Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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?

I don't know.

I won't go into the whole "we don't let victims etc pick out the punishment because that's just revenge" thingy.

But I've read all the comments here, the woman and family don't seem to want to prosecute and that carries some weight with me. Also looks like his sentence was changed to 90 days from 40 something. Not a big sentence IMO. Around here he'd have been sentenced to decades for that crime.

But anyway, the woman doesn't care, the case is 30 yrs old, he's banned from the USA for, well, forever and that seems worse to me than a 90 day sentence. And I somehow suspect that what's gonna happen is he get's zip but can than come back to the US with a clean record (whether the case is thrown out for judicial misconduct or he gets a pardon etc.).

In this case I say "let sleeping dogs lie".

Fern

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Craig234

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

No, it's not. It is completely irrelevant in this case.

Rich people are not allowed to buy the silence of their victims to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

The American legal system is not the European legal system. The same system is supposed to apply to everyone. Even President Clinton has faced sanctions for his disregard of the judicial system. We are not supposed to have an out for royalty/aristocracy.

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.

Yes, fleeing is a huge negative factor and a reason to use resources against him. Complete disregard for the judicial system is dangerous to allow. See the Clinton argument above and the judge's reasoning.

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.

Yes, that is one of many factors among one philosophical school of thought of people interested in the public policy issues of punishment. In the real world there is a balance and considerations among many different issues. Another important factor is deterrence.

Remember, Polanski is wanted more for just the original crime. He is also wanted for fleeing.

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

Sorry, it is not. Many people are pursued for their crimes through the decades. It is an internationally acceptable legal doctrine. The difference here is that Polanski already plead guilty. He's in a much worse legal position.

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

That's a pity.

 

[JS80]

lol why am i not surprised the leftys here are defending this guy

 

[Pliablemoose]

I have yet to see a parent defend the SOB...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the facts of the original trial are really a moot point.

Only to those who insist on arguing from ignorance here.

Originally posted by: loki8481
he was found guilty and fled justice.

Alleged "justice", based on your admitted willful ignorance of the matter.

Originally posted by: loki8481
had he stuck around, he'd have faced like 90 days in prison, but he chose to become a fugitive.

A prison sentence is one year at the minimum, and actions of the judge suggest he was planning notably more.

Originally posted by: Athena
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?

I'm saying that it is absurd to expect someone who is in danger of being lynched by a kangaroo court to just stick around, just as the the victim, the prosecution and defense attorneys, and various other witness to the matter have said.

Originally posted by: Athena
The wishes of the family have zero to do with the state's obligation to protect minors

Ignoring your dispute here, do you also believe the findings of the court appointed psychological evaluations have nothing do with the state's obligation to protect minors? Furthermore, do you believe the findings of the state appointed prosecuting attorney has nothing do with the state's obligation to protect minors?

Originally posted by: Athena
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.

Your confusion here is obviously based in you deluding yourself into believing I had suggested exoneration. I am only suggesting consideration of the relevant facts of Polanski's crimes. Aapparently that is too much to ask from many of you, so you delude yourself into imagining reasons to wag your finger at me instead.

Originally posted by: Athena
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.

If you had the attention span to comprehend the integrity of my comments in this thread, you'd know that I was not persuaded by the documentary, but rather the facts it presented only further substantiated my perspective here.

Originally posted by: Athena
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.

For your information:

Polanski was later charged with rape and five other felonies before later pleading guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor...

This is a well documented fact, so I hope you will understand why I respect it rather than the "information" you've obviously pulled out your ass.

Originally posted by: Athena
I remember when it happened...and I remember being appalled that he never made any claim of innocence.

So you would have though better of him had he lied?

Originally posted by: Athena
Careful there...his lawyers are claim misconduct but there is no legal agreement about that.

Not just his lawyer, but the prosecuting lawyer as well, together filed a formal complaint against the judge, and an agreement was reached:

Gunson and Dalton later succeeded in having Rittenband removed from the case.

I had stated as much previously. Why are you so careless as to spout lies to the contrary, and how have you deluded yourself into thinking you are in any position to caution others here?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Craig234

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

No, it's not. It is completely irrelevant in this case.

I disagree and view this as relvant to the moral issue.

