She's facing very serious charges and it's not looking good. What are your thoughts?

And what are your thoughts on celebrity crime in general, and the media coverage thereof? Do we care too much? Do we let famous people get away with too much, or are we harder on them than we'd be on an anonymous nobody?

In Poundstone's case, I think the press is being remarkably easy on her. They keep referring to her as "popular stand-up comedian" and noting that she's "accused of lewd conduct." Some articles have even played down the lewd conduct to focus on the child endangerment charges, at least in the headlines. If she were Joe Schmoe, the headlines would say, "Accused child molester in court today."

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Answers

I think she's taking her lumps. Dropped faster than you are the day after your white trash girlfriend finds out you've been boinking her eighteen year old daughter.

I wonder, when this is over, if it will still be trendy for Hollywood- ites to adopt as many kids as their money can buy.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

er... I don't think that's related - if you go to the archives, her most recent column with them was in 1998.

As far as media coverage, I was very frustrated by the news stories the day it came out - over and over again all day long showing her arrest but not being specific at all about what it was she was accused of - given the vagueness of 'lewd conduct' I'm still not sure if she did anything more than practice some of her standup routine in front of the kids.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Forget what I said up there. I'm an idiot. (but at least I admit it.)

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

"Lewd conduct" is about as vague as it gets. Did she molest them? Tell them dirty jokes? Teach them to lambada? I don't think the press is going to jump on this until we know what it is.

With the revelation of the alcohol rehab beginning on the heels of her children being placed in protective custody, obviously something happened and they knew the child endangerment charges were coming. There's a whole lot of potential child endangerment in parenting while intoxicated.

But the people who know what she did aren't saying, and without that information it would be hard for the press to be anything but easy on her. There's nothing yet to be hard on her about. If it comes out she was driving drunk with them in the car, or passing out and leaving them unsupervised, or putting vodka in their kool-aid or whatever, she'll hang for it, just like people in your local newspaper (especially in the wake of the Yates case; the local (Dallas) news has pretty much run every serious CPS intervention as a lead story lately).

I don't know that we are necessarily harder or easier on celebrity crimes. The circumstances are certainly different with celebrities. Eccentricity seems to be an occupational hazard, anonymity is hard to come by, and they also have full time representation in the form of publicists, agents, management, and lawyers to spin and cover up and threaten with legal action.

We care because we know who they are. My grandparents' phone didn't stop ringing between 8am and 8pm for a week after their (married) church pastor was revealed to have a little sweetie on the side and departed in shame. It's just a matter of scope - y'all don't likely know the guy, the church, or the church biddies, so you probably don't care. But I guarantee you they cared as much about that scandal as a whole lot of other people care about Tom Cruise's real sexual orientation.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

"Lewd conduct" is actually nowhere near that vague under California law. The Smoking Gun has the complaint online. She's charged under Penal Code section 288(a), which is a very serious child molestation offense. It involves touching with a lewd intent and can cover anything from fondling a child (with a sexual intent, not accidentally) to rape. It is the crime that the people you think of as "child molesters" are charged with. So it's not accidental fondling, it's not letting the child accidentally witness a sex act or view pornography, and it's not having an inappropriate conversation with a child. It's child molestation.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Also: the child endangerment counts aren't minor, either. There are two types of child endangerment in California; the more serious one requires that the child be in danger of death or great bodily injury. That's the offense Poundstone is charged with. (I've mostly seen that charge in shaken baby cases or in cases where parents were operating a meth lab in their home.)

That's why I think the press has been pretty easy on her. She's facing *extremely* serious charges, but from the media coverage it's easy to get the idea that she was just drunk and let them watch the Playboy channel or something. No way. Whatever they're alleging, it's big.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Just to be fair to me, I wrote what I wrote (the recantation) before Lynda wrote what she wrote. So Lynda B, in all her righteousness did not cause me to rebut my own post - I didn't read what she wrote until after. Nyaah.

She has however admitted to a drinking problem. Apparently she checked into resendential rehab before the investigation. Her attorney blames the allegations on her drinking. She's charged with committing lewd acts on a girl under the age of fourteen. Who knows what goes on in people's homes? What we do know is that problem drinkers show a propensity for family violence and outrageous behavior.

I think Beth is right afterall. She's not getting beat on in quite the same way the average, alleged sexual offender would.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Yes you did rudeboy, your recant was up by the time I posted - I'd never try to be righteous with you! cross my heart! But you're welcome to stick that tongue out at me just on general principle, if you like...

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Given those legal definitions, yes, it is very, very strange the way the coverage is coming across. I've seen no reference to the seriousness of the charges.

In this neck of the woods, "lewd conduct" is very vague - if I remember correctly, that's usually used in cases where there is no physical contact. Contact usually ends up as indecency with a minor or a more specific sexual abuse charge that I can't remember the wording on. As far as I've ever noticed, this is also the case with most of the neighboring states.

Child endangerment is almost always included with those charges if a guardian of any sort is involved, for what seems like obvious reasons to me - is that true in California as well?

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

In college I had a buddy who was charged with "Lewd and open conduct" or something wierd like that (this was in Salem, MA) because, as he tells it, he gave his winky one too many shakes at the urinal and some cop got the wrong idea.

Not that this is related to this case at all.

I agree that she is not getting the same treatment that most folks get. I don't know if celebrities always get off easier (look at O.J., hell, look at Fatty Arbuckle) or what. It's wierd how coverage follows this flow... there really isn't much of a diversity of reporting in this country.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

Child endangerment is almost always included with those charges if a guardian of any sort is involved, for what seems like obvious reasons to me - is that true in California as well?

Nope. It usually isn't charged in conjunction with child molestation, and if it is, it almost always involves different conduct.

