25 years ago — 26 years next month. And, honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison….
I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn’t think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim? … My attitude surprises many people. That’s because they didn’t go through it all; they don’t know everything that I know. People don’t understand that the judge went back on his word…..
The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.
Looking back at all the verbage spilled over the Polanski rape case I’m wondering why so little is being written on these questions. We say child rape should be punished strongly because it is so hurtful to victims. But aren’t we also hurting a victim by ignoring her questions? The first rule of compassion is to give what a person needs and not what we want or expect them to need.
Rape and the media. Geimer declares that the media treatment was more traumatic than the rape. Was she merely exaggerating? Should we not take her at her word? She seems to mean it. In October, 2009, shortly after Polanski’s arrest she was back in the news, pleading to be left alone and warning that the media circus that accompanies celebrity rapes discourages victims of celebrities from filing complaints.
Rape media coverage can be brutal, especially when the alleged rapist is a celebrity. Anyone following the shenanigans of Ben Roethlisberger in the US or Jack Tweed in the UK knows this. To see just how brutal, take a look at our in depth review of the trial coverage and scroll down to the description of the Daily Mail’s equal opportunity slam. Or alternative enter “Ben Roethlisberger Andrea McNulty” into google. Even when the coverage isn’t hostile, excessive attention can be very disruptive. She is raising a very important point and she is being ignored.
I’m not the only victim in town. We’ve also largely ignored Geimer’s worry that society marginalizes rape unless there is a celebrity involved. There are other cases that have just as much or more need for attention than hers.
Geimer isn’t the only one whose raised the question. Way back in September, ABC interviewed UCLA law professor Peter Arnella. Why, he asked, would a prosecutor spend so much energy and money going after a one-time offender from 30 years ago when it is cash strapped? The prosecutor brushed it aside as a case where principle matters more than economics: “offenders don’t get to choose their punishment”.
But in this case, do principles really matter more than economics? What is the opportunity cost of pursuing Polansky? How many below-the-poverty-line kids have abusers that aren’t being prosecuted because it would divert resources from the Polanski case? How many prosecutions are only half prepared because there isn’t enough money budgeted for the case? How many local crimes are we going to prevent by spending money on legal sparring with Polanski rather than on locking up that local guy breaking parole by hanging around outside of school playgrounds?
A deal is a deal. Geimer contends that the judge made a promise and then reneged on it. Lies and broken promises by an authority figure are a key element of Geimer’s rape complaint. They are a key element of almost any non-violent rape. Assuming she is telling the truth about a deal, is it any wonder she should react negatively to a judge’s broken promises? Is she being overly sensitive? Or are we minimizing? Can we really afford to treat her concerns about judicial deception lightly?
Is this really about Polanski? If we think the original deal gave too light a sentence, perhaps then we should be asking why the prosecutor made that deal in the first place?
A 90-day sentence for a drug facilitated rape of a minor should make us mad. But we shouldn’t take that anger out on the victim. We should place it where it belongs: on a judge who thought that Polanski deserved no more than a slap on the wrist. The transcript from sentencing reads:
The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the prosecutrix was a well developed young girl who looked older than her years; and regrettably not unschooled in sexual matters. She has a 17 year old boyfriend, with whom she had sexual intercourse at least twice prior to the offense involved. The probation report further reveals that the prosecutrix was not unfamiliar with the drug quaalude, she having experimented with it as early as her tenth or eleventh year……..However, although the prosecutrix was not an inexperienced and unsophisticated young girl, this of course was not a license to the defendant, a man of the world, in his forties, to engage in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with her
Do you see the hint of “it isn’t rape unless she’s a virgin” ?
A judge who truly understood rape would not care whether Geimer had tried sex or drugs before. The only thing that should have mattered was the gap in their ages. In essence the judge is saying “yeah, it is wrong, but not wrong-wrong. Sure, Polanski shouldn’t have done it, but It isn’t like we are spoiling a pure innocent child. He didn’t introduce her to sex or Quaaludes.” Is it any wonder the judge gave such a light sentence? Isn’t it time the State own up to its own mistakes?
Geimer wants the case closed because a deal is a deal. Polanski wants testimony about the sentencing decisions unsealed so he can prove a deal is a deal. The State wants to keep them sealed. Why? If the State behaved itself, what does it have to fear?
