Roman Polanski finally arrested

[bernie's bender]

well, he's 76, so I think you are going to get your wish.


here is something a friend sent me this morning.....

"Let's see. Whitey Bulger has been on the lam for 20 years and has not been found. The FBI doesn't want to catch him because he might embarrass them. He is believed to be involved in over 30 murders as well as racketeering.

Osama Bin Laden has not been captured despite The fact that the US has waged war against 2 countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan (That's right Pakistan). He was involved in many acts of terrorism, including the attacks on WTC, Pentagon, several US embassies, etc. Do we really want him?

The US justice system doesn't like being embarrassed. That's why so many innocent people are behind bars, and the courts have resisted DNA testing that would exonerate many. They stall the process for years to avoid embarrassment. And when it is determined that the prosecutors broke the law in order to get a conviction, there is absolutely no consequences. How long did Hurricane Carter rot in jail before he was released. Why? Because someone wanted to avoid embarrassment.

Anyone recall the Duke Lacrosse team rape charges? This is one unique case where the prosecutor actually paid a price for his crimes. He's been disbarred and is facing civil suits. This should happen in more cases, but it doesn't.

Think about how many "diplomats" get away with murder and other crimes because of "diplomatic immunity". Regardless what they do, we cannot touch them. Why, because of "national interests" ie: oil and other resources.

China is assigned "most favored nation" status despite their human rights abuses that are legandary. They kill people and sell their organs, but they are our most favored nation. Why, $$$

I'll sleep much better tonight knowing that Roman Polanski is behind bars.
Prosecutors don't even respect the victim in this case that wants this matter dropped. Nope, it's all about us being embarrassed."

[Ive always been a dreamer]

And even they don't necessairly remember it the same way.

Seriously! This is an event that happened over 30 years ago when both of them were in a drug-induced state. My guess is that even their recollection is a bit fuzzy.

I was also thinking about what would be the purpose of spending megabucks to prosecute Polanski at this point? Presumably, it would be to get justice for society and for the victim of his crime. I really doubt that he is a menace to society and the victim has stated that she doesn't want to pursue getting justice. I think her wishes should be honored. Is it justice to drag her though reliving all this crap again, when she says that all she wants to do is put it all behind her, and focus on her future?

[Prettymaid]

I'm trying to understand both sides, but the traditionalist in me says he commited a crime and needs to face the consequences.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I know PM – that is my first instinct as well. But then I think – you know, I really care more about the victim's rights here than I do Polanski's. I truly believe that he will have his Judgment Day. But, when a crime is of such a personal nature, then true justice for the victim is to honor their wishes, IMHO. She does not want to have to relive this ordeal, and I think that’s what may be best in this case. This is more a crime against her than society. When someone perpetrates a crime against society or the victim can’t speak for themselves, then that is a different matter.

[Prettymaid]

But, when a crime is of such a personal nature, then true justice for the victim is to honor their wishes, IMHO. She does not want to have to relive this ordeal, and I think that’s what may be best in this case. This is more a crime against her than society.

I assume you are taking his age into consideration when you say this, because normally pedophilia is a crime against society.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I realize that every crime is technically a crime against society, and that the victim doesn't always have a voice in whether the accused is prosecuted or not. However, whenever the crime is of a personal nature, it is often left up to the victim as to whether or not to press charges. And also, if the accused is prosecuted and convicted, the victim does usually have a voice in the sentencing.

PM, yes, I am taking into consideration Polanski's age and the age of the crime, as well as, all the other factor's that have been raised in this thread. But most of all, as I stated, I am taking into consideration what is best for the victim here. If she were to say I want him prosecuted, then I would be 100% in favor of it. Trust me, I am not defending Roman Polanski here or trying to give him a pass. I am just trying to objectively weigh all the extenuating circumstances surrounding this case, including all of the media frenzy and the costs involved, and try to figure out what is in the best interest of the victim and society here.

[Prettymaid]

The reason I mentioned his age is that normally someone like Polanski is a repeat offender, so no matter what the victim's wishes are they are overshadowed by the necessity to remove him from the possibility of doing it to someone else. In Polanski's case, his age probably prevents this from happening.

