Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
But there is a very important issue at play here, one that goes far beyond the crime itself. This case made it to the appellate courts before, and was dismissed because they required that Polanski was present. If he is extradited, it will in all likelihood make it to the appellate court again, and then we are talking about a precedent being set. Right now, if a judge does not accept the terms of a plea bargain, the DA and the defendant have either try to reach a new, acceptable one, or the defendant has to go to trial. In this case, a DA has admitted publicly that he coached the judge in the case on how to make Polanski serve prison time in a way that could not be appealed and went beyond the terms of the plea deal.
|
That's interesting. I guess I need to do more research, but I hadn't heard it expressed that way. If this is true, then I think the DA should get a cell next to Polanski. Is there a good resource that backs this up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
But there is a very important issue at play here, one that goes far beyond the crime itself.
I think that it is unfortunate that the original DA accepted the deal, and certainly Polanski should have received a harsher penalty. But I don't think that the seriousness of Polanski's actions should be enough to set a precedent where plea deals are used as traps, where a lesser sentence is offered for a guilty plea, and then replaced with a more serious one. I am also not comfortable with the idea that escaping that sort of trap can send a person to prison for 40 times the amount of time of the original sentence.
These things will likely be decided in the appellate courts, and as such set dangerous precedents. It is a pity that to preserve certain basic rights we would have to let Polanski get away with so much, but I really don't like the alternative, which is allowing DAs and judges to trap defendants with false plea deals.
The best outcome in this case, for me, would be for Polanski to be retried in the only charge that remains, which is unlawful sex with a minor. And in this case, given the reluctance of the girl to testify or be a part of that, it would be unlikely that he would serve time.
I don't like the message that those with resources can escape justice, but I dislike the message that judges and DAs can lie and trap defendants even more.
|
He also fled justice. That's another charge.
---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
But if the judge disagrees and voids the plea bargain, by law he is required to offer the defendant the right to withdraw the plea, which was not done in this case.
|
My impression, as far as I've read, is that he fled the country before sentencing. He fled after the judge 'suggested' to his lawyers that he might have to serve jail time (oh, darn...if I ever rape a 13 year old girl, I hope I don't have to serve jail time. That would be soooo inconvenient. :-/ - Sorry. The entire idea of a child rapist not serving jail time, plea bargain or no, sickens me.)