Roman Polanski - Yay or Nay - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dippin · 10-01-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

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

Strange Famous · 10-02-2009, 12:08 PM

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.

dippin · 10-02-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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?

mixedmedia · 10-02-2009, 12:19 PM

right.

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

Strange Famous · 10-02-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

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.

mixedmedia · 10-02-2009, 12:36 PM

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.

dippin · 10-02-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

"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.

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.

Strange Famous · 10-02-2009, 01:59 PM

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).

Reese · 10-02-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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.

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.

dippin · 10-02-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

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).

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.

Seaver · 10-02-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

In this case, double jeopardy is in play and Polanski can't be retried for the more egregious of his crimes.

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.

dippin · 10-02-2009, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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.

Glory's Sun · 10-03-2009, 03:58 AM

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.

Xerxys · 10-05-2009, 11:56 AM

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

james t kirk · 10-17-2009, 01:24 PM

Breaking News......

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

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

Seaver · 10-17-2009, 08:29 PM

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

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 11:24 AM

The Associated Press: Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request

Quote:

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER and FRANK JORDANS – 1 hour ago
BERN, Switzerland — Roman Polanski was declared a free man on Monday after Switzerland rejected a U.S. request to extradite him to be sentenced for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.
The Swiss government blamed the decision on U.S. authorities, saying they had failed to address defense arguments that the 76-year-old filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago.
Nine months after arresting Polanski, the Swiss Justice Ministry said U.S. officials should have backed up their request by providing confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in L.A.
"Mr. Polanski can now move freely," Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared. "He's a free man."
The stunning decision could end the United States' long pursuit of Polanski. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens and Polanski has had little trouble traveling throughout Europe — even if he's stayed away from Britain.
The U.S. cannot appeal the decision, but Polanski is still a fugitive in the United States.
"That warrant remains outstanding," Los Angeles Superior Court spokesman Allan Parachini said, adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent back to the U.S. if he traveled to another country that has an extradition deal with the United States.
The U.S. Justice Department declined to comment on its next steps.
The Swiss decision was praised by senior government officials in France and Poland, where Polanski holds dual citizenship. But there was criticism from groups representing victims of sexual abuse.
The Oscar-winning director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.
In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.
The Swiss government's main argument concerned confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. The Swiss asked for the transcript, but Washington rejected the request.
Based on references to Gunson's testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it "should prove" that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing the diagnostic study.
"If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said.
The Justice Ministry said its decision reflected the spirit of the law, as U.S. authorities hadn't pursued Polanski in Switzerland previously, even though he's often visited the country and bought a house here in 2006. It also cited the wishes of the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself and has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal.
Polanski's electric monitoring bracelet was removed, the government said, but it was unclear if he had already left the confines of his house and garden for the first time since being placed under house arrest in December on $4.5 million bail.
A woman who answered the door said Polanski had left. The director's France-based lawyer, Herve Temime, told The Associated Press by telephone from his office in Paris that his client was still at his chalet but was now ready to enjoy his freedom.
Approving extradition had seemed the likeliest scenario after Polanski was arrested on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski had also suffered a series of legal setbacks this year in California courts, and Switzerland only rejects about 5 percent of the 200 extradition requests it handles annually.
"This decision was certainly not expected," Temime said, praising Swiss authorities for making the responsible decision.
Peter Cosandey, a former Zurich prosecutor, said complete evidence isn't normally required in extradition decisions. But this case might have been different because of Polanski's confused sentencing procedure, he said.
"We in Switzerland do not know, and that's why the government sought the transcript of Gunson," Cosandey said. "In extraditions, there are formalities that must be fulfilled. One is whether the person has already served his sentence."
Widmer-Schlumpf said this decision was not meant to excuse Polanski's crime, saying the issue was "not about deciding whether he is guilty or not guilty."
The government said extradition had to be rejected "considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case."
Beyond the legal confusion, Polanski's extradition was complicated and diplomatically sensitive because of Polanski's status as a cultural icon in France and Poland, and his history as a Holocaust survivor whose first wife was murdered by crazed followers of cult leader Charles Manson in California.
Widmer-Schlumpf said she hoped the decision wouldn't harm Swiss relations with Washington. The two countries have bickered in recent years over wealthy Americans hiding their money in the biggest Swiss bank, UBS AG, but have cooperated well on resettling prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"These were three completely different cases that have to be treated completely differently," Widmer-Schlump said.

I had another response to this; I changed my mind. All I can say is justice has not been served in this case.

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

The Swiss government blamed the decision on U.S. authorities, saying they had failed to address defense arguments that the 76-year-old filmmaker had actually served his sentence before fleeing Los Angeles three decades ago.

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 11:40 AM

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.

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 11:47 AM

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

The prurient hounding of Roman Polanski is over at last

The Swiss decision not to extradite the director is just – it was a vengeful demand and his victim wanted the case closed

Roman Polanski is a free man, at long last. Justice and reason have finally prevailed after nine months of mass hysteria on both sides of the Atlantic, hysteria and moralistic prejudices. The Swiss justice ministry has finally announced that the French-Polish film director will not be extradited to the United States to be judged for what would, in truth, be a second time. The Swiss minister alluded to the fact that Roman Polanski had already spent time in prison after a plea-bargain was agreed between all parties and the judge. The American demand for extraditing Polanski had therefore no grounds. As the Swiss authorities diplomatically put it: "The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request." The US justice department now has to close the case once and for all, and get on with more pressing issues.

