"Avary pleaded guilty in August to gross vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving. So, one has to wonder, when will the "Free Roger Avary" petition get underway? Should we ask Jeff Wells if perhaps a year is too much? Should they "show a little compassion" and maybe knock it down to six-months house arrest? I mean, Roger suffered since January 2008, enough is enough… right?"

Avary pleaded guilty for the same reason Polanski did. He wanted to make a deal and get a smaller sentence. Standard operation procedure not only in American law. Of course this works when both sides agree to certain commitments. As far as I know Polanski held his end of the deal and pleaded guilty. That was his commitment. He fled – sure. That's bad and certainly puts him in a tight spot. But as far as the actual crime he said he commited nothing changed. He fled because he had reasons to believe that the other end of the deal might be broken. Should he "man up" and "take the blame like an adult"? Well, he did. He chose not to fight in court over his guilt and therefore admitted that he did wrong and broke the law believing (not under false pretences but actual words of the accusing party) that the sentance will be smaller. The judge agreed to that. Then Polanski found out that, well sorry, there will be no justice (at least not the one he was promissed) as long as the public is curiously watching the Judge's work. There is no telling what would happen if Polanski would go to court with this case. Fact is – he didn't. Should there be some credit for that – yes. Even more – that is exacly what he was promissed by the people who work in the name of justice. As soon as he found out that justice will change it's mind about the deal he fled. The right to a fair trial (therefore a fair sentence) is guarantied in the constitution I believe.

About this I am not sure, but if he would plea not gulity and was found guilty he could still appeal. Once he pleaded guilty he had no chance to appeal. Is that correct? Because if it is, Judge Rittenband should be congratulated for his nice little trick to put Polanski in jail, no matter what it takes.

Just for the record. I think the man should pay for what he did. He is guilty – yes, that is a fact. I also agree that his horrific past (holocaust, wife and unborn child assassination) is irrelevant in this case. I don't believe that him being a great artist (which he undoubtfully is) should be a reason to let him of the hook. But he also deserves justice and in my opinion he fled because he felt that he will not get justice from a prejudice judge who simply didn't like the little Polish turd. Can the United States of America give him justice now? I can only hope.

Gotta wonder how each of these celebrity petition signers would feel if it had been their 13 year old daughter he had drugged and raped.

@Patricia:

If you wanna play this relativity role-play game, you gotta play it to the limit. So why don't you wonder for a little bit how would you feel if Roman Polanski was your close friend, your life partner or your father. Not easy, right? On the one hand you've got the law which you should obey, and you feel justice should be served. But on the other you have a man you have known for a significant part of your life, you know what kind of man he is for real, you share good and bad moments, but you can honestly call him your friend/husband/father. Can you put yourself in that position? Probably not, somre really difficult emotions there. For you it's probably easier to put youself in a position of a person who is presented with simple feelings like hate and play this role-play game on the easy side. Hate is relatively simple, "The man is a rapist. He should burn." Heard that one before. Come up with something new rather than flood the world with jibberish that Polanski would rape every single daughter of the celebrities in question. He did not rape their daughters so they have no reason to act as if he did.

Like I said, I understand that you prefer the simplicity of hate. You probably cannot quite grasp the fact that there are other emotions to take into consideration. I am sure that you can't give me a good reason why everybody should feel like Polanski rape their child. The same way I can't give you a reason to like Polanski and support him like some people are. All I can say is that I understand there are people who can treat him without hate for what he did, and you don't. Simple as that. Polanski either is not your close friend and did not rape your child. So why put your self only in the position of the raped child's parent? Is that fair?

Truth be told, none of that would be happening if Polanski simply did his sentence 30 years ago.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." =P

I comprehend his friends defeding him, I probably would do the same if I were a notorious artist that can (but shouldn't) use my influence to help someone. But it's bullshit nonetheless. He's a great director, but he did something wrong. Just pay for it already!

@Dude: So your conclusion is what? I don't have to hate Polanski to think he should serve some hard time.

Here's what I wonder: is Wells saying the rest of us non-art Gods don't even deserve compassion?

Here's what Luc Besson had to say:

“This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit. Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen. I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."

Days of Thunder reference!
Thanks Brad, that made my morning.

@Garrett: Finally, someone in the industry gets it right. Although, I really wouldn't expect any other answer from Luc Besson after watching Taken. This is kind of what that movie was all about.
I agree though, Brad. It's sad that so many of Hollywood's elite are lining up behind Polanski. I lost a little respect for everyone on that list, which makes me sad, cause I love Darren Aronofsky and Terry Gilliam especially. I am hoping that some big name celebrities will stand up on the side of justice instead, to counteract this idiocy.

I'm definitely for Polanski finally getting his due (meaning that I really think he should serve some time for what he did and for fleeing the authorities for 30+ years), but relating his crime to Roger Avary's is way off-base. Polanski did something absolutely terrible, but his victim is still alive and claims to have moved on.

