Roman Polanski.

[Leviathan]

I'm sick of people supporting the "Free Polanski" act. It is nothing more than a sham.

The guy raped AND drugged a 13 year-old girl.

Protesting that he should be freed is only saying that it's alright/ awwright for famous people to get away with doing terrible things.

Why are so many protecting him? I don't give a fuck that he made the Pianist and won an Oscar for it, he's getting away with a crime he committed years ago and it it time he should pay.

[Nitro Vordex]

Who's Roman Polanski?


Raped and drugged a 13 year old
There has got to be some story behind that, besides walking up to McDonald's and offering a toy to go with the Happy Meal.

[astuarlen]

But he's a Great Artist! Hasn't he suffered enough living in Europe for all these years?
[spoiler-box][/sarcasm][/spoiler-box]

Required reading for all Polanski apologists: "Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child". (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/index.html)
Should we be doing everything in our power to stop this sort of vile shit happening--and it is happening--today? Yes. Should we let the old rapist off the hook? Hell no.
And as for the thin protestations of injustice re: his case years ago--well, as one blogger put it (http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-polanski-arrest.html#comments):

If Roman Polanski was getting fucked over by the legal system…and he very may have been…then he’s in good company. Thousands of Americans share that experience…right up to the point where they went to jail and he went to France.

[Leviathan]

Who's Roman Polanski?


There has got to be some story behind that, besides walking up to McDonald's and offering a toy to go with the Happy Meal.

The girl was at Jack Nicholson's [Nicholson was not present.] house with him having a photo shoot since she wanted to be a model. Then I guess he gave her GHB in her fruit juice and raped her. :-?

[Nitro Vordex]

Not looking at an article written by overzealous women and their website:



Polanski's victim is among those calling for the case to be tossed out.
Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim, have surmounted and surpassed them with one exception.
"Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."
Geimer, now 45, married and a mother of three, sued Polanski and received an undisclosed settlement. She long ago came forward and made her identity public -- mainly, she said, because she was disturbed by how the criminal case had been handled.
A Real news site like CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/) is always better than a woman extremist site.

EDIT: Before you go getting bitchy, no, I don't support rape, drugging, or underage things like that. The victim herself solved the problem, sued the guy, and is now requesting it be dropped. Get over it.

[Volcompat321]

The fact that it happened 30 years ago also leads me to believe he should be freed.
Specially if she got cash for it.
Sure, cash doesn't replace a horrible memory, but it sure does help.

That sounded insensitive.
But, it's a fact. The girl, now woman doesn't want it to keep going, let the guy go.
I'm sure he's lived with his demons, and is terribly sorry. (If he's not he's a sick son of a bitch).

[Outrider]

I think this is a good, saner-than-most look at the issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/01/polanski.support.backlash/index.html

It's a different article than what Nitro linked to. Basically, they speak with a lot of people who are pointing out that if Polanski wasn't a distinguished celebrity, there would be no question as to whether he should go to jail or not.

It discusses an interesting "us vs. them" that certain groups sometimes cling to. In this case it's the Hollywood celebrities supporting Polanski, but they briefly touch on the similarities between how Hollywood has reacted to this and how the Catholic church tried to handle the pedophilia scandals that have plagued them in recent years.

[amtalx]

Personally, I think this whole matter should be at the behest of the victim. If she was all "get that asshole back here and lock him up" the whole time, then I would say go for it. However, that's not the case.

[Mysterious-G]

That's how the rules work. If we do not like the rules, we have to chance them.
Him getting arrested was absolutely fine.

And I disagree, Amtalx. If somebody goes to jail it is not only for the victim and the culprit to be 'even', it is to keep other people save from the culprit.

[amtalx]

And I disagree, Amtalx. If somebody goes to jail it is not only for the victim and the culprit to be 'even', it is to keep other people save from the culprit.

I actually thought about that after I posted and I kind of agree with you. Its tricky subject though. Which crimes do you need to press charges for? Which crimes have a statue of limitations? I don't think there is a clear answer.

[Leviathan]

The victim may not want to go to court due to having to go through that whole ordeal again.

I do think that he should go to jail, but they should have done it WAY earlier.

Why now?

Why not 2 years ago?

