Normally, I tend to disagree with much that is on FOX News. It's not hard to do really; the network favors the rich, powerful, and white minority of this country so much they don't even try to hide their distaste for the rest of us anymore. And it tears them up, it kills them that a black man was elected President of this country. However, slanted as they may be (fair and balanced, my ass), there is truth to be found in what they say, you just have to look for it. Sometimes when I'm watching the news, I'll watch their channel a little bit, it's not terrible. I just don't agree with a lot of it.
But this I do. I've been following the capture of Chinatown director Roman Polanski in the news. I heard about this story a few years ago on the Net, and never really had an opinion on it. Way back in '77, this guy rapes a 13-year-old girl and flees the country, hiding in France, which doesn't extradite violent criminals to the United States. As the victim got older, she urged the charges to be dropped, I suppose to get on with her life. Now, 32 years after the crime, he's been caught in Switzerland, and may very well be returned to the States to face the music.
Where FOX News comes in is, on the talk show The View, Whoopi Goldberg excused Polanski's actions as "not rape-rape", implying that it was just statutory rape. The article then goes on to define consent laws in various countries, to show that Whoopi was wrong no matter which country's laws she may have been talking about. One part of the article sits wrong with me: where it says "Other forms of rape include 'date-rape' in which a victim is so heavily intoxicated with drugs or alcohol that they lack the ability to consent", I've always believed that forcible rape includes physical force, mental duress, as well as chemical restraint. And that "date rape" is pretty much when the girl changes her mind in the middle of the deed and the guy doesn't stop. And I disagree with the article author's claim that "the distinction was never meant to imply that statutory rape or date-rape are any less heinous than forcible rape." Yes they were. They're taking lesser crimes and tacking "rape" on there just to make it seem more heinous, by implying that it's the same thing as restraining a person and assaulting them sexually in a penetrating manner against their will. If the person's willing, or was willing to start with, yes, it is less heinous. Pretty much by definition. Still wrong, of course, for different reasons, but not *as* wrong.
What I do firmly agree with is this:
"Roman Polanski diabolically lured a 13-year old child to a remote area where he knew she would be powerless. He used his mental and physical advantage over her to intoxicate and drug her and then sexually violate her in every possible way that the law prohibits.
He deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law."
Let's not forget that he fled to a country where he knew he wouldn't be extradited. He knew that even with all his money, he could not afford a defense in the country with perhaps the fairest justice system (see the article for why), and knew that he would be convicted regardless. So he tucked his tail between his legs and ran. If that ain't a full confession, I don't know what is.