Friday, July 16, 2010

System Fail: Pragmatism Must Rule

The Swiss government is refusing to extradite Roman Polanski because of a paperwork mistake.

A paperwork mistake.

I've gone back and forth on this over and over again in my head. Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape). He fled to France before he was formally sentenced and has been running away from these charges for 30 some years now.

Here's the deal: he probably wasn't going to serve more time anyway. He was, in all likelihood, going to be arrested and deported at his sentencing hearing, with the end result being exactly where it is today with Polanski living in Europe somewhere, probably sexually assaulting other young women.

So, yes, the stubborn, intractable person inside me screams that Polanski should be brought back to the States to deal with his legal tangles. But the other side of me is screaming that the victim, who is now a grown woman in her 40s, has the right to move on with her life. She doesn't want this to go on anymore. I think we should abide by her wishes.

In many domestic violence cases victims want charges dropped, they want to have contact with their abusers, and they want to move on with their lives. Most of the time, I disagree with the victims in these cases. There is much evidence that perpetrators of domestic violence ratchet up the level of violence when the police and judicial system are involved. No contact orders are frequently put into place in an attempt to stop this escalating violence. There is a compelling interest to stop the violence immediately.

In this case, I see no reason why the United States should continue to victimize this victim. She was let down over 30 years ago when the judge allowed Polanski to leave the country. She was let down by the French, Polish, and Swiss government who allowed Polanski to live in their countries with no penalty. She was let down by the many in the movie business who continued to work with Polanski, continued to nominate and vote for him to win awards, and continued to support his exile from the United States. It is, however, unlikely that Polanski actually represents a threat to the safety or well being of this victim now or, frankly, the state.

I am happy that I no longer have to remember the most traumatic event of my 13 year old life every day now that I am no longer in my teens. This poor woman has to be allowed to live her life without this shadow hanging over her. Today I heard someone on the radio claim that the victim in this case "wasn't innocent because she was trying to do whatever she could to break into the movie business." Guess what? She was 13. She was innocent. No 13 year old can give consent for sexual activity, especially one who has been plied with alcohol and illegal drugs.

Do I think Polanski got away with a crime? Do I think he got special privileges because he had resources and connections? Do I think that this sets a bad precedent for future court cases involving foreign nationals and extradition? Yes, yes, I do.

Do I think it's too bad Polanski's wife and unborn child were murdered in a tragic way? Yes, yes, I do. Do I think it's an excuse to take advantage of a young teenager? No, no I do not.

So, in the end, I think that I have come to the conclusion that we should, in this case, let the matter of Polanski rest. And if he ever sets foot in the United States again, he should never be allowed to leave jail.

5 comments:

  1. I'm with you, darling!

    xoxox,
    CC

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point! I hadn't thought about it from the victim's perspective. It just seemed like he needed to face his crime, but you make a good case for just letting her get on with her life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The victim is in a horrible place now. I can't imagine having to live through it all over again in the public eye.

    There's also a point to be made for prosecuting him, though. At this point, the case is "The People vs. Roman Polanski" - the police and legal team also have a duty to protect the public from someone like this - that's why they're there, just as much as to get justice for the victim. So while the victim might not want to pursue the justice angle, does the law still have a duty to protect the public to the fullest extent the law allows?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I completely agree. Well put.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You actually make good sense with your conclusion. I say we follow your line of thinking.

    ReplyDelete