too rational for you :rolleyes:

wtf do they have to do with this?

god why do some people always drag politics into everything???

Nevermind.

Doesn't have to be political figures, replace Roman Polanski with anyone else reviled or scorned. Ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, ex-boyfriends, the guy that ran over your dog or insulted your mother. The "thin line of civilization"... everyone has a breaking point, even Tully.

For example, let's pretend Roman is Father Polanski. Does he still get a pass by Hollywood?

He is a rapist. We can be black and white about that. Some cases of rape and more violent or destructive than others certainly, but in all conditions it is a revolting crime. Is there any argument why he should not face justice?

Because he raped the child many years ago does the guilt go away?

Because he is a talented artist should be allow him to rape kids every now and again and say its ok because he's a genius?

I cannot see one reason that he should not face a minimum of 10 years.

edit:

And no plea's for mercy shall be heeded. He has had many years living free and in luxery while the victim has undoubtably been haunted by his crimes every day. She has a life sentence, while he has mocked justice. Shall this be allowed? If the Swiss will not willingly give him up to face justice they should be coerced.

He was convicted, and can't be retried unless he appeals. He will probably be given a lenient sentence for the original offence, and a harsh one for the flight.

I imagine that the deal will be an agreement to serve a fairly long term, provided he's in a fairly low security prison.

The thought that he'll be anally raped by his cell-mate is one that might inspire the masturbatory fantasies of the more lurid type of gutter hack, but is unlikely to happen given his age and fame.

Yes, absolutely. Replace those any of those conservatives with any liberal and my answer would be the same, yes including Obama. When people do crimes they should be held accountable period, end of story. No free walk if you're rich or your family is connected. Personally I think Ted Kennedy got a BS walk back in the 60's and I think he got it because of who he was, Joe the local landscaper would have likely gone to jail.

Not defending his actions, but I do want to clarify. The victim sued Polanski, received a settlement and has expressed her wishes that the case against Polanski be dismissed.

It can't be pleasant for her children right now. I feel that all of this coming up again and the numbers of people after her for a statement is haunting as well. It is impossible to pursue this without throwing her in the spotlight, which is unfortunate.

There's a difference between having a breaking point and wanting revenge. I'm not a big fan of revenge. Now before you go saying well if someone... Let me tell you a couple examples where people I cared about were victims of violence.

Shortly after high school a good friend was attacked and killed. She was my brother best friends girlfriend. We all hung out together, we were all pretty close. One night she went to the restroom at a bar and never came back to the group. The next morning they found her headless body floating in the Willamette River. For several years her boyfriend was the prime suspect. About five years later a truck driving serial killer confessed to killing her. BTW- my brothers best friend has never been the same. I honestly think the experience ruined his life.

About two years before moving to Mexico some one killed the man my daughter was suppose to marry. Hit and run situation. He was walking home from asking his best friend to be his best man at their wedding. Never found the driver, least never charged or convicted him. Lived in a small community, several people claim they know who did it. The person they claim did it seem to have lost his truck the same night as the hit and run. To my knowledge he's never produced the vehicle nor expalined exactly where it went. If I had to guess I'd guess it's buried on the families large dairy farm somewhere.

I don't want either of these people to fry or cut their nuts of either. I'd like the justice system to work and convict and sentence them according to the law.

See I don't believe in a "thin line of civilization." I think that line is clear cut and without it civilization is lacking. In short "mob rule" is a terrible rule.

I think the crime in itself was odious and outrageous enough as to make additional manifestations of outrage irrelevant. Polanski a monster and pedophile? Sure, but restating it again and again won't change that.

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.

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.

I don't know dippin: I think if he hadn't fled, but had stayed...received the stiffer sentence, wouldn't he have been allowed to appeal on the grounds that he was given a plea deal that was accepted and then thrown out by prosecutorial misconduct? Personally, I am sensitive to the argument that you, and I believe roach in part are putting forward regarding the reasons why he fled the country, but I don't think that allowing someone to flee the country because they they wanted to call shennanigans on the court is a good precedent to set. Furthermore, as I previously stated, I think that Polanski's conduct over the past 30 years directly acerbated the situation to where the DA / US. DoJ would almost have to go after him. He didn't just get out the country because he was given a softball deal and a chance to flee and live in relatively quiet anonymity, he chose to keep himself in the spotlight.