Why not 15 years ago?

Why not hunt him down the day he left the U.S.?

[amtalx]

Extradition is tricky. You need the cooperation of the country that the suspect is residing in, and they are under no legal obligation to comply with the U.S.

[ShinMaruku]

Extradition is a utter pain in the ass.
Made worse if there is a disconnect between the countries.
Now if he were say in Egland it would have been easier.

[astuarlen]

It's incredibly important the victim is respected (a proposition not entirely equivalent to "her public wishes be followed")--although, whoops, I guess Mr. P forgot about that part to begin with--and we should not dismiss her feelings and experiences (again, that one kind of got away from us then and now, given the minimization of rape(s) in many sectors of society, including the media). However, the monetary/civil "settlement" does not necessarily erase the judicial/criminal matter.

This issue brings up so many others; it intersects with class issues, in-vs-out-group mentalities (as Outrider brings up), victim blaming and shaming, gender dynamics, media's role in being complicit in or exposing certain attitudes...
If we are inclined to accept the victim's stated desire for the case to be dropped, I think we also ought to consider how the judicial system, media, and culture at large--and don't forget the criminal himself--have ill-served or mistreated her and other sexual assault victims. Of course we don't want to cast Ms. Geimer as a perpetual victim at the mercy of past trauma. She spoke out; she worked to heal; she carried on with her life. But the way our justice system et al often subject victims and families to further pain is symptomatic of deeper dysfunctions; it's a reason more people don't speak up and seek the help they need, but it's not sufficient, I believe, to exempt a fugitive from justice.

I still think it would be highly valuable for anyone and everyone, in fact, to read the article I linked, if only for its insight into the way media have framed the discussion.

Edit:
Amtalx and Lev, the question of timing is potentially important and interesting. Having already been tried and pleading guilty to "unlawful sex with a minor", in addition to being a fugitive for 30 years, there's no question about any statute of limitations in this case. There remains, however, the question of why Polanski was allowed to get away with evading the legal repercussions of his actions for so long.

Which crimes do you need to press charges for? Which crimes have a statue of limitations? I don't think there is a clear answer.
I apologize in advance for my smartass answer, but I think the law (http://www.ag.ca.gov/publications/womansrights/ch7.php) is pretty clear on this. (Substitute the appropriate legal code as the case requires).
I realize your statement is probably more generalized, but I wish to God circumstances were such that more people felt powerful enough to report sexual assault crimes. One can hardly blame women or men who feel unable to speak up thanks to the way such reports are often handled.



Not to mention that we still don't really know what happened there, because victim said one thing, he did other, then victim said other thing (forced to claim that it was a rape by her mother) etc...

Yes, well, traditionally criminals attempt to cover their asses, though in this case the famous rapist copped to the (lesser) charge (please let's not get into coerced confessions and the like, as there's no evidence of that very serious problem here). Citation way needed on that last claim, however (and, yay, we have our first glimmer of mother-blaming in the thread! I was wondering when that would catch on, because parents who leave their children with adults who turn out to be predators are somehow asking for it by proxy.)
Though I now wonder why I'm quibbling with just one point in a wholesale example of missing the point.

[CrimsomWolf]

Oh God, I'm sick of hearing this shit over national news.

This is a farce and a humiliation. On both sides. If U.S court is not capable of hunting him down for 30 years, French, Polish and what-not citizenry, then the justice system there must be a real shit.

Not to mention that we still don't really know what happened there, because victim said one thing, he did other, then victim said other thing (forced to claim that it was a rape by her mother) etc...

But running to France is not an exact a method to claim innocence...

Maybe the nature should just solve the problem and let him die in the jail.

Personally, I stay out of this (even if back at that shithole of homeland), and generally don't give a crap to any side. Free him, jail him, judge him... gee people, it was time for that thirty years ago. People do let go of this, especially if the victim says so.

Honest.

Or I have an idea:

Why don't CIA/NSA/another three letter agency "solve" this problem?
Then carpet bomb Hollywood. Get rid off that filth once and for all. Maybe even bomb Wall Street while we're at it and Polish parliament. Oh, and Red Square too.

