Published: October 22, 2009

Roman Polanski is a creepy guy; I will not argue against that. I mean, he made movies like “Repulsion” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” considered to be two of the most horrific horror movies ever made, so you know there is some crazy stuff going on in that man’s head. Then you put a sex scandal involving a 13-year-old girl on top of it all, and you get the image of the sick and sadistic man that is often seen shown to the public eye. However, should everyone be so quick to judge? Is the case so obvious that he deserves to go directly to jail? Is it ever so cut-and-dry?

The biggest problem in the case thus far is that Polanski’s alleged sex crime took place over 30 years ago. Since then, so much has changed, both in the case and in general popular and political culture. Thirty years leaves a lot of room for growth in a culture that changes almost every minute, and though I’m not defending Polanski’s actions, I think there’s a lot to be said for social context.

The alleged crime, which included sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, took place just seven years after Polanski’s wife, actress Sharon Tate, was brutally murdered by the Manson Family in 1969. Polanski suffered severe guilt, knowing he wasn’t with his wife on the night of the murder. This fact alone, plus the constant reminders as Tate’s name was dragged through movie theaters and tabloids alike, was enough to make a man—a husband—mentally and utterly disturbed.

Amidst all this, Polanski was arrested and tried for unlawful sexual acts with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. It was a perverse action that truly brought out Polanski’s particularly sick nature. Geimer was drugged, raped and sodomized. The public at the time was fully aware, however, that he had been scarred by everything that had transpired during and after the murder of his wife. Is this an excuse for such immoral actions? Absolutely not. But it may be a reason—a look inside his mental rationale, albeit deranged.

And for those who claim he was awarded a “get out of jail free” card, he did pay for his crime. He eventually pleaded guilty and was granted an evaluation period in which he was psychiatrically evaluated but let out early, staying the hospital for 42 days out of the 90-day sentence. However, what happened next would prove to be Polanski’s greatest mistake during his trial: when he heard he may have been faced with imprisonment at his sentencing hearing, he fled to London, then France.

In the 1970s, Polanski may have only looked at a few months or a year in prison. However, recent controversies have created a whole new stigma behind those tried for sexual abuse of a minor. With an onslaught of sex scandals in the last 30 years, including the high profile Michael Jackson cases and the Catholic priest sex abuses cases of the past decade, the view of the crimes has deepened and the sympathy for the abuser has almost completely diminished. Many of the priests who were convicted have served as many as 10 to 15 years in prison. This is much more severe than the term Polanski would have served in the 70s. So what charges should stand for Polanski and how harsh should his sentence be?

First off, although his greatest mistake was unlawful sex with a minor, he failed to show up in court, which is in and of itself a crime, and he should be tried for that. As for what will come out of the sex with a minor case, this will cause much more controversy. Since he already pleaded guilty to this charge, statute of limitations cannot be applied and therefore the case cannot be dropped.

Just days after Swiss authorities captured Polanski under certain American extradition regulations, Hollywood was out to prove them wrong. Many big shots spoke out against his capture, finding illegitimacy with the American and Swiss judicial systems. Well over 100 Hollywood names, including Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen, appeared on a petition that called for Polanski’s release.

Even though Hollywood has come out and said let him go, he still deserves a sentence. Yes, he’s produced many great films, like “Chinatown” and the above-mentioned “Rosemary’s Baby,” but he still committed a crime, and therefore he should not receive special treatment for being a special celebrity. However, the severity of his sentence should be considered with slight hesitation—not because of his celebrity status, but because of the laws when he was arrested.

Both parties, Geimer and Polanski, should be looked at. Geimer has since publicly acknowledged that she doesn’t wish that Polanski go to jail. She simply wants the case to end so that all her pain will end. As for Polanski, he has basically spent the last 30 years in “hiding,” so to speak, as he has had to stay in France, a country that is unwilling to extradite him. He has been unable to accept any awards for his films, including the three Academy Awards “The Pianist” won in 2003. He was even on his way to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was captured on Sept. 26.

Polanski was disturbed when he committed the crime and he has maintained a clean record since. Though his crime was perverse and requires more than just a “sorry,” even his victim has accepted his apology. Regardless of his status, history or crime, however, this, like any other crime, deserves a fair trial.