Do you think the U.S. should pursue the extradition of director Roman Polanski?

No. It's been thirty years. I don't know how the laws work, but how is it okay for him to flee to the US and escape the persecution? He should've been deported back then.

Normally I'd say, "yes, absolutely". I hesitate here only because the victim has asked for it to be dropped. She's tired of getting dragged back into the press every few years when something new happens with the case.

As the saying goes....if you have enough money...you have the resources to get away with anything...including murder.

The victim is a woman now...it's up to her.

I don't care one way or the other. I have a certain amount of admiration for Polanski's work as a filmmaker. What he did to that girl, back in 1977, makes him a scum bag. The victim would prefer not to drag the whole thing out again.

i think we should just leave it alone and let him be, especially since the woman, who was the 13yo, wishes it to end. it's done and he would have been finished if the judge didn't renege on the plea.

Yes, although I could care less.

There's 1000's of child rapists out there who never got theirs, he's just one guy. So one down, 999 to go. It won't make a dent, other than him being high profile.

I would gladly sacrifice his extradition if it meant just two other child rapists going to jail instead.

Unsure but it does seem kind of .......whatever the word is

If the victim wants the matter to be dropped then I suppose the authorities should respect her wishes.

I have, however, been rather appalled by the reaction of some French apologists who seem to be saying, "but... but... he's an artist!".

> "but... but... he's an artist!".

'Mais... mais... il est artist!'

Sorry, I just had to imagine it in the original.

The victim does not want this.

No strong opinion. As to the crime itself, it's the drugging which bothers me most.

I don't believe in punishing people who have internally changed their ways, and this was 32 years ago, but who's to say he isn't still the same sort of person?

With movies like Rosemary's Baby, what he did is no surprise.

The Pianist was a really excellent movie. I don't like to see people in jail if they could spend all their time in worthwhile activities like that.

I don't know his history. If he's been gone from the US all these years, he's probably paid heavier already then whatever charges he was escaping.

I don't have an answer for this sort of thing in general, no matter who or what is involved. Being an otherwise beneficial-to-society person complicates things further.

I suppose in general I'm against extradition, but believe in countries prosecuting themselves by their own laws. That way, if you get caught smoking hash, you can run off to some country where people see nothing wrong with smoking hash. If what one did is also illegal in the country one moves to though, extradition back to where a more accurate trial can be held makes more sense.

I think the family of the victims, or the victim, should choose the outcome, as long as they are over 18!!!

I don't really care. I don't know why people are making such a fuss about it.

I agree with Chris Rock

http://jezebel.com/5372888/chris-rock-on-roman-pol...

One thing apparent here is that people do not even understand each other's views on reprieves.

Martin Scorsese is listed as a Polanski backer on this. Coincidentally I recently rented 'Taxi Driver', Scorsese's debut movie two years earlier in which he vengefully slaughters a pimp to rescue a girl prostitute in the name of clean society. I think it would be a mistake to imagine that Scorsese or anyone else backing Polanski backs his crime.

Even something like 'He makes good films' is interpreted differently. One camp sees the argument as 'That's letting the rich buy their way out of morals', but the other interpretation is more like doing charity work at the orphanage, where good work is an indication of social moral value, or at least factors into the balance, as opposed to someone purely being unredeemed low-life.

In general I have a couple views on belated prosecution:
* Karma generally takes care of this with or without proecution.
* People change, and nothing is gained by punishing a person with a change of sentiment. The actual criminal no longer exists to punish. It only makes sense to punish people who would such crimes again.

I could go a step further and suggest that people who would do such a thing if given the chance are more worthy of punishment than someone who did such a thing but would not again.

The only reason to punish reformed people is not for sake of the criminal or victim, but merely to make a statement about what society tolerates for anyone else considering such things. Reparations and class action suits are often something similar in that regard, for instance when a gov't apologizes for how they treated someone who is now long dead.

I'm not saying Polanski is reformed in his head. It might take a good psychitrist or God to sort that out. It does seem unlikely though that he's the sort to actually attempt this again.

I do get annoyed by people who look at such things in terms of laws rather than morals, who think that what the formal charges were counts for anything, as if it weren't an issue if he were charged with less or lived in a country where it's not against the law. (Which is a separate issue from whether countries of people exist where it's not seen as a moral crime to begin with).

What I'm saying comes down to the distinction between 'IS' a criminal, and 'WAS' a criminal. With O.J. it was an 'is' question.

This is an evil man and he should be in jail and pay for his crime. Time does not change the evil he has done.

It's old news. Not to mention, the minor crap is ridiculous. 13 year olds are having sex like rabbits so what is the big deal.

Yes. Did the crime, do the time.

Edit: I can't believe more people want to let it alone. Why don't we just let off Gary Glitter then and anyone else who has sex with underage kids? I've been reading a lot about the back story in the past week and haven't seen anything that makes me think that this guy shouldn't face his punishment. The grown man had sex with and sodomized a 13 year old girl. Whether the victim wants to drop it now or not is irrelevant. The whole point of her being legally underage at the time is that she couldn't make the decision to consent. He should be punished for what he did then, taking into account her inability to consent at the time.

> The grown man had sex with and sodomized
> a 13 year old girl. Whether the victim wants to
> drop it now or not is irrelevant. The whole point
> of her being legally underage at the time is that
> she couldn't make the decision to consent.

It's not just that. It's not like was in his early or late 20's (which would't've made it all right or even less wrong), but somehow just the fact that he was 39 at the time makes it more gross.

Agreed. Way old enough to know better.

I don't know. It is a henious crime, however, I don't know all the details about what had happened. 13 year olds can be tricky. I recall the movie in which that movie star (name?) seduced a young lady on a cruise. She looked quite a bit older that night and it never occured to him to ask her age. It was a set up when she came into the court room with a litle girl skirt and pony tails.

I have a feeling this will not apply to Pulanski...

Yes, he broke the law. What excuse could the US government give 'not' to extradite Polanski? He's so old, he's famous? Would that be the case for anyone else? He hasn't served 'any' time for this crime, thus far, and that simply is not fair.

> Yes. Did the crime, do the time.
>
> Edit: I can't believe more people want to let it alone. Why don't
> we just let off Gary Glitter then and anyone else who has sex with
> underage kids? I've been reading a lot about the back story in the
> past week and haven't seen anything that makes me think that this
> guy shouldn't face his punishment. The grown man had sex with and
> sodomized a 13 year old girl. Whether the victim wants to drop it
> now or not is irrelevant. The whole point of her being legally underage
> at the time is that she couldn't make the decision to consent. He
> should be punished for what he did then, taking into account her inability
> to consent at the time.

Couldn't agree more. Can you imagine if we REALLY allow the victims of crime to pass on prosecution, at will. We would be in a very sorry state.

They showed Oliver Twist on Channel 4 before. I was like 'Ooh, politics!'

No.



Unrelated, but Rosemary's Baby is in my top five favorites for movies AND books.