quote:
Originally posted by theory9:
I'm not sure what else you can infer about Polanski's behavior but some form of quasi-sociopath behavior: he did the crime, admitted to the crime, then fled the country and has spent the whole of his life offering contrite excuses and rationalizations for his crime.

To make the situation a bit clearer and less morally weighted, take a case of petty theft: a friend of yours has stolen something from an anonymous third party. You understand the item to be stolen, yet because he/she is your friend you ignore the fact that it is stolen. If one lives a morally neutral or morally relative life, one is free to ignore. If one feels no responsibility to an inner morality, one rudimentary enough to distinguish right from wrong, well...

Any public activity which confers an award for an activity can be said to also confer a "moral seal of approval". The Academy Awards are meant to be--at least in principle--for movies that somehow add to the human experience. One can watch a movie and see life played out over the course of a few hours, and understand something about human nature. When we receive awards--perhaps at a job or a civic organization--there is an understanding that we didn't lie or cheat to achieve our ends. What if the awards handed out to car makers for safety didn't take into account the possibility that lies and deceit were used to achieve their goals?

Giving the award to Polanski, taking into account the aforementioned factors, is a farce.
You state your case very well, I see where your coming from.

I don't see the car company comparison as being applicable, simply because I don't believe movies are a service. They can have social or emotional importance, "adding to the human experience" as you say, but they aren't something produced solely for the purpose of aiding or serving people. They aren't a tool.

With a service, by awarding that which is achieved through deception, it's inadvertently encouraging using those methods. If a small car company sees a large company cut corners and end up making money and receiving good grades, they'll think "hey, if we do that, too, we can get those things". That's why it's wrong. With Polanski, no director is going to think "hey, if I have sex with a 13 year old girl, then flee the country, I can get an Oscar!"

quote:
Originally posted by Nowhereman:
You see that,the bit where you said "it also DOESNT make him an evil person."

Then you have said you have not said he is or isnt evil,well thats called a contradiction!
That's not a contradiction. I was saying what doesn't make a person evil(elaborating, it also doesn't make him good), not saying that the person was good(or evil). It isn't a contradiction. One is debating what is criteria, another is a classification based on the sum of that criteria. Two different things.

quote:
Originally posted by G-Man:
Evil actions indicate, without some compelling justification, an evil person.
That's a fairly black and white way of looking at it. If the legal system was to follow that motto, the concept of rehabilitation wouldn't exist, and there wouldn't be a varying degree of any crime. I think situation, circumstances and intent are a factor. Doesn't a judge consider such things when determining a sentence?