I want to believe that through the years, I have mellowed out when it comes to using a broad brush to paint a movement with their most extreme followers. It’s a common practice in punditry but it’s not always that helpful. No one really wants to have to answer for other members of their movement, but we’ve done so anyway. Every once in a while, though, an issue emerges that exposes the really terrible side of people. This week, that issue has been the infamous Roman Polanski. Here are the facts-: thirty-two years ago, when he was forty-four, he gave a thirteen-year-old girl champagne and quaaludes. He then had sex with her in all sorts of ways. He plead guilty to this charge and, fearing a prison sentence, fled our country and has since lived in places where he doesn’t face a risk of extradition. Based on a long-standing warrant, he was arrested by the Swiss police as he attempted to enter their country. There really shouldn’t be any debate on this matter, except it’s Roman Polanski.

Reactions to Polanski’s arrest have revealed people’s true colors.

There is a set of people that believes that Polanski has “suffered enough.” Kieran Healey has a great takedown of this argument. Whoopi Goldberg, Defender of Child Rapists, has declared that what Polanski did wasn’t “rape-rape.” Bernard Henri-Levi, Defender of Child Rapists, writes in support of Polanski in the Huffington Post and shares a petition signed by other morally-bankrupt artists which includes Salman Rushdie, Defender Of Child Rapists.

The Liberal/Hollywood/artists’ argument goes like this: “he’s had a hard life. His subsequent life circumstances are punishment enough for his crime and he shouldn’t be arrested or incarcerated any more.” This argument of mutable moral standards is an old one, older than what we today call Liberalism or Conservatism. It’s a moral and legal standard where individuals are judged on their actions based on who they are. This is the same argument used to defend Ted Kennedy and Andrew Sullivan. This is the same argument that allows nobility to get away with oppressing the masses.

So much for equal treatment under the law.

While Conservatives sometimes fall into the same moral trap, they aren’t often as guilty as Liberals are on this matter. Liberals have been framing the Polanski issue as a matter of persecution. This is yet another example of a brazen attempt to redefine words—and thus the thoughts they represent—to fit their purposes. Had this crime been committed by a Conservative, or perhaps by someone Liberals don’t like, they would be out in full force calling for the long arm of the law to swing its hammer upon this despcable person.

Without consequences, there can be no forgiveness.

Samantha Geimer, in 2008, was interviewed and quoted as saying that she “wishes [he] would be forgiven.” She may be the victim in this case, but as with any crime, it is one committed against the people of the state. Prosecutions of crimes aren’t contingent on the victims seeking justice. It is the state that seeks justice in a case, whether the victim wants it or not. This is the same philosophy that motivates prosecutors and police departments to find the killers of nameless, homeless John Does as they do high-profile victims.

People have learned that forgiveness is a virtue. With such mnemonics as “to err is human, to forgive is divine,” why shouldn’t people give Polanski a pass? Heck, his victim has forgiven him, right? (We actually don’t know that for a fact. True forgiveness is a decision made in the heart of the victim, no matter what words are said to that effect.) Our system of crime and punishment only works when people face the legal consequences of their actions. Thus, Ted Kennedy was a failure of this system. His disrepute over the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne may have prevented him from ever becoming president, but he never faced the legal consequences of his act. Andrew Sullivan, in having his charges dismissed, never faced the legal consequences of possessing marijuana on National Park property. Furthermore, the dismissal of charges makes it easier for Sullivan to avoid facing further consequences of breaking further laws, such as lying during the immigration process. In these two cases, as well as Polanski’s, the people of the state is the aggrieved party, and there is no closure without the process.

Polanski deserves equal treatment under the law. That’s all. This is not the United States persecuting him for his beliefs, but for his actions. Polanski should face the same consequences as any person who plead guilty on charges of rape of a minor, who then left the country to avoid sentencing. Thus in this case, I do not want our country to execute him.

Liberals want to believe that the totality of a person’s life can mitigate a single criminal offense. This approach leads to anarchy and a loss of moral clarity in a system already fraught with Byzantine rules and exceptions for any esoteric situation. As a system built not just on statutes but also on precedents, defining rape down—the way Whoopi Goldberg, Defender Of Child Rapists—would do nothing but facilitate those who would commit this crime.

Postscripts, added at 2100h, date of publication

Like I said earlier, it’s been a while since I’ve painted Liberals with as broad a brush as I did today. It’s not due to the Polanski issue per se, but the general attitude towards lawbreakers of their ilk. Also, I did use a rhetorical device which may be considered excessive under some circumstances. It involves declaring Goldberg, Bernard-Levy and Rushdie as “Defenders of Child Rapists,” which they are in this case, defenders of one child rapist. This is a tough turn for me, but not nearly as crazy as some who call people “white supremacists” for attending a convention in Brussels regarding counter-Jihad. (The perpetrator of such excess, by the way, will be the subject of a technology column I’m planning.) Lastly: Friday is usually politics night, but considering the heat of the issue, I couldn’t let this sit until Friday and expect to seem timely or relevant by then.