I also am not sure I'm following roach's argument about the odd nature of the arrest. In my understanding, just because the police haven't picked you up for a crime the first 10 times they had a chance doesn't mean its not valid when they do it on the 11th. My guess is that they were happy to let him go as long as he kept mostly kind of quiet, but that after the attention was brought back strongly after the award for the Pianist, they felt they had no choice. People down the hall asking if the original warrant was written on Charmin or generic, because they certainly hoped a lot of money wasn't wasted on the process, as it was obvious the warrant had no teeth. I don't really think the DA/DoJ had much choice in this matter.

I think a more reasonable course of action would be to bring him back, reinforce the image of holding people accountable to the law and the due process of law. Give him time served for the stat rape, and allow information to be presented showing why he chose to flee instead of stay. Give him a pop for fleeing the country, but not maximum sentence if there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that he could have been aware of at the time. Mental state goes to sentencing, no? Put him in a club med for a while, from which he could write an amazing memoir or movie dealing with the experience.

I don't think sweeping this thing under the carpet is a wise decision. The image it casts isn't helpful. I do think there are graver problems with our system of justice, however...and the underlying truth that there are stratifications of the administration of justice is one of them.

My condolences on your personal situation Tully, but here's my thing: in the absence of a threat of punishment, people are more than willing and capable of the utmost violence. I think very, very, very few people are *innately* non-violent, if any. I'm talking about on a gut emotional instinctual level, not an intellectual level which can explain away the sun in the sky or perhaps thoughts of committing violence. All it takes is the right trigger situation to bring it out, and all that keeps it in is the social contract that allows people - who biologically speaking are nothing more than carnivores/hunters/gatherers - to live side by side in large groups relatively peacefully without killing eachother. Take prison inmates for example, human beings all of them. I think we are all aware of what they do to child rapists in prison, or in other words, in the absence of a threat of violence stopping them from acting on their emotions.

I understand the concept of letting go of one's anger or denying one's emotions as an act of self-preservation but it doesn't mean those emotions disappear. I think this relates to 'wanting to get revenge'...I think it may even be more healthy psychologically than repressing perfectly understandable and warranted thoughts of revenge, but again, the social contract forbids it. When I hear people say they 'just want justice' in a benign way for a particularly heinous crime committed, I hear their heads talking not their hearts.

Absolutely on the money. Probably the best expression of my own feelings except I kind of would like to see his nuts cut off.

It's too bad his name is Roman Polanski and not Woody Allen or else rape would be acceptable.

No wonder that other piece of shit Woody Allen supports him. Birds of a feather,..

Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese: Free Roman Polanski! - E! Online

This is something you imagine? Or something you know is true for everyone?

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

sorry, but this is bullshit. may be true for you, but it is not true for many, many people who suffer losses of all kinds. sounds like a fantasy realm to me.

Pig, Im not saying that he should get off free, nor do I think that the precedent should be set where people are allowed to flee if they are certain of judicial misconduct. But I also think that the penalty for fleeing justice should be proportional to the sentence he fled. The plea agreement was for up to 90 days psych evaluation and probation, and he fled peacefully. You can't correct the mistake of the original DA by giving him the max for fleeing justice, which would be significantly more than the original sentence.

No, no, no.

A plea bargain is a deal between the defendant and the prosecutor. The defendant agrees to plead guilty, and possibly to other things, like testifying against an accomplice, the prosecutor agrees to the lessor sentence. The judge isn't involved in the agreement at all - he didn't agree to anything, and can sentence the defendant however he likes, within whatever guidelines apply.

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.

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?

He also fled justice. That's another charge.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

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.)

