Let Polanski Go -- But First Let Me At Him

It???s alright with me if Roman Polanski is freed by the Swiss authorities who have detained him at the request of the United States -- if first I get a chance to bust him one in the mouth. I agree that it has been a very long time since he pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl -- more than 30 years, actually -- but that itself was a reduced charge. He had allegedly plied the girl with champagne and given her a quarter of a Quaalude before, as the Victorians used to say, having his way with her. He is a squalid excuse for a man. For saying that I know I stand in mortal peril of being accused by the French and much of the Pacific Palisades of being a moral prude (ha!) or a vengeance-seeking scold. The arrest has produced consternation in Hollywood and apoplexy in France, where even the culture minister, Frederic Mitterrand, got into the act. He decried that ???a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already known so many during his lifetime.??? Oui. But he drugged and sexually abused a child. Polanski is a great film director -- although the much-acclaimed ???Chinatown??? has a muddled script -- but his true talent is to make fools of his friends. I would bet that included in those now protesting on behalf of Polanski are many who went bonkers when President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, the fugitive commodities trader who was indicted while overseas and has taken his time -- 26 years -- in coming home. The pardon created such a ruckus that Rich apparently has yet to claim it. As with Polanski, he maintains a home in Switzerland. (It is total mystery to me why the Swiss could pick up Polanski for possible extradition to the U.S., but not -- until the pardon -- Rich.) Polanski had good -- but illegal -- reasons to flee the U.S. After copping to a single count of ???unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,??? he had grounds to believe that a publicity-crazed judge was about to throw the book at him. As a citizen of France -- he was born in Paris although raised in Poland -- he could not be extradited to the United States. He went first to London and then to Paris. This is exile, but it ain???t Siberia. It ought not to matter that Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. (His mother died at Auschwitz.) After all, countless others survived the Holocaust without committing crimes of any sort, especially ones involving moral depravity. It ought not to matter, either, that in 1969 Polanski???s wife, the actress Sharon Tate, was horrifically murdered by the Manson family when she was eight months pregnant. This, too, does not excuse moral depravity, although it gives one pause. It ought to give one pause. (Polanski underwent a 42-day psychiatric examination following his 1977 arrest.) And it ought not to matter that Polanski is a gifted artist. In fact, it ought to be held against him. He seduced -- if that can possibly be the word -- the 13-year-old Samantha Geimer with all the power and authority of a 44-year-old movie director who could make her famous. If this did not impress the girl, it must have impressed her mother. She permitted what was supposed to be a photo shoot. There are two extenuating circumstances in Polanski???s case. The first is time. It has, after all, been over 30 years and Polanski, now 76, has been clean all that time -- no crimes alleged, no crimes convicted. More importantly, his victim pleads his case. Geimer says, more or less, enough is enough. She does not excuse what Polanski did and does not forgive what he has done, but it is time for us all to move on. ???He made a terrible mistake, but he???s paid for it,??? she said some years back. Time does not minimize the crime, which in its details is creepy, but jail would no longer serve a purpose. The victim and the victimizer are united -- they both want clemency. The girl is now a woman, and the man is old, spending his dotage making fools of his champions, who cannot distinguish between sexual freedom and sexual assault. Let Polanski go -- but first let me at him.