And then all mankind will unite in goody-good love and peace.
That's for all those RRRRAAAAGGGGEEE extremists that keep popping up every time those things happen. What you're so high on about?

[Anduril]

When people bring up the fact that the girl just wants it dropped, they forget that the case isn't the girl v. Roman Polanski, it is The State of California v. Polanski meaning that even if she wants to move past it her opinion has no baring on the case. My local news channel brought up a very good point that may strike a chord with more people than just mentioning any everyman in Polanski's place: if it were a Catholic priest who had run away for 30 years to avoid these same charges. No doubt that some of the same people who are defending Polanski would be persecuting the priest.

[Outrider]

Etc.

Crimson, as somebody who has moved from one country to another, you must realize more than most that you can't just enter another country and do as you wish.

So please stop teen-raging and try to read into the issue if you want to discuss the topic.

But it's not just you, so I don't mean to use you as an example. I want people to understand that never during the past 30 years was Polanski back in the United States after he fled, which pretty much meant that there was nothing that could be done to capture him without the intervention of the country he was staying in. That's the thing that changed recently - Polanski had been to Switzerland many times (he apparently had a second home in the country), but Switzerland decided to arrest him this time around for one reason or another.

This isn't something that they could've just "taken care of" in the past 30 years. It was a messy situation from the moment he fled.

[Nitro Vordex]

My local news channel brought up a very good point that may strike a chord with more people than just mentioning any everyman in Polanski's place: if it were a Catholic priest who had run away for 30 years to avoid these same charges. No doubt that some of the same people who are defending Polanski would be persecuting the priest.
How is that relevant? If the priest was in exactly the same situation as Polanski, I would still defend the priest. I think the only thing that sways it is the Catholic part in it. Once you throw religion in the mix, it tends to get very messy and non-factual.

Barring the religion approach, why would a priest be prosecuted but not this guy? Honestly, I've never even heard of this man outside of this thread and the news links in this thread. I'm not biased by any of his "award winning movies". Though, it is true that many celebrities do get free leeway just because they're famous; but this is a bit different of a situation. Stating that the people defending Polanski would persecute the priest is jumping the gun a bit I say. Priests have had a bad reputation in the past few years, so it's not entirely a fair comparison.

Kind of a serious side question: How does a drug and rape case turn into something against a State? Does it get bumped up according to how he reacts, e.g. fleeing the US?

[Kent]

Why is there even an argument about whether or not a rapist should go to jail?

I mean, let's take a look at the facts relevant to this discussion for it:

1. This man drugged and raped a 13-year old girl.
2. This man plead guilty in a court of law.

Therefore, he should be punished by the law. If the victim has gotten over it, that's great... That doesn't excuse him for it, though.

Oh, and let's not forget, the he also ran away from court, and failure to appear in court is also a crime. If anything, his sentence should be worse than it was originally intended to be, and he doesn't deserve the right to not serve it, simply because it's been a while.

[Nitro Vordex]

He was sued by the woman for the same case, so it was already settled.

[astuarlen]

He was sued by the woman for the same case, so it was already settled.

Good point. (http://public.findlaw.com/library/legal-system/civil-vs-criminal-cases.html)

[Nitro Vordex]

So then how would putting him through court again bring any good? Would there even be anything good behind it?

[Leviathan]

It would show that crime pays eventually.

Run as you must, you will have to go through the system again.

[Nitro Vordex]

Except the system is long and often overrun with smaller things, making it difficult to get anything that resembles significance done.

[CrimsomWolf]

Crimson, as somebody who has moved from one country to another, you must realize more than most that you can't just enter another country and do as you wish.

So please stop teen-raging and try to read into the issue if you want to discuss the topic.

But it's not just you, so I don't mean to use you as an example. I want people to understand that never during the past 30 years was Polanski back in the United States after he fled, which pretty much meant that there was nothing that could be done to capture him without the intervention of the country he was staying in. That's the thing that changed recently - Polanski had been to Switzerland many times (he apparently had a second home in the country), but Switzerland decided to arrest him this time around for one reason or another.

This isn't something that they could've just "taken care of" in the past 30 years. It was a messy situation from the moment he fled.

I've written it at midnight, and I don't exactly care for grammar or to write a 30-page summary just so people could entertain themselves.