Yes, he fled before sentencing because the judge indicated it would go against the DA's recommendation of probation after the period in a psych hospital. Now, of course I believe that he should have served hard time. Given the situation, I would have hoped he would get the maximum. But the DA at the time recommended probation. Polanski accepted the deal because of that. And while the judge is free to disregard the DA's recommendation, at that time he must also allow for a change of plea.


here's a relatively good FAQ of the matter:

The Explainer's Roman Polanski roundup. - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine

To clarify the situation and refocus peoples minds, can we remind ourselves why he in this situation

He raped a 13 year old child

He is a paedophile.

It is accepted that this rape took place, Polanski does not dispute it factually.

I repeat, he is a rapist, and a paedophile.

Where, exactly, did anyone deny that?

right.

people are talking about the subtleties of the case and there are a lot of them.
I think folks are clear enough.

"subtle" isnt normally a term that comes to mind when talking about a child rapist.

I wonder how many other children or women have been raped or sexually asaulted by this disgusting sexual predator in the 30 years since he fled justice. I wonder how often the French Culture Minister thinks about that.

so how much do you really want to talk about how he raped a child? Is there something more you think needs to be said?

In reality, the situation is multi-faceted, there's nothing wrong with pondering, speculating about, or discussing those points.

Again, where did anyone express anything to the contrary here?

What he did should not preclude a concern for the rule of law and the setting of legal precedent.

I am in favour of the legal precedent that admitted and proven paedophiles and rapists face a minimum of 15 years staring at a concrete wall 23 hours a day.

I would settle for 10 years for this criminal in light of his age alone - it should be a sufficient sentence to ensure any useful amount of life he has left is spent with the public protected by him being behind bars.

The next question is whether any studio who released and profiteered from his work after he was a declared fugitive could face charges under RICO / proceeds of crime laws (not to sure what they are in US, but in the UK it is not legal to profit from a crime).

Sexual deviance including pedophilia is a mental illness and should be treated as such. You can't "fix" them by giving them longer and longer prison sentences. Prison sentences should be reasonable enough that people think twice before committing the crime and people that do go to prison don't want to go back. The rest should be strict supervision, life-time probation, and hell, even castration if that helps.

It is cases like this, where the public's bloodlust leads them to be shortsighted about the consequences of the precedent they want to set, that create the potential for future great injustices.

In this case, double jeopardy is in play and Polanski can't be retried for the more egregious of his crimes. You may not like that, but what's the alternative? In this case, the issue is twofold: prosecutors meeting with judges without the defense present, and judges deciding to do away with a plea deal without allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea. And while you might say that Polanski deserves that, that sets precedent, and precedent that is not particularly linked to any type of crime.

And mandated minimum sentences for statutory rape are unnecessarily meddling that generally leads to great injustices . Not because I defend pedophiles, but because real pedophiles would never get the minimum anyways. The ones who are affected by the minimum mandatory sentences are kids like Genarlow Wilson, a 17 year old kid given a 10 year sentence because he received a blow job from a 15 year old girl.

No. By over-ruling the plea bargen, the plea is automatically revolked. It never went to court, so it can not be double jeopardy. The only difference between now and then, is he's been living in the lap of luxury for the last 30 years.

The problem is that the judge never overruled the plea bargain per se. He accepted the plea, and that right then and there attached jeopardy to the more serious charges. In trying to be tricky, the judge actually helped Polanski. That is the problem, that the judge wanted to both accept the plea and ignore the DA's sentence recommendation.

Polanski will try to get the sex with a minor offense dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct, and if he is rejected he goes back to the sentencing part of the trial only. The appeals court might meet halfway and have him retried for that charge, but for the others double jeopardy has attached.

And in this case, it will be interesting to see how the victim will act. Prosecution can move on the case even if the victim wishes to see the charges dropped, but the issue then becomes whether she will be willing to testify.

That is, of course, not counting what he might get for fleeing justice.

From what I understand he was sentenced to about 90 days in jail and only served 46. Once he was out and understood the judge was going to give him hard time he fled.

