When the victim forgives the criminal, does that forgive the crime?
By StarBright
@StarBright (2798)
United States
September 29, 2009 8:35am CST
Everyone was horrified at the Manson murders when Roman Polanski's young, pregnant wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered. No one could help feeling sorry for him. At the same time every one was horrified when it was reported that he drugged and brutally raped a 13 year old girl. He says it is the European way. Many of us in the public with daughters of our own placed the blame squarely on the mother for allowing her daughter to be left in that situation alone for the sake of wanting her daughter to be a star at any cost. Be that as it may, Roman pled guilty, and fled the USA to avoid sentencing. He admitted later in an interview that he likes young girls so I am sure he has continued this pattern. He has lived the good life, made movies, continued to make a name for himself and was just arrested this week as he was about to be honored for a lifetime achievement.
Hollywood is outraged that this should happen to such a brilliant man and ruin their show. They say move on. Let it go. It happened 30 years ago. There are technicalities and improprieties. The fact is, he was never sentenced and never served his time. He also ran from justice. Should he get time for running out. You and me would.
The young girl that Polanski raped is now 45. This happened 30 years ago. She has forgiven him. Does her forgiving him let him off? Should the State of California let him off? Tell me what you think.
2 people like this
11 responses
@bunnybon7 (50973)
• Holiday, Florida
30 Sep 09
I think its good that she forgave him. forgiving is not about the person that done wrong. its about our own soul and well being with ourselves. but, yes i think he belongs in prison for this and belonged there many years ago. whether the victim forgives or not. well, i also think Susan Atkins should have been let out to die since she was no longer a threat to society
but i think the others should remain in prison. it has nothing to do with forgiveness.
but i think the others should remain in prison. it has nothing to do with forgiveness.@StarBright (2798)
• United States
30 Sep 09
It's good that you have a good heart. I have no mercy for Susan Atkins. After the brutal murder of Sharon Tate, I think anything that happens to Susan Atkins is still too kind. I just can't imagine humans treating other humans the way that Manson family did. It sickens me when I think of it.
@biman_s (1060)
• India
30 Sep 09
No, I don't think that if a victim forgives the criminal, it forgives the crime. There are many circumstances under which a victim might forgive a criminal but the criminal has to be punished for the crime so that he doesn't dare to commit such an act again with someone else or the same person.
1 person likes this
@sudiptacallingu (10879)
• India
30 Sep 09
When a victim forgives the perpetrator, I would say it s a personal way of laying to rest those demons of hatred and revenge that plague the victims and/or their relatives. It’s a kind of winning a personal battle, a kind of breathing free pure air after a long long time….forgiving is an intrinsic part of the healing process of the victim though it is much more difficult than taking revenge (revenge has its own pleasures)….however, all these are related to the victim’s personal life and psyche, it should in no way be confused with what the state should do. The state should let law take its own course, no matter how many years have passed or whatever be the present condition of the victims and perpetrators.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
30 Sep 09
You are so right. No matter how long it takes, justice should be served. With respect to the victim, forgivenness and healing has to be dealt with on a personal level. Some fully barely survive the trauma, others fully recover.
@manong05 (5027)
• Philippines
30 Sep 09
The crime committed was a against the person and the state. When the victim forgives the criminal, it doesn't follow that the state will also grant him parole. The same is true the other way around. When for some reasons, the state decided to grant parole to a convicted criminal, it doesn't mean that the victim should also forgive. We see this in the real world that victims and their families denounce paroles granted to convicted criminals.
Forgiveness is the victim's prerogative for his/her own peace of mind and I believe that this will be for his/her own good. Let it over with and move on.
Have a nice day.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
30 Sep 09
We have to see what the judge decides when Mr. Polanski appears in court. It should be interesting.
@daliaj (5674)
• India
30 Sep 09
It is good if the victim can forgive the criminal. But, it doesn't pay for the sadness and problems caused by the cirminal to the victim. I will say that the criminal should be punished even though the victim is ready to forgive the criminal. The cirminal should be punshed so that he won't repeat the same to anybody els. The society doesn't want another victim to be formed due to the cirminal.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
30 Sep 09
Unfortunately, to stop this from happening again, this criminal should have been stopped 30 years ago. He is 76 years old now, so just maybe he has already stopped by now.
Hopefully, if he is prosecuted, there will be a loud and clear message that no one is outside the law and you can't run and hide no matter how much money you have and no matter how talented you are.
