The Polanski Case

Op-Ed Contributor - The Polanski Case - NYTimes.com: "Two major flaws instill doubt about the legitimacy of the request to extradite Mr. Polanski. The first goes to the very aims of criminal law. Those are usually stated as revenge, deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. Revenge is widely recognized as illegitimate. In Mr. Polanski’s case none of the legitimate aims seem applicable."

---
The guy who wrote that is a "lawyer in France," as footnoted in the article. That seems a weaselly way of not calling him a "French lawyer," because they know it'd be an obvious indication of his bias. But you need not even decipher the footnote to figure that out, just look at the glaring example quoted above.

Punishment. That's a phase of trial that has been lacking in the case. It's the most obviously legitimate reason to go after Polanski over 30 years after he ran. Polanski went through the process of doing everything but paying the bill, he skipped out on tab that the judge was bringing to him. Well, the merchant was slow and it took him a while, but he finally caught up with the dine-and-dasher.

30 years ago you could also presume deterrence, but as far as we know Mr. Polanski hasn't been hooking up with tweens since then. But then, what about deterrence to other famous would-be tween rapists? Yes, that's the real deterrence, and it's every bit as legitimate as punishment.

Doesn't take a law school prof to see that. But it's pretty hard to see if you're unreasonably biased. But he's French, so... maybe it's expected over there. Who knows.