And yes, I do move between countries... however my Czech visa, before it joined the EU was done in a month or two.

1/2 months vs. THIRTY YEARS.

I'm not sure if you understand. I know that extradition is a tricky process, seeing as numerous Polish criminals have escaped to States and it took Poland years to get them shipped back. (It got rather extensive coverage on Polish news last year, after U.S refused to hand somebody over). I can understand 5 years. 10 years. Even 15. But that took too long.

And yes, it could've been done in 30 years time. If court would do something. Because, well, they didn't.
For those who don't know - several days before the arrest, his lawyers claimed that the court is too forgetful about the matter. And then suddenly, he's arrested.


I don't think that has to do anything with the rape/whatever it is right now. Rather, somebody's ego at court got insulted.

Justice. What a joke.

I'm actually not mad about the speed of thing/the overdue justice/whatever, but that this gets necrobumped at least every two years and everytime people do it it's like a third world war going on.


It would show that crime pays eventually
You mean it pays to run away to France?

That said, I'm trying to stop raging on this, because it's ridicilous, how high people get on this matter. Which is actually, quite trivial. Tell me, if guy didn't have a few million bucks, a house in Switzerland, but was your regular John Smith, then would the media and might-and-famous make a fuss?

I'd be more concerned with fact that Izrael and Iran are ready to throw large scale shit around.[/RAGE]

[Volcompat321]

The thing is, this guy does have millions, he is famous, and he did commit a crime.
30 years ago
I know there is no statue of limitation on rape, murder, or other heinous crimes, but seriously...the girl got money, the guy knows he was horribly wrong.

Like I said in a previous post, I'm sure it's not easy to get over rape, but she got something for her time. (again, sounds very ignorant, and cold, but seriously, 30 years ago..)

I say let the guy loose, I'm sure he wont do anything like it again.
I'm sure he's learned his lesson, no reason to give him time for something that happened 30 years ago, and got settled by giving a shitton of cash to the rapee...

[Outrider]

Quote

You're still trivializing the complexity of some of the issues, but yes, you're right in that this is being made a bigger deal simply because Polanski is famous. I don't disagree with that at all.

But still - there wasn't really anything the US could do if France or any other country Polanski was living in wasn't willing to cooperate. It doesn't matter if it was 1 year, 10 years, or 50 years. There was no "trying harder" here. There were no avenues open to them that wouldn't have been completely overkill, y'know? Nobody is going to start a war over one man who plead fled after pleading guilty in a criminal case. So they had to wait it out. (Although, I wouldn't be shocked if in the past 30 years, they've continuously asked France/Switzerland/whatever to arrest Polanski, and something must have changed this time. It would be pretty silly to think that this was the first time the US solicited help from any of the related countries.)

And Nitro - the only thing he would be going back to court for would be the additional crimes he's committed since the original trial (fleeing the country, etc). There's no additional trial for the rape offense - he already plead guilty to it.

[Kent]

The thing is, this guy does have millions, he is famous, and he did commit a crime.
30 years ago
Those first two parts, about having millions and being famous? Irrelevant.

He did commit a crime - however, he didn't receive his sentence. And for those 30 years, he's been fleeing from the country and from court.

In addition to receiving his original sentence, he should also have to deal with dodging it for so long. There's no real reason why he shouldn't.

You're essentially saying that running away from problems should be a viable and just thing to do.

[Volcompat321]

No, it's not what I said, and not what I mean.

I'm saying, if he had to pay the girl, and did, and she's fine with what happened to him, and doesn't want anything else to come of it, let the little fucker go.
Meaning, she probably doesn't want to go through the memories again when they bring up why he fled in court.
It's probably bad enough the news is all over it, probably pestering her with questions which she doesn't want to have brought up again.

Have you ever dealt with someone that's been raped?
It's not a fun experience for them. (I've dealt with 3 cases while at work, and I didn't even get the "worst" of handling the patient).
Anything you do, if you sound like, slightly look like, touch them in any of the same spots, breath on the person (accidentally of course) where the raper did, ANYTHING, LITERALLY, that the raper did, makes the person twitch, convulse, cry, scream, piss themselves, (and in one case) shit themselves, JUST FOR BRINGING WHAT HAPPENED UP!

