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?