i read an article about this a few weeks ago, before switzerland arrested him.  it quoted the now grown-up girl as saying she forgave him a long time ago and that she doesn't believe he's a dangerous man nor likely to commit another offense like this.  she thinks he basically let his fame and power go to his head and made a bad decision.  it doesn't seem like she was scarred too terribly by the incident.  in fact, i believe she said that she doesn't think he should be imprisoned.

imo, where were her parents?  there's no way in hell i'd leave my barely teenage daughter alone with a male photographer for a modelling shoot, no matter how famous he is.  hell, i don't think i'd let my daughter go into modelling period, at least not at that young age.

Honestly, I am torn on this one. I can see that there are valid points on both sides of the case.

Normally, it is not a big deal to let someone off the hook if they have not been caught after a number of years. To an extent, the logic could be that for most people, having to live in hiding for that time is something that probably ought to be taken into account. However, that doesn't really apply to someone who lived a very public life as an internationally famous person right out in the open all that time.

Well, he lived in France all that time for the one major reason that France kept refusing to extradite him. So as long as he stayed where he was safe, he could be a famous millionaire and never pay for his crime. That is part of what rubs me the wrong way here. He plead guilty for crying out loud. He knew exactly what he had done and he never even bothered to try and hide.

As far as Switzerland goes, they have always been willing to extradite him. They tried to do so several times when he was in the country but he always managed to get out before they could scoop him up. Which brings up the question of just what was different this time.

Honestly, he had to go there to receive some type of award and he thought that after all the years, it would be safe enough to spend several days there. Well that just was not the case. When he stayed long enough to get scooped up, that is exactly what happened.

Then too, the argument for not arresting him seems to be an example of differential treatment. From what I am seeing on the news, his main support base is coming from the Hollywood creative community. Apparently, he is some type of media darling.

Against that, if he had been a catholic bishop who only got caught 30 years later, would anyone be speaking up for him to go free today? Or would there be a huge outcry to string him up for his crime?

Another argument seems to be that his victim has forgiven him.

I think that that too might not be valid. Realistically, she was a child at the time and she is now middle aged. Spending her entire adult life with the memory of what he did to her and seemingly no chance of ever seeing justice, who among us would not want to do whatever is needed to get on with life. So sure, perhaps she said that she forgave him many years ago.

However, now the situation may well be different. He has been caught and he is quite likely to go on trial, not for the original charge that he plead guilty to but for the full charges that he had plea bargained his way out of before fleeing and the additional charges arising from being a fugitive all this time.

Quite possibly, the old emotional wounds that have long ago become scarred over will noe become ripped open and she will have to revisit the trauma. I don't know if that will be the case but time will tell.

One thing for sure is that I don't envy the woman who now has to deal with this. Perhaps she will end up having to testify. More than likely, she has a family now and she may never have told them about this. Now she will have to explain why there is a sea of reporters parked on the street trying to grab them whenever they enter or leave home. Really, if you had been in her shoes, would you have told the man that you wanted to marry or the children that you had together? I think that if I had to deal with that, I would have passed on the matter long ago. Now this is coming back and it is going to be a big deal.

He drugged and raped a girl.  He finally gets his day in court.  People are actually upset about this?  That he'll face justice like everyone else who gets caught?  30 years ...maybe he won't go to jail, but he had best be made accountable for his actions.  Living his life safe in France from conviction doesn't smell to me like he's terribly sorry for what he did and if he was, why not face the courts?  He plead guilty, right?  But wait, why wasn't he alienated in 1977 for drugging and raping a girl?  His art's that good, eh?  Fuck.

"Against that, if he had been a catholic bishop who only got caught 30 years later, would anyone be speaking up for him to go free today? Or would there be a huge outcry to string him up for his crime?"

I would retain my statement no matter the individual, provided the circumstances were the same.

"People are actually upset about this?"

I'm upset any time our justice systems ignore fact in favour of vengeance. They are supposed to be above that. There is no justice here.

" Letting him go sends a bad message to common citizens about our justice system."

Ridiculous. Show me one person with confidence in the system and I'll trot out a thousand with none. A 30 year old rape case is hardly going to sway the average person's opinion on the system.

A lot of people need to learn how to forgive and move on with life. Wasting millions in taxpayers money to incarcerate someone who has been a productive and law abiding citizen for the last 30 years is ridiculous to an extreme.

