Ian – thanks, and I apologize for misreading you.

Dan – Polanski most certainly did commit the crime; he acknowledges it, as does she, and while there was, most likely, some degree of judge tampering, the broader point here is not about whether he deserves to be jailed or not.

It’s the horrifyingly simple truth that we don’t understand ourselves. We can’t explain why we do far too much of what we actually do. We barely glimpse the far horizons of our own motivations. And the hideous paradox here is as Paul recognizes; we all perform evil deeds knowing the good, and indeed, even worse, knowing the very nature of evil and embracing it anyway, in a ghastly, grinning nihilism.

Brilliantly said.

As for Polanski, not that I have paid much attention to this situation, but didn’t he work with the prosecution and the judge on a plea deal? Then when learning that the judge had improperly conversed with the prosecution, he fled? I mean, it would seem he attempted to “repent” of his sin (or at least pay for his crime within man’s laws). The real screwup was the judge, wasn’t it? Would you not flee if the judge was going to mess up the rest of your life after you agreed to a plea deal? I can’t speak for whether he “drugged and raped” the 13 year old girl because I just don’t know enough, but the girl, now much older woman, simply wants people to put this behind them. It seems to me the best course of action.

I read the whole post and I understand your criticism of the Polanski worshipers. I don’t really have any beef with your attempts to psychoanalyze the doofus defenders of Polanski. If that were as far as the post went, I would be on board. However, there are throughout the post references to those who condemn Polanski as well. You used the pejorative “forehead slappers” right off the bat to characterize them. Thus, you have set up the post from the outset (in section I) as a post that will criticize both the defenders and detractors of Polanski. The post then makes good on the promise.

The whole section II of your post is about how all of us have sinful natures which we do not, cannot, fully control. Polanski has a dual nature of both good and evil and so do all of the rest of us (we’re all “complicated”). While it is true that you spend two of the three paragraphs in section III analyzing the ramifications of this dual nature on the defenses of Polanski, you then spend the last analyzing the ramifications for those who condemn Polanski. Far from endorsing a condemnation of Polanski’s evil actions, you offer a warning to those who condemn Polanski:

Polanski’s demons rage inside each one of us, and to shrink so far from the stench of their breath that we can imagine they have a hold only upon him is to put ourselves in danger of dividing our own souls they way Polanski’s defenders divide his.

I conclude from reading the entire post (as context for the last paragraph) that you don’t approve either group (defenders or detractors). Your points in section II are applied to both groups, which means you spent (by my count) very similar numbers of you 1800 words talking about the detractors as you did the defenders. Probably a few more on the defenders, but not by an overwhelming margin.

Hopefully this comment is cogent enough to explain why I have read your post the way I have, even if you think that I have misread you.

Indeed, Jacob, I don’t believe I gave merely cursory treatment to them; they are the ones whose moral universes is suspect; they are the ones who are a cautionary tale to the rest of us. You appear to be focusing on the final paragraph to the exclusion of the previous dozen. And indeed, neither does that final paragraph state that all those who are troubled by Polanski’s sin are conscious hypocrites. Rather, it states that Polanski and his defenders are a reminder to all of us that we are sinners as well. That’s hardly a “defense” of the man.

So, I am not sure I understand how the post could be read in any way favorable to Polanski at the expense of everybody else. Nowhere do I say that he should not be subjected to punishment; nowhere do I attempt to excuse his behavior; neither do I, as Ian seems to imply, call for him to go unpunished. Indeed, the who thing is an 1800 word exploration of why not only his acts, but those who excuse them, are a form of evil.

Didn’t Nietzsche say that we shouldn’t be defined by the evil things we do since they are just small moments of our lives and not who we are. (Not that I’m a Nietzsche fan, but it’s an interesting idea).