What do either of these things have to do with it? If you can evade the law for 35 years, does that diminish the crime? Is there something about the 1970s that makes the act acceptable? If the answer to these questions is no, then I don't see what's being said here.
The answer to those questions is "no", but it was an act that wasn't as looked down upon as it is now and wasn't as severely punished either. That was pretty much the purpose of that bit. Nothing more was implied, besides putting things into the context of time.
So you believe people should have the power to forgive crimes perpetrated on them? The rest of society has no interest?
Sure, they should be able to forgive crimes perpetrated on them. That doesn't mean that society has to listen to that forgiveness, but as my post was directed towards the people who are still severely investing time in bashing Polanski on every occasion they think is valid, I do think it's an important factor to put things in perspective in this particular case.
No legal implications were meant by that bit, though.
I'm not sure why apologizing multiple times should be be considered part of his "punishment." Apologies only have legal significance because they suggest that you're pleading guilty and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court. That doesn't really work when you proceed to evade the law after.
So all we're really left with is that he spent 42 days in jail. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment for the crime?
I agree that, in legal terms, he has fled from justice and that is wrong, but when I stated he "has been punished enough", I was more alluding to the fact that (rightful) judgements have been directed towards his persona for 35 years and the fact that he he has been living as a fugitive for all that time. Also, one should count the days of arrest in Zurich (which lasted 10 months) with those 42 days in jail, because he was put in provisional detention.
AGAIN, legally this is no argument and I wouldn't sign a paper to request Polanski's "release", like many people in the film business did, but PERSONALLY I do feel he has been punished enough (be it in an unlawful way) for what he's done.
The fact that he's still not freed from his sin is of course his own fault. He should not have fled from the law back in '77 and therefore he is legally still a criminal on the run. I acknowledge that.
I think what he did is truly unrighteous, and I don't follow the logic of arguments about what people ought to be spending their time focusing on. Technically, people defending him should be spending their time focusing on other cases, too. We could all be doing something more constructive pretty much all the time, so saying it is just a deflection.
What he did is unrighteous, I never denied that. The "unrighteous" was alluding to the current situation. He hasn't been accused for anything in the last 35 years, has been married for 25 years, has lived as a fugitive all those times and every individual that was involved with the actual crime has come to terms with eachother.
@Deadite: I never said her forgiveness excused his actions, but I do think, that in the current situation, it means something. I get the point you are trying to make, though, and I explicitly want to say now that I do not believe that a victim's forgiveness excuses any perpetrator's actions or anything like that.
I do believe, though, that in this case, it does say something about the "righteousness" of the
current situation, 35 years after the actual crime took place.
I do want to make a few things clear:
- My first post was SOLELY about my own, moral interpretations about the the
current situation and about why I think people should put this to rest. It was in no way based on whether what's going on is legal or not.
- If they would ever capture him and put him before a trial, I would not out any protests. He's still a criminal on the run from a legal point of view and that was his own choice back in 1977.
- I am strongly against child abuse and I do not approve of what Polanski did in ANY WAY.
- My first post was especially directed towards people who are still hammering on about Polanski's crime whenever his name is mentioned somewhere. I was trying to point out why it doesn't really serve any good purpose anymore, IN MY OPINION.
---------------------------------