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.

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.

I agree with this point, but I don't think that Polanski has created any precedent. Maybe I'm ignorant of such matters, but I don't believe that the French legal system has decided to allow their country to become the international sanctuary for child molesters. I think they made an exception for Polanski, who has a unique history of suffering and, yes, artistic achievement.

In the US criminal system, it's the state vs. the accused, not the victim vs. the accused.

Yes, I'm aware that this is the way that the justice system works. I think that when Polanski faces trial in the U.S., the evidence will show that justice has been miscarried in this case on all sides, including that of the state. Which is why I thought the prior situation in which Polanski could not set foot in the U.S. nor travel extensively abroad seemed far preferable than the current situation, in which sheets of dirty laundry from all of the sides are going to be aired and there will be a chorus of reductive arguments on the Internet to the tune of "He's a child abuser!" and "He's an artist!" as if either fact makes the other disappear.

The question of why now is the one that bugs me the most about all of this. Polanski has not only visited Switzerland numerous times over the years, but he owns a home there and was invited to visit in this case by the government to receive an award. It appears that Eric Holder's Justice Department decided to ask Switzerland to arrest and extradite Polanski, but it mystifies me why the current Justice Department considers this a higher priority than prior administrations.

but it mystifies me why the current Justice Department considers this a higher priority than prior administrations.

Maybe this administration actually gives a rat's ass about 13 year old girls.

"He's a child abuser!" doesn't make "He's an artist!" disappear, but it does make it utterly irrelevant. I don't care if he taught the whole world to sing as well as invented a cure for AIDS, cancer, and snoring. He raped a 13 year old. He should do all the time in prison our justice system can throw at him.

Lost In Translation: The Funniest Foreign Titles Of American Films

While "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" ruled at our box office "Cloudy with a Chance of Falafel" reigned in Israel.

Heh.

but it mystifies me why the current Justice Department considers this a higher priority than prior administrations

Let's have a quiz, shall we?

What is the main thing going on between the US and Switzerland right now? Hint: It wasn't on the table any of the previous times Polanski was in Switzerland.

Second hint: the initials HNB are involved.

I'm pretty sure that the answer to the "why now?" question is that the Swiss are giving us Polanski so that we'll leave at least some of the bank accounts alone.

And, while I think accosting a 13yo is horrifying, I have serious doubts about any form of justice in this case. Polanski plead guilty as part of a plea bargain; a bargain which the judge did not adhere to. Polanski probably has a case for a mistrial. Also, the possibility of him getting a fair trial now is slim.

Raq,

as I understand it, he only served 40 days in jail and the judge wanted him to serve 90 days.

Is that true? that he fled the country for a 3 month sentence? For raping a child?

a bargain which the judge did not adhere to

Not so. No judge has ever pronounced sentence on him, so no one knows if the plea bargain would have been accepted at that time or not.

Polanski probably has a case for a mistrial.

He has a case, but he has to be sentenced to make it. And I think there are reasons to think that it wouldn't be granted. The offending judge was removed from the case, so he wouldn't have been sentenced by him, and is now deceased, which may mean his actions are a moot point.

No judge has ever pronounced sentence on him, so no one knows if the plea bargain would have been accepted at that time or not.

I stand corrected.

For me, this is one of those cases where justice has not been served, and at this point I don't see how it can be. The point that our justice system works on behalf of society and not the victim is right, I think...but I'm not sure this is even working on behalf of society. It seems even creepier that he's being used as a pawn this way - like, the Swiss were OK with a child rapist but not OK with examining rich people's tax shelters.

I have to say, though, that the more liberal articles I read about how he should be forgiven or whatever, the closer I move to the political center.