and while I have watched his movies in the past I won't watch anymore Roman Polanski movies now that I know he's a child molester.
To me, the movies and the crime are two different things. Polanski should definitely answer for his crimes, just like anyone else. Talent is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
But "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown" are still classic films. They didn't suddenly become bad movies just because their director did something vile.
Anne Perry is a convicted murderer. Her mystery novels are still worth reading, regardless of her past.
^ I'm inclined to agree with this perspective. A whole lot of absolutely amazing art of any variety, throughout history, has been made by deplorable people.
It's a weird and slippery slope. Victor Salva, for instance, is convicted molester, and served time for his crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Salva
And today, he makes movies, which often have young men and semi-nudity. Which strikes many (including myself) as more than a bit skeevy. OTOH, I felt POWDER was BRILLIANT, and have watched it often. And I enjoyed parts of the Jeepers Creepers films.
If Polanski had done his time for his crime (which involved drugging the underage girl he molested), would seeing his work be any less objectionable?
Or, as Thrawn suggests, can we embrace the artistic value of the art, while rejecting the deplorable nature of the artists?
"Can" or "should," however are definitely a personal choice; as personal as whether the work itself has artistic merit.