Saletan is straining so hard to find a contrarian angle on the Polanski case that he's overlooking basic facts. Yes, the probation report points toward evidence "that the victim was ... willing." The right lesson for us today to draw from that statement, however, is not that we're too prudish for failing to recognize that a 13-year-old can be a sexual being. That's true in the abstract, but it's entirely beside the point when evaluating the facts of this case.

The grand jury testimony makes clear that Polanski's victim was not willing. Every step of the way, she said no. Everything he did to her was coercive. The salient difference between society's attitudes back then vs. now is that back then, the probation officer ignored the victim's actual testimony and substituted his own judgment to conclude that, despite what she actually said, she wanted it.

Where I think today's world differs is that today, I hope, the victim herself would be listened to. The determination of whether or not she was willing would take into account her own perspective, and not just the substituted judgment of others.

Saletan thinks we're at fault for not acknowledging that 13-year-olds can want sex. Where he fails is in forgetting that they're also quite capable of testifying about whether they wanted it or not.

Saletan, who I usually enjoy, could not be more wrong on Polanski. The sleazy bastard drugged and raped a girl. It would have been monsterous if the victim were 30. As she was 13, the offense is even more foul. And he fled the country to escape justice. And I would really like a list of which Hollywood assholes petitioned for clemency, so I can know who to start hating. He should be forgiven because he's so talented? Should the law only apply to certain people? That thinking is the antithesis of everything on which our tradidion of law and justice is built. The victim may forgive, as she has said, but the state can not. I hope to see that piece of shit locked up with the worst animals our prisons have to offer. Lex talionis.

Saletan made a mistake. The fact of that night are NOT relevant and do not apply. DO NOT APPLY. Why? Because that part of the case was settled long ago.

The only issues NOW are that Polanski fled and the possible misconduct of the judge as it relatese to sentencing. Polanski need to return so the courts can resolved THESE issues and NOT the issues assocaited with that night. Again, THAT part of the case is CLOSED.

You and the other poster took Saletan's bait and are trying to redo the CLOSED part of the case.

I don't care what the court decides, I just want the remaining issues to be addressed.

Is Saletan really trying to say this child wanted it, despite her testimony? Is he really going to treat the report as anything but an artifact of the time, a time where a woman saying "no" was often ignored (explicitly in this report)? Is he going to argue that drugging with Quaaludes and anal rape is a "misjudgement?"

Is he out of his tiny mind? There's no shame in our reaction today. The shame is in the 1970s, when an officer of the court could so blithely ignore evidence and testimony. Could gloss over rape. We wonder how priests got away with it? The report gives us clues.

What is scary is the number of people, like Saletan, who come up with the "kids want sex" argument to justify this kind of thing. It makes a parent think about vigilante justice. We convict to deter vigilante justice, the justice of the street that we see gangs do as a cycle of violence. If people lose faith in the justice system to punish criminals like Polanski, watch vigilante justice and jury nullification come back.

This victim has been raped twice: once by Polanski and once by the press which tries to say she lied. Saletan is a part of that libelous group. Her testimony was quite specific, the physical backed it up, and Polanski confirmed it when he pled out.

What is also scary is that had Polanski been less a spoiled jerk, he would have served 48 days and been done. Wow. Talk about the bad old days. No, Mr. Saletan, I'm do not want to go back to the days when drugging 13 year olds and raping them was a "time served" offense.

I asked this on another post. Can't the judge disregard the plea if he/she feels it is inappropriate?