Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[Patranus]

The alleged illegal or unethical activities of others is not a get out of jail free card for Roman Polanski.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find this case quite troubling as I do with many that are complex and that leads me always to the sense that what we call justice is meaningless, or better yet a joke, a pretense and a sham, yet worse, a professionalizing of revenge, a trade where violence is done with the cunning of the mind.

What is justice in its most organic form. RP sexually forcible assaulted a 13 year old girl using drugs and alcohol. Isn't justice that he should have been beaten to death on the spot? Why suffer some asshole like that to live when, having displayed he had no normal inhibitions once, we can logically conclude he won't have them again. Kill him and protect other children. It's just that simple. Why should some worthless fucking piece of scum who would willing destroy the faith and future of a child for his own momentary satisfaction be allowed to live. He is either genetically defective and has no natural empathy, making him dangerous, or he failed to develop morally.Why should he be able to hire somebody to defend him in a court of law when the chances are that the more money and prestige he has the less likely it will be that he will get convicted. What a joke.

Ah but he might not be guilty so we have to pretend everybody is innocent until proven guilty even where we know the quilt is real so that if such a charge came your way and you were innocent and the 13 year old was perhaps a pathological liar you wouldn't be beaten to death.

But we can't just go around beating people to death, some will say, doubtless those among us who don't have the muscle to wield a club. We have to sanitize that. We need professional executioners people with just enough brains to pull a switch, or how a days insert a needle. Yup, we have to take all the fun out of it removing any pleasure that real justice brings, eh?

Because isn't that what it is all about, our system of justice, retribution modeled on the Biblical God who will fry your ass forever if you are evil? Didn't we just project onto our system of law exactly what we projected in creating our God, fucking kill, punish and make suffer?

And for what, because we want an eye for an eye. We don't want justice. We want revenge, we want the big pay back. We want to balance evil with more of the same, but in the name of our comedic laws.

We want people to pay the price for their evil deeds, but why? Why do we want that. Why do we coat it with a thousand illusions to prevent us from seeing that what we want is to beat some rapist to death at the scene. We are dirty cowards, I think is why. We don't want to see that what we feel for the rapist is self hate for anybody who disobeys Mommy or Daddy, just like happened to us.

What should be the purpose of the law. In my opinion the only purpose there can be is prevention. Those who do evil should not be allowed to act our their self hate on others. The limited tools that we had in the old days was to cut off their hands or their heads. Then we invented the jail where we paid money to house vicious people so they couldn't do more harm. And we used to pretend we did so to give them time to think, grow up, and reform but now we just make them better at being evil and let them go or close the jails because we are running out of money.

Our laws and our justice are a joke. Law has become a game where he who can memorize precedent and figure angles wins the case, and the guy with the most money for the best lawyers wins.

Justice was taken our of our hands so that we would not be vigilantes but now there isn't any justice at all. I think in this time it's us who is taking the beatings while the law spreads like a cancer and clever folk get rich.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
We've already seen one prosecutor who said that he coached the Judge admit that he was lying about that whole incident.

Would you please present whatever your are referring to specifically here?

I already did a while back. The man who said that he coached the Judge has now officially recanted and said that he lied. This was a significant piece of 'evidence' used by the Polanski team.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The alleged illegal or unethical activities of others is not a get out of jail free card for Roman Polanski.

Well.. yes and no. It depends on what is going on.

IF the 'others' infringe on the rights of the defendant then the defendant is not getting a fair deal. Justice is to be fair... for both sides.
Polanski the criminal is one thing but if the prosecutor or judge or his attorney fail in their respective roles then he gets a pass to the extent it materially affected the situation. My premise is simply fairness. A new trial etc. or prejudicial dismissal if appropriate.

Fairness in this case would have been to either go to trial or secure a plea with substantial time in jail. How it got to a 90 or 43 or what ever day affair is beyond me. IF I were the judge I'd have laughed at the notion of that kind of plea. Six felony counts... remember the girl did go to the 'rape center' and there is evidence of intercourse so the best he could hope for in a jury trial is two counts maybe three guilty... and typical sentence... 10 yrs.

But, we did get a plea. Judge said ok.. send him to evaluation and he gets time served... that in itself is crazy.. but that is what the judge said... and for the Evaluators to say probation.. and he's normal... that is simply amazing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
[...]
Justice was taken our of our hands so that we would not be vigilantes but now there isn't any justice at all. I think in this time it's us who is taking the beatings while the law spreads like a cancer and clever folk get rich.

