Angry in the Great White North

Of course, Roman Polanski ought to be dipped in barbecue sauce and thrown into a pit with a hungry bear.  Anyone who sodomizes a 13-year-old girl after doping her up with alcohol and quaaludes deserves no less.

But I'd settle with the pervert being locked up with the general prison population.

And yet I seem to be deficient in my understanding of the law.  Comedienne Whoopi Goldberg, whose liberal bone fides have long been established, explains that there is rape, and then there is "rape" rape:

Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.

"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left.

"So that's why I wanted to be really clear," Goldberg said, "cause I want to know exactly what I'm talking about."

Here's exactly what Whoopi is talking about: In March 1977, the 44-year-old Polanski fed a 13-year-old girl champagne and a sedative, forced himself on her and anally raped her, according to the girl's grand jury testimony. He was convicted of a lesser charge - statutory rape - because he agreed to plead guilty.

So if a man puts an under-aged girl into a pliant state with the use of drugs, a girl who is looking to this man to help her break into a career of modeling and so sees him as an authority figure, and then has sex with her, it's rape but doesn't rise to the level of something called "'rape' rape"?

I assume "'rape' rape" is a crime punishable by imprisonment, but that is less likely in cases of mere rape.

Or does it matter who the man is?  Is it "'rape' rape" for everyone else but Roman Polanski, for whom the crime is redefined by Whoopi Goldberg as merely "rape"?

And for Roman Polanski, "rape" is not a crime for which he deserves punishment, but rather only if he were found guilty of this so-called "'rape' rape", of which he has not.

So unless someone can prove to Whoopi Goldberg that Roman Polanski committed "'rape' rape", she thinks he ought to go free.

Which leads to the final question.  Is Whoopi Goldberg "'stupid' stupid", or just regular stupid?