I tried to be clear in my first letter in the hope you would simply apologize for saying Roman Polanski didn't plead guilty to "rape rape". But in an awkward attempt to put out the flames of outrage, you made things worse by trying to "explain" yourself. You said on The View that what you MEANT was that because Polanski admitted to the charge of "unlawful sex with a minor" - he didn't admit to "rape" because the word "rape" doesn't appear in the title of that particular crime.
Someone at ABC should tell you to just fall on your sword at this point.
You see Whoopi, saying "unlawful sex with a minor" isn't "rape" because the word "rape" isn't in the title is like saying sodomy isn't "rape". I dare you to tell that to the thousands of male victims of priest abuse.
Here's some basic legal information you might find enlightening.
In 50 states, there are 33 DIFFERENT phrases in the law that define the act of child rape. Only four include the actual term "rape". But all 33 make it clear that the conduct forbidden by law IS, indeed, rape of a child. I know you tried to further justify your offensive comments in an interview by suggesting "unlawful sex with a minor" is the same as "statutory rape" and that both crimes are somehow less serious than real "rape" - but you're wrong, Whoopi. "Statutory" simply means that a "statute" was enacted to define the word "child" and emphasize that kids cannot consent to sex with adults. This "statute" warns all perpetrators to leave kids alone because if they get caught - there will be no "she consented" defense. That the law might also cover circumstances you find less serious than what Polanski did to his victim might be interesting fodder for my law school class, but it's utterly irrelevant in a case where a middle aged man violates multiple parts of a 13 year-old girl's body - over her objection - after plying her with drugs and alcohol.
Maybe you made a dumb statement because you felt pressure from your Hollywood friends. That's your business. But you hold yourself out as an advocate for children. You even appear in ads for ToysRUs - suggesting you care about kids - and speak for "differently abled" children.
Damn it, Whoopi! What are you thinking?!
Roman Polanski has enough wealth, power and apologists to speak for him. Kids have nothing.
Until recently, they thought they had you. And they really need you, Whoopi, because too many adults take sexual advantage of kids. You already know that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry. The internet has exposed children to dramatically more sexual violence and exploitation than at any time in our history. More now than ever, children need people like you to speak out firmly against sexual abuse because law enforcement resources are no match for a global business that thrives on the constant availability of new material to feed an insatiable demand. Girls aged 12-16 are more likely than any other age group to be victimized by sexual violence.
Perhaps your buddy Roman Polanski's comments about little girls will shed some light on the perverted source of this epidemic for you, Whoopi:
In 1979, Polanski spoke to novelist Martin Amis about the criminal charges against him:
If this doesn't make your skin crawl and your blood boil - and you continue to try and "explain" your comments about how a grown man forcing himself inside the body of a child he plied with booze and drugs before he attacked her isn't "rape rape", you need to stop calling yourself an advocate for children. Keep doing whatever makes you happy - and enjoy all the red carpet nonsense because your seat at the club will be safe - but please, let someone else speak for the children.If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f..king, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f..k young girls. Juries want to f..k young girls. Everyone wants to f..k young girls!
New England Law|Boston