There’s been quite a large amount of attention given to the recent arrest of film director Roman Polanski in the last few days. I’ve been absorbing the details and took the time needed to generate my own thoughts on the situation (a total of 5 seconds). I’m a fan of Polanski’s work but I can’t defend his actions. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story, let me take a few moments to get you up to speed. The rest of you please bear with me.

In 1977, Roman Polanski, at age 44, gave drugs and alcohol to Samantha Geimer, a 13 year-old girl, and then proceeded to sexually assault her. I’ll spare you the more disparaging details but if you’re interested in the nitty gritty then you should check out this article from X17 Online, which includes some of Samantha’s testimony from 1977. It’s pretty graphic so proceed with caution.

I also recommend this article by Sady Doyle of British news agency The Guardian. She has a very cynical perspective on this subject (she is British after all), but one that I find myself nodding in agreement with. It’s worth reading whether you’re familiar with the story or not.

Since his arrest, we’ve already heard pretty much every line that has ever been used to defend him during his decades as a fugitive: that his life has been hard, that he’s suffered (because everyone who has had a sufficiently tough life is, of course, entitled to one free rape, courtesy of the US government), that he’s paid his price (since living in Europe as a rich and acclaimed film director is a fate worse than death) and that the real tragedy is that he will forever be known as a rapist.

- Sady Doyle, The Guardian

Sarcasm aside, the real tragedy is that a young girl was raped not that the rapist will be known for what he is. Let’s be crystal clear: He gave 13 year-old girl drugs and alcohol and sexually assaulted her. Whether she consented or not (In 1977 the age of consent was 14 in California!) he still committed statutory rape.

Is it any less of a crime 30 years later? Are we really willing to compromise justice simply because of a persons social status and the age of the crime? Just days before Polanski’s arrest, a man from Fortuna, California was convicted for the statutory rape of his 9 year-old niece, a crime he had committed 27 years earlier. Unfortunately for him he wasn’t an aging, famous Hollywood filmmaker.

For another perspective on the issue, check out Joan Z. Shore’s article Polanki’s Arrest: Shame on the Swiss who asks the question, “Why does America always get sidetracked by sex and scandal?” Hmm, could it be that there’s still a shred of morality lingering in the putrid cesspools of our degenerate society? Not to mention that it was a blatant crime, not a mere scandal. I think her perspective is insane but we’re all entitled to our own opinion.

So what’s your opinon? Should Polanksi still stand trial for a crime that he’s evaded for 30 years? Is his crime any less punishable than when it was committed? What if this had been your daughter? Would you have a different perspective?

Image source: Sebastien Bozon/AFP/Getty Images