About a week ago director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland while on his way to an awards ceremony. The charge: raping a 13-year old girl at Jack Nicholson's house 31 years ago. Roman fled the US rather than face charges and has been considered a fugitive from American justice ever since. The countries he's lived in resisted US demands for extradition--until now.
The opponents of his arrest cited:
a. The victim doesn't want to revisit this incident and wants to get on with her life.
b. This will cost taxpayers money to prosecute a 31 year-old crime.
These concerns initially made me wonder if it really was worthwhile arresting the old pedophile (Roman's now in his 70s) and putting him on trial.
Last week on the O'Reilly Factor, guest contributor Dennis Miller said he changed his mind once he re-read the victim's testimony:
(Click on O'Reilly's Miller Time segment, 09/30/09. They also talk about the Olympic bid and Sarah Palin).
Then there was the outcry from all of Hollywood's "beautiful people"--against Polanski's arrest.
The denizens of Hollyweird tend to vote Democrat--you know, the "party of the people." So you'd think they'd cheer for justice prevailing in favor of "the little guy," or in this case little gal, at the time of the crime.
Not so. They're more concerned about the persecution of a "great artist."
I think the last Polanski film I saw was Pirates (1986).
So much for "great."
Mark Steyn rolls-in on "Roman's Legions":