I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly. (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)

> I think the individual victim certainly has some interest in the punishment outcomes, but the state also has a proper interest. Neither holds a monopoly

The state holds a monopoly. All the victim gets, is the right to be consulted by the prosecution, but the prosecution is free to ignore the victim's opinion, as they have done repeatedly in this case.

Geimer asked the courts to drop the case, because she was sick of the whole thing and wants it to go away. The court refused, because it isn't about her, she's just the victim: https://apnews.com/article/683568177ab04a7081dad4e3664b13aa

> (In particular, was she his only victim? That seems unlikely.)

The case in question is only about what Roman Polanski did to Samantha Geimer, not about what Roman Polanski did to other people. Indeed, other women have said that Polanski abused them (Valentine Monnier, Charlotte Lewis, Renate Langer, Marianne Barnard). But, this prosecution is only about what Polanski did to Geimer, which I think means Geimer's wishes ought to be respected by the prosecution. If Polanski were to be prosecuted for what he did to one of his other victims, Geimer would have no say in that, and she wouldn't claim she is entitled to any.

I was making a moral argument on whether the state has a monopoly. Of course the state holds a legal monopoly on the punishment.

But the state could give the victims rights. The state could give the victim the right to discontinue the prosecution against the state's wishes. The state doesn't give the victim that right, because the state cares more about its own power than about the victim.

Of course there is the risk that victims might move for leniency due to psychological domination, grooming, threats, etc. However, I don't think that is what is happening in Geimer's case, when decades later, as an adult woman, she is asking for the prosecution to be discontinued – indeed, I think to suggest that is happening in her case is deny her agency, to continue her disempowerment. I think the system could be designed to have safeguards against those risks while still giving victims such as Geimer some legal rights over the proceedings. So that would not mean giving victims an absolute right, but a relative right, as opposed to no right which is what they have now.

If a thirteen year old girl doesn't want her abuser to be prosecuted, I think it is legitimate to disregard that on the grounds that as a minor she doesn't understand her own best interests. But when she says the same thing forty years later, to refuse to listen to her, as the California court system has done to Geimer, is to treat a grown woman as a thirteen year old. That's insulting.

If there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal trial standard of proof) that he committed these crimes, society has an interest in seeing him punished, if for no other reason than as actual prevention [it would be quite hard for him to molest more girls while incarcerated].

If there's credible evidence (as reviewed by a grand jury, resulting in an indictment), society has an interest in seeing him tried for the reason above at least. If Geimer doesn't wish to cooperate in that trial, she should not be compelled to testify for the prosecution, but she should not hold the sole power to stop the trial from proceeding. (all in my opinion)

I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.

> society has an interest in seeing him punished, if for no other reason than as actual prevention [it would be quite hard for him to molest more girls while incarcerated].

If Polanski hadn't fled, how much time would he have actually spent in prison? He had a plea bargain for time served (he'd already spent a bit over 40 days in prison) and probation. That plea bargain was approved by the victim and her parents. The judge started (rather unprofessionally) bragging to people he was going to cancel the plea bargain and send Polanski to prison for 50 years. Polanski heard about it, panicked, and fled. But, realistically, the judge was unlikely to give him anywhere near 50 years. He probably wasn't even going to get 50 months – possibly, the unprofessional bragging might have been all for nothing and the judge might have stuck to the plea bargain. Even if the judge decided to overrule it, given sentencing practices at the time, the sentence probably wouldn't have been for very long (more likely months than years), and a heavy sentence would have had high odds of being overturned on appeal. Indeed, lawyers who have looked at the case say that, were Polanski to voluntarily return to the US (or somehow be captured by US authorities), he is unlikely to serve much time at all for his original crime of abusing Geimer – if he is facing serious time for anything, it is going to be for fleeing from prosecution rather than the underlying offence.

If Polanski had got time served (original plea bargain), or a few months in prison (likely outcome if it the judge overruled it), how much protection of children from harm would have society actually received? If Polanski spends 6 months in prison, that's a mere 6 months in which he can't abuse anyone. He might not have abused anyone in those 6 months even if he were free. It is hard to take the preventive justification for sentencing seriously in the context of the magnitude of the sentence Polanski was likely facing.

> I don't think this is solely, and maybe not even primarily about the state seeking power, but rather properly exercising power granted it by the people.

Geimer feels abused by the system, and I think her feelings are entirely legitimate. The prosecution and judges should take some responsibility for what they've done to her (a real flesh and blood person with real thoughts and feelings) rather than hiding behind this inchoate abstraction of "the people".

The problem is we can't yet map a person's neurons well enough to know their motivations as to why they don't want to see the other person punished.

Is it a genuine desire to forgive? Or is it out of fear/undesire to relive the experience?

I honestly don't know and it's not my place to guess, but it's a problem that we see in other areas too. This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.

> The problem is we can't yet map a person's neurons well enough to know their motivations as to why they don't want to see the other person punished

We don't need to "map" Samantha Geimer's neurons to understand her motivations. We can listen to what she has to say herself about that topic, in her media interviews, in the book she wrote, on Twitter. Have you listened to what she has to say? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what she says? Isn't that denying her a voice, and denying her agency? And, isn't denying her agency what Polanski did to her to begin with?

> This line of reasoning is part of why DV cases move forward even if the victim doesn't want to.

In many cases of domestic violence, the victim may still be under psychological domination by the abuser, and I agree in those circumstances there may be times when it is right to overrule the victim's wish that their abuser goes unprosecuted.

But in this case, Geimer and Polanski haven't see each other in person in over 40 years. She has had her own life – she married, had kids, a career. She explains her desire that the case be dropped as about what's good for her – escaping the continuing retraumatisation by the legal system and the media. I really don't see any evidence here that she is presently (or even recently) being psychologically dominated by Polanski.

If Geimer, as a thirteen year old, was arguing that Polanski shouldn't be prosecuted, I think it would be legitimate to overrule that wish. But, when she's arguing that as a fifty-seven year old, I don't think overruling her wishes is still legitimate. And, take note, her problem was not with the original prosecution in itself – she was happy with the original outcome that Polanski pled guilty and she didn't have to testify. Her objection is to the case being dragged on for decades against her will.

She's also angry about the judicial misconduct in the case – which, who cares about whether it hurt Polanski, it harmed her (the judge's unprofessionalism betrayed the victim); and by people who want to use the events of her life for political and media ends – it's her trauma not theirs, yet people want to use her trauma for their own ends without consulting her.

I get the impression a lot of people don't care about the actual detailed facts of this case, they just want to cling to the principle, and if Geimer's welfare and agency have to be sacrificed for their principle, so be it.