I consider precedent irrelevant unless another very similar case would arise.

There are plenty of people who commit crimes who have the money and connections to free the country and stay gone. That's the only "very similar case" that is relevant.

Also, what flea said.

Should he get away with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl?

Nope. He shouldn't have in the first place.

I don't know... there are just so many variables in this case. He was stupid to run, but again, I don't know what demons drive the man or if it was a case of thinking himself above the law because of who he was. It could be equal parts of both. It was also a different time and place and lifestyle the likes of which very few of us can begin to imagine.

I honestly don't know.

And for the record, not a fan. Just trying to sort it all out in my head.

If you can read this: [link] and think he should never be punished for that, I don't know what to say.

It was also a different time and place and lifestyle the likes of which very few of us can begin to imagine.

Is this in reference to the rape or running?

so many things are totally fucked up about that letter asking for his release I just cannot even begin. shame on them all.

and that poor girl. seriously, her life was fucked up before this, I cannot imagine, getting through that life, then his rape, THEN the publicity at the time, THEN the publicity like over and over and over.

Maybe if the judge assigned to the case hadn't been a total asshat this might have been resolved in the 70s.

Or if Polanski had worked within the system and appealed the case if he thought the judge was biased. Or voluntarily come back at any time in the past 30 years if a new judge could be assigned.

It was also a different time and place and lifestyle the likes of which very few of us can begin to imagine.

I can't imagine that even in the sexy Hollywood 70s it was okay to drug and rape a girl who was crying and saying "no." (I am sure it happened a lot in the 70s and is still happening, but I don't have a problem with saying it's not okay. If the sex had been consensual, you can argue different times, but rape is rape, yo.)

Yes, I deleted my half-post above that was going to make the point that the Rittenband argument holds no water. First off, we have a whole process to deal with asshat judges (of which there are tremendously many) and it is appeals. Not to mention, he died decades ago. Polanski doesn't have an excuse after that. It could and would have been dealt with in the 70s had he not flouted the law.