There have been numerous studies confirming the sad fact that we have a 2-tier justice system in the U.S. where the wealthy and powerful are often treated noticeably better than the poor and weak. The Roman Polanski affair bears some comment in light of this reality.
For most Western Cultures over the past 100 years, the rape of a 13-year-old girl by a man in his 40’s by means of drugs and alcohol has been considered morally, ethically and criminally wrong. Punishment varies greatly by jurisdiction but underage non-consensual rape often involves years, not months of incarceration. Many states have statutes of limitations on various crimes, meaning that after a passage of a specified period of time, the crime cannot be prosecuted. These policies acknowledge the sad reality that evidence is frequently lost and witness testimony becomes weaker as time passes.
Mr. Polanski pled guilty to a lesser-included crime within statutory rape but before sentencing, and then decided to permanently move out of the U.S. to avoid punishment. His guilty plea renders any discussion of time limitations on criminal prosecutions completely irrelevant. The only issue is punishment. There are varying stories concerning what the Prosecution and Judge might have done to him back in 1978. However Mr. Polanski decided not to risk any additional time in jail beyond the original 45 days he served during which he underwent psychological analysis while his attorneys arranged for a plea deal.
Mr. Polanski actually provided a sizeable financial remuneration to the victim and her family. His victim and her family would have had a separate civil tort claim for sexual assault upon his plea of guilty as do most victims of crimes have against their perpetrators. Unfortunately most of these civil cases are generally not pursued as the criminal defendants have no money or assets to pay any judgments. Many jurisdictions permit monetary restitutions to be included as part of the criminal sentence. But due to the economic status of most criminals and their likely incarceration, those monetary penalties also seem rather elusive.
Mr. Polanski was a rather unique admitted criminal – he had lots of money. Most readers will remember that the families of O.J. Simpson won sizeable civil awards for his actions that were not found sufficient for earlier criminal conviction. However, collecting a judgment against any person is a frustrating endeavor, particularly when specific income and assets are legally shielded from attachment or they are well hidden. Fortunately monetary awards resulting from criminal or intentional acts are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
The Polanski case turns solely on the question what is the appropriate punishment for a particular crime? What we get from certain religious texts and some parts of the U.S. Constitution, is the need for “proportionality” and to avoid the “cruel and unusual” punishments. Again, our U.S. criminal justice system often abuses these two principles but that is a subject far greater than just the Polanski Affair. With the receipt of money and the passage of years, Mr. Polanski’s victim has put the crime behind her and advocates no further punishment for him.
Some legal and social scholars argue that future deterrence is a necessary part of any punishment regime. The sentences should be severe enough to convince future perpetrators of the same crime to think twice before engaging in such activity. Unfortunately, there is much debate on the reliability of this theory. It may work in limited situations for people who would not ordinarily engage in such behavior and who would take the time to plan particular crimes. Bank robbery is a good example. But in most cases of murder or rape, or any other criminal acts that require less planning or a minimal formulation of criminal intent, potentially long sentences or even the death penalty, do little to deter those individuals intent on engaging in such behavior.
Then we have the parole system that regularly releases certain felons far earlier than their normal full sentences. In contrast the excessively harsh “3 Strikes” law in California and many other states permits a disturbing number of people convicted of 3 misdemeanors or non-violent felonies to spend life in prison without parole while many hardened murderers, rapists and gang leaders get out early for good behavior in order to commit even more crimes. Some long sentences are designed to keep perpetually dangerous people away from the public for as long as possible but that valid socio-economic argument is rarely used or followed today.
Since life is rather short, taking a person’s freedom for periods of time is a painful punishment. However, once a sentence is served that exceeds 15 years that person’s ability to successfully re-enter society is rendered moot. Other ways to punish people is to take things from them, such as possessions and money. Those who value material things are hurt significantly when those things are taken away. Thus fines are often effective means to punish some wrongdoers, provided they have the incomes and assets to pay them without completely bankrupting them or their families. These fines are based on the principle of taking away enough to hurt and to make them remember, but not enough to permanently damage.
Some have argued that Mr. Polanski has been “punished” for having been barred from re-entry to the U.S. for over 30 years to avoid actually serving his sentence. Somehow living well all around the world except the U.S. and merely avoiding countries that might actually arrest and extradite him to the U.S. was not an effective punishment. Many foreigners never step foot on U.S. soil and live completely free lives. The U.S. does not permit most non-citizens to freely and legally enter, though 30 years of lax enforcement on our southern border makes that claim rather facetious. Most countries have the long-standing and internationally-recognized right to punish any person, citizen or visitor, for crimes committed within their borders.
Often the results of justice depend upon the quality of legal representation. A rich man can afford more “justice” than a poor one. Having worked as an attorney for many years in Ohio representing people who could afford my services and also having been appointed and paid by the public to represent some indigent defendants on misdemeanor matters, I can readily attest to the benefits of getting competent legal assistance in both civil and criminal matters. As an insider to the judicial system, I could see on a regular basis that people without adequate or any legal assistance fared far worse than those that did in every type of legal matter. I have also shaken my head many times in dismay at the utter stupidity of many criminal defendants.
Mr. Polanski will fight and lose extradition to the U.S. He will eventually return to Los Angeles and face a judge who will sentence him on a crime committed back in 1977. There will be plenty of testimony from all types of people supporting leniency. I would urge the Judge to cast a cold eye and ear to such arguments. Fortunately a number of U.S. and European lawyers will make large amounts of money defending Mr. Polanski, and I hope they collectively get a sizeable part of his total estate in the process.
There are several reasons to punish Mr. Polanski with several years in jail. (1) He pled to a lesser-included crime of raping a 13-year-old girl. Such admission deserves some serious punishment under any moral, ethical or criminal standards. (2) His flight from punishment and lived his life “on the lam” for over 30 years requires separate punishment. These actions require a public condemnation because we need to deter others who might consider such foreign travel to avoid justice. (3) His wealth and fame should work against him as there needs to be some effort at equalizing punishment between the rich and poor in the world. (4) His advanced age and lack of significant film production for several years indicates this would be a good time for a prolonged sabbatical. (5) Finally it would be another way to enrage many effete, arrogant, hypocritical, and clueless Europeans and Americans, particularly in France and Hollywood, who have callously defended Mr. Polanski.
Let’s call the Polanski defenders on their essentially senseless argument whether it is made in 1977 or 2009: “Young people around the world should ignore the crime of rape if it is committed by a famous artist or a wealthy person.” If the narcissistic entertainment and artistic community cannot see the fallacy of such a meritless position, then they are also morally and ethically bankrupt.
If there is a fear that Mr. Polanski might be mistreated in an American prison then this possibility is also a valid argument for national prison reform. No convicted person should be subject to severe physical abuse from fellow inmates so that they leave prison more dangerous and broken than when they entered. This debate is long overdue and Mr. Polanski’s defenders would be more justified on moral and ethical grounds by advocating that everyone is treated humanely in prison but they still must serve the appropriate time to reflect the original criminal conviction.
I am more outraged by the strong possibility that the State of Texas recently executed an innocent man and its Governor has made every effort to silence those officials who might confirm this atrocity, than what might befall Roman Polanski, an admitted criminal in California who has successfully avoiding punishment for more than 30 years.
Submitted 10/03/09 by Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ.