Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[Pliablemoose]

kylebisme, You're challenging facts already accepted, and while I'm sure watching an HBO special made by the industry that idolizes him has made you an expert on the case, I suggest you not follow the case, because he's going to be crucified. Do you think the DA is going to give him a walk? They've wanted his ass for 3 decades, and he's finally busted.

But hey an expert cocksman like Polanski that can pleasure a 13 year old anally so expertly deserves every break he can get, right?

 

[waggy]

wow blame the girl for getting raped. man some people are fucking insane.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Why after having visited Switzerland numerous times, was he now picked up?

It's a media stunt. Must be a slow news month for the US "justice" system.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

OCguy = doesn't know what "pedophile" means.

Doesn't surprise me.

Ass raping a 13 year old isn't a pedophile? What is it to you? A hero? A role model? A upstanding member of the community? Please explain.

Text

According to your own link:

The term pedophilia (or paedophilia) has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, law enforcement, and the vernacular.

and

In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).

You're posting links which refute your point.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: waggy
wow blame the girl for getting raped. man some people are fucking insane.

Well, everyone knows how seductive those sexy sexy 13 year olds are......

If Polanski had attempted to hide in the US, he likely would have been killed.

The other issue is that girls didn't develop as quickly back then as they do now, it was 30 years ago.

Something's up in Europe about him, you don't just give someone up after 30 years....

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

Nice gereralization turd. I'm a lib and I say execute.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Why after having visited Switzerland numerous times, was he now picked up?

The Swiss claim that in the past they never had advance warning of when he would be in the country. This time, however, there was a widely publicized event to honor Polanski, and he'd said in advance he would be there.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Ass raping a 13 year old isn't a pedophile? What is it to you? A hero? A role model? A upstanding member of the community? Please explain.

First of all, a single case of sex with an underage person does not make the perpetrator a pedophile. It makes them a statutory rapist. Using "pedophile" in this situation would be akin to calling a person who committed a single forcible rape a "serial rapist".


Second of all, the fact that the girl was underage is what makes Polanski's actions constitute statutory rape. Your term, "ass rape," implies forcible (non-statutory) sodomy, a MUCH more serious crime.

And yes, Polanski has, as far as I know, been an "upstanding citizen" ever since the original event. Polanski's attorneys DID appear before a judge in Los Angeles in December and - because of the revelations of misconduct by the original judge - attempted to get the charges dismissed. The judge ruled that Polanski himself would have to appear to make the plea.

In light of the foregoing and as I wrote in my original post, I think some sort of compromise is in order, along the following lines:

1. Since the original judge reneged on the original plea bargain, Polanski is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

2. A NEW plea bargain is arranged whereby Polanski agrees to serve a modest additional sentence (say 60 days). And this time the judge honors it.

3. I see absolutely no reason why such a plea bargain could not be arranged long-distance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: waggy
wow blame the girl for getting raped. man some people are fucking insane.

Insane yes, but if you took seriously my claim that we hate ourselves you would more easily understand this phenomenon. Self hate is the process of internalizing the feelings of guilt laid on us, similar to the Stockholm syndrome, as it were, where we side with the parental authority as just prosecutors of us guilty victims and thus against all victims.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: shiraFirst of all, a single case of sex with an underage person does not make the perpetrator a pedophile. It makes them a statutory rapist.

actually yes a single case of sex with a underage person does make him a pedophile. how can you say otherwise? thats just silly.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shiraFirst of all, a single case of sex with an underage person does not make the perpetrator a pedophile. It makes them a statutory rapist.

actually yes a single case of sex with a underage person does make him a pedophile. how can you say otherwise? thats just silly.

And usually people don't get caught the first time they do something. I doubt this was the first time he did this.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Just imagine if this was a Republican Senator who had been caught doing this. People would be screaming death penalty.

As if Republican senators would go for 13 year old girls.

Well, Cantor might.

Game, set, match - you served that troll

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

And usually people don't get caught the first time they do something. I doubt this was the first time he did this.

Like I said, I have a feeling something is up in Europe, it's easier/cheaper/more politically correct for them to just arrest him on the old charges and let the US deal with him.

The interesting thing will be how the court deals with his flagrant disregard for the US courts...

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Which he accepted and honored until it became obvious the judge was planing to imprison Polanski in contradiction to the findings of both of the judge's own ordered psychological evaluations, and against the wishes of the victim and her family.

Let me see ... are you saying that someone out on bail should feel free to flee the jurisdiction if it seems that things might not turn out as rosily as he hoped?

