There are many defenses and justifications being thrown around by Hollywood and others about the "unfair" treatment Roman Polanski is getting from the foreign and American law enforcement agencies. The arguments seem somewhat logical on the surface, but once examined, the ramifications of these questions range from misguided to downright bone-chilling.
DEFENSE: He left the United States because he found out that the judge was going to renege on a plea agreement that was going to set him free after 42 days of incarceration in a psychiatric hospital.
LESSON: If someone is in a position where he is facing the possibility of an injustice at the hands of the court system in the United States, the most effective action to take is to sidestep the legal system altogether.
It is a sad reality that innocent people sometimes get convicted, that prosecutors occasionally overreach, that judges allow ego and outside influences to sway their decisions. None of this gives anyone in this country the right to flee prior to sentencing. Our system has checks and balances for this reason. And sometimes, yes – it takes a longer time than it should for the truth to prevail, but let us not forget that he was guilty and admittedly so. If the judge broke the deal, it is not as though Mr. Polanski would have been sentenced to death or life in prison. The recourse he had if his fears came true would be to continue to fight his case in the appeals court. If wrongdoing was found on the part of the judge at a later time, not only could this have afforded Mr. Polanski the ability to realistically play the victim role, but it also may have exposed a member of the judiciary who was not living up to his oath and should have been reprimanded accordingly. Instead, the judge stayed on the bench and Mr. Polanski successfully evaded sentencing for thirty years. The support of Hollywood and the forgiveness of the victim may have actually been justified if he continued with his sentence and fought any malfeasance on the part of the judge. With his fame and money, he would have been more successful at fighting an injustice in the system than an average convict with a public defender.
DEFENSE: He has had such a difficult life and he should be left alone.
LESSON: Having a tragic life story excuses illegal and immoral behavior.
Mr. Polanski has had some very tragic experiences in his life. He has also had tremendous success and acclaim. The prisons are filled with individuals who have had terrible lives beyond comprehension. There is a place for compassion for life circumstances in our system of justice – during the mitigation phase of sentencing. It is clear that there was consideration given to Mr. Polanski by the prosecutor in cutting a deal in the first place. Had he been convicted of all of the crimes initially charged (a possibility that the facts substantiate), his punishment would have been much more extreme. So, clearly, other factors were considered in letting him make a plea deal. However, we must never, as a society, give someone carte blanche because of their circumstances. Many individuals who are in prison have claimed that the horrendous abuses they have suffered led to their crimes; but for every inmate, there is a law-abiding citizen who has risen above his circumstances and chosen to live a crime-free life.
DEFENSE: It has been over thirty years. This is old news that should just be dropped.
LESSON: If someone evades justice for long enough, the indignation over the crime will subside and he will be a more sympathetic person if the courts finally catch up with him.
Rather than allowing this as a mitigating factor, we should look at the thirty year wait as an additional crime. Mr. Polanski went on a self-imposed exile, and intentionally avoided going places where extradition was a probability. Smart fugitives should not get points for either their shrewdness or their resources to live outside of the law.
DEFENSE: Even the victim wants the matter dropped.
LESSON: It is to the benefit of the rapist to make the rape victim a public figure so that she will tire of the publicity and character assassination and decide not to cooperate in the prosecution.
In the HBO documentary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," the victim expressed that she immediately regretted going to police and, by the next day, wished she could take it back. She was traumatized by the experience, and re-traumatized at the hands of an uncaring press and sometimes insensitive law enforcement. Who can blame her for wanting to put all of it behind her? But, that is not how the justice system works. While the victim’s feelings are taken into consideration in a case, the prosecutor represents the public, and as such, must make a decision in the best interest of us all. The resounding lesson of this woman’s desire to put this in the past is to improve how we treat victims in this country. Defending her rapist as a good person, a misunderstood artist, and a victim himself only compounds her victimization.
DEFENSE: Why now? This is all politically motivated.
LESSON: If the justice system takes too long to correct a wrong, it is null and void.
There are reasons that some crimes have statutes of limitations. Justice should be swift and fair. And although it does not always live up to these ideals, it was not for Mr. Polanski to decide. The three decade delay resulted primarily from his own actions. Despite his defenders efforts to make it seem like this action came out of the blue for the first time in 30 years, there was a hearing as recently as February of this year in which a judge acknowledged that there was apparent misconduct in the handling of the case by the previous judge, and that although he did not throw the case out as Mr. Polanski requested, the judge urged the director to come to the US to defend himself and stated that he would reconsider the ruling. Even in the face of this positive move toward justice, Mr. Polanski swore he would never voluntarily set foot in America. Yes, it should have happened a long time ago, but that does not negate the case moving forward now.
DEFENSE: It was the 70s and everyone was experimenting and besides, the girl was not exactly innocent herself and her parents should have chaperoned.
LESSON: If a female is in a position where she can get raped, it is partially her fault.
This is just a startling example of the "blame the victim" mentality that exists to this day. It is further underscored by the differences in American culture and how we treat adult/child sexual relationships. In many European countries, the social mores are lax when it comes to this issue, but there is and was nothing confusing or complicated about California law: it was rape and the age difference means that it could never be considered consensual.
DEFENSE: California is undergoing such a dramatic budget crisis that the State should not be using its resources on something like this.
LESSON: Attention all would-be criminals: you may want to consider living in California since it seems they are giving away "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.
There can never be a financial justification for allowing a convicted rapist to flee prior to sentencing. As with all essential services, California will figure out how to make ends meet in order to keep the State Government running. This defense seems to be the "excuse of last resort" for those who cannot stomach defending a child rapist on the merits of the case, but it is still fatally-flawed logic.
There are more justifications that range from the injustice that he was arrested at a "cultural event" that should have been off limits to the strength of his character and contribution to society, but they all boil down to an all-too-familiar lesson: the rich and famous live by different rules than the rest of us. We must do a better job in teaching our children that our society will not tolerate the rape of a child and that no one is above (or in this case, outside of) the law.
Justice delayed is justice denied, as King said. But, fortunately, there is still time for a remedy.