No, technically it isn't. Statutory rape and rape I or raping someone after drugging them are completely different offensives. The fact she was under age doesn't automatically make it statutory rape.

QFT.

but he was convicted of statutory rape.

right. he was *convicted* of statutory. so now he needs to serve his time and serve time on the flight charge.

Pedophiles are rarely, if every, rehabilitated. While I might personally believe he should never see the light of day again, that probably will not be the case. I think he will get more years for fleeing. But I definitely think he will serve some time. No way would we go to such lengths to get him into custody if were weren't planning on throwing the book at him.

Word on the street: If Roman's next movie wins six or more Oscars, Hollywood plans to let him fuck a ten-year-old.

too soon??

well, the trick is that there wasn't much of anything in terms of lengths gone to in order to find polanski. there was no investigation it seems--there was a purely administrative transfer of information from one bureaucratic level to another. no manpower was devoted to finding him. that's what i think is the underlying problem here: he's been a high-profile figutive from the united states for 25 years or so, has made alot of films, has been easy to locate--but no-one's tried within the judicial apparatus. as i understand it, the last time he was almost nabbed was at another very public festival in israel where he had gone to accept an award.

so it's obvious that the reason he was arrested was that the police in switzerland found out about the publicity. maybe they have a news-scanning software that looks for names of folk with interpol warrants out for them. maybe running that software is all investigation of these things amounts to.

and maybe that's the issue--someone like polanski reveals the fact of the matter, that it is entirely possible to go underground and stay there, that it's entirely possible to live quite publicly for a long time and not be noticed by law enforcement--but the mythology about law enforcement requires that you believe the contrary. you need to believe that the Law is Drawn to the Guilty. you need to believe that the Law Protects you--because if that's the case, then the state by extension protects you and the political order for which it operates, of which it is an expression--that protects you (and not simply itself)....

that's another reason this bit of theater is interesting.
ideological drama. gots to love it.

but again, this is really not about what polanski may or may not have done in 1972 before he split the united states. it's about the fact that he split the united states rather than serving a sentence.

It really is amazing how they are trying to protect the guy. You'd maybe expect the likes of NAMBLA, the Thailandian tourist industry or perhaps some prominent politicians from the east coast to have his back but this is ridiculous. Full frontal lobotomy for Mr. Polanski and all his fellow child rapists.

that's great thinking there powerclown--so if anyone turns their attention to any other aspect of the case, they're defending the guy. so yours is the only possible position of Righteousness.
great stuff. it's happened alot in this thread. as usual, i think it's funny.

Call me a simpleton, but its the only aspect of this sordid affair that interests me. Talking about the actual crime itself. I don't know why you are being so paranoid -- you have at it any way you want.

He was allowed to plead to a lesser charge, yes. Happens all the time. Did then and does now. Doesn't make it right.

Personally I care what happens in this case. I care because I see letting those with money, power and influence get off easy (or, at times, completely) as a disgrace to the system, a disgrace to justice itself. I'm not interested in cutting his nuts off or having him "fry" for his actions. I want him sentenced based on the sentencing guides from when he plead guilty and charged for flight and sentenced accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do I think any of that's going to happen? No. I think he'll be back finishing post production on his latest film within a few months, possibly weeks. I hope I'm wrong.

I understand Polanski paid her off as the result of a civil suit. I wonder if he wishes he had paid before the charges were brought like Michael Jackson.

The plea bargain would have resulted in no jail time beyond the mental evaluation Polanski already completed back then. I've got no issue standing by that original deal. If it was fine with the victim then and now, I see no reason to beat the dead horse.

But he needs to get the maximum for obstructing justice. I think that's 10 years in California (although I could have that mixed up with the Federal penalty and I can't find a clear answer).

quoted as a near perfect expression of my own opinion on the matter.
thanks, Tully.

when I say fry the mother fucker...I'm on the fence on whether someone like this deserves to even live or if it would be more poetic to have him in prison for life so he can get a taste of his own medicine.

The wishes of the victim are not relevant in this case.

First, Polanski committed a crime against the judicial system by fleeing, an offense that must be corrected regardless of the underlying case, and for which Polanski must pay some price. Otherwise, bail means nothing, especially to the rich.

Second, the state assumes the role of complainant in criminal cases at trial for a reason. As part of the social contract, we agree to forgo personal and/or clan blood atonement for crimes against us in place of a rational adjudication of crimes, which is not the universal condition, as we discovered somewhat belatedly in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to support the rule of law rather than vendettas, then we need to pursue Polanski and everyone else who runs out on sentencing after a conviction.

Aladdin, I see these as two completely separate that should have separate punishments. For the crime with a single victim, I think that her wishes then and now are paramount. If that was fine then, fine now and there was never really a push by her for real jail time (if there was, I'm unaware of it), then I see no reason why the State shouldn't stand by their original agreement with Polanski.

Obstruction of justice is a completely different matter, and I think that we basically agree there. I'm all for the maximum punishment for that separate crime. Perhaps I just see this situation in an odd and unusual light, but it seems to me that the OofJ crime needs a separate crime and punishment without the possibility of bail (which is standard in these cases, as I understand it).

First, Polanski committed the crime against the girl. That's separate than the one that he committed against the state when he fled. Does that make sense to anyone else or are these crazy pills on my desk?

Lofty words. I wonder if you'd feel the same if the perpetrator was George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin.

That's pretty much what I think would be justice. Honor the original terms of the plea bargain (absurdly generous though it clearly was), and come down hard on the flight and obstruction. He does time served from way back when on the sex with a minor charge, and whatever is the appropriate sentence for somebody who ran away and thumbed their nose at lawful society for thirty-odd years.

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.)