Roman Polanski

I'm really confused by the whole Roman Polanski uproar.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Roman Polanski is in the right, or that what he did, to put it as Whoopi Goldberg so eloquently stated, isn't "rape-rape." On the contrary, I've always thought Polanski a serial pedophile, and I absolutely believe he needs to answer for his crimes.

What I don't get is the constant comments in the media that Polanski is a "polarizing figure that has split the country in two." I heard that same basic idea on three different news shows the other day. I guess my question is what country are these people talking about? Because if the United States IS split on Roman Polanski, it isn't split 50-50. It's split maybe 99.5-.5. Outside of a few Hollywood people and friends and relatives of Roman Polanski, I haven't heard from anyone who thinks that what Polanski did was okay, or that he should be set free. I know because I've looked. I couldn't imagine how anyone could really think what he did was okay, so I tried to find some argument. I figured I must be missing some important detail in the case. But you know what? There are no cogent arguments out there that he should be freed. There are comments that he's served his time (He hasn't), that he's suffered enough (which is rubbish--Lots of criminals serving time had traumas in their past), and that the judge was going to back out of a plea deal (which is actually irrelevant--if the judge WERE going to back out of a plea deal then Polanski could just change his plea), but there's nothing else.

So I had planned to write in this space an argument for why I thought Polanski SHOULD be punished for what he did. I was going to bring up the lurid details of the case (which many don't seem to know), and I was going to bring up the fact that my daughter was turning 13 soon and how I'd feel if any 43 year old man had sex with her, whether it was consensual or not. But I can see now that there's no need.

I'd be arguing with pretty much nobody.