Rich people are not allowed to buy the silence of their victims to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

The American legal system is not the European legal system. The same system is supposed to apply to everyone. Even President Clinton has faced sanctions for his disregard of the judicial system. We are not supposed to have an out for royalty/aristocracy.

You sound like you are briniging an existing agenda and applying it. What does 'rich person' have to do with the point under discusion, thevicti's wishes?

If the issue were about his getting off because he's rich, we'd agree, he shouldn't.

Just because he's rich doesn't mean that's the issue. It's not in this discussion.

I'm *very* against the rich buying their own justice. Now let's talk about this case.

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.

Yes, fleeing is a huge negative factor and a reason to use resources against him. Complete disregard for the judicial system is dangerous to allow. See the Clinton argument above and the judge's reasoning.

The *prosecution* agreed that the 42 days he spent was adequate punishment. That's a pretty strong indication a case can be made that it was.

Serving the time the prosecution says is a fair sentence is a far cry from fleeing after serving no time.

As I said, it's a factor. Yes, there's a point to what you're saying as well - but it's a gray issue, not black and white. Was the judge being excessive going beyond the prosecution?

We can't let defendants decide they are and simply evade the system, but again it's a factor, and there are others.

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.

Yes, that is one of many factors among one philosophical school of thought of people interested in the public policy issues of punishment. In the real world there is a balance and considerations among many different issues. Another important factor is deterrence.

Remember, Polanski is wanted more for just the original crime. He is also wanted for fleeing.

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

Sorry, it is not. Many people are pursued for their crimes through the decades. It is an internationally acceptable legal doctrine. The difference here is that Polanski already plead guilty. He's in a much worse legal position.

Yes, it is. The fact that you can't distinguish between Polanski and nazi war criminals from the holocaust indicates to me you are not reasonable and likely not rational.

There are many crimes with statutes of limitations and other lesser treatment, because not every criminal is a nazi leader, no matter how fun it is for you to play the Nazi card.

You make any discussion pointless with your obstinate absurdity.

You seem locked on to one point of view, and are simply ignoring any other points about the case, it seems to me. Blinders on.

You've stated your points, I've listened and stated mine, I'm not seeing much more promising at this point.

But it seems to me that you have latched on to Polanski as some sort of poster child for you to get some cause you believe in furthered.

Celebrities who develop a sense of entitlement and abuse others disgust me. Michael Vick is an example, I guess, and the consumers who support their getting off disgust me as well, just because the consumers want to see them play ball or whatever. If the question were Polanski evading justice for this when he did it, I'd be against it.

But justice does not seem served to me at this point on this for his criminal mistake over 30 years ago. But you are not seeming to response to my points much IMO.

You are locked in to one angle - he's a celebrity who cheated the system, so you want him punished, without regard for the various other factors that weigh on the situation.

 

[RabidMongoose]

How exactly is Roman Polanski buying off the victim via settling the civil suit that was filed related to any sort of 'moral issue'?

Polanski needs to be brought to justice and pay for his crime. The fact that there may have been some issues in the legal proceedings of the past is not an excuse to justify his fugitive flight or excuse 30 years later. He needs to PROPERLY face the judicial system, whatever the end result may be.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: 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?

If your daughter/sister/mother insisted on dropping the charges, sure. Add to that the fact that this 13 year old was no stranger to alcohol, Quaaludes, or anal sex.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 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?

If your daughter/sister/mother insisted on dropping the charges, sure. Add to that the fact that this 13 year old was no stranger to alcohol, Quaaludes, or anal sex.

The state can prosecute regardless of the opinion of the victim; your point is irrelevant. Additionally it has no bearing at all on the bearing of the case if the 13 year old was indeed "no stranger to alcohol, Quaaludes, or anal sex" - sexual assault is still sexual assault. Again making your other point completely irrelevant.

My mind is completely boggled that there are individuals who are actually attempting to defend the actions of this cretin.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: 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?

If your daughter/sister/mother insisted on dropping the charges, sure. Add to that the fact that this 13 year old was no stranger to alcohol, Quaaludes, or anal sex.

LOL - yeah, let's blame the rape victim.

