Ok, by no means do I condone a grown man drugging and then engaging in sex acts with a 13 year old. But...you knew that was coming, my issue with Polanski's case in particular has more to do with what I believe should be the purpose of our prison system. How does incarcerating Polanski now... serve the primary goals of incarcerating those who break the law , namely Retribution, Deterrence (general and specific), Incapacitation, and last but not least Rehabilitation.
As far as General Deterrence, Polanski's incarceration would not serve to deter others from committing such a crime. First I am doubtful that incarceration works to deter most criminal acts to begin with. I think that most "criminals" at least those who engage in this type of crime, that is to say a crime which offers no monetary reward, are not "rational-actors", who utilize cost-benefit analysis to assist them in their decision of whether to rape, beat molest etc...
Secondly, even assuming for arguments sake, that incarceration does deter rapists and child molesters, Polanski is a unique individual in unique circumstances and I am doubtful that anyone planning on committing sex acts with a 13 year old would be deterred because a famous, rich, Hollywood director escaped "punishment" by fleeing the country over 30 years ago. If these "criminals" are rational and intelligent enough to engage in a cost-benefit analysis then they would recognize Polanskis’ extremely unique position as one which would likely not pan out for them.
As far as specific deterrence, I am not convinced how much effect incarcerating Polanski now, would have on his "propensity" to commit the act again. Frankly after 30 years I am not sure how concerned we should be with specifically deterring Polanski from committing such a crime in the future, as he is now 76 years old. His age alone strongly supports the proposition that he is highly unlikely to engage in the same type of behavior in the future. Social science stats support the contention that as "criminals" age their propensity to generally reoffend significantly decreases. Additionally there is evidence that as men age their testosterone levels decrease significantly, which is highly relevant for a person accused of sexual criminal conduct.
When it comes to Rehabilitation I think it a waste of the States' money to rehabilitate a 76 year old man whose propensity to reoffend, as noted above, is very low.
The only goal which would be served at all from incarcerating him now would be Retribution. First I must disclaim that I am not and never have been a big supporter of the "eye for an eye" belief. I will concede that retribution is an important state and societal interest in that it satiates societies need to administer "just desserts", especially on those who harm others. One could argue that Polanski was forced out of our country and suffered severe public disgrace, at least for a while after he fled. And although it's true that retribution is not only about satiating the victims' need for "just deserts", the fact that Polanski's victim has spoken out against incarcerating him should play some role when determining how incarcerating him now would serve the purpose of retribution.
So, given the fact that incarcerating Polanski now... only minimally serves any of our goals concerning incarceration and considering the extreme cost and manpower it must have taken to track him down in Zurich and bring him back to serve his time. I think it was a HUGE waste of time and money on California's part. It seems more likely to me that the Prosecutor who just had to hunt him down did so not for justice but for personal gains, which frankly disgusts me. If the citizens of California must be angry that is the offense with which they should be angered.
