The alleged victim in the Polanski rape case feels that the charges against him should be dropped.
Despite her request, I personally do not believe that the charges should be dropped. While a recent documentary alleged judicial malfesance the fact is that Polanski fled justice and continued to have a full and active career. The fact is, most of us do not have the luxury of being able to flee a country even if there is a resonable belief that the system is compromised. As a society, we simply can’t allow for people to pick and choose if they will stand trial.
With respect to the victim, she’s not the plaintiff in that case, the state of California is. While it’s great that she’s of a forgiving nature, she doesn’t have standing to drop the complaint. If she wanted to file and then drop a civil suit, that would be different.
In criminal cases, all of society has a stake in punishing the criminal and preventing him from committing more crimes.
As much as I like his art, and as much as the issue for the victim may be that she feels she consented and even if taken advantage of is forgiving, fleeing justice is a separate crime in and of itself.
Wasn’t he convicted? Is a guilty plea a de facto conviction, or de jure? I am not a lawyer but I would think overturning a conviction is more complicated than simply dropping charges.
Wouldn’t it be a dangerous precedent to permit victims to ask for criminal charges to be dropped? Perpetrators of crimes could re-victimize their victims by threatening them with further harm unless they called for charges to be dropped.
Or, as would be more likely in this case, pay their victims to ask for the charges to be dropped, leaving the perpetrator free to commit the crime again (but next time more carefully).
At any rate, someone who was not of the age of consent at the time of the incident *cannot legally consent *-- the whole point of statutory rape charges.
I just saw the documentary last night and the new judge on the case had said he wouldn’t face any jail time if he comes back. And the victim forgave him in 1997.
The bargain they originally struck came with probation only, which seemed way too lenient to begin with. Because it wasn’t a “unique crime”?
ETA: I found the creepiest part to be the huge applause he got in absentia for winning for The Pianist, especially from Jack Nicholson, in whose house he raped her.
That would be a lot easier for me to say (and feel) about a dead guy than it would about a guy who is still fleeing justice in France, and a victim who is still suffering public humiliation. How many children do you think he has drugged and butt-fucked in the last 30 years, between making his brilliant movies?
I think I’d be a little miffed if my friend entered my house when I wasn’t there and proceeded to drug and rape a girl. But hey, he was full of a zest for life, apparently, so it’s OK???
Isn’t there a statute of limitations on these things? I sometimes here about the FBI tracking some 20+ year old murder case while others are dismissed within a few years due to the limitation.
That varies with the crime and the jurisdiction. I don’t think there is a statute of limitations on murder, at least not in the US. I’m not sure if a statute of limitations would apply to someone who has already pled guilty to a crime, either, as in this case.