Is this a freaking joke? You just perfectly typed down what was wrong with the judicial system in regards to women. Congrats! Do you think that the sexual history of every women involved in a rape crime should be brought up, too?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The fact that there may have been some issues in the legal proceedings of the past is not an excuse to justify his fugitive flight or excuse 30 years later. He needs to PROPERLY face the judicial system, whatever the end result may be.

We flagrantly failed to give him anything resembling a proper judicial system to face. Is there any chance you'll ever be able to come to terms with such facts?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
The fact that there may have been some issues in the legal proceedings of the past is not an excuse to justify his fugitive flight or excuse 30 years later. He needs to PROPERLY face the judicial system, whatever the end result may be.

We flagrantly failed to give him anything resembling a proper judicial system to face. Is there any chance you'll ever be able to come to terms with such facts?

No, he had issues with one aspect of the system, not the entire judicial system as a whole. Instead of electing to use the legal system, he decided to flee and remain a fugitive.

Lastly, I said that there may have been issues in his legal proceedings. However, that does not excuse him from flagrantly violating the law just because he's rich and famous.

People here have a truly bizarre sense of the law. Do you really think that people should be free to run away and disregard the legal system just because they don't like what may happen to them?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

People here have a truly bizarre sense of the law. Do you really think that people should be free to run away and disregard the legal system just because they don't like what may happen to them?

Actually, I think the answer to your question is less clear-cut than you seem to think:

Suppose I'm about to make a decision as to whether aggressively fight a charge or plead guilty.

To aggressively fight the charge might mean dragging this young girl through the gutter to "prove" that she was blameworthy and/or that the facts are not as she has presented them. I realize that if I follow this route, I have a good chance of winning, but at the cost of really making this young girl's life miserable and of bringing down unpredictable bad publicity on myself.

Alternatively, the prosecutor represents that there's a guaranteed "softer" route, where I can serve a small sentence, avoid attacking the girl, and - with the court records sealed - keep the matter completely secret. The judge indicates he'll go along with this.

So, the second alternative sounds very attractive. I plead guilty to the lesser charge. I go to jail for the 42-day evaluation period, and there's an agreed-upon minor sentence of 60 days (or whatever) to follow.

Unfortunately, as the date for the follow-up sentencing approaches, word leaks out that the judge has changed his mind, and will pronounce a much longer sentence. "But he can't do that!" you and your attorney cry. And the prosecuting attorney shrugs his shoulders and says, "I didn't think so, either, but apparently he can."

So, you've been MISLED by the court system. If you'd been CORRECTLY informed, you would have made a very different decision (the aggressive track), and likely would face no jail time at all.

Given the acknowledged misconduct of the presiding judge in the actual case, and given that we CANNOT possibly know would have happened if Polanski had followed a different route if the system has played straight with him (informing him from the start, for example, that the judge would be free to pronounce a long sentence even with a plea bargain), I think the ethics of his fleeing the country is very much subject to debate.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
No, he had issues with one aspect of the system, not the entire judicial system as a whole.

You are correct on this point. The prosecution was reasonable, as were the court appointed psychologists, only the pathological egomaniac of a judge was an issue, but that was the guy who held all the power to persecute Polanski far beyond any sense of reason.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Instead of electing to use the legal system, he decided to flee and remain a fugitive.

He went through our legal system, putting him though various hearings, two psychological evaluations, one lasting 42 days in a prison. During that period he also got legal permission to go direct a movie in Europe (a remake of a crappy script he would have never even looked at if the costs of the trial hadn't sucked him dry). When the judge flipped out over seeing a picture of him at Oktoberfest during the making of the film, Polanski came back at the orders of that judge. It was only after the judge had shown he had lost all sense of reason did Polanski skip out.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Lastly, I said that there may have been issues in his legal proceedings.

Right, you stand in willful ignorance to all the facts I've provided while claiming "there may have been", as if you can't figure out the total of 2 + 2.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
However, that does not excuse him from flagrantly violating the law just because he's rich and famous.

He wasn't particularly rich at the time, and had he not been famous the judge wouldn't have been motivated play up to a lynch mob mentality fueled by a lust for media attention.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
People here have a truly bizarre sense of the law. Do you really think that people should be free to run away and disregard the legal system just because they don't like what may happen to them?

You've got sense of justice I've seen many times before, in places like Soviet Russia.