The wishes of the family have zero to do with the state's obligation to protect minors. Parents don't get to deliver up their minor children to sexual predators -- wittingly or unwittingly -- then argue for leniency for the perpetrators. And the wishes of a vulnerable 13-year old have little to do with the interests of society in seeing that adults who take advantage of them are punished.

So, had you read that? Considering the way many such as yourself are arguing here, I wouldn't have expected to find anything like that in there.

What you would have expected to find is pretty much irrelevant. I'm not sure why you think that the fact that this particular girl was already going off the rails (which some might say more than justified the judge's inclination to ignore her parents' wishes) should exonerate Polanski.

You may have been persuaded by the movie that Polanski and friends produced but it is still up to the courts in California to adjudicate.

FYI: What other states call Statutory Rape is "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" in California. It is not a "lesser" crime than rape, it is a different crime -- and still a felony. Rape implies that both parties have the ability to consent and one withholds that consent. In the case of minors, the state does not recognize such ability and therefore all sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor is considered unlawful. In other words, your insistence that he did not plead guilty of rape has no meaning to his case because there could be no such charge between an adult as a minor in California.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: alchemize
Time passing has nothing to do with a crime was committed and he never paid for the crime (a pretty heinous one at that). The victims feelings are irrelevant as to prosecution, if she feels strongly about it she can speak at his (re)sentencing.

I don't think this really makes sense. How is there a crime if there is no victim. Who are you to re-victimize a victim if a victim has somehow forgiven or does not want to be dragged back into the situation. You would make a rapist out of underage lovers because the law is the law is the law. The law is an attempt to formalize what we think is just but it is never exact. We lock up folk who steal bread to feed their children. Justice should be swift and the longer it takes the less it looks like justice. The Polanski of 31 years ago is dead. We have captured a different person. What is the rational of punishing him? The only one I can find is the notion that a society must make it known that they will stop punish even the well placed if they harm others. I don't believe that punishment it totally effective in stopping criminal acts, but I don't think it is totally without effect either. Let folk fear doing evil over doing it, I would say. Better still is that they be self governed by their own virtue, however.

1) Don't try to equate this to "underage lovers". He gave her champagn and ludes, fucked her, then ass-raped her, despite her protestations, and hasn't served his sentence.
2) Yes, when the beaten wife doesn't want her husband prosecuted either, then there is no victim, right?

While I think that Roman P. did a horrible thing and deserves to serve time I feel very bad that the media and prosecutors have effectively been ruining this girls life.

Oh, I see ..... the media and prosecutors raped her too?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Ihey8neocons

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Polanski's confession-it's part of the record.

Can you substantiate this claim? Best I can tell, the only one's claiming anything beyond oral sex are simply those ignorant of the legal definition of sodomy.

Go find it yourself. He performed oral sex on her, he screwed her vaginally and he screwed her anally. It's part of the testimony.

Gee, that more ways than Bush screwed America.

Ding ...ding ... ding .... ladies and gentlemen we have a winner
Partisan hack of the day!!! It was just a matter of time before some idiot tried to politicize this.
Congratulations troll ...... now take your trophy and go home.

 

[thraashman]

Funny thing is, from what I've read, if he's brought back to the US the case will likely be dismissed. It seems that the judge broke several rules of conduct and laws and made this an unlawful and unfair trial. It is fully possible for a reason to get a case dismissed based on prosecutorial or judicial misconduct.

Also, from what I've read his 42 days in psychiatric evaluation were not his sentence, but a court-ordered evaluation. This is something a court can order that does not count as a sentence, but it would possibly have an affect on what his sentencing became. Sentencing is separate from trial and you can't plea your sentence as much usually. I do know that when you plea bargain the judge has to accept a plea or deny it, and if a judge accepts it and then chooses to ignore the conditions of the plea then you are within your legal rights to vacate your guilty plea.

Seeing as I was not alive when this happened, I can't completely comment on it. Seems to me he should have received a more fair trial and his guilty plea should have had him sentenced to serving 3-5, likely serving 2-3 in the end.

Doesn't change that he is a brilliant director and has made many great films.

 

[piasabird]

So cant he be arrested for being a bond jumper? If he was free on bond then he fled prosecution so that may be a lot easier to prove. That alone is almost an admission of guilt. He does not deserve a pardon. You have to be guilty of a crime before you can be pardoned. If he only gets a few months in jail and is forced to pay up on the bond, and the dollar amount for extradition, he should have to pay for his crime of not appearing in court, and a charge of disrespect to the court.

Criminals do not deserve a free ride home. People deserve closure. It might be worth it for him to be able to visit and return to the USA. Either dont extradite him or charge him with every crime possible. There can be no middle of the road. If the USA has to pay for his flight home, he must be charged.

 

[Fern]

Meh, I'd prefer the status quo - let him remain in exile and not re-hash a 30 yr old story.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, by his own admission he raped a child. That's pretty damn bad, and I'm glad he was arrested.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I'd prefer the status quo - let him remain in exile and not re-hash a 30 yr old story.

Fern

If he would have raped your daughter, sister, mother, 30 years ago would you still say that?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Seeing as I was not alive when this happened, I can't completely comment on it. Seems to me he should have received a more fair trial and his guilty plea should have had him sentenced to serving 3-5, likely serving 2-3 in the end.

I remember when it happened...and I remember being appalled that he never made any claim of innocence. I kept wondering how a man that age justfied what he had done and how many others daughters of celebrity-struck parents he may have victimized.

Funny thing is, from what I've read, if he's brought back to the US the case will likely be dismissed. It seems that the judge broke several rules of conduct

Careful there...his lawyers are claim misconduct but there is no legal agreement about that.

FWIW, if the same thing were to happen today, he would be sentenced to 4 years in prison and fined $25,000.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: marincounty
I wish the Swiss and US govts would show the same kind of effort to bust all of the tax cheats using Swiss banks that they do busting a fugitive over a 30 year old rape case.

Your lack of knowledge of current events does not mean that we should not bust a pedo.


http://www.azstarnet.com/altds/pastframe/news/305653

Your ignorance is astounding, and I never suggested not busting this guy. I just wish the Swiss and US govts would expend similar resources busting tax cheats that they do going after statutory rapist fugitives that have been on the lam for thirty years.

Text

When the Internal Revenue Service announced a deal last month that would force Switzerland to reveal the names of thousands of Americans suspected of offshore tax evasion, the agency called it a major step forward. But tax lawyers and former government officials have begun to question whether the deal might allow some large tax cheats to remain in hiding.

While Switzerland has agreed to expand its definition of tax fraud, it has not disclosed any specifics. Under the accord, UBS will turn over client names to the Swiss tax authorities, which will review them and decide whether to forward them to the I.R.S. As a result, tax lawyers said, some large, cash-only accounts may not be disclosed because Swiss authorities may find no evidence of fraud.
UBS has said that it has 52,000 American clients ? the number originally sought by the I.R.S. and the Justice Department ? meaning that it will disclose fewer than one in ten names. Those 4,450 clients hold a total of $18 billion in assets
They are understandably trying to spook people into coming forward,? Mr. Rosenbloom said. ?I doubt that strategy works for large account holders, particularly in a world where they will receive notice from UBS in advance of a disclosure. They will, of course, wait to see whether that notice arrives. And I suspect some will escape the filters.?

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Why is it that the P&N liberals are defending this asshole?

So liberal = soft on pedos?

Doesnt surprise me.

Originally posted by: Fern
Meh, I'd prefer the status quo - let him remain in exile and not re-hash a 30 yr old story.

Fern

Hmm, didn't realize Fern was a liberal.

As for my own opinion: From a legal standpoint it seems like a tangled mess, but at the end of the day, I think Polanski is a piece of shit for what he did, and I won't feel sorry for him if he ends up going to jail.

Also, it's very stupid for Europeans to point to this whole extradition process and cry about the big scary American boogeyman. There are many instances where the U.S. does things internationally that disgust me, but persuing sanctions against a statutory rapist is not one of them. Them complaining about this just gives more ammunition to the isolationists that want to to ignore international opinion. Good job assholes.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Craig234
This seems like a poor use of resources for these reasons:

- The victim does not want this pursued

It's not a civil case.

*Obviously*. If it were, this wouldn't be a quwstion. It's a *factor* on the issue.

- He served 42 days which is the original sentence the defense and prosecution agreed on

The 42 days were for a psychiatric evaluation. He fled before sentencing. Defense/prosecution agreement isn't the necessary end, too.

*Obviously.* If it were, this wouldn't be an issue. It's a *factor* on the issue.

- The lack of any further such crimes in over 3 decades

He was a fugitive over the 3 decades. War criminals (especially Nazis) are also pursued after decades of no longer committing similar crimes they are sought for.

One *factor* is whether the guy is a career criminal/repeat offended/menace to society. Usually courts have to try to predict, in this case we have history - he's not.

Your raising nazis is illogical inflammatory hyperbole, not an relvant point.

[1]

- Those factors combined with the time involved, his effective exile from the US and his reputation seems that the resources are better spent elsewhere.

Those last factors seem like exactly why resources should be spent on this.

He needs to face some sort of legal responsibility.[/quote]

Sorry I have no idea what points you are saying are why resources should be spent.