Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Is a 30 Year Rape Still Rape?

How can there be any question? I'm repulsed by the number of influential people I've seen on T.V. who are "aghast" that Roman Polanski, who ran away from the United States 30 years ago instead of accepting his punishmnent for raping a 13 year old girl, is now expected to pay for his crime. They seem to think that the passage of time has whitened the crime. To allow him to escape justice now would be like saying it's okay to rape a little girl if you only just hide away (in plain sight) for 30 years.

Polanski was 44 years old when he drugged a 13 year old child and then repeatedly raped her. It's shameful that he wasn't even charged with rape but only with having sex with a minor. The elite certainly do have privileges, don't they? Then he slipped out of the country instead of facing the consequences of those charges and he's lived a successful life abroad ever since. Even with the ugly details of his crime and escape being public knowledge, he has managed to garner admiration based on his career accomplishments. His circle of admirers believe that, since the rape happened so long ago, it is insulting for a man of his stature to have to face charges now. I would suggest that they, themselves, condone raping children or they couldn't be supporting a child rapist.

In general, our society has failed miserably in protecting our children. If Roman Polanski is allowed to walk free after raping a child, no matter how long ago, then we've hit a new low as a society. I have great admiration for whatever forces came together to make the move to arrest him now because it's nice to know there are still decent people in authority.

Let's hope our society hasn't degraded to the point where the rape of a child loses it's importance just because it didn't happen today.

1 comment:

bluebird of paradise said...

Don't you wonder why it took them 30 years to arrest him? His whereabouts were known. I do agree that he should be brought to justice.