TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote: |
While what Polanski admitted to is a horrendous act whether committed against one person or many, his original sentence was light and he fled when he found out the judge was biased (essentially), what kind of justice do we seek by bringing him in? Retribution? Rehabilitation? Vengeance?
These are some of the questions I ask. There is no doubt he committed a serious and particularly horrible crime - and there are no mitigating factors. Not the mother abetting him, nor his possible mental state, nothing.
On the other hand, 33 years later it just doesn't sit right. I don't think it's going to be worth the circus that is now going to ensue, the costs of lawyers and flights to Switzerland, and depositions, and all that stuff - it's going to cost the American taxpayer (California taxpayer?)
millions of dollars.
Will it serve justice?
What would serve justice? Putting him in jail for the rest of his life? That's about what it would amount to.
I think he fled in panic, not cowardice. And my limited understanding is that he was misled into thinking a guilty plea would do some good - or that the judge reneged on the deal or something.
Either way, isn't it going to mean a new trial now? His defense lawyers will demand that, won't they?