Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for October 14, 2009

Badly timed, Sid.

From yesterday: DavidDow said, about 14 hours ago

The facts: Thirty-two years ago, Roman Polanski, widowed, age 44, took some photos of Samantha Gailey, age thirteen, because the girl, her mother, & Polanski all thought that the girl might have a career in modeling or in the movies. After spending some hours posing & photographing, Polanski & Gailey drank champagne, took Quaaludes, & had sex.

Those are not facts, that is a white wash. “drank champagne, took Quaaludes, & had sex.” Such a matter of fact dismissal of a pedophiles actions. Unbelievable response. Go read the police report. She was scared. He forced himself on her and would not let her go home. At 13 years old she is not capable of “consensual” anything.

My neighbor made the mistake of having sex with a girl one month short of her 18th BD and got THREE YEARS in jail, not a threat of 45 days. But then, he hadn’t “given so much behind the camera”. It makes me sick to hear all this “poor boy” we’re above the law whining. He is a pedophile, pure and simple and confessed to committed statutory rape. To say he that because he confessed he wasn’t convicted is just asinine.

And as far as the “settlement out of court” Polanski reneged on the agreement and didn’t pay anything.

Also, although you didn’t bring it up I’m sure the “it’s been 30 years, just move on” is in your arsenal of arguments. Tell that to the FBI prosecuting the hijacker of the flight to Cuba. That was only 40 years ago.

TheSkulker, so good to see you!

Bootsie, good move!

There is nothing like a 13 years kid having consensual sex with anybody, let alone a 44 years old drunken pig. It is always rape, period. It is not like playing doctor and patient with a boy of the same age: this is a perv grownup drugging and sodomising a kid, then flying away to a glamour life abroad. Alberto

Boy, it sure says something about this country that there are people DEFENDING a middle-aged man drugging a 13 year old girl, stripping her and doing her. What the hell? Skulker is right: NO one is disputing the facts of the case.

I’m with Boopsie - I’m d@mned glad those perverts out there (a couple of you apparently among them) are well clear of my loved ones.

This David guy sure has a lot of excuses…

Drugging? 1/2 a Quaalude? Some serious agendas going on here, seems to me.

I suggest you go back and read the contemporary reports. Polanski pled guilty. The prosecutor’s office (hardly soft on criminals) recommended no prison time. The judge, deciding he was the modern reincarnaion of Roy Bean, law west of the Pecos, rejected the plea bargain and, by all reports, was going to sentence Polanski to serious, serious time - like 40 years, not 45 days. Polanski felt that this was a betrayal, which it pretty much was, and that he’d rather flee than be railroaded like that. So he did.

And anyone of you who doesn’t think that a 13-year old can be seriously into sex (not saying that this one was) must never have taken a look at 13-year-olds lately, if ever. I knew a 13-year old when I was in middle school who would sleep with just about anybody. She later became one of the high school’s snooty elite. I talked with her long after the fact, and there was no coercion, no abuse - she just liked sex, period.

Is there any strip like Doonesbury that can arouse such a discussion among its readers?

I’m not taking sides on this; I’m just commenting on the boldness of Mr. Trudeau in not backing away from a story line like this.

Well done, sir.

Kudo’s to Garry for doing a good story relevant to current events. What a wonderful twist to point out that any testimony against Polanski isn’t valid because it’s only one sided, and it’s one-sided because he ran away! This is how we have ruined this country by electing lawyers to congress, where truth has become simply a matter of presonal greed and ambition in order to dodge responsibility and reap the rewards.

This forum isn’t a courtroom. Polanski’s actions against a child were vile. He should be held accountible for them and punished accordingly.

brewwitch the only other strip I see that is more argumentative in the comments section is State of the Union. Usually a good, heated discussion (I use that term loosely) goes on over the days strip there. Usually Doonesbury isn’t this heated. My feeling if Polanski was going to live in this country and commit an act that was a crime in this country then he should have faced the penalty. If he wanted to be a French Citizen and commit the same act there (where he apparently thinks it’s legal) he should have never come here. Nobody has yet disputed that he had sex with a 13 year old who whether some like it or not doesn’t have the legal right to consent to, that alcohol and drugs were involved (which is also a crime in this country), and that he fled prosecution when he was not happy with what he thought was going to happen to him.

Sid must be related to duke and that fake cowboy (uncle poopyhead?).

@Potrzebie: there’s kind of a sense that show-biz types of about all leagues just do not “get it,” like somehow either being celebrities or artists makes them immune or exempt from the laws of “mortals.”

It is called “statutory” rape for a reason. It violates a statute that makes it illegel to engage in sexual acts with a person of that age! It doesn’t matter if that young person likes sex, wants sex, PLEADS for sex - they are too young to understand what they are embarking upon, and thus in its wisdom, society has said it’s not permissible. Mr Dow, I hope you do not now, nor ever will, have children!

Reminds me of the cop who saw a car parked on a lover’s lane with the interior light on. Stopping, he saw a young man in front and a young girl sitting in back. He asked the boy what he was doing, and the reply was “reading a book”, and he held it up. Asked what the girl was doing, he said”knitting”, and she held up her knitting for the policeman to see. Puzzled, the cop then asked the boy how old he was. The boy said 19. Then, asked how old the girl was, the boy looked at his watch and said “in 12 more minutes she’ll be 18.”

Sorry - couldn’t help myself…

Hey, Ushindi, nice to see some humor in this discussion of a comic strip by wannabe lawyers and judges. Love your joke.

In what universe is sex between a 13 year old and a 44 year old consensual?

Thirty years ago the mores were different. The sexual revolution was going full force. People fell for the stupid message: ” if it feels good, do it!” Obviously, this was wrong. Yet, this message pervaded the media. I, myself, was persuaded to think this was a valid way of living—-fortunately I was way too ugly to be able to act this out, and no girl would allow me to have sex with her. consensual or otherwise. How lucky I was!! The point I’m trying to make is this: there are mitigating circumstances involved. Polanski shouldn’t be absolved, But neither should we pursue him with all the level of indignation that we, today, have toward sexual predators. We all get the point that rape is wrong, but lets not get too self righteous. Don’t give our country a black eye in other countries. Don’t act like nazi hunters that pursue war criminals all over the world.—Polanski is not an escaped Auschwitz guard!!! Grant the guy amnesty, not for him, but for our own benefit.

For all the Polanski defenders if you feel it is okay for a 44 year old man to rape your 13 year old daughter okay. I can understand you have a different of opinion of Mr. Polanski. The overwhelming amount of U.S. citizens and the legal system have a different opinion of that child rapist.

It is disturbing how many people on this board are “out for blood” You are so interested in making sure that a 30 year old crime ( wherein the victim asked that the perpetrator get amnesty! ) gets “solved”. Why don’t you all spend your energy trying to end the Afghanistan war instead of such nit picking. It serves no purpose to go after a sexual predator, escaped to a foreign country, who did his crime 30 years ago. It makes me suspicious of what your real motives are; you certainly don’t appear interested in doing good.

Well stated, seablood. Where’s all the outrage over something reallly vital - like Jon & Kate +/- 8!!!

That thar’ babyface sure wants his pound of flesh alright~

Waaaaait… Sam was born in 1992. I thought this strip had been aging everyone in “real-time” since 1984.