Roman Polanski OR In Which Austin Flaps His Big Fat Yap
Roman Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen year-old girl. No question about this; he pled guilty. Then he left the country. He has, in Europe, had an accomplished and storied career. He won an Oscar (which he couldn't collect). He has created very famous movies.
And now he's been arrested. Several very prominent people in the entertainment industry are calling for his release, using the following as grounds for their statements:
It was 40-odd years ago.
Polanski fled the country because he was afraid of being viciously crucified by the judge and jury.
The victim would desperately like to forget about it, so why do you keep pushing?
Polanski is now an old man.
Those pushing the case have been trying to trap Polanski for years; this is now a personal grudge.
Polanski is brilliant; thus, sending him to prison deprives him of the ability to participate in new projects.
All of these statements are true, at least for a given value of truth. The "personal grudge" bit is subjective, but hell, they've been trying to snare the guy for 40 years; that indicates a passion for what you're doing that delves into the realm of the personal crusade.
But ultimately, the final issue is at what point does fame and privilege (and Polanski is both famous and privileged) allow one to escape the rule of law?
Answer: It shouldn't.
There isn't any statute of limitations I know of that has expired to let Polanski off the hook.
Whatever reason Polanski had for running, it's still a fact that he ran.
Strange as it may sound, the victim's role in this is done and she should be left alone--this is about Polanski and what he did, not who he did it to. Not anymore.
There are lots of old men who commit crimes and are sent to jail.
The grudges or lack thereof of the district attorney and assorted lawmen and women are not the point.
Roman Polanski can still write screenplays if he goes to prison.
The point is, Roman Polanski committed a sexually deviant crime. He drugged another human being--a minor--and had his way with her. This is not really disputed.
Fame and privilege or the rule of law?
Let's find out.
And now he's been arrested. Several very prominent people in the entertainment industry are calling for his release, using the following as grounds for their statements:
It was 40-odd years ago.
Polanski fled the country because he was afraid of being viciously crucified by the judge and jury.
The victim would desperately like to forget about it, so why do you keep pushing?
Polanski is now an old man.
Those pushing the case have been trying to trap Polanski for years; this is now a personal grudge.
Polanski is brilliant; thus, sending him to prison deprives him of the ability to participate in new projects.
All of these statements are true, at least for a given value of truth. The "personal grudge" bit is subjective, but hell, they've been trying to snare the guy for 40 years; that indicates a passion for what you're doing that delves into the realm of the personal crusade.
But ultimately, the final issue is at what point does fame and privilege (and Polanski is both famous and privileged) allow one to escape the rule of law?
Answer: It shouldn't.
There isn't any statute of limitations I know of that has expired to let Polanski off the hook.
Whatever reason Polanski had for running, it's still a fact that he ran.
Strange as it may sound, the victim's role in this is done and she should be left alone--this is about Polanski and what he did, not who he did it to. Not anymore.
There are lots of old men who commit crimes and are sent to jail.
The grudges or lack thereof of the district attorney and assorted lawmen and women are not the point.
Roman Polanski can still write screenplays if he goes to prison.
The point is, Roman Polanski committed a sexually deviant crime. He drugged another human being--a minor--and had his way with her. This is not really disputed.
Fame and privilege or the rule of law?
Let's find out.