When Productive Members of Society are Criminals

Roman Polanski - he's the reason I thought of this topic.  They had an article about him getting out on bail in Switzerland even though experts thought that he would not be granted it, being such a huge flight risk.  But apparently he put half his money on the line and put his family's apartment as collateral in case he runs. 

I am an artist but as much as I love art and Polanksi's film, "The Piano," even I believe that he needs to serve time for the crime he committed.  I can't believe it when people say that he should be let go because the case was so many years ago.  Would they say that if he were a regular old Joe Schmo on the street that had drugged and raped a 13 year-old-girl?  I don't think so.  Would people forgive Phillip Garrido for kidnapping Jaycee Lee Dugard since he did it 18 years ago?  I don't think so.  Would they forgive him if he happened to be a world-renowned director?  The likelihood becomes much higher.

While I can understand people's argument that he did it so many years ago, it was a youthful indiscretion, he's sorry about it, and even the girl that he raped has said that she thinks that he should go free - my feeling is why can't he suck it up and just go to jail?  Martha Stewart did it.  She had the resources to run.  Paris Hilton did it.  Why can these female celebrities do it and this guy, who is supposed to be such a wonderful artist, not do it?  Take a plea, a few years in jail is probably what he'd get and he wouldn't have to run anymore.  Obviously, he is a greater artist than he is a person.  As a person, he is a coward, and one who refuses to serve time for what he did.  My friends and I were talking about him once and what a terrible and tragic life he's led.  Unbelievably, his wife was Sharon Tate, and she and his unborn child were killed by Manson's followers.  But a tragic past doesn't give him a pass.  If it did, a lot of people in jail would be acquitted.  The Menendez brothers might be free now. 

I'm not saying that Polanski isn't a great artist and his work couldn't revolutionize the world.  If I knew him personally, I might find it in my heart to forgive him and say that he's a changed man and not the man he was 30 or so years ago.  I could see that.  But I think I would also feel that if he kept trying to run away from jail, he's a coward.  If it's going to happen, accept it.  Make what you can of it.  Write a movie based on your experience in jail like you did about your experience in the holocaust, like "The Piano."  I would respect him a lot more if he just stopped trying to get out of punishment for something he knew he did was wrong.  Just take your lumps and move on with your life.

Why is it that some people are defending him when the crime he committed would be pretty heinous if done today?  Just because it happened decades ago does not mean it was not heinous then.  And just because he is a famous director that makes good movies does not mean he should be let off scott-free. 

Of course, Hollywood directors and musicians are not the only ones who get the royal treatment.  Other productive members of society are also given the "Get out of jail" free card when it comes to their misdeeds as well.

Case in point:  a girl I knew was a nurse at a hospital and was sexually assaulted by one of the doctors, a heart surgeon.  Sadly, I learned, this sort of thing is not a rare occurrence.  But the even sadder part was that although she complained about him, nothing was done about it because this doctor was one of the preeminent heart surgeons in the hospital.  They gave him a pass on this and with other nurses he assaulted because he had the ability to save people's lives. 

Now while I can understand why people look away in the case of the doctor - because after all, people might die if he was in jail and not in the hospital to save them - I don't see that the same argument applies to making a movie.  Movies touch people and they enlighten them, but it's not the same direct correlation as the doctor-patient beneficial touch.

Here's the thing I was debating in my head though:  Does being a productive member of society in some way give you freer reign to act badly?  Not all the people we admire are so-called "good people."  Back in the old days, in Greek mythology, their heroes were really bad - killers, adulterers, you name it, they did it.  The Bible also has stories of heroes who also do bad things.  But we still think well of them because of their good deeds.  Is it then that if someone does something good, it should outweigh the bad, instead of the other way around?  Should we give them a pass because they are part good, not all bad? 

Maybe our society is too puritanical.  Everyone has to be so good and it's impossible to be so good, at least all of the time.  But it does seem, to me, at least, that even being a puritanical society we seem to be most lenient to those who have a rare gift to give back to society.