1.  Prior practice among Western legal systems provides for a “reasonable accommodation” for those who have led an exemplary life and are remorseful.  It can be related to the biblical principle of sanctuary or the Jubilee Year in which those imprisoned are released.  The concepts of contrition and atonement also may have a bearing.  Shakespeare in the Merchant of Venice, I think, said:  “The quality of mercy is not strained. It dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place below….” Time can heal, along with a sense of contrition and forgiveness.  Otherwise, things are measured by a “pound of flesh,” by sheer punishment and retribution.  

2.  Statues of limitation, I believe, are designed to keep vindictive people from withholding a charge and then invoking it at their pleasure, like the Sword of Damocles.      

 Mo
3.  Most likely, if the person charged in this crime were an indigent individual who was not famous, there would not be any public sentiment to drop the case.

I detect a note of potential cynicism in the statement of No. 3.  Justice is supposed to be blind and balanced but human frailty does play a role.  There are, of course, the Court of Public Opinion and the Court of Last Resort. The former is subject to the whims of society, as fanned today by the Mass Media, while the latter is supposed to be insulated from the former.  There always should be a healthy balance, or tension, between the two “courts.”  

 4.  I’m not sure that there is, from the accompanying readings, one “biblical view” "showing partiality" toward “some persons,” those whose “contributions to society are so valuable….” Each case must be weighed on its own individual merits.

5.    .  5.  The individual is at the heart of the legal system, as well as, I think, our “Judeo-Christian spiritual system.  This involves both the individual as the so-called “perpetrator” and as the “victim,” the sinner or the sinned against, the stronger against the weaker.  Rape in essence is about the exercise of power, of dominion, by the stronger against the weaker.  Thus, the motive is power.  The victim’s wishes, especially over time in the Polanski case, are central.  The views of society, especially the voyeurs and those with an ax to grind or a cause to pursue, should be irrelevant. 

The New York Times just had an op-ed piece that reviews the probation report, which showed empathy and leniency towards Polanski at that time.  The Times writer suggests that the public mood has changed in the past 30 years, particularly with the priest pedofile situation and long-running TV shows like "Law and Order."

       There is a third rail in the American Judicial System which is rarely discussed -- the juror's attitudes towards the allegation of rape.  In 1984, I was foreman on a jury which found a man "not guilty" of rape.  The case was a sad circumstance:  a border-line mentally retarded man accused of taking advantage of a mentally retarded woman.  The eight female jurors all voted for acquittal.  I initially held out, saying that the man should be held responsible.  Reasonable doubt can be measured more easily than responsibility, which entails others and ultimately society's values.  In retrospect, I think the case should not have been tried, driven by the victim's mother, who may have had feelings of neglegence -- which is another issue difficult to assess.

oi