Film maker Roman Polanski broke the law.  It is that simple.  Recently I listened to a debate with the question, concerning this subject, posed, "what if it was your daughter, would you not want justice?"  Now as a father of a little girl, I find nothing wrong with the question.  However, there is a larger issue behind the question of Polanski.  And this issue, is why the Polanski matter - matters.

Now for reasons of discussion, through this entry we will refer to those on the other side of the aisle of what you and I believe, the Left. The Left has proven again, through their reasoning on Polanski, that enforcement of the Law - is conditional.  Those on the Left believe that the Law only matters, when they need it to matter.  (In fact, above and beyond the Law we see this inconsistent thought process in everything.  Reaction to Governor Sanford verses "Late Night's" Letterman being a great example.)  Here are three arguments recently used by the Left, in arguing for the freedom of Polanski, that proves their conditional enforcement of the Law.

1.  She, the victim, does not care anymore:  Victim rights only matter, when decided on by the Left

Repeatedly we have heard that the victim in crime has forgiven Polanski and has simply wanted the charges to be dropped.  According to the Left, this is every reason to let Mr. Polanski alone.  And while it is borderline heroic of his victim to forgive, that process did not take place overnight.  In fact her public forgiveness came twenty some years after the crime. Her forgiveness came with a price - one most likely with pain.

And Law, the enforcement of, does not depend upon the opinion or feelings of the victim.  An example of such can be found in abuse victims. Many times abuse victims have sadly become attached to and even miss their abusers after the crime.  Yet the abuse victim's attitude, emotional state, and opinion - does not impact the enforcement of the Law.  Nor should it.  The Law is the Law, in the words of Aristotle, "without passion."

On a side note, the Left only seems to deny victims rights, (i.e. Letterman harassment, post-abortion mothers, anyone involved with Kennedy, Rangle, Clintons) when it is convenient.  A thirteen year old girl was victimized by a 40 year old man in the 1970s.  What about her rights at that time, or ten years later, or during her counseling, or when she suffered through the personal, private, and public embarassment?

2. Polanski never abused and would never abuse again:  Will the crime be repeated?

This one is almost too rediculous to address.  There have been many who have actually posed this argument in favor of Polanksi, that he would never abuse again.  The Law is not written for that reason.

The Law states a certain offense equals a certain penalty.  Whether or not the criminal will break the law again is not taken into consideration with enforcement of the Law.  If we think along the lines of the Left then each of us would get a "freebie" for any first time offense (breaking speed limit, shop lifting, murder) as long as we - promise to never do it again.  

The Law is written to protect the citizens, not to guarantee that a criminal gets a first time offense without penalty.  

3. Does this better society, according to the ideals of the Left?

One writer made it quite clear that putting Polanski in jail would not better society.  Really?  Not enforcing laws written on the books, would not better society?  Why write more laws, if we do not enforce the ones we already have written?  Not enforcing the law, is abuse of the law. Abuse of the law, renders the law pointless.  Pointless laws eventually leads to a lawless society.  

Now you may read this and think I have gone a little too sensational.  However, do we not constantly see this pattern on the Left?  Laws abused by Congressman Rangel, corporations and financial institutions under the watch of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Attorney General Holder, and let us not even start on the Clinton years - point to a consistent behavior of abusing the Law.  The Left refuses to enforce Law if it is inconvenient for them.

In addition, once again, the Law is not written based upon the "good of society" if the law is enforced.  The Law is written to be enforced - for the good of society.  Criminal laws are written to be enforced, whether the person be famous, elected, or not.

Conclusion:  And within this writing we see a consistent pattern that leads us down a questionable road.  All enforcement of the law, according to the Left, depends upon definitions and interpretations given by the Left.  If there are certain conditions, certain ideals at stake, or just someone they know - the Law no longer matters.  And if it benefits a cause of the Left, politically accounts, or betters their movement or goals - they wield the law (Eric Holder) usually in a wrong manner.

The questionable road lays in the following questions.  Do we really want a government ran by individuals who can decided when and when not to enforce laws?  Do we want to be "led" by individuals who can decided that a crime against you - was not a crime at all?  Do we want people in power who can commit wrongs against the people - and never be called criminals?  Led by these people?  Yes, according to a Politico articletoday:

Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.

Law is Law.  Enforcement of the Law, blind justice, is crucial to our Republic.  And yet, through Polanski, the Left demonstrates again that enforcing the Law is - conditional.