Should Roman Polanski go to jail for sexual assault of 13-year-old girl 30 years ago?
Thirty years after he pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor, U.S. fugitive Roman Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland.
The acclaimed director, who has lived in France for the last three decades, was on his way to accept an award at the Zurich Film Festival.
Right now Poland and France are reportedly trying to negotiate a deal to get him released on bail.
The Swiss Directors' Assn. is denouncing Polanski's arrest as a grotesque farce of justice and an immense cultural scandal.
Read the latest details about his arrest, which is causing international uproar
And even the victim in the case, who was just 13 when she was assaulted, has forgiven him.
Samantha Geimer has said, "I got over it a long time ago," and explained that she was tired of having to relive it all again when Polanski makes headlines.
"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.
Do you agree with her?
Or is the sexual assault of a minor thirty years ago still punishable?
Photo credit: Getty Images
The crime that he committed 30 years ago represents justice denied. He has not yet been sentenced. The fact that he paid the victim does not excuse him from serving the appropriate sentence. Otherwise, raping a child (while drugged) can not be justified. It would be the equivilent of saying that paying off the victim justifies the crime.
Whether Mr. Polanski should go to jail or not is a matter for the California courts to decide. He please guilty to the rape of a 13 year-old girl, but fled the US before his sentencing was finalized. He needs to be judged in court for his original crime as well as for his unlawful flight.
As in any criminal case, the victim's forgiveness or lack of forgiveness is not germaine. The state prosecutes criminal matters, not the victim.
Two issues for me.
1. The law. He ran and owes an appearance.
2. Cardinal Mahony still at large who by action or inaction aided and abetted the rape of minors.
My understanding of the circumstances is that he was under the assumption that she was old enough, and consenting to all the activities that transpired. I don't believe that a 13 year old should ever find himself/herselfself in a hot tub with a much older man. Nevertheless, this was the 70's, and obviously she had too much freedom and too little parental supervision. To me, it sounds like she simply wishes that someone would have taken her out of that situation instead of taking advantage of it. It doesn't sound as if anything violent or particularly criminal occured (other than her being underage in the state of California). I think her comments now are ineffectual and passive. If she believes that this event is still relevant, that he truly victimized her, and that he is possibly a danger to the public, then say so. If not, then she should take real, decisive action to see that this case is closed.
@deb: Um, no. She was not consenting. She was drugged.
I don't think drugging and having sex with someone is okay, legal age or not.
Kobe Bryant and R. Kelly were given a free pass, why not Roman Polanski?
typical LA -- he Pleaded GUILTY to plying a 13 year old with drugs and alchohol to have sex with her, THEN left the country to avoid sentencing, and you ask the question 30 years after sex - no, he is a fugitive from our justice system. Hell, Hitler did his thing 75 years ago, lets forgive him -- better yet, let Roman stay and France, and let the french send all their 13-15 yr old girls here and we'll return them as women.
where were her parents? shouldn't they be prosecuted too?
He is guilty.
He admitted he was guilty.
He ran to escape justice.
He should be punished.
He should be fined .
He should serve time.
Then he should be set free
the alleged victim says drop it. i vote with/for her.