I still believe people should have to pay for their crimes not only at Judgement Day, but here and now.

[sodascouts]

I feel strongly about this - and it's not because I've been misled by the media, or I've swallowed spin, or I've been "led by the nose." I didn't take what I heard at face value. In fact, I refused to make a judgment until I'd read the unvarnished grand jury testimony myself.

I read it. I read the facts of the case, as they were reported by the court, not the media. I read it and I was appalled.

Of course, you could argue that the girl was being dishonest or "exaggerating." Certainly sometimes people get falsely accused. If that were the case, Polanski would have done well to defend himself rather than accept a plea bargain, then flee the country when it appeared the plea bargain would be rescinded and he would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I read the piece Geimer wrote where she said that she thought what he did shouldn't affect whether or not he gets an award. Here's the original op/ed article that the LA Times quoted. I'll just post a different quote here from the same article - it's not the same bit the recent LA Times op/ed used... for obvious reasons.

I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.

It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy. Those may sound like kindergarten words, but that's the way it feels to me. It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart.

So, you see, depending on what part of the article you quote, it makes a big difference as to how it comes across, doesn't it?

I keep hearing about how this is a waste of resources, but do we actually have a figure of how much it is costing? Or do we just assume it must be costing a vaguely stated "millions of dollars" because we were told that by biased media sources like the LA Times?

When it comes to criminal behavior, I do believe the same standard should indeed apply. In the case of Henley, he didn't flee the country. It was "worked out" because he accepted the judgment of the courts. If Polanski had done the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I respect that not everyone feels the same way I do, but I came to my opinion based on one thing: the way the victim said that it went down. If other people want to take into account other various factors, that's understandable. For me, a man raped a child and should be punished. Yes, I do believe that right is right and wrong is wrong. I would make the same judgment if the rapist were Mr. Glenn Frey.

And as long as we're bringing in other cases as examples... there was a case on America's Most Wanted where a man was found two decades after he committed his crime. He killed his wife, mother, and three children in 1971. As far as anyone knows, he never committed another crime. He settled down, married again, got a job as an accountant, and minded his own business. Still, he was pursued and eventually caught and prosecuted almost 20 years later. No one said "It's been a long time" - "it was a one-time thing" - "he's an old man now." They said that he needed to pay.

Now, Polanski isn't a murderer. However, if one is going to compare the pursuit of his case to the hunt for Osama bin Laden and liken it to some alleged government cover-up, one has pretty much opened the door for my comparison.

I respect everyone's opinion here - we're all intelligent, reasonable people. One group isn't more savvy than the other, and one group isn't more moral than the other. We just have different perspectives - and I, for one, enjoy the debate.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I still believe people should have to pay for their crimes not only at Judgement Day, but here and now.

And so do I in a perfect world. But, unfortunately, we ain’t there yet.
However, after I wrote this I realized in a perfect world, there would be no crime.

I agree with Soda that this is an interesting debate, and I also respect everyone’s opinion about this. As a matter of fact, I am really on the fence about it. I noticed in Soda’s earlier post, she listed all of the arguments being given for why Roman Polanski should be freed. Honestly, I couldn’t care less about any of the arguments his supporters are using to defend him. To me this isn’t about Roman Polanski, it’s about his victim. She is the one that we should be considering here. Despite this horrible incident in her past, she filed a motion with the court earlier this year asking that this case be dismissed. This is basically what it boils down for me.

Did Roman Polanski owe a debt to society for his crime in 1977? Of course, he did. And he did actually serve a small amount of time in jail before leaving the U.S. But more importantly, I believe he owed a significantly larger debt to his victim. The personal nature of his crime had much more impact on his victim than it did on our society. Therefore, I believe that her voice should be much more important than mine or any other member of society in determining his fate. So if she says, leave him alone because I just want to put this horrible incident behind me, then that is good enough for me. I maintain that my voice, society’s voice, or Roman Polanski’s voice really aren’t the most important thing to consider here, so let the victim’s wishes be done, I say! I think the rest of us should try to ‘get over it’ like she apparently is attempting to do.

[EagleLady]

Still, 30, 40 years whatever, It doesn't excuse his behavior or his crime.