NYT Opinion on that Polanski dude screwing a 13-year-old girl

The "smart set" weighs in. Geraldine Ferraro has the best and most coherent piece, and it is the only one worth excerpting:

Notice [the definition of statutory rape] doesn’t talk about force and it doesn’t talk about consent. Neither are needed. The statute is meant to protect children. A 13-year-old can’t consent to intercourse with a man over 18, and certainly not with a man in his 30’s.

Polanski was convicted of a serious crime in the 70’s. He chose to abscond to France and because he had money and connections, has lived a charmed life, unhindered by his obligations to society. The message is, rich guys can get away with anything … or wait — is it only rich guys with friends in Hollywood? The statute of limitations for rape does not toll simply because 31 years has passed. And victims cannot “forgive” the rapist. The criminal justice system is meant to protect all of us.

As for France getting all exercised about California moving forward (and the prosecutors there haven’t just let this go for 31 years), who are the French officials to criticize us as a nation and tell us how to deal with our criminals? Too bad for Bernie Madoff that he wasn’t as smart as Polanski. He would have taken his wife, brother, nephew, sons and their families and a billion or two and gone to France to help their economy. Then when the Ponzi scheme was exposed, the French would have, if consistent, refused extradition. He could have stayed for the rest of his life in luxury. Just imagine.

At first Ferraro was the only woman on the page expressing an opinion. Then about an hour ago a history prof named Judith Surkis wrote something boring about the context of what she terms "Affaire Polanski" within French history... (yawn) So the fact that Ferraro was the most direct and to the point might also be related to her being a lawyer and this is first and foremost about a law being broken.

The stupidest remarks come from Lost Executive Producer, Damon Lindelof who ends his opinion with a non sequitur about how much Woody Allen's Annie Hall rocked. I guess he is being loyal to the tradition of his serial television masterwork by insisting on going back 32 years to explain current events. Or something.

The whole thing may be somewhat related to this; you be the judge and jury.