> harm." It's also an unusual rape case when the 13-year-old victim and her
> mother plead with the court not to sentence the perpetrator to jail, as the
> mother and daughter did at the time of the original legal proceedings, in
> 1977, when the crime was still fresh in everyone's minds.
When the perp is a close family member, it's not unusual for victims in sex offense cases to regret disclosing or to later (often with pressure from other family members) recant their testimony. Usually this happens when the seriousness of the accusation sinks in and the family realizes it's lost a major economic provider. In these instances, courts treat victim recantations and/or sudden decisions to become uncooperative sceptically.
Polanski wasn't related to the victim, but he was certainly more powerful, wealthier and connected than she was. So it isn't surprising that the victim became uncooperative -- particularly if she was interested in a Hollywood career and/or needed some money. Given this, I'm really unsympathetic to the "but she forgave him" argument because the forgiveness came in an inherently coercive context.
Given the inequalities in US society and the total lack of an adequate safety net, the US criminal justice system would become even more unequal if courts gave more deference to the stated "wishes" of victims.
-WD