Justice is a funny concept. Many times, people refer to justice, but what they want is revenge. If you read the Oresteia, you know that one of the fundamental transitions made by Western civil society was the adoption of the rule of law over the rule of revenge. Under the rule of revenge, children of privelege were often immune to calls for justice. Justice was meted out by those with power to those without.
But when I read about Roman Polanski, I have a hard time not wondering if there is something wrong with this whole rule of law thing. Like this:
In its coverage, the British Telegraph said “the legal shenanigans surrounding the case have continued in California,” citing the supposed requirement that the trial be televised. And the paper argued that Polanski, meanwhile, has “lived a blameless, hard-working life in exile in France.” Meanwhile, Polanki has expressed the view that he is innocent, that Americans are “prudish,” and that he has “suffered enough.”
Suffered enough? For what? Oh yeah, for drugging a 13 year old girl with quaaludes and sodomizing her. That is some kind of suffering.
I try to be a good pacifist. I try to turn the other cheek and follow the dictum that it is easier to catch bees with sugar than with vinegar. But Polanski has been saying that he has suffered enough for almost as long as he has been out of the country. We’re prudes? Really?
How about this? Polanski can come back to the States after he has been drugged and sodomized once for each time that he said that he has suffered enough. The whole episode will be filmed and then televised on pay-per-view cable. He would be surprised by the number of people who would tune in to watch it and the label of prudish with regard to the States would be put to bed for good. We may be hypocrites, but we’re no prudes, as any visit to a Craig’s List will demonstrate.