Here’s the thing that really ticks me off about this whole situation:

Polanski is getting special treatment because he is a famous moviemaker. Strip that away from him, and the underage girl he drugged and raped wouldn’t have received any money from him for it (not that she still has), but this sick man who committed an inhuman act against a child would have been in jail. His victim would have had justice.

And I am really, really sick to death of people effectively saying that he shouldn’t be held by the same moral and ethical standards as others because he managed to make a few good movies. His "gifting" the world with Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown does not erase the lifelong harm done to an innocent. You REALLY think any other random man would even have the option of fleeing, being protected by France, and having heads of state and celebrities saying "No, it’s okay, it was a long time ago, he’s old, we should go easy on him."

Polanski needs to get the sentence that any other child rapist should get. No more, no less.

"Polanski is getting special treatment because he is a famous moviemaker."

Not just moviemakers…………O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson……….. happens all the time.

I’ve thought about the Romano Polanski case over the past few years.  I’ve read several people comments and find that I agree with different points. 

Regardless, of who the person is someone who has molested a child should not be given special treatment.  That being said when the person is convicted and a judgement rendered it should is against the law to change the judgement when it’s been filled which is what this judge did.  Polanski agreed to all the terms.  The doctors evaluated him and deemed him not a threat to society thus he was free.  The judge wanting more than is allotted 15 mins., of fame decided to change the ruling thus projecting him back into the limelight and Polanski right with him.

I don’t blame Polanski for throwing in the towel and leaving the country.  He was never going to get a fair conviction and contrary to what some may think or how some may feel the law states that even criminals have rights. 

Flash foward to now and it seems a cheap and easy trick to arrest Polanski now.   Polanski has never been accused or convicted of another crime, he is well liked and respected.  There are current criminals who are still on the loose that are far more dangerous to society and young children.  However, the government decides to go after a 75 year old man who has travelled in and out of Switzerland for years.  On top of that the girl/victim he molested has since asked, in fact, pleaded that he be left alone.  If even she has managed to move past this episode in her life than shouldn’t those who were never involved leave it alone?  I speak from experience having been a victim of a crime comparable to this.  It’s like being victimized again when someone who wasn’t there wants to "do the right thing."

My final question, is Why now?  Is this an election year?  Is it easier to chase the sitting ducks than to actually go out and find the slippery snakes?  Are these people arresting Polanski trying to make up for Jaycee Dugard living in her molester Phillip Garrido’s backyard for EIGHTEEN YEARS!!!  Baring TWO children by him? 

Or is it simply the people behind Polanski’s arrest just not like one of his movies? 

Candice,

Please explain to me—midwestern country bumpkin (a BA and MA from the University of Illinois) what being a genius of any kind—let alone a genius artist has to do with striving for common decency?  Why should a genius of any kind live be different rules than the rest of us?  Is that an American bias (Hollyweird) or a vestige of European aristocracy?  Outside of Hollyweird, Ted Kennedy comes to mind as a person that was "special" and outside the law when he killed a woman (of course accidentally).  And of course we all have heard plenty about the black sheep priests.

How does Artist and genius exempt one from penance?

Why shouldn’t an elderly man (ie old Nazi’s are hunted every day) pay his debt to society and be made an example, that no one is above the law —no one should be honored —that has committed such a heinous act as child rape. The reality  we don’t want to admit it, is that in prison he will most likely be treated to the same "sexual thrill" that he gave the little girl (minus the liquor).  He’s a wimp and a bully and maybe his just punishment will be an example to anyone else who thinks it ok to rape, 

That being said when the person is convicted and a judgement rendered it should is against the law to change the judgement when it’s been filled which is what this judge did. 

_______________________

It is against the law.  The law of double jeopardy. Which not only the judge then but the Los Angeles County district attorney now ignored. 

If this is allowed, we will see another erosion of our protections and rights under the Constitution. Which some feel perfectly fine with. Which is why they are truly scary. 

Dear Editors,

I respectfully request that the posting of Sandra Skolnick be removed because she has inserted Sarah Palin’s name into this discussion in a way that associates Ms. Palin with crimes and especially crimes equivalent to Roman Polansky’s crime. Sarah Palin has not committed any crimes and should not be associated with any.

 While hyperbole is common in political discussions, the implications set forth by Ms. Skolnick are  too close to defamation and should not be included in this post. 

While I am a lover of animals too and personally could not imagine killing any animal, I do not think people who hunt game can be considered murderers.   

But the defamation and implications regarding Roman Polasnki are okay? I suspect wowOwow at some point will get a subpoena from Roman Polanski’s attorneys. 

From what I’ve read here, there are no "defamations" of Polansky.  There is opinion about his crime, there is opinion about folks in Holllywood considering his behavior forgivable because he is genius—but most posts express the values of most Americans which is "disgust and anger at child rape" and the belief that Polansky’s admitted crime should be punished with the hope that public punishment will deter future pedophiles (or as least dampen their supposed Lolita like appetites.) 

Expressing diffuse political anger by bringing the former VP candidate’s name into the discussion or others for "crimes against the planet" is far off the discussion here.  

It’s reassuring to know the majority of folks in this forum have a firm sense of human decency by their empathy for the 13 year old victim and resistance to casting Polansky as a victim.

A quick reading of psychiarist Dr.  Scott Peck author of "Road Less Traveled" and "People of the Lie" will lead many to the conclusion that evil exists in very prominent and publicly successful people. 

When I first heard Polansky had the holocaust background I thought, hmm, how could someone who has witnessed such evil—perpetrate such evil on other innocents. Where is his empathy? Read Scott Peck’s book for the answers.