         I have two daughters. Lock him up 30 or 90 years later;  let the perverts of this world know,  without any doubt that they can keep watch over their shoulder untill they are buried!!!!!!!!!

         Vastet;  or anyone else?   Would you like to spend 30+ years looking over your shoulder and then get nailed anyways?

          There is no sympathey from me nor any other decent father with daughters.

Nope, just a conscience.

         Are you childless Doomed?

it's not about statute of limitations because he was already convicted.  he just skipped sentencing.  legally, he's a fugitive.

This is my point as well.  At this point, I don't care about the original crime, that seems resolved.  The fact is he was convicted and he ran.  You can't just let that go, no matter how long it has been.

That is what I mean by sending the wrong message...it makes it look like you can do whatever you want and never face yuor punishment if you are rich enough or famous enough.  I don't feel a need to put him away for 30 years, just send him to jail for a bit to make the point then let him go again.  Hell, get him to move back to the U.S. and force him to pay all the taxes I am sure he has been dodging while 'on the run'.

im not sure that he should get off scott free for rape. 30 years so what, people must be held accountable for there actions. Jail is not about making sure people don't reoffend. It is about punishment and rightfully so. If it was about making people into non crimanals it seems a bad way to go about it don't you think? I don't care if the girl is over it, you do the crime you pay the time its that simple.  

and even if they don't want to punish him for that he most defenatly should be opunished for skiping the country.

Infact i would take it this far, you steal a car 70 years ago you still must still go to jail if found guilty. People must always be held accountable for there actions. However if the person has lived an honest life since the crime a reduced sentance may be in order but never totally taken away. 

Dont get me wrong i have no problem with jails trying to reabilitate people but in my mind they should primarily be about punishment. Punishment can keep people from reoffending... but is giving people a TV punishment? Is giving them a gym punishment? In my opinion jails are to soft and the areas where they are not to soft like gangs are the wrong type of punishment as it renforces criminality. Bring manual labour back etc. Now the second part i do agree with keeping the disrupptive elements away from society but that seems irrelevant to this case.

But the most important thing there is is accountablitity.

jus·ticeplay_w2("J0087600") (jsts)

is it fair to punish those that do wrong? is it moraly right to punish those that do wrong? I would have to say yes to both of those. reoffending rates is differant to justice, positive outcomes are diferant to justice. Lets face it hard work never killed anyone, imo it never harmed anyone either. What i advocate is justice, maybe a little harsh in some peoples opinions (but how can you even measure that?) but  its not like im advocating feeding their genitalia to goats, that would be feelings based.

and to tie this to the thread

justice must be delivered to Roman Polanski, he commited a crime, those that commit crimes must be punished, no feelings involved.

and i reject that, but first let me say this yes in most cases positive outcomes are what we should look for but here is a example as to why its not the only things to consider here.

there are 6 people in hospital, 1 is in for a routine checkup and the other 5 are dieing because of organ failure. each one has a separate organ failing. they all have the same blood type. Should the docter kill the one in for a routine checkup and harvest his organs to save 5 lives? it produces a good outcome 5 for the price of one, its a good deal. im going to assume you think the doctor shouldn't do this.. why not? this should show you why positive outcomes are not all that matters. If i were to answer the question i would say brcause it is unjust. the guy in for a routine check up didn't desterve it.

now don't take this as me saying justice must be put before positive outcomes, but it does show it has intrinsic worth. if justice calls for punishment so be it.

While I agree that we should look at reducing recidivism, the fact is that jail is a place that we house people who break the law.  The discussion of keeping people from re-offending comes into play with our justice system and how what programs/facilities we place within the jail. We can discuss the flawed justice system we have, we can discuss the positive/negative impact of our justice system but there is no question on what a jail is for.

"He admitted to drugging and raping the girl and his plea bargain lessened the six charges laid against him.  He admitted himself to psychiatric evaluation as per the plea agreement and then when he was faced with the possibility of imprisonment and deportation, he fled."

Deportation? So he wasn't even a citizen? This just gets dumber by the moment. He deported and exiled himself, story should have ended there.

"He never answered the US justice system appropriately (as deemed by their justice system) for his initial crime and subsequent crime (fleeing).  It's not vengeance as I see it."

You will not ever convince me that fleeing the corrupt, vengeful, and crime increasing system of the US is a bad thing. There are thousands of American refugees here in Canada. He got away, they had no business spending all that money to chase him. Unless he was planning attacks on US soil perhaps.

