Cross-posted from Rational Resistance:
LOS ANGELES — In a surprising move arranged by prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington, the authorities in Switzerland arrested the film director Roman Polanski late Saturday as he arrived at the Zurich airport, paving the way for his possible extradition to the United States in connection with a 32-year-old sex case.
You've heard the news, right? Thirty-two years after he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, pleaded guilty to the crime, and then skipped out rather than face sentencing, Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland where he faces possible extradition to the United States.
The remarkable thing is how many people seem sympathetic to Polanski and willing to blame his 13-year-old victim.
Here is a summary of the victim's grand jury testimony:
This testimony was the basis of the indictment, and the basis of the plea of guilty that Polanski agreed to, and of the conviction that the court then entered based on the guilty plea.
Polanski's defense seems to be that he didn't think he was going to be treated fairly by the trial judge, so he was apparently justified in fleeing the jurisdiction and spending the next three decades enjoying his career as a film director and the great wealth and acclaim that career bought him.
No. There is no doubt that there was misconduct involving the trial judge, but the defendant has options in such a case. If the court issues a sentence beyond the range of the plea agreement, the defendant can withdraw the plea and go to trial. It's not unusual. Or, if the defendant believes the judge has engaged in misconduct, the defendant can seek to have the judge removed and go before an impartial judge. What he doesn't get to do is decide that since he doesn't think he's going to like the sentence he will just exempt himself from the legal process.
We know the victim wants this dropped, but it's not her call. A criminal charge is brought by the state on behalf of the people, not the victim. The people are entitled to see that the laws are not violated, that crimes do not go unpunished. This would seem to be especially true in the case of child rape.
Polanski:
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f-ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f- young girls. Juries want to f- young girls. Everyone wants to f- young girls!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…
is what disturbs and interests me. His was not a case of justice delayed or denied. He made a plea bargain deal and skipped.
But then…a bunch of people in the movie business said, “Oh, so you are a fugitive convicted child rapist. But you are a successful director. Want to make a movie for me?” Money trumped morality once more, and it is the least surprising among movie people.
I see a parallel in former members of the Bush administration getting book deals, speaking engagements, commencement speeches, and plum jobs in business and academia. War crimes and violations of law and the constitution don’t seem to count for much.
Fewer crappy things would happen in this world if people would simply turn their backs on the Polanskis and Rumsfelds. Social ostracism works.
On the one hand, of course, I abhor his crime and believe he should be punished; on the other, I have to admit that I am grateful he was free to make some great films. That’s “Great” with a capital G. “The Tenant” and “The Pianist” rank among my favorite films of all time. He certainly didn’t squander that freedom.
In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more
annoying[heartbreaking]. ~ Bertrand Russell