Sticking to comparison's with Polanski, because I already did the research in the earlier thread...

A ten minute search throws back the following cases in California which share similarities with the Polanski case and where the defendants do not seem to me to have been significantly worse treated, despite their lack of celebrity.

Here's a guy who was convicted of statutory rape under CPC 261.5 (one count), lewd and lascivicious conduct with a minor using threats of force under CPC 288a(b)(1) (four counts), and lewd and lascivicious conduct with a dependent minor using threats of force under CPC 288a(b)(2) (two counts). He got six months County time and probation.

Here's someone who was convicted of statutory rape under CPC 261.5 and lewd conduct with a dependent minor using threats of force under CPC 288(b)(2). He got five years probation.

This chap started his recorded criminal career in April 1989, when he was convicted of possession of a narcotic substance for sale. In November 1989, he was convicted of receiving stolen property. In May 1990, he was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle.  In March 1993, he was convicted of misdemeanor battery.  In April 1994, he was convicted of committing battery causing serious bodily injury. In August 1994, he was convicted of taking a vehicle without the owner's consent. In April 1995, he was again convicted of misdemeanor battery, sentenced to 75 days in jail, and placed on probation. With all of that on his record - in 1995, he was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under CPC 261.5, given 15 days in jail, and placed on probation.

Another one, who was accused of drugging and raping his sister, was charged with rape by use of a controlled substance (CPC 261(a)(3)), incest (CPC 285), transporting a controlled substance (HSC 11379(a)), committing a controlled substance violation through use of a minor (HSC 11380(a)), unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (CPC 261.5 (c)), use of a controlled substance (HSC 11550 (a)), indecent exposure (CPC 314(1)), and two counts of committing degrading, immoral, or vicious practices in the presence of children (CPC 273 (g)). He agreed to plead guilty to the incest charge and was given three years probation.

This guy molested one child and raped another. He was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than 10 years youger (CPC 261.5(c), rape by a foreign object (CPC 289(h)), misdemeanor child molestation (CPC 647.6(a)]) and lewd act on a child (CPC 288(a)) and convicted on all counts. His sentence was 1 year local time and 5 years probation, despite having fought all counts instead of pleading, and despite having been convicted on all counts.

Ms. Clark, however, adds some context to the sentencing process that makes the 90-day "evaluation" look much less shabby than it appears to folks like me:

A plea bargain was worked out, allowing Polanski to go into state prison for "90-day diagnostic testing." Back in those days, it was fairly common to let a defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge and have him go in for that diagnostic--a series of psychological tests, and a thorough background check--and if the prison didn't recommend any further time, the judge would abide by that recommendation. "It's likely Judge Rittenband agreed to abide by the recommendation and give Polanski no additional time after he finished his diagnostic," Wells said. "What he probably didn't count on was that Polanski would promise to put everyone in the prison in his next movie and basically charm his way out of there in just 42 days."

Clark also makes an interesting point that the passage of time actually serves to make Polanski's crime look worse, not better:

Although there'd been grumblings about the wrist slap of a sentence, Wells said, "You have to remember, this was the '70s. People had a different state of mind about sex crimes back then. They were asking what the girl was doing at his house to begin with, talking about how she wasn't a virgin anyway. I said, `What difference did it make? She was a child, just 13 years old. Who cares what she'd done before?'"

Those were the days when folks still believed rape was "easy to charge and hard to disprove." And that old adage couldn't have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast. All too often, the victim got put through the shredder at trial, framed up as the "slut" who "deserved" it, only to wind up hearing the jury say "not guilty." And the victims felt they'd gone through all that misery for nothing.

...And if this case does go to trial, Polanski might find himself wishing he'd gotten it into court back in 1977. Because Wells was certainly right. The '70s are long gone, and today people see rape for the crime it is.

"I lied. I know I shouldn't have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I'd told the judge what to do."

Rather, the criminal justice system exists to redress the balance between the peerpetrator and society as a whole.  Thus, society - through its legislative and executive branches - has decided that certain acts (legislatively defined), when proven beyond a reasonable doubt, are to be redressed in certain ways.  For some, society may have decided that a monetary fine is a sufficent sanction.  For others, society has decided that a term of time to be spent in captivity is the appropriate sanction.  The function of hte judiciary in the criminal justice system is to provide a forum and a procedure for determining what exactly happened, and whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Polanski's case, there is little doubt - based upon the statements by the people involved, on video, that the entirety of the process was corrupted.  In large part, that process was corrupted by the combination of ambition and emotion in the judge, who wanted to either make a name for himself, or impose a sentence which would express an emotional response, rather than a rational one, to the acts Polanski was prepared to admit having committed.  The corruption of that judge was elicited, encouraged, and egged on by a prosecutor who wanted (I suppose) to effect some level of vengeance or inspire fear or make a name for themsleves as being "tough".

In sum, this case highlights the core problem of people discussing criminal justice, one which has gone beyond infecting to taking over the body politic:  a substituion of lizard-brain reaction, emotion and hate - stirred up, fueled and stoked by sophisticated public relations and propaganda methods - in the stead of anything even resembling rational behavior.  

The statements of the people on the documentary are pretty astounding.  As to the lawyers, they are as close to admissions of unethical conduct as you will ever see.  

But, under what passes for the standards we are subjected to, such slack-jawed idiocy as some of the commenters passes for intelligent contribution.  "Hey, he's guilty, so let's get him and to hell with everything else" is becoming of a white-hooded lynch mob.  It's reminiscent of the boys marooned on the island in Lord of the Flies, going after Piggy with a stick and, those who've read the book will recall, spitting him while he was still alive.

It's also becoming of people who embrace torture as legitimate.

in that mere contemplation of the idea of such crimes overwhelm the ability of people to think rationally

First, it's not 'mere contemplation' - the crime actually happened.

And just because people disagree with your opinion on what should be done doesn't make them irrational. You don't have the lock on rationality.