Eight people wrote me in response to this musing I posted about Roman Polanski's situation. Oddly enough, seven of the eight opened their correspondence by saying something like, "I'm sure you've received a million messages about this by now." But I only got the eight. If I post here that I like one late night host more than another, I get at least thirty.
One person thought I'd written that there was really nothing wrong with statutory rape. This proves an old saying that I just made up, which is that one out of every eight people on the Internet cannot read. Half of the eight agreed with me, including two who identified themselves as one-time rape victims and one who said he was the father of one.
All of those who took issue with my view (all three of them) asked how, in my opinion, Polanski had "suffered" for what he did. Well, as I understand it, he did spend 42 days in prison. He did pay more than a million bucks to his lawyers and an undisclosed — but probably hefty — amount to the victim. He did effectively ban himself from this country. He did do considerable damage to his career. And he sure did an awful lot of damage to his name. People who can't name one movie he ever made can tell you, "Oh, yeah…he's the creep who raped an underage girl."
That may not all add up to a proper punishment for what he did but it's also not nothing. Moreover: At one point, both the judge in the case and the victim's family were quite willing to settle for even less. There was a plea bargain agreement for him to get off for just an apology and the time he'd already served. The judge signed off on it. The victim's reps signed off on it. Then the judge appeared to be reneging and that's when Polanski fled the country. (That judge has since passed away but the prevailing wisdom seems to be that he was seized with a desire for the attention that would come from presiding over a big, showy celebrity-laced trial.)
Two of the three who disagreed with me said that it was irrelevant that the victim — now, of course, a grown woman with a family — did not want Polanski prosecuted. "The victim doesn't get to decide," one wrote. Maybe not but her feelings are also not irrelevant, especially when she says that to pursue this matter would cause her and her loved ones greater discomfort than if we all put it behind us. Her name, by the way, is Samantha Geimer and she has written a couple of articles about the matter, urging everyone to just let it go. Here's one she wrote back when Polanski was nominated for an Oscar — which he later won — for The Pianist.
I've probably reached the extent of my interest in this matter except for the following suspicion. I think those who are rooting for Polanski to be dragged back here, treated like a common rapist and sent back to his old cell at Chino have false expectations. Between the victim's expressed wishes, the time that has passed, the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct alleged in the original case and the international outrage, I doubt Mr. Polanski will do any additional time. That is, if he's even extradited. All that will happen is that the state will spend a ton of money that could be put to more pressing matters, Ms. Geimer will have an old wound reopened and Polanski will look like a victim. I don't think any of those are things that ought to happen, especially that last one.
(Now, watch: I'm going to get sixteen more e-mails, two of which will think I'm trivializing the crime of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl…)