Polanski

There are many voices in the ether with their opinions about whether it was rape, does it now matter, was the prosecutor/district attorney making a mountain out of a mole hill because he wanted re-election and a big case would help, didn't her pushy mother take her to the photoshoot, didn't she have sexual history anyway, can't you marry at 13 in some US states, what about the victim's request for it all to go away, don't the excellent movies mean anything, should we think of his children and wife...

I say no. Polanski admitted to a crime (the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse), was sentenced to 90days in jail, 42 of which were counted as the time spent undergoing psychiatric testing. When it seemed that the judge was wavering on honouring this plea deal, Polanski skipped bail and left the USA.

He needs to serve the remaining time and any additional sanctions for fleeing. Laws work because justice is meted out in accordance to strict rules. It doesn't matter if he pleaded guilty in order to make the situation go away or whether he actual did the crime; it doesn't matter that they paid money to the victim in a civil suit. What matters is that he agreed in a court of law that he did in fact commit a crime and was then sentenced to a punishment thought appropriate by the sitting judge. If Polanski and his legal team thought/think that the punishment was going to be worse that agreed, or if some other irregularities happened, then they could have made a complaint, asked for a mistrial, etc. Today if there are new facts that need to made known to the US legal system's representatives (Dep't of Justice) to request a retrial - to either quash the original conviction, or reduce the sentence to time served plus the new punishment for fleeing (perhaps house arrest time in Switzerland), then they need to present this to the appropriate US attorney's office.

If this doesn't happen, then we have to assume that the original conviction and sentence should stand and should therefore be upheld. Bounty hunters should take him back to USA to finish what was started. This is not rocket science.

This has been the soundest analysis I have seen thus far:

"This is why criminals are tried by the STATE, not by their victims. The STATE, society and common morality, are offended and wounded by the rape of a child, even if the child says she is fine now. There could be 1000 reasons this woman wants the cased dropped. Maybe she's tired of being remembered as a rape victim and doesn't want that shadow hanging over her children and life; maybe she suffers a rape victim's unfortunate guilt ("the whole of Hollywood LOVES this guy...everyone hates me for hurting him"), maybe she's genuinely recovered and forgiven him. Hell, maybe she's been bribed or threatened like other victims, who knows. But none of that can change the WRONGNESS of what happened to her, and how sick she'd feel if it happened to her own daughter. Emotions are fickle and complicated. Justice (when done right) is meant to be stronger than that." - Es, USA, 13/7/2010 23:01

The compelling argument here is that sexual congress at age 13 is morally wrong - you can feel that it is ethically questionable, without being informed about a culture's moral code or legal system. Young minds, young bodies, not yet being able to comprehend what particular behaviour will eventually mean (ie how they will feel about the acts when they are older). When the situation is that a much older person (43) admits to having sex with a 13 year old, the gut reaction should be universal - this is abhorrent to every rational society.