The old cut the hand off and or beat and disfigure is so old testament and pagan... We operate under the new covenant of Jesus who said more than once 'Go and sin no more'.
We can't kill the robber. We house and feed and educate and often make them more bitter and more apt to rob again. We are enlightened by the superiority of our civilized nation.

We do, however, have our civilized rules. By these rules we insure fairness and equity. We depart from civilized folks in that we kill folks. Here there and everywhere. And we don't always do it fairly. I am reminded by Cornwallis' statement about the Francis Marion crew... "They fight like savages. Not one of them will stand like a soldier face to face." "What is war coming to?" What is civilized about anything we call civilized?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Several issues come to mind about the case:

1.) He confessed and is guilty (of oral, vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old when he was 45 or so after he got her drunk and gave her sedatives)
2.) He ran (a whole nother matter)

1) How did you come up with sexual act beyond oral? While that is far wrong enough in itself, I've never seen the claim of the second two made before here, and in searching around I have yet to come across anything to substantiate your claims of vaginal and anal sex.
2) He agreed to a plea bargain and fulfilled agreement, only running after the judge went back on it.
3) The victim formally requested the case be dismissed, but her wishes are being ignored.

So, while I have no interest in defending anyone who has ever committed an act of pedophilia, I'm at a loss as to how going after Polanski over his decades old crime is anything but a waste of our tax dollars.

rationalization please for $200 Alex! Or is it just apothy... Or maybe you do like to defend pedophiles because that is what you are doing.

He sodomized a girl while she was pleading with him to stop admitted it and you think it is a waste of time and money? What else do you need to argue?

Shame on you for taking so lightly what this man has taken from a child.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: dahunan


Did he buttfuck a 13yr old who kept telling him NO!... and even if she didn't, do you believe the 13 year old was easily mistaken as a female aged 18 or older by the 40? year old man

Does age even matter if you drug someone to have sex? I think people are focusing on the wrong things.

Yea it does... You are being daft.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
A former Swiss prosecutor says it's very unlikely they will release him on bond or bail, first off they rarely do it, and secondly, his history of evading prosecution for 30 years weighs pretty heavily against him.

Gosh, he could be held longer while this is all hashed out then he's already served.

I have the funny feeling Citizen Polanski may never see the sun as a free man again.

I hope that is a felling that is proved true sooner rather than later.

 

[jmanny]

It's so reassuring to me to know that there are so many people who would come to my defense by signing petitions and making statements on TV and internet forums for my release if I drugged, raped and sodomized a thirteen year old girl and evaded arrest for thirty years. :roll:

Would all of you Polanski defenders be on my side? Or since I'm not a famous movie producer would I just be another lowlife that got caught for rape and sodomy and fled the country? Wouldn't the attitude be let him go to prison and find out what an ass rape feels like? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.

I'm interested in knowing why he is being defended just because he makes movies and is an artist. Makes no sense to me why he should be treated any different than anyone else who commits the same crime.

 

[Moonbeam]

The really fun thing about this thread, I think, is that we will, God willing, live to see what actually happens. I am tempted to say that things will go in ways that right now are unexpected but I have little understanding of the issues and no way to assess how the law will constrain and limit things.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The really fun thing about this thread, I think, is that we will, God willing, live to see what actually happens. I am tempted to say that things will go in ways that right now are unexpected but I have little understanding of the issues and no way to assess how the law will constrain and limit things.

Powerful folks will take a stand more often than not when an issue arises that they can sink their teeth into and be seen doing so. The only time powerful folks take up the issues of the commoner is when they can further their personal agenda.

Common folk would not get the print that a Polanski or a Simpson get/got. No one cares about the issue but the folks more intimate with the event. Think about how many cases flow through the court system with little more than a few lines of print. It has to be news worthy to capture the interest of the masses and find its way onto P&N.

Here we have a case where a person committed six felonies against a young girl. IF that person was from the ghetto of LA how many folks would even look at what transpired in the judicial system let alone opine in his favor? The very exact same set of events would produce almost unanimous agreement to string him up... he'd face life without parole!

The sad part, imo, is that we can argue the rights of Polanski to the hilt and forget the rights of the People and chalk that up to our need for justice. I agree his rights were violated IF the judge was biased but the Peoples right to seek vengeance was violated too by an agreed plea of 40 something days...

