The Case for Roman

Injustice Through Justice

Roman Polanski

If you are the first type of person, then stop reading now because nothing can be said that will change your mind about what has happened to Mr. Polanski. For you, the law is the final word, and nothing can supersede it, even the prospect of the greater good.

Let’s get one thing straight. I could never justify Mr. Polanski’s actions, nor could anyone who has spoken out against his arrest. All sides agree that what he did was a vile, despicable thing.

But consider the situation in its entirety. The incident occurred 32 years ago. The prosecution in the case has long been suspected of malfeasance, despite the recent and somewhat coarse admission of former DA David Wells that he lied in the 2008 documentary. The victim, Samantha Geimer, is now a grown woman with three children. She has openly said that although the experience was unpleasant at the time, she forgives Mr. Polanski, and the case should be dismissed. In her own words: “He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it.”

The man is now 76. He had been living peacefully in Europe for the past three decades with his wife and two children, continuing to direct incredible films. The horrors he has suffered in his life – managing to survive the Kraków Ghetto while his mother died in Auschwitz, and years later enduring the savage murder of his beautiful and 8-month-pregnant wife Sharon Tate by the Manson family – are more devastating than any prison sentence could ever be. So maybe he hasn’t served his time according to how our justice system says he needs to, but he has served his time.

I think everyone can agree that the overarching purpose of the law is to make the world a better place. If this is the case, then how does prosecuting him now, over three decades later, accomplish this purpose? For those who have led the charge against Mr. Polanski, was this really a morally justified attempt to right a past wrong (one which I’m certain wasn’t at the forefront of your minds – more likely not in your minds at all – until the arrest happened), or was it really just a petty crusade to prove your own sense of self-righteousness? Justice may be faceless and colorblind. But there is something to be said about a timely justice.

In the United States, such principles are etched into the very foundation of our justice system. We call this the Constitution. The rights to a fair and speedy trial as well as the right against being tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy) are precious cornerstones for the American democracy. Not only was Roman already tried in the 1977 case which ended in a plea-bargain, he was subsequently released early from his 90-day psychiatric prison sentence.

The legal question to be considering, therefore, is whether it is even legal to prosecute Roman a second time. Hapless L.A. prosecutors who’ve probably been “playing detective” since Beverly Hills Cop busted Roman in what can be referred to as a calculated sting operation upon learning that he would be receiving an award at the Zurich Film Festival. All this to satisfy an arrest warrant from 1978?

The man made a mistake, plain and simple. He was in a very unstable mental condition at the time, plagued by demons that no one should ever have to bear, and he made a mistake. It was a disastrous mistake, one that should never have happened, but it did. And knowing that the world was about to come down on him, he got scared and ran away.

Yet, the world moved on. At least, we thought it did. Now, Mr. Polanski is in prison, awaiting the next chapter in this tragedy that should have ended a long time ago. I, for one, say that we need to look beyond the written law, look deeper, to what the right thing to do is here and now.

So, I say, put down your pitchforks and let the poor man go. The man is far from a danger to society. The world is a better place with him in it.

Zach Copeland is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade.