Speaking of football players, since sports and movies are both entertainment, why not let O.J. Simpson out of jail? He was better at playing football than Polanski was at making movies.

And the entire last paragraph. It softly points out that poor Roman is actually forgiven by all and only needs come back and all will be OK.

This is not a complicated case. It is simple – he left the country to avoid the decision of the court. Right or wrong by the court is not Dan’s call, nor is it mine or any of the others Dan cites. We have appellate judges for that. Polanski decided to disregard that and flee the country. By fleeing, he put himself at the mercy of the court should he ever get caught. And now he has been caught.

Put simply, what Dan Abrams is avoiding is that he made a plea agreement and then, when it looked like the court might have a different thought, took off, making himself a fugitive. And not only a fugitive, but one that openly thumbed his nose at our laws for 3 decades.

Ask yourself this: What if he was not a brilliant director or even famous. Would anyone even notice? Or care? Or make petitions or lovely editorials? It happens every day. A defendant is mistreated by the courts for whatever reason and, if the defendant is poor or not famous, nobody lifts a finger. Polanski should get that same treatment.

The rule of law here is equal protection for all, not better protection for celebrities.

I see you are trying to straddle the fence here. Somewhere between the actual law and your Hollywood pals.

Well, Mr. Lawyer, understand this – Polanski fled the country IN VIOLATION of a plea deal. 42 days notwithstanding, judicial issues notwithstanding, victim’s wishes not even germaine. He fled. And that invalidated the deal, as any actual practicing lawyer knows.

If there are issues, then he has to return, go to jail and appeal, just like every other convict that thinks the system wronged them. He can appeal from his cell, just like every other convict. If there were issues, then the system will deal with them. But since he chose to flee and violate his plea deal, he no longer has that as any sort of protection.

Seriously, Dan, you know better. Doesn’t your network entrap would be child molesters for fun and profit? They still go to jail even though they didn’t touch the child. Polanski drugged and raped (actual rape, or in Whoopism rape-rape) a13 year old. And admitted it.

Stop the soft apologies and excuses. The man is a disgusting waste of air. Everyone agrees on that, too.

You are right that his abilities as a director are beyond irrelevant. Nor, in my mind, should it matter that he had a tough childhood and that he had suffered a great loss in the not so distant past. Nevertheless, its still a complicated case. In theory, Polanski served his term when he was released after 42 days for one count of unlawful sexual contact with a minor. It was agreed that would be his sentence (although there is some dispute about that and about what should happen now). From a legal perspective, almost everyone now seems to agree what this judge did, and was going to do, was legally indefensible. Does that mean Polanski was free to flee the country? Absolutely not. He is a fugitive and should have come back earlier to resolve this matter.

But when you have a victim who has long wanted this to go away, the prosecutor in the case alleging there was serious misconduct by the judge (as well as the defense attorney), it may be time for the “brilliant rapist” as you describe him to come back to this country but I’m not so sure that serving time is the answer. If you care about our legal system, true “justice” would involve more than just Polanski facing the music.