Roman Polanski arrest [warning: some discussion of sex crimes]

If he had served his sentence when he admitted guilt and was convicted, then it wouldn't have been dragged out for all these years, he wouldn't have had to suffer being on the run from the law, he wouldn't have had to miss the Oscar, etc.  I have no sympathy for him.

I agree with that completely, however (just generally playing devil's advocate again, as I have no opinion of Roman Polanski and don't really care if he goes to jail or not) in this case the offender hasn't reoffended in more than 30 years.  This appears to have been an isolated incident which the victim has put behind her.  I can't see that any greater good is being served by pursuing it now. 

I'm not at all sure he hasn't reoffended. I'm certainly not sure he didn't have prior incidents. His attitude, at least in the late Seventies, seemed to be, "hey, every guy would nail a 13-year-old if he had a chance."

I'm not at all sure he hasn't reoffended. I'm certainly not sure he didn't have prior incidents. His attitude, at least in the late Seventies, seemed to be, "hey, every guy would nail a 13-year-old if he had a chance."

Exactly. We have no way of knowing whether he reoffended or not.

I agree with that completely, however (just generally playing devil's advocate again, as I have no opinion of Roman Polanski and don't really care if he goes to jail or not) in this case the offender hasn't reoffended in more than 30 years.  This appears to have been an isolated incident which the victim has put behind her.  I can't see that any greater good is being served by pursuing it now.  

Funny, the greater good is actually pretty obvious in this case. If anything, the question is should the greater good be deferred because the circumstances are so unusual.

Bringing a 30-year fugitive to justice is seems like a straight-forward greater good to me.

Funny, the greater good is actually pretty obvious in this case. If anything, the question is should the greater good be deferred because the circumstances are so unusual.

Bringing a 30-year fugitive to justice is seems like a straight-forward greater good to me.

Agreed. He was lawfully convicted and chose to flee and live a public life flaunting it in the face of justice. He deserves to face his sentence and follow the set out appeal process if he maintains his innocence. That is the way the system is set up.

*devil's advocate hat on*

Would you guys feel the same way if he'd been living in poverty these last 30 years?

Edited to clarify: I mean if a non-rich, non-famous person had committed rape and then run out on his sentence, then was picked up 30 years later after the victim had moved on with her life. 

Of course. A crime is a crime, no matter who has committed it.

*devil's advocate hat on*

Would you guys feel the same way if he'd been living in poverty these last 30 years?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would feel the same way regardless of how he'd been living.  My personal opinion is that crimes against children are the worst out there, and one should be punished accordingly.  It doesn't matter to me if he hasn't re-offended in the last 30 years (and that isn't a certainty as others have mentioned), he never served his time for the crime he pled guilty to.  It's like someone having committed a murder and gone undetected for a really long time...if that person didn't commit another murder in the intervening years, should that person not be convicted because "hey, he is a good person and didn't do anything else wrong?"

There's an interesting article on MSNBC, where they said the reason they attempted a plea bargain with Polanski in the 70's was to spare the victim in the case the trauma of having to go through a trial, and that if he had been charged with the same list of crimes today as he was initially charged with before the plea, he'd be looking at a HUGE prison sentence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33109632/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

*devil's advocate hat on*

Would you guys feel the same way if he'd been living in poverty these last 30 years?

Edited to clarify: I mean if a non-rich, non-famous person had committed rape and then run out on his sentence, then was picked up 30 years later after the victim had moved on with her life. 

I would not feel any differently. You do the crime, you do the time.

There is NO doubt whatsoever that a nobody who had skipped out on his sentencing after plea bargaining rape down to statutory rape would be looking at extradition and serious hard time. The only reason there's even a question mark is because he's not a nobody.

There is NO doubt whatsoever that a nobody who had skipped out on his sentencing after plea bargaining rape down to statutory rape would be looking at extradition and serious hard time. The only reason there's even a question mark is because he's not a nobody.

Exactly.

I'm not at all sure he hasn't reoffended. I'm certainly not sure he didn't have prior incidents. His attitude, at least in the late Seventies, seemed to be, "hey, every guy would nail a 13-year-old if he had a chance."

Yes, there could be other victims out there. There's no way of knowing, but his attitude does suggest that he didn't think it was a big deal at the time--which is really disturbing!!

I'm also very disturbed by the behavior of the victim's mother. I wonder if she was ever prosecuted for setting her own child up with Polanski?

*devil's advocate hat on*

Would you guys feel the same way if he'd been living in poverty these last 30 years?

Edited to clarify: I mean if a non-rich, non-famous person had committed rape and then run out on his sentence, then was picked up 30 years later after the victim had moved on with her life. 

Yes of course I would feel the same about it.

I'm not sure where you are coming from on this. Rape is rape whether it's committed by a rich, famous man or a down and out.  To suggest otherwise is bizarre.

*devil's advocate hat on*

Would you guys feel the same way if he'd been living in poverty these last 30 years?

Edited to clarify: I mean if a non-rich, non-famous person had committed rape and then run out on his sentence, then was picked up 30 years later after the victim had moved on with her life. 

Going back to the "needs of justice vs needs of the victim" argument, what about if you let a suspected rapist go free because the victim didn't want to have to go through the trauma of a trial, and then the rapist raped someone else?  Would you be sympathetic to the trauma of the first victim if you were later victimized by the same criminal?

(That's "you" in the larger sense, not you particularly, historyenne.)

I'm not sure where you are coming from on this. Rape is rape whether it's committed by a rich, famous man or a down and out.  To suggest otherwise is bizarre.

Where I'm coming from is that there seems to be a fantastic amount of vitriol in the media based on the fact that Roman Polanski is rich and famous.  People seem so eager to refute the notion that celebrities are above the law that they are almost gleefully recounting the details of the rape whilst clamouring for Polanski's blood.  That's something I don't think the victim needs to be seeing every time she opens a newspaper. 

I have never seen any of Roman Polanski's movies, until a few days ago I'd barely heard of him.  All I know about any of this is what I've read in the papers the past week or so.  So I don't have any personal motives to want him kept out of jail.  It's just that coming from almost total ignorance of the guy and his past, the whole thing strikes me as peculiar, with the sudden arrest and then the enthusiastic media condemnation.  It's not like the guy has never left France in the whole of the 32 years since he fled.  If it's so important to punish him, why wasn't more of an effort made to catch him earlier?  Why now?

I'm by no means defending rapists and as a general rule I think they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  I'm just surprised by the frenzy.  Yes, it was a horrible, inexcusable thing that he did, but I can't help feeling that if a non-celebrity did the same thing, we would condemn his actions and pursue justice, but there wouldn't be the same level of fervour against him.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  But that's the impression that I've gotten from reading the columns in various newspapers and the links posted in this thread. 

Oh, and *Liz*, nice work with the "bizarre" jibe.  But I'm not taking the bait this time.