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.

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.

The Swiss didn't have a choice once the paperwork was in their hands - they have to adhere to the extradition treaty we have with them, and there is no exception in that treaty that gives them the option to not hand him over. (Unlike, France - our extradition treaty with France allows them to refuse to send their own citizens.)

So, I'm not sure where the banking would come in, although you may have information I don't. I would think it's just as likely that the recent documentary on the case that caused RP to press that the case be closed was the root cause.

I guess where I come out on the Polanski matter is --

I'm not comfortable with the "forget about it, it was 32 years ago" argument. If Polanski hadn't run, it would have ended 32 years ago. And by now, the whole affair would probably be little more than a footnote in Hollywood history.

I'm not comfortable on either side of "the victim says to let it alone" argument. I can't ignore her feelings completely. But letting the victim control whether to prosecute or not sets a bad precedent.

I can't accept the "he's suffered enough by being in exile for 32 years" argument. He's lived a pretty comfortable life in the country where he's a citizen and traveled pretty freely to at least a couple of other countries where he owns homes. And been able to continue making movies, at least to the extent of winning an Oscar.

I understand that one reason the judge wanted to ignore the agreement is that an Assistant D.A., not involved with the case, gave the judge additional information ex parte. That really disturbs me. Ex parte contact with a judge about a case is a big no-no for a litigator.

Maybe the answer is to go with the plea agreement on the original rape, or at least to prohibit the prosecution from offering any arguments that Polanski should be punished more severely than the agreement provided. Not because the original rape was "no big deal" -- when you're in your 40s, you'd better know that 13-year-olds are off limits. But because of the misconduct in the District Attorney's office.

Then prosecute the flight. Where growing up under the Holocaust should probably be a factor in determining the punishment but not a complete defense.