You're right about that Cy. It is not being done in the name of truth and decency. It's being done in the name of justice. You know, making someone accept the consequences of their actions.
But hey, if anyone here wants to come down on the side of a child rapist not having to pay for his crime, that's fine by me. If you ever have a child who is sexually abused, I hope you are still just as understanding and forgiving and push for him not to be punished.
Oh, get off it. This isn't 'justice.' It's a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself by netting a high-profile target who settled long ago with the victim of his crime. In the process, the prosecutor released the testimony of the victim from years ago to the media, and exposed her and her family to a considerable amount of embarrassment and shame.
Does Polanski deserve to be tried for his crime? Yes.
Does he deserve immunity b/c he's a famous director? No.
Should we take into account the fact that the victim herself
filed to have the case dismissed in 2008, citing 'that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family?" Yes, I think we should.
I hope that if I have a child that is abused, and if the child
and myself have settled with the abuser and wish to move on with our lives, and in fact have publicly forgiven him for his sins (as the victim here has), that those who are interested in 'Justice' would realize that it isn't always achieved by overzealous prosecution and the release of embarrassing and highly personal details to the media.