Does a crime become any less a crime because years have passed since that crime was committed? Does a crime become any less a crime because of the fame of the person who committed it? Does a crime stop being a crime if the person committing the crime is able to pay off or bribe the victim? Is a crime negated because the victim forgives the perpetrator?
I think most people would agree that a crime is still a crime in all of the above cases. But, not in Hollywood.
Instead, the Hollywood elite have come to the defense of Roman Polanski by answering "Yes" to all of the above. Literally, there has been a parade of Hollywood stars who seem to believe, in their heart of hearts, that the arrest of Polanski is a travesty of justice and not justice being served. On top of that, you have someone like Whoopi Goldberg who irrationally argues that this rape of that 13 year old girl isn't really rape. Instead, this moron believes that this drugging of an underage girl and taking advantage of her while she is in an impaired state is somehow consensual sex. Then, too, Whoopi seems to be totally ignorant of the crime of statutory rape which is punishable under the law; with or without any victim's consent.
What Polanski did is a crime and he should pay for it. The fact that he's been able to live the high life in both France and Switzerland after having been convicted, only makes it even more distasteful. If some other low life, other than Polanski, had been convicted of a crime and, then, somehow escaped from jail, that person would not only serve time for his original offense but would serve additional time for the escape. The same should apply to Roman Polanski. If anything, he is even more guilty than he was in 1977.