Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Dear Whoopi;

Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful 
sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've been wondering -

What the hell is "rape rape"?

I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime to which 
he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT from "rape".

It isnt.

"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.

So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?

Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without consent" 
- and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a child.

The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".

The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".

No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped" his 
victim.

So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't "rape rape".

Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?

What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?

A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina - and 
then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but not "rape 
rape"?

The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because Polanski 
gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child protested - told him to 
stop - but he continued.? She was incapacitated to a point where she could 
barely walk, much less defend herself against her 43 year-old attacker.? Is 
that enough for "rape rape", Whoopi?

What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on her in 
a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a homeless shelter 
instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor?? If he'd had to remove a 
trench coat before committing the crime, rather than silk underwear from a 
fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?

What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker in the 
poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape", Whoopi? Or 
would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came up with on The 
View - that "people in other countries see things differently" when 
middle-aged men force themselves on children.

If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they can 
anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the practice - 
not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to suggest that the United 
States might evolve one day to a period of enlightenment when we will be 
"liberated" enough to celebrate the sexual abuse of children. ?

Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment 
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part, through 
the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to millions of 
people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and liberty of all women 
and children is at stake when even one rapist is not held accountable for his 
actions.? At a minimum, you could have explained how backward we really are 
in this country - and how the epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as 
a kind of domestic terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of 
people who are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system 
to redress sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress in 
support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then Senator 
Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind bars.? Violence 
against women and children is grossly underreported and underprosecuted, and 
the data c
 onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more 
harshly than crimes against female bodies.

Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you bemoaned the 
fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United States after pleading 
guilty to child rape because he was about to be go to jail for "a hundred 
years". ?

Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under California law 
today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child would expose Mr. 
Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.? But because he was allowed 
to plead guilty to only one of six felonies with which he was originally 
charged - he faced no more than four years behind bars, and some reports say 
the judge intended to impose a sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.

Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in jail, and 
he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would not extradite him 
for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported, that he took off because 
he thought it was unfair that he should go to jail after his lawyer worked 
out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor, he had a right to withdraw his 
guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.

That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal system 
is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It may be a 
decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the law should not 
reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade justice.

Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't vote 
or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to say things 
that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking out of the other 
side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were garbageman Polanski.

Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this topic.? 
There's nothing in there that says people of influence should not be held 
accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on the 14th Amendment 
for a few minutes - especially the part about how all citizens are entitled 
to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try reading some of our most basic 
court decisions that discuss how the law is supposed to protect the weak, and 
deter the cunning.

You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call you?? 
"Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been "raped" by a 45 
year-old man who stripped her naked and then penetrated her private parts 
even as she cried "no".? Would you correct her for using the word "rape"?? 
Would you say, "sorry sweetheart -? what happened to you was not a 'rape 
rape'". ?

No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and full 
of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it the way 
someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the mouth is to a 
kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody ever says "it wasn't a 
'punch punch'". ?

I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give up the 
term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily enslavement".? We could 
put it in the Constitution as a civil rights crime, rather than in the lowly 
statute books alongside shoplifting. ?

I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it truly 
belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might have stopped 
yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil rights civil rights".

Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?

I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children and I 
want you to sound smart.

Yours truly,

Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston