Literally how is it even possible that Roman Polanski is still an active filmmaker after admitting to raping a 13 year old in 1977?

I'm extremely confused. Can someone please explain with valid reason why people still defend and support him?

I'd like to reference an article written by Haley Freeman in 2018 for The Guardian.

Sigourney Weaver, Harrison Ford, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Kate Winslet and many more have appeared in Polanski movies in the decades since his conviction.

"When the Harvey Weinstein story broke last October, the reaction among the movie industry was wide-eyed shock that someone so many of them knew and worked with could be a rapist. “I didn’t know. I don’t tacitly approve of rape,” said Meryl Streep. And yet only a decade and a half earlier, Streep had stood and applauded when Polanski won best director at the 2003 Oscars, not so much tacitly approving rape as explicitly celebrating a convicted child rapist."

"When Winslet was asked last September whether she had any qualms about working with Woody Allen, another director accused (but, unlike Polanski, never arrested and never charged) of a sex crime against a minor, she replied: “Having thought it all through, you put it to one side and just work with the person. Woody Allen is an incredible director. So is Roman Polanski. I had an extraordinary working experience with both of those men, and that’s the truth.”"

"Weinstein is now firmly banished and actors are apologising for appearing in Woody Allen movies. And yet Polanski’s name is mentioned only sporadically, even though he is the only one with an actual conviction."

? He admitted to raping a 13 year old but since then, he's attended film festivals, won the biggest of awards, and only up until last year - remained a member of the Academy (Oscars). I do not understand - like I cannot comprehend how this is even possible.

Submitted September 23, 2019 at 08:04AM by australiughhh https://ift.tt/30mPLgg