So are you claiming that he was unfairly prosecuted, or that he did not commit a crime?  It isn't like he can say, "dude, I didn't know she was 13".  He broke a law common to most western nations, and he ran to avoid facing the punishment that society deems to be fair.

I just don't see any justification to leave him alone.  In your world you can do anything you want, then just skip out of the country to avoid any repercussion?  That isn't a society I want to live in.  I have no emotional attachment to this case in the slightest, like I said, I don't give a crap about what he did originally...and if he would have served his time in the beginning that would have been the end of it.

I don't understand your rabid defense of him, he has done nothing to merit clemency for fleeing.

It depends on one's view of the nature of "punishment". Is punishment a means to prevent particular behaviors and/or rehabilitate one of actions we deem to be inappropriate? Then I suppose it's now pointless to extradite someone and lock them up.

However, if your opinion is similar in nature to that of my own, that is, that vengeance is absolutely appropriate, grab the mother fucker and lock his ass up.

Puting a whole lot of crimanals together sure seems like an attempt to correct their behaviour....

And how does one do this? Certainly not by puting them in prison, you do it by improving the environments that create crimanals not by puting crimanals together, creating an even better breeding ground for criminality. 

 ANd puting them in jail does this how?

If non violent crime does hurt society why is it illegal? Why is fraud illegal? Im not going to argue about drug related offences as there is something there unless you are bringing drugs into a country or selling to kids etc. 

besides the name what does it say? what about jail is corrective? did you know in south africa a large majority of the people who have been let out of prison go straight back in.... im whiling ti bet it is the same in most places around the world. jail is not about correcting behaviour it never has been. What is it about locking people in cells with other crimanals (who no doubt are great influences) helps people become better people? absolutly nothing. The only reason it might help is because it is punishment and some people do learn from punishment... not all though.

In name only is it about correcting behaviour, the actual pratice is just punishment and i agree with that. Crimanals deserve to be punished. that doesn't mean i don't think they shouldn't try rehabilitate people but I think that should come after prison while still separated from the public and they are only released when it is felt they are no longer a danger to the public.

Oh and if is about correcting behaviour why are their life sentances? seems a silly way to make someone a productive member of society...

I know that the thread has moved on passed this, but this still pisses me off:

Did I say he was justified? No, I think I said:

So, maybe what I was saying was that

"So are you claiming that he was unfairly prosecuted, or that he did not commit a crime?"

Neither. I'm saying that there's no justification or justice in spending tens of millions of dollars to track down and try someone 30 years after the crime. It's a disgusting waste of time and money, and all it is capable of accomplishing is vengeance, as well as teaching him to be a better criminal.
I'm NOT defending him at all. If someone shot him in the head I'd not shed a tear. I'm simply pointing out the consequences and facts, devoid of emotional appeal. The fact is that there is no justice here. Only revenge.

Regarding Tapey's last post, there are actually a shitstorm of rehabilitation programmes in prison. Yes, the system is broken and needs a lot of work to really max out the efficiency of them, but there are lots of people who lead productive and legal lives after jail. Obviously your system and ours are quite different. I don't know that rehab is even a goal in Africa.

here is the problem we face, in jail the people have TV, food, a gym etc . outside they have nothing... where would you go? There lives are better inside jail than outside. Rehab isn't going to do anything if they want to be in jail and live the easy life (in comparasion to life outside prison) we do try rehabilitate people but ya, if people lives are better in prison than outside there is no hope. The only choice I see is either make the outside better than the inside witch is a huge task and will take time. But in the mean time i thing we have to make the inside worse than the outside. Make the prisons harder to live comftably in. Take away the TV, bring manual labour back, take away the drugs and porn they have. etc. Maybe that isn't needed in america but I believe it is what is needed here.

 I just want to point out that some countries use deportation as a primary form of dealing with crime.

I agree with Vastet that we should of just said "You can't come back" and left it at that. 

My own country is one of them, and you deport them as they are in the country illegally. Illegal immagrants commit a lot of the crime, In district 9 the Nigerians are not there randomly, the nigerians have control of alot of the illegal activities in Durban where i live. after they are deported the problem is they cross back into the country the next day. you cannot deport a citizen of your own country.

lesson at the end of the day, rape is ok if you avoid the police. To wrongs make a right in this case

I think the fact that the US justice system is aware of who commited the act and is able(?) to get him back into the country is relevant here. It is not the same in other situations as they cannot find the people or don't know who did it, here they do.