Roman Polanski

Here, from an article at Salon.com:

Why, then, did she file a formal request in 1997 for Los Angeles prosecutors to drop the charges against him, saying, “I have survived, indeed prevailed, against whatever harm Mr. Polanski may have caused me as a child. I got over it a long time ago"?

It’s hard enough to be a 13-year-old girl who was drugged and sodomized. How much more is that violation compounded when, 30 years later, you’re a 45-year-old mother of three and still being portrayed as an aspiring model “seduced” by a successful older man? No wonder she says, “Every time this case is brought to the attention of the Court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

I have no empathy for Polanski, but what purposes are served by prosecuting a criminal? Deterrence is one. Revenge for the victim's satisfaction is the other.

Polanski has never repeated the crime. He is not a serial offender. The victim of his crime has clearly stated, 11 years ago already, that she does not wish to see this prosecution continue. To do so will only hurt her, not help her.

Indicting and trying Polanski is utterly pointless, except that it satisfies some feelings of envy and resentment on the part of some people who think that celebrities are undeserving of their success and deserve some comeuppance for it, no matter what the reason.