I'm all for the DA being tried (and the judge too if he were still alive) on administrative misconduct or other charges. That is a gross misuse of the system. Dippin is correct in how the process would work. That doesn't mean that he's out of the water as an appellate judge can order a retrial if he rules that a mistrial occurred on the first trial. The appellate judge can also have the case dismissed entirely based on the conduct of the previous DA. However, I would place a bet that the former DA's admission will not be admissible in court as it was a statement made for monetary gain and the former DA would have to testify to those facts in court for them to hold weight. I doubt that's going to happen.

I'm also starting to believe that this cunt (Polanski) will see no more time for his pedophile actions, but that he will see time on his flight. 6 months tops in a minimum security fed seems likely.

It's a damn shame that our jails are over crowded with drug offenders yet fugitives and child rapists (and there is no argument that Polanski is a child rapist and a monster) seem to evade a proper sentencing.

"Polanski said that he lost interest in the case once it turned 1 Years old." - Joel McHale :The Soup.

Breaking News......

Polanski has managed to "get out of Jail" for medical reasons. The guy just has no respect for the law.

:orly:

The bastard is free again. I give it 2 days before he disappears.

Link to CBC story:

CBC News - Film - Polanski out of jail for medical reasons

I wish I had something more to say than "shocker..."

The Associated Press: Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request
I had another response to this; I changed my mind. All I can say is justice has not been served in this case.

maybe because you put the wrong part in bold.
had the united states been serious, they would have answered the question the swiss posed to them.
the u.s. didn't do it.

end of story.

The bold was left over from the other point I was going to make, until I rethought the post.

Put blame on the system all you like--I'm not going to say that there isn't blame there. It doesn't change the fact that a pedophile is walking free with a slap on the wrist.

End of story.

call your congressman.

o wait. there's nothing the united states can do about this. they can't appeal. they can't try again. they simply fucked it up.

you'd almost think the embarrassment caused by this whole thing is so great that a perfectly ordinary administrative request went unanswered as a way of making the case go away.

Once again, rb, you are using speculation to make your argument. Bye bye.

I was surprised to hear that a prosecutor AND a judge would agree to a "90 days" plea deal for the rape of a 13-year-old girl.

An op-ed copy and paste job does not change the fact that Polanski had sex with an underage girl. Spin, spin, spin 'til you puke on your penny loafers--he is a pedophile, and both the prosecution and judge let him walk. That's not justice.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

And THAT is what stinks to high heaven. The prosecution and judge are both guilty of complacency in an absolutely ridiculous sentence. Is anyone REALLY going to try to make the argument that the sentence given was sufficient for the crime (which, to my knowledge, has never been disputed as to having happened)?

Now, to throw Polanski supporters a bone--you can't change a sentence once it has been passed. If things worked that way, then every sentence can be altered after the fact by the whims of the court. That by no means forgives a ludicrously lenient sentence in the first place. Polanski got one over on the justice system, that does not mean he is innocent or justice was served.

so what we now know is that were you, fugly, emperor of everything that roman polanski would have found himself in an different situation.

and how very interesting that is. except of course that you aren't the emperor of everything.

i know....why don't you make a little roman polanski doll and stick pins in it?
you could yell things about justice being served while you do it if you like.
that would be interesting and fun.

be sure to post photos.


=============================
added later:

the extradition request was denied on administrative grounds.
to say pointing to that is "blaming the system" is idiotic...it's a simple fact. it is *the* fact in how this turned out.
so the claim that "justice was not served" is meaningless--the united states failed to answer the question posed by the swiss as to how it is that polanski had not already served his sentence.
they could have answered, the u.s....there was nothing stopping them. and there is a response.
but they didn't.

that's the end of the story.
being pissy about it is a prerogative, but it's not about the fact of the matter.
the fact of the matter, right now, is administrative.
and there's nothing you can do about it.