The question today is really this: how did we get to this Kafka-esque situation whereby a man who had already served time in prison for a crime he admitted committing suddenly finds himself arrested again by overzealous authorities in a foreign land, sent to prison, then confined to house arrest for nine months, 33 years after the facts? "But he fled justice!" Polanski's detractors would reply. As admirably shown in the rigorous documentary made in 2008 by American director Marina Zenovich – Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired – in 1978, Roman Polanski simply had the guts to flee the iniquitous justice of the Los Angeles court and celebrity-obsessed Judge Rittenband, whose gross misconduct is today officially acknowledged by all.

Polanski never claimed not to have had unlawful sexual intercourse with the 13-year-old Samantha Geimer. He indeed pleaded guilty. He also came back from Europe to be assessed by psychiatrists and serve a 90-day sentence in prison agreed by all parties. He only fled when he discovered that the judge wanted to go back on his word.

Roman Polanski's arrest in Zurich last September was shocking, but it wasn't shocking because Polanski is a great artist, a Holocaust survivor or because he has known the most dreadful tragedies in his life, it wasn't shocking because his victim had been asking for the case to be closed since 1997 and received a large settlement; no one, however great, is above the law. His arrest was shocking because of the arbitrary and vengeful nature of the American demand. As law professor Ronald Sokol wrote on the case in the New York Times:

"There is social value in discouraging criminals from fleeing the jurisdiction. There is value in seeing that justice is done and in showing that no one is above the law. But those values can erode over time if the circumstances which gave rise to the need for justice have vanished. To some, belated enforcement will appear arbitrary, a ritual of form over substance. When the state threatens imprisonment, it must be seen to act in an even-handed manner. If not, it mocks the very rule of law."

Finally, what was also most disturbing in the whole affair was the prurient voyeurism of Polanski's detractors, indulging in the very details of his alleged crimes. Reactions to the case disturbingly revealed rampant moral McCarthyism. Anyone defending the film-maker was immediately accused of making an apology for rape. The end of the affair should hopefully bring back sense to those who had lost it for nine months.

The prurient hounding of Roman Polanski is over at last | Agnes Poirier | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Cimarron29414 · 07-12-2010, 12:26 PM

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 12:52 PM

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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.

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.

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 01:32 PM

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 01:39 PM

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.

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

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

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 01:50 PM

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.

james t kirk · 07-12-2010, 02:11 PM

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.

FuglyStick · 07-12-2010, 02:17 PM

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

Baraka_Guru · 07-12-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

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

[...]

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

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.)

roachboy · 07-12-2010, 03:21 PM

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?

uncle phil · 07-12-2010, 03:39 PM

asshole beat the system - case closed...

karma is a funny thing...

you guys done yet?

ASU2003 · 07-12-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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.

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.

Ourcrazymodern? · 07-12-2010, 05:45 PM

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

The_Dunedan · 07-12-2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Wes Mantooth · 07-12-2010, 10:45 PM

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.

GreyWolf · 07-13-2010, 03:09 AM

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?

10-02-2009, 12:08 PM	#122 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	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. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-02-2009, 12:19 PM	#124 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	right. people are talking about the subtleties of the case and there are a lot of them. I think folks are clear enough. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-02-2009, 12:36 PM	#126 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

10-02-2009, 01:59 PM	#128 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	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). __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-17-2009, 08:29 PM	#136 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I wish I had something more to say than "shocker..." __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

10-03-2009, 03:58 AM	#133 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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.

10-05-2009, 11:56 AM	#134 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	"Polanski said that he lost interest in the case once it turned 1 Years old." - Joel McHale :The Soup.

10-17-2009, 01:24 PM	#135 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Breaking News...... Polanski has managed to "get out of Jail" for medical reasons. The guy just has no respect for the law. 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

07-12-2010, 11:40 AM	#139 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	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. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

07-12-2010, 11:47 AM	#140 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-12-2010, 12:26 PM	#143 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

07-12-2010, 01:32 PM	#145 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-12-2010, 01:39 PM	#146 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	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. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

07-12-2010, 01:50 PM	#148 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	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. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT! Last edited by FuglyStick; 07-12-2010 at 02:02 PM..

07-12-2010, 02:11 PM	#149 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	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.

07-12-2010, 02:17 PM	#150 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	I agree--the Swiss made the right decision. My only point was that Polanski got over on one. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

07-12-2010, 03:21 PM	#152 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-12-2010, 03:39 PM	#153 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	asshole beat the system - case closed... karma is a funny thing... you guys done yet? __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it. Last edited by uncle phil; 07-12-2010 at 04:01 PM..

07-12-2010, 05:45 PM	#155 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	What does she say? She's been wasting her taxes on this, too. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

07-12-2010, 10:45 PM	#157 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	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. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

07-13-2010, 03:09 AM	#158 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	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? __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.*