The fact that "lewd conduct" means different things in different states is the reason I'm surprised that the media keeps latching onto that phrase instead of reading the damn complaint, or interviewing a California lawyer or something.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

David, I've never heard of anyone arrested for lewd conduct or indecent exposure who didn't explain that they were really arrested for public urination. Then there's my very closeted former boss who got his face pounded in after he approached a guy who was peeing in an alley "To tell the guy to zip his pants up."

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

I had a teacher who was arrested for indecent exposure but was eventually found innocent. Apparently it was the guy in some nearby bathroom stall that was really er, doing it. Since said teacher was an elementary school principal at the time of arrest and one of those effeminate-looking straight guys, it got pretty embarrassing. Knowing the guy, I can say he's not the type to do that, but the stigma of being thought guilty of it sucks.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

I happen to be a big Paula Poundstone fame (shaddup, she's funny) and I was very shocked by this. I'm taking the innocent until proven guilty track on this one. Some people have told me that child molestation charges (or those of that ilk invovling children) generally happen only when the evidence is so strong that it's a given they are guilty. I'm not sure I buy that though so I'm waiting to hear the details of the trial.

I do think it's interesting that she apparently was in an alcohol rehabilitation facility when arrested. I'm wondering what role her problem will play in the prosecution and the defense.

I think the media is being easy on her partly because in the end she's actually a very minor celebrity but also because of the subject matter. Robert Downey Jr. et al and drug problems are their crimes against themselves, basically, so jokes on Letterman and huge articles center on the perpetrator. Even in the case of the OJ trail it was an adult murdering other adults.

But with child molestation charges we are discussing some of the most horrific things a person can do. I think more people are willing or able to understand a drug problem or "crime of passion" murder than sexual abuse of children. Without details, what can the media do? Repeatedly report that she was arrested? It's one of the most unseemly crimes possible in our society and I think that makes even the media leery of going overboard.

In general I think celebrities get away with crimes a lot more than normal people. Take Enimem's recent problems. He was on probation for weapons charges, he got arrested for the same crime he was on probation for and all he got was more probation. Celebrities with drug offenses almost always get treatment where Joe Schmoe gets jail time.

It is, I think, part of the same culture that values the signature of famous people. Autographs of movie stars, baseball players, novelists, these are valuable commodities in our society. But aren't these people just doing their job? Granted it's a job that has to be done in public and it's based entirely on public consumption, but that doesn't make it an intrinsically more valuable or important job. The fact that people will pay insane money for a celebrity signature but don't care about the signatures of the policeman who protect them, the teachers who educate them (and/or their children), the waitress who works her ass of to make their meal happy, etc. shows that as a society we value celebrity over most things. It's that culture that enables celebrities to get off for crimes much easier than Joe Schmoe, because they are perceived as somehow a more valuable person because they entertain us.

As I step off my soap-box, I will say only that this attitude makes it easy for you all to know what not to get me for my birthday.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2001

I think the press and the public are being really easy on her, as well. I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, but that's not how we (as salacious public) usually react. Think if this had been a male comedian---a single male, perhaps one of questionable sexual orientation (I know it's not about homosexuality, it's about pedophiles, but the Public seems to lump them all together in the "something bad is bound to happen" category)---I'd name one as an example if my brain worked that way. Let's say Carrot Top had the same charges---I don't think people would be rushing to his defense.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

Maybe not, but that's Carrot Top. Most people would happily commit perjury to convict him. It's not a good example. ;)

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

I have this feeling that the press is being easy on her for two reasons: first of all, that she doesn't fit the standard profile of a 'child molester' - you know, being female, and all. And mostly, because the media has no idea, or hasn't done the research to find out exactly what the charges mean.

Like Beth said in a comment here, Lewd Conduct in California is a very serious charge, but it is defined differently in different places - in Washington State, for example, skinnydipping is considered Lewd Conduct. When I first saw it on the news, I assumed it was her getting busted for jumping in the pool commando style and a bitchy neighbour busting her for it. I am guessing sloppy reporting is partly responsible for the easy press time she is getting - people to lazy to get a legal definition for her charges.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

Now she can be a contestant on "To Tell the Truth"

(expecting horrible groans and protests)

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

I agree, MichaelH. Somehow the phrase, "Carrot Top facing charges," just makes me giggle. We should consider Pee Wee Herman. That boy was just all wrong. Um, Andrew Dice Clay? Guilty!

I also have to agree that the media seems to be treading lightly on this one. And a big part of it is no doubt due to her gender.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

This is just my recollection, but I seem to remember the Michael Jackson alleged molestation case getting pretty similar media treatment. I think Slickery is right that the media may be wary in their reporting just because the nature of the crime is so incredibly taboo.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

Has anyone mentioned, that she absolutely has to beat the rap?

Michael Jackson reportedly spent many millions. I'm sure his handlers lawyers, etc, gave him the lowdown on his career if he let child sexual molestation charges hang over his head. (of course, I'm making the assumption, there was something to the charges)

I mean people still have their doubts, but I think he basically bought his way out.

Celebrities can often use scandal to boost their career some, but I don't think she'll ever be able to work again (as a celebrity, unless she can clear herself) Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think the public will accept that on her resume'.

BTW, Carrot Top was listed recently as an eligible bachelor for those interested.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

Didn't MJ settle with the family out-of-court?

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001

An out of court settlement shouldn't make a damn bit of difference in the criminal prosecution, which is why the MJ case is so sickening. I believe the kid's father refused to allow him to testify after they got a whole bunch of money. If that's really true, they should have prosecuted MJ for bribing a witness and the father for obstruction of justice.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2001