Yeah, he did break the law, he admitted it. Remember that part? Are you not understanding this?
Why don't you have a talk with your DH, the cop. Ask his views on criminals who admit their guilt then take off running before they are sentenced. Is he okay with just letting them go, never to be sentenced?
Your response is the opposite of what I would expect from the wife of an LEO. 
I'm sure he would be proud though. 
You post is condescending and insulting. You don't have any idea what people are feeling or what they have gone through in their life to bring them to that view. Your posts are so inflammatory that it seems like they are written for no other reason then to stir the pot. Why does this not surprise me?
Actually, your post to me here constitutes a personal attack on both me and my DH, who IS a PO and is sick and tired of the whole RP debate. His views and mine are exactly the same: it's been 30 years, the courts flubbed it, and the only reason it's brought up ad nauseum is for personal gain on the part of the DA and the media.
There is no "justice" to be served in this particular case. He hasn't been serial raping children for years (I'll address the 16 y/o below) and no one in the US needs to be "protected" from this 76 y/o man because he hasn't lived here for over 30 years. DH's first concern has
always been the safety of the public -
ALWAYS. Justice is the DA's and the Judge's jurisdiction.
Insult my views all you want. But when you question my DH's honor and integrity, a man who puts his life on the line every single day to protect the people he's taken an oath to serve, you've gone too far.
Polanski is the only one to blame for the victim having to relive this in the media after 30 years.
Wrong. The story is a nice standby on a slow news days because it hits the easily tripped hot buttons of those who are so quickly and easily led by their emotions instead of their logic.
So am I mistaken that because we don't necessarily agree with your point of view we're not making "Sense"?
Exactly, but not surprising. Those who are rending their clothing and demanding blood nearly always take this POV. If you don't agree with them, you are wrong and are not making sense. It's almost not worth it to have a conversation with them because, until they grow, they won't see that there are always several sides to a story and "my" side (whoever "my" is) isnt always correct.
As I posted above, actress Charlotte Lewis would disagree with you personally.
Congratulations. In the 30 year span of a 'pedophile's life, you found one 16 year old who says she was sexually abused by Polanski in 1985 or 1986 right before she starred in one of his films:
Acting career
Charlotte Lewis made her film debut as a teenager in the 1986 Roman Polanski film Pirates. She followed this with her role as the female lead in The Golden Child alongside Eddie Murphy that same year. In 1990 she appeared in the film Tripwire. In 1992 she starred opposite James Spader in Storyville. But despite these early successes, her career developed only intermittently, with her 1995 co-starring role in Men of War alongside Dolph Lundgren perhaps being her most memorable. In 2003 she starred in the film Hey DJ.
Lewis also appeared in a cover-featured pictorial in the July 1993 issue of Playboy magazine.
Accusations against Roman Polanski
On May 14, 2010, Charlotte Lewis and her Los Angeles-based attorney Gloria Allred accused director Roman Polanski of sexually abusing Lewis when she was 16 years old, prior to the two working together on Pirates. Prosecutors in Los Angeles confirmed that they interviewed Lewis in connection with the allegations. According to Lewis, the alleged incident occurred at Polanski's apartment in Paris.
Sorry, but one medocre actress (who, at 16, perhaps had sex with a director to get a part) does not a pedophile make. I still maintain that if Polanski was a pedophile, there'd be a plethora of people who were abused as children by this man coming forward to help support the DA's case.
I could not let a child molester go free. It would keep me awake at night. Worried that he was doing it to another child.
THIS is the crux of the matter, where many people's personal feelings are trumping the rights of the victim to live her life free of this kind of scandal. Polanski has not been proven to be a child molester and, so far, there have been no facts brought up to prove that has done it or has been doing it to any other child (the 16 y/o woman, who did a Playboy photo spread less than 10 years later, notwithstanding).
The whole thing smacks to me of a man who likes (or used to like) young women. While I cannot excuse the 13 y/o 30 years ago, I can say that a 16 y/o can easily give consent to enter into sexual relations. Many do every day. If she's now changing her mind, it's likely because even bad publicity is still free publicity.
Polanski is not a danger to society. The only thing served by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that the State of California doesn't have to 'bring him to justice' is a DA's run for office and a public's need for blood. I guess we, as a people, haven't evolved from the whole guillotine, hanging or burning people at the stake in the public square as I'd hoped we'd have by now.
