Polanski, IF guilty of these accusations, should unquestionably face consequences for his actions

Correction - he was found, and is quilty. He ran away before he could be incarcerated. Which was not due to "incompetence" as some obtuse writer stated, it was because he once again engaged in criminal behaviour. Giving someone bail is not incompetence it is a caring Christian Act.

Criminals break laws, by definition. He has a criminal mindset, likely due to to his sense of entitlement. Like most Polliwood types.

Triple the original senctence or at least 5 years.

The main issue is that he part of Hollywood. Polliwood attempts to set social mores at every turn. His credentials fit the Hollywood Politically Correct Narrative. Polanski should be thankful he isn't a Southern Baptist.

If so he would be wandering the wilderness now.

The law is not fair in many areas.

Have there been any OLO articles about the short comings of the Laws of Egypt, Syria or Turkey? If not why not?

Quite a few years ago I read the book
"Roman," by Polanski. And I remember the
chapter where he fully described being
arrested on a charge of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a 13 year old.

The young lady in question was neither drugged,
nor seduced by Polanski. She was egged on by
her mother who had ambitions for her daughter
being made as famous as the young actress Nastassia
Kinski.

Polanski agreed to a plea-bargain with a publicity
seeking judge who reneged on his part of the agreement,
and Polanski has been a fugitive from American justice
ever since. He has been happily married for over 18 years
and has several children.

The young lady in question was financially fully
compensated for her dalliance with Polanski - and she
wants the current charges dropped.

Who and for what end is pursuing Polanski now is a
question that needs to be asked.

I'm not condoning paedophilia by any means - and taking
advantage of minors is a criminal offense - however
there's more to this particular situation than meets
the eye - and as we do know celebrities are often
"easy targets."

Foxy you write

'Quite a few years ago I read the book "Roman," by Polanski. And I remember the chapter where he fully described being
arrested on a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13 year old.'

Do you really believe someone who takes advantage of a 13 year old girl with apparently no remorse would be telling the truth? If he was the mother should be charged along with Polanski. Her act is as bad as his.

Foxy,

Now that OLO has recovered from what had the appearance of a denial of service attack on its servers that prevented viewing or posting for much of yesterday, I can comment on your post.

It is interesting that you observe ".... as we do know celebrities are often 'easy targets.'". I had not followed Polanski's career prior to this current contention, and was not aware of the account he himself gave as to the events that set this matter in train. The whole of this discussion, both here and elsewhere, seems very light on reported facts or claims. Thank you for raising these notes of caution.

Whilst we have only Polanski's word for it that the circumstances were somewhat different to what has been baldly claimed on behalf of the US justice system, its just too easy, under the plea bargaining system that prevails there when a claimed victim (then 13) is represented (by her mother?) as desiring to avoid the need to appear in court and give testimony, for claims and evidence in support of even the 'lesser' charge regarded as being 'acceptable' to escape close scrutiny. The so-called admissions obtained under such a system may well not be worth the paper they are written on.

So, contrary to what Cowboy Joe and others have asserted, Polanski has not been 'found' guilty, but has 'pled' guilty. There is a most important difference. It seems just too convenient that for around 30 years US justice could not take advantage of known opportunities to seek extradition of Polanski, but now that the judge claimed to have engaged in improper conduct of the case has died, that extradition is sought. When you consider the words used by Judge Peter Espinoza that "while he believed there had been 'substantial misconduct' in the case, Polanski's attempts to dismiss the charges would not be heard as long as he remained a fugitive from justice.", perhaps the intent of this extradition has been misunderstood. Could the authorities have been preparing to dismiss the charges, but now find themselves facing a lynch mob?

dwg, in his post of Thursday, 1 October 2009 at 9:00:07 AM refers to an online poll being taken by NineMSN on the question 'Should Art Galleries display nude photos of young Children?'.

There is a need for caution in accepting the results of any online poll, particularly one conducted within the mainstream media. Entities within the MSM invariably have editorial lines that they will be pushing. It is not beyond belief that MSM or other interests could seek to fudge online polls. There is no way members of the news-consuming public can scrutinize the conduct of online polling. It must also be remembered that this question, in the context of the Polanski conundrum that is the subject of this thread, is a red herring. Accepting that a genuine component of such a vote may nevertheless convincingly decide against such display, it is so much easier and safer to (perhaps sanctimoniously) vote about display of nude photos of young children, than it is to address the issues in the Polanski matter.

The opening post raised the question as to whether there existed a defacto social statute of limitations in respect to pedophilia charges. The discussion following has revealed that whilst a probably overwhelming majority favour no such limitations, there is great misunderstanding as to the nature of the legal process whereby admissions are extracted upon which 'guilt' is subsequently assessed or claimed to exist. The upshot has been, that if you search 'Roman Polanski' on Twitter, for example, you will see a lynch mob mentality in full cry. Much more dangerous, given that extradition is being sought not on someone in respect of whom there exists a trial verdict, but on someone whose recorded sentence was only 42 days psychiatric assessment detention, long ago completed, arising out of a plea bargain.

Australians should be very wary of future ramped-up US usage of extradition process. I did not raise the overturning of a US jury verdict in favour of an Australian software author against Microsoft for nothing in a previous post. Offend Microsoft here, get tried there!

Hang on Forrest.

Polanski admitted the crime, then did a runner when it looked like he'd serve jail time.

Why does he deserve any sympathy whatsoever, on the basis of his own testimony?