Had you bothered researched the matter a second or two (before making up a condescending opinion about it) you would have readily found the basis on which that court made the decision that it did. A very specific, and universally understood (and generally accepted) basis, in fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/roman-polansk...
No, he was charged with "drug-assisted rape", but not convicted.
In fact, he wasn't "convicted" of anything; as part of a deal with the judge, he plead guilty to a related, but different charge ("unlawful intercourse with a minor").
But that's OK. Go on living in this emotionally-driven, fact- and reality-divorced haze if you want to...
So now you're basically implying that I was using that phrase to somehow obfuscate or water down what Polanski actually did.
That goes beyond any disagreement -- that's just slimy.