According to news accounts, their reasons are that Polanski has been a fugitive and celebrities shouldn't be treated any differently than anyone else. It's the defendant's constitutional right to be present that is at issue. The statute allows him to waive that right. The law allows the judge to make the call on the defendant's request. The state doesn't have a constitutional right to insist on his presence. There's nothing in the statute that says "except for fugitives." The request can be made by all defendants, rich and poor.

The prosecutors said allowing Polanski to be sentenced in absentia would set a horrible precedent for future defendants. If that's the case, they should lobby the California legislature to change the law to exclude fugitives from being eligible to make the request. Instead, they are attempting to have the law selectively enforced based on a status for which the statute provides no exception, and by their completely unsupported belief that only celebrities and the rich would seek to avail themselves of the statutory allowance.

The statute does not set forth factors for the judge to decide a defendant's request. The prosecutor wants to just make some up. My prediction: The judge will allow Polanski to be sentenced in absentia. If not, I hope he's allowed to appeal the decision immediately, and request a stay of execution of the extradition warrant while it's under consideration. (Although I don't know if he's allowed to do either.)