Avary's victim, however, doesn't get to move on because she's dead. Avary got behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated and ended up killing someone. The two crimes couldn't be any more different and should be treated differently. Avary should have gotten alot more time for what he did, as he caused the death of someone due to his own drunken ignorance.

@Dude:

I'm no expert on the California Legal System as it stood 30-odd years ago, but my general understanding is that a guilty plea deal only buys you the consideration and the cooperation of the prosecuting attorney in sentencing recommendations. I believe that the judge does not have to take the prosecutor's recommendation, although it's unusual that he/she would not. If this is the case, then Polanski wasn't promised anything other than consideration in sentencing… and to be honest, even at 80+ days in jail I'm sure it would be significantly less time served than had he gone to trial and been found guilty on most counts against him (which he likely would have), so he would still have benefited greatly from his guilty plea.

As for the "relativity role-play game" as you call it, you have a point… a personal connection to either side is going to sway emotions. However, I think you would have to admit that there's a significant distinction between imagining someone you love as the victim of a crime and imagining them as the perpetrator of a crime. Anyone can be a victim of a crime… It's easy to imagine. To imagine one's father in Polanski's shoes, one has to imagine that one's father is capable of plying a 13 year old with drugs and having sex with her. It's not exactly a "it could happen to any one of us" scenario… so I think your suggestion that anyone who doesn't look at both sides as equals can only "hate" is well off base.

Really, portraying people who disagree with you in this argument as motivated by base emotions is really oversimplifying things.

he drugged a 13 year old and had sex with her. For what reason should he go free after fleeing the country to begin with. This is dumb idc if it was Gandhi who was convicted… put em behind bars.

What he did was wrong but I don't like that people are just putting hate on the filmmaker who want him free. They aren't supporting what he did they just don't support the questionable actions by the Swiss. He will get what's coming to him which is justice just like anyone else who has done this artist or not. I studied criminal and the first poster was right about how it works out for him because of the plea deal but if Roman can prove the plea deal was broken somehow then he can fight this thing( not the sex charges but the charges that may come from him fleeting) but that's IF he chooses to fight it. Big if

@Tigercrane:

"So your conclusion is what? I don't have to hate Polanski to think he should serve some hard time."

Bingo! That's the point. That's exacly what I'm doing. Of course some people simply have to be the victims imaginary father/mother to justify their belief he should be punished. Why? Search me. What I know is that a parent of a raped child does not feel the urge for justice. He probably feels uncontrolable rage, hatred and if he got his hands on the person who abused his child he would tear him to shreads. My question is – why are some people asking me to put myself into his position? I don't need to hate the man to know he needs to be punished. Not out of hate but out of sanity and respect for the law. That's my point.

@AJ :

"Really, portraying people who disagree with you in this argument as motivated by base emotions is really oversimplifying things."

That's the only conclusion I can reach based on the fact that people (not everyone of course, but some) are asking me to think what I would do if I was the girl's father. "Patricia" (post #2) wrote that… why exacly? Why am I suppose to "feel if it had been my 13 year old daughter he had drugged and raped."? Is that suppose to make me think more clearly about this case and put the "base emotions" aside? I don't think so.

"To imagine one's father in Polanski's shoes, one has to imagine that one's father is capable of plying a 13 year old with drugs and having sex with her. It's not exactly a "it could happen to any one of us" scenario… so I think your suggestion that anyone who doesn't look at both sides as equals can only "hate" is well off base."

Why exacly this isn't a "it could happen to any one of us" scenario? Most people that are friends or family to child rapists will testify that in normal life the man/woman was perfectly normal, quite often had a family and a few friends and nothing indicated that was capale of doing such horrible things. Yes, these things happen everyday. People are presented with the fact that the person the have knon for years and considered a normal guy/girl are in fact child rapists. How do you think it makes them feel? Puting aside the fact that they whish to obey the law and have the person condemned, don't you think that the first emotions that comes to their heads are denial, disbelief and disorientatnion? "How can this be? Not Jim? I've known him for ages. He would never do such a thing." A common and, I have to say, quite normal reaction. Later comes the felling of being cheated and the dissonance between the pleasent memories, feelings and facts that are undeniable. Not easy? You bet. But you don't hear many of that on TV. Mostly there are pissed parents wanting to hang the bastard. Also an emotion but hate comes naturally in this case. There is no other way.

I am skeptical about the criminal justice system in general. These are the people that brought us "Satanic Buggery at Teddy Bear Day Care" in the 80's (never happened), agent provocateurs among neighborhood activists since the 60's up to today (pure evil), and the whole absurd concept of a plea bargain in the first place. "We arrested you and plan to hamstring your identity and life, but we just don't have time to go over it in detail."

Put people in jail. Kill them. Yeah, it really works. It's great. Hooray.

Use your imagination for something other than vicarious slathering over a taboo sex act and really ask yourself: "Why have I consented to let my 13-year old daughter hang around all by herself with a wily sybarite?"

