It's much better to be raped by somebody who's not involved in Pop Culture, because then people are capable of leaving you the fuck alone after it's over.

In other words, with a non-celebrity, eventually your rape WILL be over. Even if you report it to the public, the public will eventually give your body back to you.

The problem with a celebrity rape is that people think they can use your body for their pop-cultural purposes FOREVER, just because a famous man once used it, too.

It's simple justice. It's not about any and all other times when someone gets away with a crime, it's that it is never right to allow someone to get away with a crime - no matter who - especially such a heinous crime as anally raping a protesting 13 year old girl.

This is simple. A crime, a criminal, justice delayed, and a victim. The laws are here to be enforced, no matter who, no matter how hard they care to make it.

Chinatown had been a badly directed flop, would any of these articles be floated on the internet and in magazines? My speculation is that Polanski would have gone to jail, trying to keep a low profile in a place where rape, especially of a child would have brought forth some unpleasant treatment for him. And let's face it, sexually precocious or note, she was a thirteen year old child, and I'm sure Polanski was not aware of her sexual or drug experiences. She was a kid, and he felt he could take full advantage of the situation. He wasn't a famous director, he was just an ugly guy, trying to fuck a kid. My question here is: why has it taken this long to put his arse in a cell?

So it took you over two weeks to realize the Chinatown connections? You aren't very quick, are you?

At the end of “Manhattan,” the celebrated movie romance from 1979, a teenager played by Mariel Hemingway delivers some good news to the 42-year-old television writer, portrayed by Woody Allen, with whom she has had a long-running sexual affair. “Guess what, I turned 18 the other day,” said Ms. Hemingway, in what was framed as a poignant encounter. “I’m legal, but I’m still a kid.” That was then....

Woody Allen, who cast himself as the older man in “Manhattan,” is among the Hollywood big names who have rallied around Mr. Polanski, signing a petition on his behalf. As for that movie, it remains unclear whether any studio today would make the film, with its matter-of-fact portrayal of an illegal dalliance — or statutory rape — intact.

“I don’t think there’s an answer to that question,” said David Picker, who as a United Artists executive was involved with the acquisition of Mr. Allen’s project in the 1970s. “It’s a different world.”....

I think people thought it was wrong, but a perk of being a celeb. Just as many shrugged over the revelations Arnold Schwarzenegger had grabbed and gropped women on the set of his movies. Had any other man there behaved that way, he would have been led off in handcuffs.

The victim's sexual history would be off limits today. In addition, there's been a shift from discretionary to determinant sentencing. A judge today would certainly sentence a defendant to much more time, he'd have too. Just as Dan White, who killed Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk in 1978, would spend the rest of his life behind bars for a comparable crime today rather than walking out after just five.

Should he face a judge and serve his sentence? Of course. My state prison is full of men and women who made the mistake of being non-famous, so no one asks if they should be let off free.

We also have scores of sex offenders wearing ankle bracelets, or reporting to parole officers. They're not all in jail.

California is trying to empty its prisons, they can't afford to lock everyone up.

Let Polanski be treated according to the standard applied to everyone else. He'll probably be judged low-risk due to his age, and suffer nothing worse than some legal inconvenience.

He has never seen himself as anything but a victim. He harmed a child and her family, agreed to a settlement, and then never paid it. He uses their desire for privacy as an opportunity to blame them and minimize his crime.

If he wasn't such a coward he would have faced a judge and resolved this long ago. He should be required to pay all the costs associated with the trouble he's caused.

This is exactly the article I've been waiting to read, the sort of common-sensical, "let's not side with the torch-bearing mob but acknowledge the fucked-upness of the siutation, nonetheless" writing I'd expect from Salon. When the writers here all start sounding like Fox News editorialists, you know things are bad. Fortunately, you did not join them in their rant. Nice to read an intellgent approach.

Andrew, I usually agree with you and find your columns interesting. But not knowing if he should be extradited and brought to justice? Wake up, buddy. He's not just a "pervy old man." He committed and admitted to committing a crime. Therefore, he must do the time. I'm not looking to gouge his eyes out.

Imagine that this wasn't Polanski, but another man who drugged and raped a 13 year old and then fled the country. Would he have gone free until he was in his 70s? Yeah, probably not, eh? Very disappointing, Andrew. You're as bad as the apologists signing petitions.

In the end, there's really no difference between doing nothing because you don't give a damn (or you're actively complicit), and doing nothing because you're mired in endless navel-gazing and virtuous agonizing.

We'll let you work out the existential implications on your own, there, Underground Man--in the meantime, thank goodness there are still cops and prosecutors "limited" enough to still pursue criminals.

Did Polanski want to come back to LA after what had happened to his wife, his home, and his friends? (Some on the right claimed the Manson murders were retribution for making Rosemary's Baby). Not that that film was his only perverse film, Repulsion is equally disturbing. So the art and the life of Roman Polanski have commingled in interesting ways. Those interested in his art will take a certain interest, those who coldly see only the man, and the crime, see it another way. (That could have been settled out of the criminal system, just as OJ Simpson had his day in Civil Court).

It was much later, and more importantly probably, in Polanski's Death and the Maiden, that the muse of justice takes off her blindfold, and confronts her torturer. Polanski is neither the torturer in this film, a doctor who makes a cold decision to take advantage of the situation, or the victim. He simply guides the course of their actions, as you say, to bring things to some conclusion.