I doubt very many of those calling for Polanski’s death are unaware there is no possibility of a death penalty for his crime. They’re using hyperbole.
The author appears unable to grasp this.
I thought Christopher Jones was the father of Sharon Tates’ baby?
1. No one is actually calling for him to be punished with death. Most men would say they would to "kill" a man who raped their daughter or wife. (See Michael Dukakis) I suspect you were being deliberately obtuse.
2. The victim may be pressured to say that she doesn't want a prosecution because of a settlement she received.
Most importantly: 3. The state needs to protect us citizens, not itself, against someone who has no respect for laws that protect our rights.
Suppose that all charges were dismissed against Mr. Polanski and he returned to the United States. Suppose that while here, he murders me. Could you, or anyone, then argue they are shocked if he then fled the country? He has already proven that he has no respect for the laws of the United States that protect the people who live here. I think our government is protecting my rights, and the rights of every other person who lives in this country, by not allowing a foreign visitor who thinks he can, (and apparently can) commit crimes against us with impunity. I completely reject your argument that the government is protecting itself, when it is protecting me. If you want Polanski to commit a crime against you, that's your business, but I don't accept your contention that I have that obligation. Since you believe the government is "being unfair" by prosecuting foreign nationals who commit crimes against people in the United States, you should be actively campaigning for Gavin Newsom.
Your argument about, "the glory of the State," might apply if Polanski were charged with espionage or tax evasion, but he was not. Whether you realize it, or not, you are advocating the trampling of individual rights.