A current article in the online edition of The New York Times about
Roman Polanski says, “He is being held for possible extradition to the
United States more than three decades after fleeing sentencing on sex
charges in 1978.”
Sex charges? Why be so vague? Mr. Polanski was charged with rape. It
was “statutory rape”, which can imply sex with a “consenting” minor —
assuming you think that a 13 year-old girl can give meaningful consent
to sex with a 43 year-old man — but the sex, according to the victim's
undisputed testimony, was not consensual. It would have been rape, by
most reasonable definitions, even if she had been of age.
What can explain this strange disinclination to face what Polanski actually did?