I know this much--Polanski apologists are full of shit. It's funny how those who are most apt to blame the system for so many injustices are so willing to embrace those injustices when it suits them. Fucking hypocrites.

like you don't do the same thing when it suits you.
except then it's not hypocrisy, right?

i posted the editorial because it talks about the cretin way in which this non-discussion has been framed. anyone who disagrees with Indignation is an apologist.
but of course that can't be factual.
it's an op-ed piece.
it can't be describing factual situations....not even when you see exactly the same thing in this thread.
because that's not real.
only the opinions of the Righteous are real.


nice going, fugly.
what an excellent discussion this turned into.

enjoy filling that doll up with pins.

And enjoy your position as ideologue, rb.

By the way, judging from the comments for the op-ed piece you posted, it would appear that in the court of public opinion the author is full of it. But it was printed, online, so it MUST be infallible, right? Funny how one of the biggest detractors of main-stream media will embrace it if it suits his purpose.

I repeat--fucking hypocrite.

From what I have read, the Swiss asked for documents from the Americans pertaining to Polanski's claim that an American judge promised to let him (Polanski) go for time served in a mental institute, HOWEVER, the American authorities are refusing to provide said documentation.

Something is not right.

If the Swiss asked for some documentation, and they have the guy you want - you give it to them.

As much as I despise Polanski as the garden variety pedophile that he is, I agree with the decision the Swiss made (from what I have read).

Maybe the American judge did promise to let Polanski off the hook way back when for time served - who knows.

Either way, it should not be a big deal for the Americans to provide the requested documentation. If it is - then something is up.

I agree--the Swiss made the right decision. My only point was that Polanski got over on one.

Unless I'm mistaken, the U.S. isn't well known for its cooperation in legal matters beyond its borders. Maybe they'd sooner save their own asses than see justice be served. I could be wrong. I'm just thinking out loud.

Either way, I certainly think something went wrong. (I hope that doesn't make me a Polanski apologist.)

my initial point was going to be simply to marvel over the fact that such a seemingly simple administrative request could have been made over into such a bollocks.

the reason i wondered if it was a face-saving thing is the amount of pressure from european governments--like almost all of them, but france in particular--that the us came under to not pursue the matter. there was no way to stand down. so it appeared to me that this was a face-saving way out.

and for the record, i don't have a particular position about roman polanski's 1972 actions.
i was much more curious about the process that extradition efforts put into motion and the way the debate played out, such as it has been.

i don't see myself as an apologist for much of anything.
but hey, what do i know?

asshole beat the system - case closed...

karma is a funny thing...

you guys done yet?

So the US went through all of this trouble to get him to sit in jail for 48 days? And he has been 'on the run' for 30+ years to avoid getting sent to jail? Would the US bring charges of skipping out on his sentencing and try and have him stay in jail for a longer amount of time?

I would say that we have all wasted enough time with this and his name and credibility has been punished enough.

What does she say? She's been wasting her taxes on this, too.

Considering he still has defenders in Hollywood (Whoopie Goldberg and "not RAPE rape..." come immediately to mind), not bloody likely. I personally won't be happy until his name and reputation are lower than Elia Kazaan's. While the Swiss may have done the procedurally-correct thing, somebody should have fed this smug waste of skin to some pigs a long time ago. The fact that somebody in the US dropped the ball to such an utterly disgusting degree (as RB points out) merely compounds my anger.

Did Whoopie Goldberg actually say its "not RAPE rape"? ...I actually had to look it up and I'm still flabbergasted...I mean I'm not even sure I can wrap my head around that level of meat headed, apologetic spin...really that's just...its not even offensive its just sad and pathetic.

Anyway I agree with most, you have to follow due process no matter how bad the crime or bone headed stupid judge. Regardless I don't really see why people are trying to muster so much sympathy for him or so readily jumping to his defence...that's a little strange.

I haven't gone back to review the details of the case... but where is it that the judge had agreed to the 90-day sentence? Aren't plea bargains made between the prosecution and defense and then submitted to the judge as a fait-accompli, with the explicit understanding that the agreed upon sentence is not binding on the judge as arbiter of the case?