First of all, nowhere was the movie released as Roman Polanski's Film of Macbeth. It was either Macbeth, or The Tragedy of Macbeth. Every one-sheet is going to advertise the director, more or less prominently. Get serious.

Second of all, I seriously doubt that Polanski's supporters condone child rape (I certainly don't). What they--or at least I--have a problem with is that Polanski's already done the time for his crime, according, anyway, to the plea agreement that would've gone through if not for the judge in question's hubris.

Third of all, the victim wants this to go away. Who are all you would-be Polanski decollaters to override her wishes? Isn't that exactly what Polanski was prosecuted for in the first place? Let her have it her way, for once.

You have no understanding of the law or, in my opinion, some basic concepts of justice. Hitchens, of whom I am not a fan, is completely right that the law does not act to appease the desires of the victim but rather to uphold the integrity of the law for deterrent value (among other purposes.)

I don't know how exactly you think Polanski has been punished since he clearly has not, but it was not hubris for the LA Superior Court to demand his appearance for a plea but rather the normal procedure of the court which Polanski has flaunted once again.

As a state prosecutor, I for one am dumbfounded that this is even a topic of discussion. Unledd Hitch is right in his conclusion that the rape of a 13 year old girl is simply not seen as a violation by many. Despicable.

Yes, let's let debate Hitchen's sidebar about whether Polanski's (not very good) adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most famous plays has Polanski's name in the title.

The Judge's hubris? Are you kidding me? How about the hubris of a guy who rapes a 13 year old, pleads guilty, flees the country after changing his mind, then thumbs his nose at the system for the next 32 years? The Judge's job was to decide on a penalty -- it isn't up to Polanski to decide what's fair.

What do the (now 45 year old) victim's wishes have to do with this? Nothing. She may simply want this whole painful affair to go away, she may be damaged, and is acting out seeking attention, or, most probably, after being paid or at least offered $500,000 by Polanski, is doing her part of the deal. In any case, courts don't operate at the whim of the offended, they operate to punish the perpetrator. I suppose if the victim were dead we would all be arguing that the crime may no difference now and should be forgotten.

Ask yourself this simple question:

How would a bus driver have been treated in a similar case of child rape?

I rest my case.

Fourth of all, generally when one does not "condone" child rape, one does not make exceptions for child rapists based on flimsy legal technicalities that do not even apply. IF a plea bargain had gone through and IF Polanski had not illegally fled the country before being incarcerated then he would have served his time by now. So the argument is what, he should get time served as a fugitive under the sentence he ducked illegally, because if he had challenged it through the proper channels of legal appeal instead of living like a king in Europe, he might have won? Gee, there's a lesson for the kids.

To me, Polanski is like Michael Vick. You want to argue he isn't such a bad guy, fine. I don't know him and you don't know him, but you can believe what you want about what's in somebody else's head. But he done a clearly bad thing and there's no objectively good reason he should not be held accountable, so please spare me the BS about how he is a victim of society. They did too much victimizing of their own to play the pity card.

I keep hearing people saying that the girl doesn't want to press charges so Polanski should be allowed to walk. So I guess if crackheads don't complain then you shouldn't be able to prosecute a crack dealer. If the neighbors don't mind the noise, then building bombs in the basement shouldn't upset the authorities. For that matter, murder should never be prosecuted after all, you don't hear the victim complaining do you? CIVIL law is a vindication of personal rights. CRIMINAL law is an enforcement of societal rules. Get your Civics 101 straight before you pardon a rapist.

this polansky guy is nothing nor is his case like Michael Vicks. Michael Vick funded and allowed dogs and I SAY DOGS to fight and kill each other on his property. Then he lied about all of it. HE IS NOT A F'ING CHILD RAPIST NOR DID HE RUN FROM THE LAW NOR WAS HE ALLOWED TOO. U NEED TO GET IT RIGHT BUSTER. RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD AND GOING FREE FOR 30 YEARS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR SOCIETY WILL ALLOW A RICH WHITE MAN TO GET AWAY WITH. IF HE WERE MEXICAN, AFRICAN, CUBAN, OR HATIAN, HE WOULD BE IN PRISON, NO HOLDS BARRED!!!!! SO TAKE YOUR OPINION OF JUSTICE AND SHOVE IT!!!

This is precisely the kind of poorly informed opinion relating entirely on non-existent para-social empathies with celebrities who wouldn't deign to come within 20 feet of the empathiser that makes discussing the Michael Vick case pointless. "Our society" did not allow a "rich white man" to get away with anything. Polanski fled to France, where the French refused to extradite Polanski, not in small part out of anti-American sentiment in that country. Unless you are French, I don't really know why you cast blame on your society for punishing Vick but not Polanski (which still doesn't make sense, since the French had nothing to do with the incarceration of Michael Vick). Such a narrow frame of reference to suggest that everything is about the Black-White dynamic in America, when in fact that is an issue of interest to only a tiny fraction of the people in the world.

My point was not to equate child rape with animal cruelty, although personally I have no confidence in the notion that animal cruelty, practiced deliberately and with pleasure over a period of many years, is less psychopathic than an incidence of rape. My point was that the people who assert the innocence of people who clearly engaged in misconduct out of selfish reasons of empathy are misguided. But hey, sorry if I confused you with nuance, I know it's tricky for people who still are trying to figure out capitalization.

If I ever have the pleasure of seeing Michael Vick on fire, I might possibly be persuaded to piss on him, and put it out. Of course, that'd only be so I could douse him with gas, and light him up again.

I was going to leave a short note on the capitalization, but I like the way chardk1 phrased it better. I can't believe people are even debating whether or not to prosecute a fugitive. Even if we ignore the fact it was rape, pedophilia etc. there still doesn't seem to be a valid argument anywhere to not convict someone for running from a sentence to a charge they plead guilty to. I'd like to see something like that bounty hunter show get him and rough him up on national TV, shame he was arrested in a civil manner. But hey, I guess I have some prejudice against people who plead guilty to raping a child.