Roman Polanski did a bad bad thing

Ok, so I am sure you have all heard the news about Roman Polanski and the rape of a 13 year old and the potential miscarriage of justice, blah blah blah.  Well, I waited a few days before posting so I could read as much as I could about both sides of the story, and now I am ready to present my take on this mess.

1.  Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl.  He plied her with liquor and drugs, and then claimed that they were together consensually.  The girl was there as a result of the efforts of her mother trying to push her career.  Her mother should never have allowed that, and not allowed a 13 year old to go off alone in that situation.  Polanski, did a very bad thing, and no matter how old the girl may have looked, it isn't right.  He admitted guilt, he needs punishment.

2.  He setup a plea agreement where there would be no public trial, and he would be charged time served.  From what I have read this was done to protect the victim from a public trial, but it was also the keep him out of jail. 

3.  The judge did not like him and his actions, and wanted to make an example out of him, and indicated he would not honor the agreement.  The result could have been a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison.  I can understand Polanski was concerned.  50 years is a long time, and who wants to be made an example of.  He did a very bad thing, and was at risk of long term incarceration for it.

4.  He ran, so far, far away.  To France, which didn't believe that it was a fair trial, because of the judge and basically granted asylum.  From there he continued his career, lived his life, made movies.  The whole time his lawyers were working in the US to try to get the case overturned because of the issues with the judge.  The appeals court said there was merit, and that they would hear the case, however, Polanski had to be present.  He would not come.

5.  In Switzerland he was picked up and should be extradited to the US, but France, Poland and a battery of random celebrities are against this.  Personally I don't know what Woody Allen's opinion has to do with anything in this case, but whatever.  I won't argue that point... for now.

6. What is clear is the following

• Roman Polanski broke the law and raped a little girl.
• The judge was not acting in an impartial way as a judge should and was out to make an example.
• Polanski is a fugitive from the law and has been on the run for 30 years.
• Polanski should go the US and face the courts.  If the case is dropped due to the judge mishandling it, so be it.
• Polanski has to face the punishment for running.  Regardless of what happened to the girl, he still broke the law when he fled the country.  There is a punishment for that, ironically, it may be deportation, so we would just send him back to where he was.

I'm just tired of this whole thing.  I know that it will vanish from the news in a week or two unless something more interesting happens, like Angelina adopting a gaggle of starving kids, or a tsunami, or a light frost.  The media is fickle like that.

-Uncle Walter

Comments

[The Wife]

You're mistaken on a couple of points. First, the judge didn't want to sentence Polanski to 50 years (that was just the maximum possible sentence for that charge). The most he was facing was an additional 48 DAYS. That's the only number that was on the table. The Judge didn't like the plea agreement that they struck which would have allowed him to get away with time served (42 DAYS). It's a judge's prerogative to disallow a plea agreement, because a plea agreement is subject to judicial approval no matter what (otherwise prosecutors who are corrupt would not face checks and balances). There was nothing inherently wrong with that.

It's only speculation that the judge was looking for publicity or recognition. More than likely he felt that a child rapist *deserved* to serve more than 42 days in prison. Also, he probably *didn't* want to be seen as lenient on child sex offenders, and especially not lenient just because the defendant was famous. Think of the fine line that Ito had to walk with the OJ trial.

Finally, they're not working to get the case overturned (well, they HAVE in the past, but that's not the issue now). They're working to have the judge's sentence overturned so that he doesn't have to serve any additional time on that charge. There's a difference. ALSO, they're trying to let him to get away with fleeing, ie drop all the CURRENT charges. That's what his presence is required for -- to allow all additional charges to be dropped, which they will do if he comes to the US. His original conviction will still stand, thank god.