if this was any other person, this would probably account for a single column inch of newspaper space. either we're all treated equally, or we aren't.

IMO, he raped a girl and fled the country to evade the law. The only reason he would really care at this point is so he can come back into the country he voluntarily and illegally fled. His name can never be cleared because he DID rape the girl.

And it was unusually special considering that he was an adult who connived to seperate a 13 year old girl from her mother, drugged her, and then raped her. That would be 20 years of hard time in my jurisdiction...maybe "life".

But Polanski fled the country anyway to avoid receiving even that special treatment that he was destined to receive.

Essentially the sentencing in this case was never enough. It was an ongoing work of art as opposed to anything that could be acted upon concretely or anything that had an ounce of credibility. He wound up fleeing the country because the constant run-around to protect the judge's name and ego wound up becoming torturous. The DA played on the judge's fears by riling him up while Polanski was awaiting sentencing in the first place... it became a cat and mouse game, where the cat wanted the mouse to die in the most painful way possible.

He did a deal, agreeing to a much lesser charge, with few consequences, then got cold feet when he feared the judge would renege on the slap on the wrist punishment.

And while the victim may agree the charges should be dropped, to my knowledge she has never recanted her version of events or agreed that Roman Polanski did not rape her.   And, yes, that's the right word for what she alleges.

As for the Europeans are different, the victim was 13, which is under the age of consent in France and other Western European countries.  Moreover, here's the important part that so many of Polanski's defenders leave out - the victim says SHE DID NOT CONSENT.  From her testimony:

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

You can read her testimony .  

The prosecutor who actually prosecuted the case also thought the judge acted inappropriately.

I don't think Polanski should get any special treatment because of his artistic merit or his fame.  But, I do think he got screwed by the misconduct of the other ADA and the judge, and it may be sufficient to dismiss the case.

Chinatown may be on my Top Ten list of all-time great films, but this was a very serious sex crime committed against a minor. I really don't care if the defendant is a genius who has since won an Oscar for his work.

At 45 years of age in 1978, Roman Polanski had absolutely no business being sexually intimate with a 13-year-old girl, regardless of whether or not she was a willing participant in the act. Further, the man proved himself the coward by jumping bond and fleeing the country.

If Polanski is sincere, let him return to Los Angeles, submit himself to the tender mercies of the court, and take his chances. I really can't see any rational judge putting him away in the joint at this point, and I'd like to think he'd instead get probation.

Look, I'm not some heartless and uncompassionate being like Nancy Grace. But that said, I would still insist that he first needs to admit his guilt in court and then express his remorse publicly, and there needs to be an official record of both. After that occurs, I would not be displeased in the least to see him set free.

In this case, it looks and sounds like the judge and DA seriously crossed the line, ethically. And personally, I think Polanski has probably paid enough.