Wouldn't most criminals be paroled after 30+ years?

I do not want to defend a wrongdoing of any rightfully famous intellectual. What Roman Polanski admitted doing, severly damaged a 13 y old girl in a very complex way, that is hard to even fathom for others . I am also ready to admit that his escape before the planned revision of his sentencing was another break of law - although here I can see some mitigating circumstances -.

However, Mr. Polanski's life since those events, more than 30 years ago, was nothing but exemplary. It seems that he has not caused any more suffering to the undeserving, has not broken any further laws. To the contrary, with his wits and talent he constantly tried and successfully managed to invite us for self-scrutiny, entertained and amazed millions with the hope of making us better.

I doubt there are many criminals in the US prisons today who would not be eligeable for parol within 30 years. Why coming down with the full might of justice on a man, who made one deplorable mistake but proved himself a worthwhile human being since then?

Why is it not counted that he already payed a heavy price for that mistake? Clearly, he had to endure significant restrictions in his professional life by not having access to Hollywood, where he could have followed his love of life, making movies, to the fullest!?

Why does it not count that the person against whom he committed the crime forgave him and that bringing those events into the limelight again hurts the sense of closure of the only person who already suffered once!?

What are we to think about a justice system that, despite all the reservations enlisted above, relentlessly snatches a man on the way for his life-time achievement award!?

Professor SUSAN ESTRICH , on NPR (All things considered, Sept. 9, 2009), claims: "... rape isn't a crime against the victim. It's a crime against the state". - Parenthetically, accoring to the inreview, Prof. Estrich herself is the unfortunate victim of a long-time ago rape. Could she really have elevated herself above her painful experience and remain objective about Mr. Polanski's case? -

Furthermore, I dare to speculate that there are many more pressing criminals, with far greater danger to the "state" than Mr. Polanski. This sensless determination to follow "court proceedings", no doubt, takes away precious resources from much more pressing efforts.

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said:
"It doesn't matter if it's Roman Polanski or anyone else, I think that those things should be treated like anyone else," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're a big-time movie director."
Asked if he would consider a pardon, Schwarzenegger said he receives many such requests and would give no special consideration to one by Polanski.

It seems to me, Governor Schwarzenegger, that Mr. Polanski would deserve special consideration not for his name, but for his clean life that followed; a life that, through his artistic talent, improved the "state", and society as a whole.