Very interesting perspective. I definitely agree that a person generally shouldn’t be punished for something he did a long time ago, because it’s likely that the person is a different person today than he was then. That’s a good reason for statutes of limitations. On the other hand, in a sense Polanski’s crime has been ongoing since the time he decided to skip town and evade justice, up until his capture. I can’t say I really blame Polanski for taking off way back then. I don’t think we have a moral obligation, necessarily, to accept the punishment meted out by the State, even if we “deserve” it. The State has very little if any genuine moral authority. But that doesn’t change the fact that fairness to others charged with crimes who didn’t have the resources of a Polanski to evade justice for all those years demands that Polanski be treated no differently, and no differently than the person who submits to the punishment meted out by the State because he quite rationally believes he won’t be able to evade it like Polanski has done.

I’m not sure I’d agree that when someone rich and famous does wrong they are guilty of more than the offense itself. I think most of the fault for any damage to the public trust lies more with the public for putting such people on a pedestal in the first place, for trusting them more than is warranted. The real ‘heroes’ generally aren’t rich and famous.

Sometimes I look back at those times (“What was I thinking”) and I don’t recognize that person. If I were to be accused and prosecuted for something I did back then, I would be devastated. I would say
“But that’s not me. That was a different person”. I suppose that is what Polanski and his supporters are thinking. It’s a valid point (Of course I think so!), BUT…

Polanskis’ behavior is rarely one-of-a-kind. And I can assure you that most ‘criminals’ get away with way more crimes than they ever get caught for. And I’m sure that anyone involved in the legal system would say this is especially true with sexual offenses. So I wouldn’t be so sure he has been such a “good boy” other than the one time he was charged with.

If it was his only instance of such behavior, maybe in some ways he has ‘paid’ for his crime if he has satisfied his victims’ need for justice. But society has a need for justice also. Not as a matter of revenge or repayment, but as a practical matter.

For years Polanski avoided the US legal system because he is wealthy. We all know it happens every day. It’s reality, and that reality is part of what is tearing the fabric of US society. So do we all just say “That’s the way it is.” and let it go at that? Just watch the news- we do it every day.

I think that when someone rich and famous does wrong, they are guilty of much more than the original offense. Of course it’s impractical but ‘there oughta be a law!’. There should be a public trust law. They should be assessed an extra punishment for adding to the cynicism of the public. They are guilty of ‘stealing’ the publics’ sense of security and trust.

How can you censure a small time thief or drug dealer with a straight face when we all know that many of our leaders and ‘heroes’ are doing the same things- usually on a larger scale? Of course we have to. We can’t just absolve the little guys because of the big guys’ guilt. But I wish for the sake of our grandchildren we could somehow force our ‘leaders’ to set a better example.

Understood. I indeed was reading more into your comment than what you wrote and responding to that. Libertarian theory’s emphasis on restitution (or limiting justice to justice on behalf of the victim or at the victim’s behest) as the most proper purpose of the criminal law (in Mary Ruwart’s book Healing Our World, for example) is appealing, but has appeared to me to have some unexplained gaps. (I admit I haven’t done a close study of the subject, however.) What to do about murder victims being a prominent one. (The loss to family members being a poor substitute for the loss to the no longer living victim.)

I think that in principle we all have a right and in some instances a moral obligation to do justice, subject to due process concerns, whether or not we ourselves are directly affected or harmed by a particular crime or are paid by another to right the wrong done to him. Of course, I also think that we should be cautious and circumspect about doing so.

I don’t see how in Polanski’s case we could set aside any reference to his victim’s experience or injury in arguing that he should be brought to justice. We can still think a man is a danger to society based on what he did to a victim, whether or not that victim any longer has any reason to fear further harm from the perpetrator. We can still think a man deserves punishment based on what he did to a victim, whether or not the victim herself says she wants to see him punished. I don’t think the victim here has said that she doesn’t think she was harmed or injured by what Polanski did to her, and even if she were to say that I don’t necessarily think it would be dispositive for the rest of us.

I made a very narrow claim. Please don’t read more into that claim than is there. The claim, once again:

“Any claim that the state is, at this point, acting on [the victim’s] behalf or at [the victim’s] behest is at best suspect.”

I am not — here, at least — asserting that there could not possibly be other valid reasons for state action. I’m just asserting that any reference to the victim’s experience or injury should be set aside as a tool for arguing for those other reasons.

Victims’ desires should be taken into account. But if we didn’t prosecute rapists when victims were adverse because of publicity, a lot of rapists would walk.

I agree that the wishes of the victim should be given very serious weight in decisions whether to prosecute, but I’m not entirely convinced that only the victim of a crime has standing to punish the crime. Suppose a homeless man with no ascertainable family or friends is murdered. The murdered man is no longer with us, and there are no family members or friends to act on his behalf; nevertheless, people in society should be able and willing to punish the murderer.

Equality before the law is important. This post assumes the system we have, without delving into how it could and should be completely overhauled. If the consequences of becoming a fugitive from justice kept my acquaintance from taking that route, those consequences should apply no less to Polanski. Indeed, I get the sense from accounts I’ve read that there was a civil settlement (for who knows how much money) that presumably has influenced the victim’s request that the charges against Polanski be dismissed. That approach obviously wasn’t available to my acquaintance to get himself off the hook for the drug charge, because he didn’t have Polanski’s money and because there was no victim to pay off.

You write:

“In fact, Polanski’s crime, unlike my friend’s friend’s, was a real crime, one with a real victim — the thirteen year old girl he drugged, raped and sodomized against her will.”

That victim is now 45 years old. In January of this year she went to court seeking dismissal of the charges against Polanski. Any claim that the state is, at this point, acting on her behalf or at her behest is at best suspect.