I was kidding about Polanski. He did a terrible thing 32 years ago, but only after having faced firsthand some of the worst things in the 20th century (i.e. the Holocaust and Charlie Manson). His victim has made peace with him and it's a certainty that it won't happen again. I mean, it's not like he's spent the last 32 years doing drugs and molesting children. I just don't see where there's any justice in this. It's a meaningless vendetta.

Punishing someone who had evaded justice for forcible rape (including sodomy) is not a meaningless vendetta. Nor is the behavior of a judge or prior bad experiences even remotely an excuse for it.

Well, yes, those are the facts of the case. And without trying to excuse Polanski's actions or deny these facts, I'm saying the prosecution of Roman Polanski is a meaningless pursuit at this point. There is not a conceivable outcome that will result in anything like justice for any aggrieved party, including the U.S. legal system. I question why Switzerland chose to arrest Polanski now, instead of the numerous times that he has been in the country in the past 32 years. I question how extradition to the U.S., presuming that's the point of the arrest, will result in an outcome that is better for anyone than the status quo.

Well, the case could be decided and Polanski could be free to travel and work in the USA.

Call me cynical, but I don't think that's too likely.

There is not a conceivable outcome that will result in anything like justice for any aggrieved party, including the U.S. legal system.

Well, there's something to be said for deterring flight, for not maintaining the impression that one can get away with child abuse if one stays in France long enough. If someone has denied justice to anyone or anything, it is entirely on Polanski; if he didn't want to spend time in jail as a septuagenarian he should have returned at any time in the last three decades.

Sorry Hec. Unfortunately I think there's a pretty solid correlation between zeppelin inclusion and crappiness of movie.

(see Flyboys for example)

I'd be willing to hear Polanski's arguments on why the Holocaust and the Manson murders should affect his sentencing. He went through several forms of hell in his younger years. And maybe that should affect the exact punishment he receives. But it shouldn't give him a pass to inflict another form of hell on a child who was little older than he was when the Holocaust ended. (And something that should go without saying -- his film genius shouldn't have any effect at all. Rosemary's Baby is a great movie. But it doesn't give him a pass.)

I'm not sure how the "he's in his seventies" and "he spent 30 years on the lam" work into it. Maybe they cancel each other out.

The argument that I find most frustrating is the "she forgave him years ago" one. In the US criminal system, it's the state vs. the accused, not the victim vs. the accused. Apart from witness testimony, from a legal perspective, it doesn't really matter what the victim thinks or feels on the issue. For all the talk about "getting justice for the victim" on crime shows, we don't want the victim to be the one making punishment decisions. We want equality under the law.

As a practical matter, it's often difficult to get a criminal conviction if the victim won't testify. (Though not an issue here, of course, because he's already been convicted.) Though it's easy to sympathize with whoever has to prepare a victim impact statement.