Fugitive from the Law


The fact that his victim (who is hardly the same person they were when they were a victim) is on record for dropping the charges against Mr. Polanski goes a long way towards my siding towards the dropping of the charges. Taking it as fact that judicial misconduct appears to have been in play with regards to plea bargaining and Mr. Polanski's decision to flee the country gives me some sympathy for Mr. Polanski's situation and decisions.
Comparing Polanski to Jean Valjean rankles, because it compares stealing a loaf of bread with raping a thirteen year old child. The tragedies that Polanski has suffered in his life are real, and may even serve as something of an excuse (Mr. Polanski's crime occurred eight years after his pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson "Family). Oddly enough, I wonder if at the time Mr. Polanski may have committed other similar crimes, but was lucky enough to avoid prosecution for them, but that is speculation well after the fact.
Let's start by considering the following items as the facts to be taken into account:

Mr. Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. The girl was with Mr. Polanski for a photoshoot (it is unknown why there was no chaperone).

Mr. Polanski agreed to a plea deal for time served with prosecuting attorney, and pled guilty expecting to receive time served. The victim was satisfied with this plea deal.

With the guilty verdict in, the judge in the case chose to ignore the plea deal, and give Mr. Polanski a much stiffer penalty, potentially fifty years in jail.

Mr. Polanski became aware of the judge's intention, and fled the country.

Mr. Polanski has lived in Europe and remained a public figure, avoiding travel to countries that he perceived as having a high likelihood of holding him for extradition. He has lived what most would call "a good life" since.

You may feel that other facts are pertinent to this case, but for the most part I don't. A budget crisis in California isn't specifically relevant to this case per se, no more so than if this had happened when California had budget surpluses. To claim that it does is to claim that justice is a matter of finances, which is a claim I am not willing to accept. Finances certainly impact justice, but the costs here are not being laid out. I find it difficult to believe that extraditing Polanski and dealing with the case really impacts the budget much at all.

Polanski has been a FUGITIVE and a public figure for over 30 years. While he doesn't make statements openly mocking the California/U.S. justice system for being unable to catch up with him, he has remained a public figure, and his wealth and foreign sympathizers have given him the opportunity to live the life that he has had since fleeing the U.S.

I don't see how this is different from a wealthy executive committing the same crime and fleeing the country under the same circumstances. If you feel that Polanski got shafted by the justice system (and I do), you shouldn't get a pass because you got shafted by the system. You need to review and reform the system. People get shafted by the system all the time (the system is the best in the world, blah, blah). The system isn't perfect, but it is the system we live by and when we choose to play by our own rules it goes to show that the system is a tiered system, with one set of rules for the wealthy and another set of rules for those without such resources.

While this is in fact TRUE, it is incumbent on use to do our best to minimize that, and that means when someone we sympathize with gets shafted, we shouldn't try to give that individual a pass. We need to deal with the problems in the system.

Honestly, I don't blame Polanski for fleeing when he did, but it doesn't mean I condone it, or think he should get a pass because he has managed to get away with it for so long. What I find disturbing is that people aren't talking about the system. Saying that this is the wrong time to pursue Polanski because the California Budget is in turmoil is saying that justice is a luxury for a rich society.

Maybe Justice IS a luxury for a rich society, but if it is, then let's make that part of the justice system. Sentencing shouldn't be determined only by the crime, but also by the cost of the punishment and the ability of the state to pay for the punishment.

But I don't hear anybody advocating that.

You may not like what is happening to Polanski now, but that doesn't mean it isn't right or just. What happens after the case is reviewed may or may not be just of fair, but that is another part of the justice system. If you don't like it, then really, how would you change the system?