Thursday, October 22, 2009

Roman Polanski: Celebrity Criminal and Justice Evader No More


By Steve Lee, Managing Director, Steve Lee & Associates
www.stevelee.com


October 22, 2009…The clash among Los Angeles County authorities, French political and cultural figures, and celebrities over the arrest and extradition of Roman Polanski threatens to eclipse justice in this infamous matter.  This cross-border ruckus reminds us that the American criminal justice system has a long memory and a longer arm – even when it comes to “players” on the world stage.

Yes, international authorities have devoted tremendous resources over decades to Polanksi’s case.  That’s in part because he is a public figure. There’s no question that individuals of lesser stature evade the law, and these matters don’t prompt petitions or make news. Given Polanski’s visibility in the global entertainment and cultural community and the notoriety of his crime, officials would be hard pressed to diminish their efforts.  All the more so after Polanski essentially thumbed his nose at the Los Angeles Country District Attorney’s office and the Superior Court. It appears that Polanski was offered a “sweetheart” deal and declined to consider it.

Yet Polanski’s celebrity also served to bolster his ability to evade law enforcement. The facts and circumstances around the original court proceedings in the late 1970s indicate there was a good chance that Polanski would have spent a minimal amount of time – if any – in jail.  If he did, he likely would have served time at a minimum security facility and received the kind of gentle treatment often reserved for celebrities and white collar criminals. 

Mr. Polanski has led a privileged life.  There is no doubt that he is a talented man and has made measurable contributions to his chosen art form.  He is well loved and revered by many in the film industry and some have been vocal in his defense. 

Polanski’s victim is now an adult and has indicated that she would prefer the case be concluded.  According to reports in Time Magazine, she has indicated that she does not wish to testify against Mr. Polanski. 

Despite all these factors in Mr. Polanski’s favor, the facts are what they are.  Polanski was booked on charges of rape, suspicion of sodomy, child molestation, and furnishing dangerous drugs to a minor.  He was indicted on drug and rape charges.  He entered a guilty plea to having unlawful sex with a minor and then he fled the jurisdiction. 

What is at play here is the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, which asserts that a court will not determine the merits of a claim made by a fugitive because any potential enforcement against the fugitive is impractical.  Polanski wants the statutory rape charge dropped, but he refuses to return to deal with American justice.  Presumably his concern is that the Court in 2009 may not find that his claims of judicial misconduct in the 1970s are well founded.  The risk for Polanski is that if the Court found his claims without merit, he would be treated as a self-admittedly guilty sex offender in custody.    

Today, tougher scrutiny of standards of celebrity justice coupled with a fervent distaste for and intolerance of child abuse might make prosecutors less willing to cut the kind of deal that was available to Polanski in the 1970s.  Perhaps it is that change in the criminal justice climate that makes Mr. Polanski and his attorneys wary of a return to California.  Attitudes change, but the reality of the acts that were performed does not.  If they were criminal then, and they are criminal now, then justice needs to prevail. 

We must be mindful that it is the individual that goes on trial for his or her acts, not the artist for his or her art. 



No comments:

Post a Comment