To whom does Polanski owe a debt?
October 2nd, 2009, 3:57 pm · 5 Comments · posted by by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer
I kept having mixed feelings about Roman Polanski, but Don Boudreaux, chairman of the econ dept. at George Mason University has helped to clarify my thinking. Polanski doesn’t owe a “debt to society” but a debt to the person he wronged. My understanding is that he has reached a private settlement with her. Here’s Don:
Wondering if Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977 should be forgiven because of the tragedies that Polanski himself has suffered, Meghan Daum notes that “Part of what makes the Polanski case fascinating - as well as repugnant - is that it’s infused with these sorts of existential questions about what evens the scales” (”Polanski’s pain isn’t penance,” Oct. 1).
Here’s one thing that does NOT “even the scales”: imprisonment. Imprisonment is justified to restrain violent persons, and perhaps also to serve as a deterrent to others who might commit serious crimes. Contrary to popular myth, though, being imprisoned does not amount to “paying one’s debts” to society. Imprisonment isn’t a process whereby prisoners compensate their victims.
Furthermore, Polanski’s victim isn’t society; it’s Samantha Gailey. He damn well owes HER something - and if she wants, she should collect. But let’s be clear that imprisoning Polanski would in no way promote the worthy goal of having him pay for his crime with compensation paid to his actual victim.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
What do you think?
Interesting. I have been trying to wrap my mind around the whole issue myself. Dr. Boudreaux’s comments certainly help.
However, he is wrong in one aspect. There are four major penological theories in the modern criminal justice system, Rehabilitation, Deterrence, Retribution and Incapacitation. Imprisoning Polanski, while not a “payment for debt to society” certainly serves a retribution model and possibly the deterrence of others (if that is even appropriate).
My problem in the Polanski case is that the so-called victim has even said she wants him left alone. If she does not want him punished, should the state punish him anyway?
Still, there is the issue of him fleeing from justice after admitting his guilt but before he could be sentenced. Should the state punish him for that? After all can we have prisoners thinking it is OK to flee before sentencing?
I am not sure what the answer is.
Thanks for posting Dr. Boudreaux’s comments. More food for thought on this issue.
Check out this Mark Steyn column on the matter:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/polanski-rape-world-2591230-one-roman
Excellent column! Thanks for sharing that, Cathy.
This case is another example to help demonstrate that restitution to the victim is what matters, not some intangible arbitrary ‘debt to society.’
My experience however has been that people can get really upset about the idea. I write a weekly column and did one on this topic (http://www.news-tribune.net/archivesearch/local_story_218023854.html) in relation to a local case and received more email than usual, most of it totally damning me for even suggesting the idea.
Jail time would COST taxpayers….How would that “pay his debt to
society”??