I'm not going to post much more about the Roman Polanski matter…though I suspect we're going to hear a lot more. We all seem to concur that his crime was reprehensible and those who argue that one should not be able to do that kind of thing and avoid punishment are not, in the general sense, wrong. But I don't think hauling the guy back in this particular instance is going to achieve that; not given the apparent judicial and prosecutorial misconduct on his case…and especially not given the stated desires of the victim to leave that avenue unpursued.
There are loads of essays on the web arguing each side but I thought I'd link to two. Mary Elizabeth Williams makes the case that the matter should be dropped. And Steve Lopez presents a pretty representative example from the "string 'im up" flank. The piece by Mr. Lopez is entitled, "Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim," which is rather ironic given that part of his argument is that what the true victim feels about all this is "irrelevant."
By the way: Contrary to what a couple of folks presumed in their e-mails to me, I'm not a fan of Polanski's. I'm not sure I've ever seen a film he directed and if I did, it certainly wasn't one of my faves. I actually remember thinking he was a giant, economy-size jerk in his Playboy interview, which was published not long before the crime occurred. Nor do I think he (or anyone) deserves preferential treatment for being rich and/or famous. In this matter, it would seem he's received some of that and also some of the opposite, where he's been penalized for his celebrity. Both are wrong. I suspect that all the rich 'n' famous folks who are rushing forward to support him or sign petitions are harming, not helping his cause.