While I'm not sympathetic to Polanski, I think the judge's actions in the case were egregious and missed the chance for justice & completion that Polanski had pleaded guilty to. Folks say Assange should go back to Sweden, but once a lynch mob or hanging judge has been appointed, there's not much good to come out of it.

Geimer is impressive, and her summary of the situation shed light on the complexity and the changes in social mores over time - as noted, Elvis met Priscilla at 14, and values in 1977 Hollywood were a lot different from these current strangely conservative days in America. That she didn't understand it at first as rape herself - that came after time, but it wasn't the devastation that people want it to have been. And that Polanski eventually seemed to grow a clue stick himself - a bit late in the day, but whatever.

And I'm quite used to the idea that famous people won't be brought to justice - for actions much worse than Polanski's - from Scooter Libby to those guilty of mass theft of people's assets to cold-blooded murder abroad to our codified system of brutal prison rapes that's part of our "rehabilitation" for millions including imprisonment for minor drugs. People complain about overuse of the example of Bush's trumped up war 10 years ago, but a Hollywood incident from 36 years ago that's mostly been atoned for is supposed to still bring outrage & condemnation? I suppose I should spit and scuff dirt every time I hear Woody Allen's name as well.

It's more like there's a "statute of complications" in this case:

Samantha Geimer on Roman Polanski: 'We email a little bit'

The Guardian, 13 Sept., 2013

[....]We meet in her publisher's office in New York [....] It is a frank, convincing book, more shocking in its straightforwardness and apparent good humour than a more obviously manipulative account [....]

[....] The more interesting thing, at this point, is the extent to which Geimer feels common cause with the man [.....]

Polanski should be allowed to resolve his legal issues and come back to the US, she says. "Because that's what would be fair. Because it's the right thing." And her? She smiles. "I'm fine."

Roman Polanski and the sin of simplification

The Samantha Geimer/Roman Polanski case demonstrates our terrible dread of nuance

The Guardian, 28 Sept., 2013

[....] She has been exchanging emails with Polanski for several years.

She says that the police investigation, hospital exams and reporting of the case were more traumatic than the attack itself. She says: "I did something wrong, I was stupid… To pose topless, and to drink and to take the [sleeping] pill."

It is so easy and tempting to knock this into a pigeonhole: the misguided self-blame and denial of the victim. But this woman is too smart and articulate for us comfortably to assume we know better. She puts these complicated thoughts out there, alongside her anger, not because she's too damaged to think clearly but because she can't bear the world's oversimplification.

When a therapist on the Oprah Winfrey show explained that Geimer was suffering from "victim's guilt", she said this was "patronising"; who would dare patronise her further by saying that it wasn't? [....]

Her current battle is not with her original oppressor but the reporters of then and now, the lawyers, the psychologists of reality TV and everyone watching – all of whom objectified her further. She is fighting against reductive simplicity. She forces us to think hard, to use muscles that must not go slack.

Roman Polanski's victim asks court to drop charges against director

In court filing, Samantha Geimer says media attention interferes with her employment and health

The Guardian, 26 Oct., 2009

BTW, statute of limitations is about the ability to bring charges. He was charged and pled guilty. He is a fugitive from justice. From a 2009 Q & A @ Slate:

Polanski molested his victim more than 30 years ago. Hasn't the statute of limitations run on his crime?
No. The statute of limitations for a crime requires the state to make a formal charge against the defendant within a certain timeframe. Polanski was charged within a few weeks of the crime and pleaded guilty. At this point, he is a fugitive from justice who is awaiting sentencing. Once you're a fugitive, the statute of limitations clock stops ticking.

So now we have a situation where the victim no longer wants the case pursued. And the perp who pled guilty has not gone on to commit further crimes, at least not for which he has been implicated. So for many years, this has really been about the honor of the state of California and its ability to enforce punishment as regards a guilty plea as it sees fit. It's really all about their plea bargain process at the time and whether they acted fairly or whether the perp was treated with special consideration that was then threatened to be withdrawn. It should be noted that they could probably could not hold a successful trial on new/different charges because the victim is not at all amenable.

The real lesson: how prosecutors handle themselves is important.

Meanwhile, we can all continue to punish him  (and her) with media coverage, opinioning in blog posts and elsewhere because he and his country of France choose not to submit to California's request that he serve time. If he did serve time, would the media and Joe-Smith-opining stop? Probably not.