Because of the controversy over the Polanski situation I've been through some different shades of understanding of it, which I may get around to explaining eventually.But it's always been clear from the transcript of the victim's testimony that what he did was a clearcut crime, the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl -- no, not violent rape, not rape by physical force in a dark alley, but the kind of rape that occurs when the rapist simply ignores the feelings and welfare of the victim and overpowers her psychologically. In this case he was an influential celebrity, gave the girl alcohol and a drug, and she was in a helpless position with no ride home. Her many attempts to say "no" and keep him at a distance were ignored and she finally gave up resisting out of fear. This kind of rape happens frequently with victims of various ages, but by a 43-year old man with a little girl it is of course all the more criminal. Her age alone makes it rape, statutory rape, even if she were consenting, which was far from the case.
Such a crime MUST be prosecuted and arguments that he should go free based on his filmmaking artistry and his hard life as a child are irrelevant. The arguments based on supposed misbehavior by the judge are also irrelevant. This will have to be resolved but it remains a fact that Polanski left the country to avoid the sentencing he expected, and the sentence he expected was well within the legal requirements for his crime.
Pray for a speedy extradition and a just outcome of the case.
It is demoralizing to a society to let such a crime go unpunished.
========================================================
Oct 17 update: Boston Globe columnist covers it well:
In 1977, Polanski violated not just a 13-year-old, but also a society that believes children shouldn’t be drugged and treated as things.
