I also found
Kate Harding’s post (which tavernier linked to earlier) very persuasive, though uncomfortable reading. However, this bit raises a few questions:
Kate Harding wrote:But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she'd like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn't we be honoring her wishes above all else?
In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven't named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim's feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.â€
It works on behalf of the people, in fact -- the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not -- and at least in theory, does not -- tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you've made.
The would-be populist appeal to ‘the people’ of ‘every state’ here is pretty obnoxious. I’m not sure that what’s happening now really serves the interests of
any people, except those who think that Polanski is ‘scum’ and that he ‘deserves’ to rot in jail. Those people may well be in the right, but I find myself completely unmoved at the thought of their being disappointed. And it’s clear – because this is the point Harding is addressing – that there are quite a few people being done an active
disservice by the revival of this case, including Polanski’s and his victim’s families. (I can’t find out how old Geimer’s kids or Elvis Polanski are, but Polanski’s daughter is sixteen.) So this stuff about ‘the people’ seems like bullshit to me.
‘Justice’ is a much more challenging term. I
am uncomfortable with the idea that anyone ‘deserves’ simply to be punished for doing something wrong, and I do think in an ideal world the justice system would be more understanding of circumstance than it is. This isn’t an ideal world, and I realise that in practice the law has to punish people and send them to jail, and if this had happened to Polanski back in 1978 then, as David says, none of us (including me) would have a problem with it. I guess Polanski’s career would also have been definitively over, which illustrates the point that if someone is punished they are perceived as deserving it (even if they don’t), whereas if they are not they are perceived as not deserving it (even if they do). And perhaps there is some value in the idea that Polanski’s punishment
now would send out an important message about how ‘no one is above the law’, and justice ‘catches up’ with them eventually.
But it doesn’t feel like that’s the message being sent out here. It’s all very well for Fecke and Harding to gaze into the horizon and talk about this abstract term, ‘justice’, but as well as being blind (in the sense of ‘impartial’) justice should also have its eyes wide open to context and circumstance. And even if a few people see this as ‘justice being done’, the fact that there are so many questions around this (even if those questions are misguided) means that it is far
more likely to be perceived by most of the ‘people’ Harding champions as wanton self-mockery on the part of the justice system.
Not only did that system fail to deal fairly and consistently (and justly) with Polanski (and, more importantly, his victim) in 1978, putting
him in a position from which he understandably fled, and stretching out
her agony and humiliation for years and years and years... Not only that, but the same ‘justice system’ has now decided to catch up with Polanski
31 years later, when both he and his victim have families and lives to get on with, when no practical good can be served by such an execution of justice, and when in fact a good deal of harm can be done by it. The time for ‘justice’ to be served was 1978 – surely the question now ought to be a pragmatic one about whether
any form of justice, pragmatic or abstract, is being served now?
And yes, I admit I may be pontificating about this because I like Polanski’s films.