@moneymakingtoday (4061)
• Philippines
30 Sep 09
she may have forgiven him but that alone does not free him of criminal liability. he has committed an act against the laws of the state, therefore, he should be bound by its rules and subject to sanctions and punishments, if found guilty. the aggrieved party (the girl) may have forgiven him but the case against him can still proceed because in criminal cases, the complainant is the state. a case should be filed against him by the state.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
30 Sep 09
The case was filed, he pled guilty and then skipped the country before a sentence was handed down. Looks like he should also face charges for running out also.
@34momma (13882)
• United States
29 Sep 09
i don't think he should get off because she forgive him. i think she forgave the man, not the act. he should do his time just like anyone else who does this sick act to a child.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
29 Sep 09
If Mr. Polanski gets a jury trialh can hang it up. He will definitely serve his time. We all agree.
@fluffleshark (810)
• Ireland
29 Sep 09
Even though the girl has forgiven him, she would have suffered SO much pain and trauma over her life because of what happened to her. He should be punished for the pain he caused her, forgiveness or not. Also I think to let him off would really be giving out a bad message, i.e. the rich and famous can get away with brutal crime.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
29 Sep 09
Agreed. Imagine being famous for being raped by Roman Polanski. Add that to the act itself. You have a double whammy. This woman has had to tell her story over and over and over. God forbid!
He just went on like nothing ever happened. Getting more famous and richer and luring more young girls into his trap. We will see how his case is handled.
@Rainegurl (2156)
• Philippines
29 Sep 09
Hi, StarBright 
I do not know about the laws of California, but here in the Philippines, the rapist is only set free if the person he raped forgives him and marries him. If the rape victim only forgives but does not marry the accused, then he is not free from punishment. It is possible that the civil damages (money to be given to the victim to compensate for the crime done against her) may be waived by the victim because of the forgiveness. This is true for all crimes. But the criminal aspect will never be waived. Criminal acts are regarded as crimes against the state or the country. The criminal is put in prison because of the disruption of peace he did in the country. In other words, when a criminal is punished, the monetary penalty is for the victim and the service in prison is for the country.
I think most countries operate in the same principle: to punish the criminals who disrupted the peace and security of the country and who harmed its people. Thus, regardless of whether or not Roman Polanski's victim forgave him, the State of California must punish him because of the horror he did. What he did was a crime against the state as well.
I do not know about the laws of California, but here in the Philippines, the rapist is only set free if the person he raped forgives him and marries him. If the rape victim only forgives but does not marry the accused, then he is not free from punishment. It is possible that the civil damages (money to be given to the victim to compensate for the crime done against her) may be waived by the victim because of the forgiveness. This is true for all crimes. But the criminal aspect will never be waived. Criminal acts are regarded as crimes against the state or the country. The criminal is put in prison because of the disruption of peace he did in the country. In other words, when a criminal is punished, the monetary penalty is for the victim and the service in prison is for the country.
I think most countries operate in the same principle: to punish the criminals who disrupted the peace and security of the country and who harmed its people. Thus, regardless of whether or not Roman Polanski's victim forgave him, the State of California must punish him because of the horror he did. What he did was a crime against the state as well.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
29 Sep 09
Rainegurl, the Phlippines is onto something. Marry him!! Ha!! If you can forgive him that much, then he deserves to go free. LOL. Otherwise, lock the so and so up. I like that.
You are right. In California, the crime is also against the state. He should pay.
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
29 Sep 09
dlr297, seems we are all in agreement. Mr. Polanski's talent has nothing to do with his staying out of prison. The girl's forgivenness is good, but he should still pay for what he did. Now let us see what the judge decides.
@malamar (779)
• Canada
29 Sep 09
We need to forgive those who have wronged us in order to find closure and move on.
Forgiving the person does not mean you accept/tolerate/or condone the actions or the crime.
This man may very well be a brilliant director/producer, but that has absolutely no bearing on this issue. He used his money to escape justice and deter the sentencing that would have decided his punishment. He pled guilty and then fled the country.
This man broke the law and needs to face the music. Anyone without the means to escape sentencing would have been punished and served their time, why is this man any different?
Maybe he shouldn't have been vain enough to leave his safe haven to accept his "lifetime achievement" award. What a crock! Do the crime/Do the time!
@StarBright (2798)
• United States
29 Sep 09
We have to be happy that someone in the Los Angeles Police Department was vigilant and did not rest on an unsolved crime. It restores my faith in the criminal justice system.