So, my point is, keep the shit on the down low. No need to make it a fucking media circle.
The girl is either still terrified, or just doesn't give a shit anymore because she doesn't want it to be brought up ever again.
She probably thought it was all past her, it was done, she got some money. (which I've said, is not a replacement, but something to help ease the "pain" of it happening. Which is how people react to money sometimes, specially if the person was poor, or unwealthy to begin with).

Since he's famous, and rich, it will be in the media. Which is horrible for the person that got raped, therefore, not irrelevant.

[hunterseifer]

if a guy raped and drugged a 13 yr old girl he deserves life in prison, and im being generous

[Kylie]

I understand why people want to see him walk free, but running away, no matter for how long, shouldn't excuse anyone from justice.

[Shadowpawn]

I honestly don't care how long ago he did the act, he raped a child so he go to jail. It's that simple.

[Kent]

I honestly don't care how long ago he did the act, he raped a child so he go to jail. It's that simple.
It's interesting how people say that, despite that the victim is "over it," her say should free the man from his criminal (not civil, and therefore, the mere payment of the victim isn't the state's punishment) offenses against the state of California (rape of a child under 14, failure to appear, fleeing the jurisdiction).

[Outrider]

Kent, if you don't mind me simplifying it even more for people:

The people who are saying that Polanski should go free because the victim says she is "over it" either have no idea what the actual criminal offenses against him are or simply have no idea how the legal system works.

[Nitro Vordex]

Or maybe you don't understand that he shouldn't be charged for the rape, as it was already settled, state jurisdiction or not. California wasn't raped, last I checked. What he should be charged for is fleeing and not appearing for court.

[Powder Keg]

You can't be prosecuted if no one will prosecute you for said crime. However, whatever charges are present from avoiding the court/state is another story.

[Outrider]

Click the link in Astuarlen's post:


Good point. (http://public.findlaw.com/library/legal-system/civil-vs-criminal-cases.html)

We've already gone over this.

[Powder Keg]

Nevermind, I did some reading and saw that he already plead guilty years ago. This is all against the state.


Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported".[46] In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.

This right here is the issue. I assumed that there wasn't even a plea before he fled. The state just can't drop something like this. Now what I don't know, is if the victim has to be involved in this any further at this point. I would assume no, but who knows.

I'm curious as to what the sentence would have been that he didn't appear for, and if and how the settlements through the years factor into it (if they do)

[Nitro Vordex]

Click the link in Astuarlen's post:



We've already gone over this.
Missing the point. It's a dumb thing to do, despite what the law says.

Now, for the charges of fleeing, not serving sentence, etc., yeah, he should be charged for that.

[Outrider]

Missing the point. It's a dumb thing to do, despite what the law says.

Eh, I disagree. I think there are crimes of a certain magnitude that simply shouldn't go away. If you murder somebody, running away doesn't make it go away. If you rape someone, running away doesn't make it go away. Regardless of the victim's current claim or the time that's passed - the fact is that he raped an underage girl. If he doesn't get punished for it, then he committed rape without any negative repercussions. He "got away with it." Is that right?

[Scejntjynahl]

He committed the crime, he ran away, we all agree on this right? If it indeed it was settled by monetary means why hadn't he returned to the states? Come on people only because decades have passed when a crime is committed it doesnt exempt you from it. What does that entail? It simply means do the crime, run away long enough for ppl to get over it, and your free. Nice.

However if this was your family member that it happened to, you wouldnt care how many years have passed, you would want justice.

[SStrikerR]

I agree. This isn't Grand Theft Auto; you can't run away until people get bored and give up. If you commit a crime, you need to pay for it.

[Powder Keg]

The settlements over the years may factor into changing whatever his original sentence may have been, but yeah, he should definitely be paying when it comes to the rest.

[Outrider]

I agree. This isn't Grand Theft Auto; you can't run away until people get bored and give up. If you commit a crime, you need to pay for it.

Ha! That is the most amazing summary of this entire situation that I've heard. Bravo.

[SStrikerR]

I try. :wacko:

[CrimsomWolf]

He should be punished, yes.

