Roman Polanski- Artisan or Rapist?

In TIME magazine’s ‘Inbox’ this month there was a heated discussion about the sentencing of Roman Polanski in 1977 and the confusion as to why the American art scene is outraged at his recent arrest. A reader commented

‘It is ironic that Hollywood is exuberant about throwing a demonstrably contrite Mel Gibson under the bus yet is eager to rally around an unrepentant Polanski. Somehow the moral compass is askew and rigged against those who don’t genuflect properly.’

It was this comment that made me question P.R and the ethical issues involved.

For those who may not know the story of Mr Polanski, he had non-consensual sex with a 13 year old girl in 1977 and has an outstanding debt to pay to her, hence the arrest in Switzerland a mere 32 years after his conviction. The story has only re-entered the news as he was arrested by Swiss guards while receiving a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.

Mel Gibson on the other hand has effectively been banished from Hollywood for directing and acting in ‘The Passion’, a film criticised for its anti-Semitic views.
How has it come to be that a rapist is still celebrated and nominated for Academy Awards and Lifetime Achievements and yet an actor who participates in a rather controversial movie is cast out?

Roman Polanski is a skilled artisan who should be celebrated for his work however I believe every action has a consequence and in this case it requires a considerable punishment. Instead a rather large group of influential people believe he should not have to repent his actions. What does this say about similar offenders? Move to another country and your convictions shall be forgotten? Make a movie and it will all be ok?

Mel Gibson I feel has received a far greater punishment than Polanski for a far smaller indiscretion. If Polanski had been publicly slandered across a multitude of magazines, websites and newspapers for his actions I would feel a little better about his lack of sincerity.

Roman Polanski’s publicist has been keeping the story to a minimum, portraying Polanski as a victim who is being unrightfully detained. Clever man. Is this ethically right? Should he not tell the truth? That Polanski ran off to America before his conviction was complete and therefore has to settle it now that he is back in the E.U. Apparently not. However where credit is due I have to commend the publicist on his tight reigns on the story by giving the press the bare minimum to prevent a scandal from forming.

I am still trying to understand the limits and crevices presented to public relations practitioners. To what extent are we able to ‘tweak’ the information? Obviously in the case of Roman Polanski I would do everything in my power not to represent him, problem solved. But how is the current situation ethically viable? Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist who has not entirely paid his debt to society. Part of this said society is saying it is perfectly fine to let Polanski go free yet we must out-cast Gibson. Is it because Polanski makes better movies then Mel?