"Not exactly. The DA made him a sweetheart deal (maybe because he was rich and famous?) but that deal was still contingent on the judge signing off on it. The judge looked at the facts in the case and decided not to do that."
Well, ok, but Polanski's belief that he had a deal with the authorities was undermined when the judge backed out. I have to say, having seen the footage of the judge, grandstanding for the press, in the recent documentary, does not make me think that justice was his main concern, it made me think that celebrity was.
Of course molesting a teenager that you have drugged beforehand is wrong. But when the authorities start to behave unreliably, and take back agreements that they have made you, the perception that you are not going to get a fair judgement and sentence is reasonable. Absconding was not reasonable, but it was understandable. Polanski did try to reach an agreement with the authorities.
As far as we can see, the victim is not in favour of the prosecution, saying:
"I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."
That in itself is not decisive (crimes being crimes against the community, not just the immediate victim). Still, it does undermine the rhetorical ploy of asking us to look at it from the victim's point of view. She forgives him, that's her point of view. That is a reminder that a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Is justice served by imprisoning a 76 year-old man for something he did when he was 44?