What about people who have worked with Polanski since, including some beloved actors?
That's an interesting one. There are people who seriously believe that no one should ever put another dollar in the pocket of J.K. Rowling, which indicates an alleged moral responsibility to not consume evil.
If, however, we're not allowed to consume evil, I don't see how we can consume at all (e.g., consider how your smart phone is made, consider where your clothes are made, consider the abuse of animals in factory farms). Should I pat myself on the back for not reading Harry Potter when I am still knowingly (if not intentionally) supporting human slavery by buying a new pair of sneakers? For the public at large the question of non-consumption would require that the ranks of the Amish community swell overnight into a majority demo.
Actors, on the other hand, can pick different projects. Moreover, actors tend to select projects because they want to work with a director. Would you, as an actor, agree star in a movie directed by Jeffrey Dahmer, or R. Kelly? A lot of directors have a checkered past, where should the actor draw the line?
As an employer, I would be willing to employ an ex-con in a job, as their debt to society has been paid, so long as the job itself were not of a sensitive nature that would invite relapse into past criminal behavior. Polanski, however, has never faced justice. He flaunted the law and escaped. He never went to court. His debt is outstanding.
On the other hand, the rich and powerful tend to get away with it in the court system, in part, because of the failures of our justice system, which leaves us with the awkward fact that that societal bill is still often left unpaid even after the trial (e.g., O.J. Simpson got away with it too). Thus, submitting to the authorities is merely a necessary and not sufficient condition to answer the question.
Reply to Topic
