Where is the compassion for the victim?

He was held accountable his lawyer, the DA, and the judge came to an agreement. The judge decided to not to honor their agreement and Polanski fled. What would you do if yourself or loved one agreed to a sentence for a crime and after it was served the judge decided without your lawyer's input to add more prison time to you sentence?

Just watched the documentary on this case, and a few things are pretty obvious.

First--Polanski was guilty of a crime

Second--Despite the victim's protestations, the circumstances of why her mother allowed her in that situation at her age are curious at the least, suspicious at the other end of the spectrum (doubtful that this was a setup, but highly probable that this was a case of ambition blinding her to a risk that most would not take with their child, especially at that age).

Third--The Judge was a gutless publicity hound at every turn. If he wanted to impose a prison sentence, he could have done so. There would have been outcry, but not much. If he wanted to go with the probation recommendations (which he probably should have), he could have done that. There would have been outcry, but it would not have been overwhelming in 1977 and, for God's sake, he was 73 years old. How negative an effect could it have had upon him either way?

Fourth--Had the Judge stuck with what he originally said he was going to do (probation after the Chino time), which in itself was an illegal way to make sure Polanski spent some time in a prison (without an actual sentence for that), Polanski probably would have come out of this in very similar stature to most others accused of a similar crime (with no prior criminal history, a reticent victim, etc.).

Fifth--Had Polanski stayed, the Judge would have sentenced him to a very lengthy jail term (not just 48 more days) and, despite his comments, would probably have tried to find a way to block extradition (which is functionally equivalent to what happened anyway when Polanski left the country on his own).

Sixth--The damage done to our society by the miscarriage of justice that was almost carried out in the California courts was greater than the damage to society brought about by the crime itself. That might not always be the case, but it was here. When even the main prosecutor seems to feel that way, it is not just the position of apologists, but reality.

Finally, I am amused by the poster's response to the query: "Why are the victims wishes not respected?". He says that "they are respected but it is the state who punishes the criminal not the victim." As a matter of law, he is right of course. But the hypocrisy is that over the years there has been a monumental push for "victim's rights", which most frequently manifests itself in the State being eager to bring victims before Courts and juries to emphasize their trauma and their feelings about sentencing. But only if they want the Court to throw the book at the accused! Personally, I don't think the victim's wishes should control in either case, but if the victim's feelings are relevant as an aggravating factor, they should be equally relevant if they want the prosecution to back off. The State should not be able to have it both ways.

Rittenband was said to suddenly change the sentence to 50 years, or deportation. Polanski had every right to run away from America. There was no way to fight the Judge. He was doomed for.