He didn't do anything to any of the braying moralists, or, emphasis, anyone else, and the girl is now a grown woman well past it. The clear balance is in his favor. The hypocrite Puritans are wrong.

@Dude: Justice is not hate. I have no hate for Mr. Polanski, and nothing but compassion for the suffering he has endured. However, that does not—not even a little bit—excuse his causing someone else' suffering. Quite the contrary, it only makes it worse.

And to answer your question. How would I feel if he were a brother or close friend? The same. I would not turn my back on my brother or close friend but I would expect and even demand that he face the consequences of his actions. No excuses. Child abuse is a horrible, indefensible crime.

I agree with you Brad, it is getting out of control.

Thank You Brad and I agree, it is plain ridiculous how some of these hollywood types are acting. It is downright shameful.

Polanski isn't the only one who experienced crap from the judicial system, but he did the crime. So many people are in prison who are actually innocent, why don't some of those Hollywood people go to prison and talk to them and try to get them freed.

@Patricia:

"Justice is not hate. I have no hate for Mr. Polanski, and nothing but compassion for the suffering he has endured."

So why the hell are you asking people to act as Samantha Geimer's parents? Because this position is just and unbiased? Actually you are not even asking to feel sorry for the poor girl. You're not saying – "imagine what it would be like if you were Samantha Geimer's dad or mom". What you're saing is – "imagine what it would be like if it was YOUR CHILD THAT HAD BEEN RAPED BY POLANSKI". I hope you can see the difference. You're not even trying to impose on others the abused child's mother point of view. You are asking us think as any parent of any and every raped child in the world, and believe me there are worse cases of sexually abused children than this one. These emotions will not make justice pop up at any time. These emotions lead to self-justice backed with hatred and grief.

"How would I feel if he were a brother or close friend? The same. I would not turn my back on my brother or close friend but I would expect and even demand that he face the consequences of his actions. No excuses. Child abuse is a horrible, indefensible crime."

I really hope life won't make you verify there words, I really do. But if it does I also hope that you have enough strength to stand by these words and believe me it will not be easy. You may find out that once you are on the other side of the barricade the black-and-white simplicity of it all suddenly does not apply. I will not say that what you have written is all bull, because I do not know you. However I can only say that I wish you will not be put in a situation where you will have to think twice about what have stated.

@Dude: I have been "put into a situation" as you put it. But my perspective was on the victim, for a very good reason.

I'm not calling for revenge. I'm not advocating a witch hunt. I'm merely stating my opinion that those trying to excuse Polanski based on his talent and success are asking for a two tiered system of justice and that I suspect their perspective would change should the crime he committed involve them in a more personal way.

Finally, I can't understand how you think knowing the perpetrator would make me think their deed any less heinous.

You sound very angry, like you have a personal stake in this.

This has been a heated argument, esp. b/w Dude & Patricia, and almost everyone is siding with the Justice system in wanting to see Polanksi finally pay for his crime. I think this case is being judged in the courts of public minds rather than of law because of Polanski's celebrity status and has ballooned over the years to become a microcosm of the question of celebrity boundaries and limits. Can celebrities get away with crimes because of their status?

From the view of the perception of justice, one could say this man will probably get away with rape. Patricia has it right when she evokes how we would feel if one of our own underage daughters were duped by a middle-aged man and subsequently raped. By the reason of Polanski giving the girl (Samantha Geimer) Quaaludes and then having sex with her without confirming her age makes me think that he's definitely done this before. Yes, that is pure speculation, but that is what I think when I hear the charges that are leveled against Polanski. He knowingly seduced a minor (probably knowing she was a minor) and this rape was premeditated. Who carries Quaaludes with them without the intention of using them?

His actions 31 years ago were reprehensible then and still are. The California Legal System was established to provide justice, even if the victim drops the case. This is a terrible legal precedent if a celebrity escapes the clutches of law because of this status. But knowing the lobbying power of Hollywood, I do not see harm coming to Polanski (unless he suddenly turned African-American). There are obviously different levels of justice based on your status.

"[This] case has nothing to do with Mr. Polanski's work or his age. It is about an adult preying on a child. Mr. Polanski pleaded guilty to that crime and must account for it."

Exactly my sentiments.

As previously mentioned just watch the documentary 'Polanski-wanted and desired' and you will understand everything. I want to sign the petition, too.
And I want to thank Woody Allen for his bravery.

@Patricia: I also wonder how they would feel when it came out that their 13 year old daughter had sex with her 17 year old boyfriend two weeks prior.

I'm not sure why no one bothers to talk about the 50,000 or so babies that are born in California each year to underage girls. Half of those babies are fathered by adult men. Do you think any of these child rapists are being prosecuted? Probably less than a thousand of them a year. Stop sensationalizing this case…it happens all the time. Why not go after the men who are currently residing in California and who possibly might commit this crime again in the future?