But that should include all run-away criminals, including those that the U.S is harboring.
Like the man involved in Popiełuszko assassination.

I doubt this case will change everything. So, he might go to the jail, he might not, so what?
There are many more criminals that run from country to country, and compared to them, he looks like a saint.

As long as there's no solid international criminal investigation/catching policy (or simply an international government, but that's something for another debate altogether), this things will happen.

So actually, the police evasion method from GTA actually works in real life.

[washuguy]

The fact that it happened 30 years ago also leads me to believe he should be freed.
Specially if she got cash for it.
Sure, cash doesn't replace a horrible memory, but it sure does help.

That sounded insensitive.
But, it's a fact. The girl, now woman doesn't want it to keep going, let the guy go.
I'm sure he's lived with his demons, and is terribly sorry. (If he's not he's a sick son of a bitch).

AGREED... people just need to calm down. If the person it happened to is fine i don't see the problem...

[Vanzazikon]

If the person it happened to is fine i don't see the problem...In that case, maybe I should rape someone, plea guilty and flee the country before I receive or do my sentence for 30 years. If the girl doesn't have a problem with me anymore, I guess I can get away with rape and fleeing court, right?

[washuguy]

In that case, maybe I should rape someone, plea guilty and flee the country before I receive or do my sentence for 30 years. If the girl doesn't have a problem with me anymore, I guess I can get away with rape and fleeing court, right?UHHHHHH..... YES???????? If all has been forgiven, there is no crime. The crime would be to hold something against a man for something that happened 30 years ago... Not days, not weeks, not even months years ago. That isn't justice, thats a load of BULL. There are more important things going on NOW and people are worried about something that happened to a what, 40 year old woman 30 YEARS AGO??? We need to get our priorities in order folks... I'm not justifying what he did, i think its disgusting. I in no way agree with what he did, but DAMN... 30 years ago people...

[Kent]

UHHHHHH..... YES???????? If all has been forgiven, there is no crime.
Wait, did the state of California issue a statement saying that he's been forgiven for failing to show up in court and fleeing the jurisdiction with pending charges?

No?

Then all has not been forgiven. How is this hard to understand?

[Volcompat321]

In that case, maybe I should rape someone, plea guilty and flee the country before I receive or do my sentence for 30 years. If the girl doesn't have a problem with me anymore, I guess I can get away with rape and fleeing court, right?

Don't forget about the part where you pay the girl you raped, millions of dollars before you leave. :wacko:


Wait, did the state of California issue a statement saying that he's been forgiven for failing to show up in court and fleeing the jurisdiction with pending charges?

No?

Then all has not been forgiven. How is this hard to understand?

No, and I agree, not all is forgiven, and I will not get into why I believe he should be freed.
I will only make myself look like an idiot trying to get you(not specifically you, just "you" in general) to understand how I'm thinking about this whole process.

Either way, like people have said before, he should get the sentence for running away, and evading the country.

[washuguy]

Don't forget about the part where you pay the girl you raped, millions of dollars before you leave. :wacko:



No, and I agree, not all is forgiven, and I will not get into why I believe he should be freed.
I will only make myself look like an idiot trying to get you(not specifically you, just "you" in general) to understand how I'm thinking about this whole process.

Either way, like people have said before, he should get the sentence for running away, and evading the country.

I think I understand why you won't post why you think he should walk free... We might be on the same page, and for those reasons I won't post my feelings on this either. But think about people that don't pay thier taxes and run away, which hurt America. this man didn't hurt Americans in any way... Not really...

[Outrider]

I think I understand why you won't post why you think he should walk free... We might be on the same page, and for those reasons I won't post my feelings on this either. But think about people that don't pay thier taxes and run away, which hurt America. this man didn't hurt Americans in any way... Not really...

Which is why the effort to get Polanski was comparatively small. It's not like there's an on/off switch for whether the authorities are after you. There is a finite amount of resources, and the amount they dedicate towards any given case is based on the severity.

[CupOfCoffee]

Say what you want about the skeletons in his closet, but that man, for being as old as he is, has a miraculous head of hair.

[Squirrel3D]

He should be given the death penalty, but of course that'll never happen because he's a "great" hollywood name.