So where does the fault lay that produces all this Poor Polanski or that evil bastard?
It rests firmly at the feet of the prosecutor and the judge. He should have been treated just like any other criminal would be. Allowed to finish a movie is insane! Our system only saw the famous director...
But given the reality we must force our system to function. And, IF his rights were violated then he should be set free. It IS our way!.

 

[peonyu]

anyone who defends this guy is sick imo.

Hes a admitted child rapist. he not only raped her, but he drugged her AND sodomized her.

Hes filth and deserved to spend life in prison with his fellow low-lifes.

Of course he is rich and famous so the double standards have given him a 'easy' ride for the past 30+ years. Hes a fugitve, and our government could have tracked him down easily at anytime yet they chose not to till now. If this crime was commited by anyone else [including anyone on this board] you can bet your @ss that you would not get off the hook at all, and certainly wouldnt be left alone for 30 years to make a life for yourself [in movies in polanskis case].

 

[peonyu]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
A former Swiss prosecutor says it's very unlikely they will release him on bond or bail, first off they rarely do it, and secondly, his history of evading prosecution for 30 years weighs pretty heavily against him.

Gosh, he could be held longer while this is all hashed out then he's already served.

I have the funny feeling Citizen Polanski may never see the sun as a free man again.

I hope that is a felling that is proved true sooner rather than later.

Hes in his late 70's now, and commited the crime when he was in his 40s. Justice is not served even if he goes to jail at this time...Also he likely only has a few years left to live and im sure he will get a comfy 'celeb' prison with maids and a HDTV if he does to jail at this time. Its all a joke.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
The judge is not party to the agreement, he merely approves or rejects it.

The judge sent Polanski to a 90 day psychological evaluation in Chino on the basis of the plea agreement, and only changed his mind after the psychologist released Polanski after 42 days with the recommendation of probation.

This statement was merely responding to shira's claim that the plea bargain is void because the parties didn't live up to their agreements. The above merely restates the legal fact that the judge is not one of the parties to a plea agreement.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
The judge is not party to the agreement, he merely approves or rejects it.

The judge sent Polanski to a 90 day psychological evaluation in Chino on the basis of the plea agreement, and only changed his mind after the psychologist released Polanski after 42 days with the recommendation of probation.

This statement was merely responding to shira's claim that the plea bargain is void because the parties didn't live up to their agreements. The above merely restates the legal fact that the judge is not one of the parties to a plea agreement.

I never agreed with your statement. The judge ultimately MUST be a party to a plea agreement, since he must approve allowing the defendant to plea to a charge less than what the grand jury returned. The judge can also agree to what the parameters of sentencing will be.

Text

Express bargaining occurs when a defendant or his representative negotiates directly with a prosecutor, a trial judge, or (very rarely) another official concerning the benefits that may follow the entry of a plea of guilty.
.
.
.
Bargaining for a favorable sentence recommendation by the prosecutor (or bargaining directly with a trial judge for a favorable sentence) is referred to as sentence bargaining.

My opinion is that the current judge and prosecutor have a choice: Sentence under the original plea agreement (which probably means either "time served" or possibly an additional 48 days of incarceration to fill out the original 90 days), OR abandon the agreement (in which case the defense will move for dismissal, on the grounds that Polanski can no longer receive a fair trial).

Edit: I'm not sure that the prosecution necessarily has the option of abandoning a plea agreement if the defendant has complied with its terms, which Polanski, as far as I know, did.

And as I've stated before, prosecuting Polanski on the flight charge is a separate issue.

 

[Dari]

Lots of (pro)pedophiles in this thread.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Our laws and our justice are a joke. Law has become a game where he who can memorize precedent and figure angles wins the case, and the guy with the most money for the best lawyers wins.

Justice was taken our of our hands so that we would not be vigilantes but now there isn't any justice at all. I think in this time it's us who is taking the beatings while the law spreads like a cancer and clever folk get rich.

My opinion is that things are going in a direction OPPOSITE to what you've stated. My sense is that the rich and powerful are now much LESS "above the law" - and are held accountable far more - than they were in the past. Bribery and corruption are no longer tolerated. Politicians have stronger rules proscribing their excesses. Our system of justice is more uniform and more fair (do we REALLY want to go back to the days when the cops routinely beat suspects and suspects weren't guaranteed representation by an attorney?) During rape cases in the past, ANY avenue by the defense to attack the credibility of the victim was allowed; that's no longer the case.

No, I'm not saying they're aren't huge problems in our criminal-justice system today. I'm speaking in relative terms. Things are better now, not worse. The past was NOT the "good old days"; but people just seem to have a hard time remembering.