Convicted of statutory rape and receiving Oscar?

This is an ethical question that would have been more easily resolved years ago before the age of relativism (there is no absolute right or wrong). I personally agree that Polanski should not have been given any reward. But unfortunately the powers that be feel that art must be above the morality of the artist. There was an uproar in Israel when Berenboim against the wishes of many (including holocaust survivors) conducted a concert consisting of compositions by Wagner.

A lot of today's very renown artists, authors and philosophers were convicted in crimes. Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for homosexuality, Egon Schiller for some moral sexual thing, Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth and so on. There are a whole bunch of contemporary musicians that wins grammys and other music awards while being convicted for drug use, DUI, sexual assault, etc.

Being an artist doesn't mean you have to live a more moral life then others. 

He got an awared for making a good movie, not for being a good person. If this was the "honorary good person prize" then I would have seen a problem with him winning, but since the movie is very good and deserve the award, I can't see a problem. 

They weren't rewarding the man for his behavior.  They were rewarding him for his directorial talent.  The man committed a crime 25 years before he received his Oscar.  Talented people are also human.  They behave badly.  Look at artists, musicians, sports figures.  All the drugs, sex, and idiocy.  We still reward them because they are providing something extraordinary, despite their stupidity.  Excellence should always be recognized.  There is so little of it in this world.