This is well known among criminologists and jurists. For starters :http://www.wcsap.org/sites/…

He's an old man, no point to punishing him anymore (rehab punishment etc), victim has forgiven him, etc, etc, tired of you not reading what I write.

I mostly disagree with your last part, in that the law has long treated elderly offenders much more leniently. So regardless of the fact someone was on the lam for 40 years, and how "bad" a "message" that sends, they tend to get much lighter sentences for crimes, if it all. So there's that.

I'm not talking about convicted offenders, I'm talking about all offenders. There are statistical ways to estimate this. I have sources. Ask, and ye shall receive.

My arguments are (probably) extra-legal, I agree on that. I'm not an experienced defense attorney, so I don't know what arguments can be advanced, but I doubt he'll win this way.

Am not!

You keep restating my position to suit your purposes with very little good faith. I'm not saying that doing anything gives anyone carte blanche to commit crime.

INB4 name-calling! Let me clarify that I would have convicted and sentenced Polanski myself when he was first arrested. That would have been justice (though I wouldn't have agree to some crazy long American-style sentence, but well.).

I don't think creating great art gets you a pass by itself, but it should help. If you take art and movies seriously, you agree they can change lives and make us better, make us more sensitive. I don't think the history of the victim is relevant; the fact is she doesn't want to pursue the prosecution. And he being so…

Yes, but those consequences are functional, not abstract. In other words, Joe gets 1 year to show other Joes what Joe did is bad; but more importantly, Joe gets a year so that he knows if he does that crime, he'll get sent to jail (probably more time next time too).

I'm not so eager to label people.

I don't look at it so simply. I think there are a lot of factors to consider.

I have a more functional view of the law. I'm not so much concerned with "righting wrongs," I'm more concerned with making the future better.

I agree that crime should have consequences, and he should have served time. But he didn't. And part of the function for me of jailing someone is punishing them in a didactic way, i.e., "this is what happens when you do that, so never do it again."

I'm unconcerned with "sending messages." I'm more concerned with adding another wrong (jailing a harmless old man) to a previously existing wrong (rape).

I think that has little to do with it. The questions for me are "Is he dangerous?" and "Would punishing him have any positive effect?"

I'm not taking about "someone", I'm talking about Polanski specifically. No, I don't think he's dangerous. He's shown that in the time since (and before) his crime.

That's not my point. My point is to be as judgmental as people are, they'd have to be pretty perfect themselves. Obviously, child rape is monstrous, and should have been punished back when it happened, but to fixate on that decades later when in the intervening years he's shown he's not like that, is sanctimonious…

He's a great director.

Honest question: how is he a scumbag in the present?