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Athena
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.

Your confusion here is obviously based in you deluding yourself into believing I had suggested exoneration. I am only suggesting consideration of the relevant facts of Polanski's crimes. Aapparently that is too much to ask from many of you, so you delude yourself into imagining reasons to wag your finger at me instead.

What possible relevance do any of the things you so 'unexpectedly' found in her testimony have on the case?

What relevance to the case is it wether she'd ever drunken alcohol before, or taken prescription drugs? Or had sex?!

I can tell you right away what relevance it has: NONE.

Would be interesting to hear your most likely confused reasoning on the matter though. He fed her the alcohol, and the quaaludes, and when she had neither the ability nor the will to resist him he raped her. That pretty much makes him lower than whaleshit in my opinion. And afterwards he confessed to everything, and ran away like a coward. None of the facts in the case are the slightest bit affected by wether the victim had ever used drugs, alcohol or had sex prior to getting drugged up and raped.

That there were irregularities in his trial is not an excuse to elude justice for 30 years, there's such a thing as retrials and appeals to cover such eventualities. Now that he's finally been caught for his despiccable deeds, we can do what should have been done in the 1970s...lock him up, and throw away the key.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
You are correct on this point. The prosecution was reasonable, as were the court appointed psychologists, only pathological egomaniac of a judge was the issue, but that was the guy who had the power to persecute Polanski far beyond any sense of reason.

Again, a single aspect of the legal system in which there are rules and procedures to correctly address.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
He went though our legal system putting him though various hearings, two psychological evaluations, one lasting 42 days in a prison. During that time he also got legal permission to go direct a movie in Europe (a remake of a crappy script he would have never even looked at if the costs of the trial hadn't sucked him dry). When the judge flipped out over seeing a picture of him at Oktoberfest during the making of the film, Polanski came back at the orders of that judge. It was only after the judge had shown he had lost all sense of reason did Polanski skip out.

Again, he could have pursued proper legal remedies but instead chose to become a fugitive.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Right, you stand in willful ignorance to all the facts I've provided while claiming "there may have been", as if you can't figure out the total of 2 + 2.

And you stand in willful ignorance of proper legal proceedings.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
He wasn't particularly rich at the time, and had he not been famous the judge wouldn't have been motivated play up to a lynch mob mentality fueled by a lust for media attention.

Um, if he hadn't been famous then he would have been thrown into prison and not been allowed to spend a nice time in Europe before the sentencing.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
You've got sense of justice I've seen many times before, in places like Soviet Russia.

And you've got a sense of justice I've seen many times before, in places like Somalia where there is no proper law and order.

Do you feel that it is appropriate to just disregard and abandon a legal proceeding in which you disagree with? You are, quite simply, an anarchist. Or, really, you feel that if you're rich and famous, then you should be your own judge, jury, legislator, and all.

 

[AAjax]

Selective enforcement is the cornerstone of corruption.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

People here have a truly bizarre sense of the law. Do you really think that people should be free to run away and disregard the legal system just because they don't like what may happen to them?

Actually, I think the answer to your question is less clear-cut than you seem to think:

Suppose I'm about to make a decision as to whether aggressively fight a charge or plead guilty.

To aggressively fight the charge might mean dragging this young girl through the gutter to "prove" that she was blameworthy and/or that the facts are not as she has presented them. I realize that if I follow this route, I have a good chance of winning, but at the cost of really making this young girl's life miserable and of bringing down unpredictable bad publicity on myself.

Alternatively, the prosecutor represents that there's a guaranteed "softer" route, where I can serve a small sentence, avoid attacking the girl, and - with the court records sealed - keep the matter completely secret. The judge indicates he'll go along with this.

So, the second alternative sounds very attractive. I plead guilty to the lesser charge. I go to jail for the 42-day evaluation period, and there's an agreed-upon minor sentence of 60 days (or whatever) to follow.

Unfortunately, as the date for the follow-up sentencing approaches, word leaks out that the judge has changed his mind, and will pronounce a much longer sentence. "But he can't do that!" you and your attorney cry. And the prosecuting attorney shrugs his shoulders and says, "I didn't think so, either, but apparently he can."

So, you've been MISLED by the court system. If you'd been CORRECTLY informed, you would have made a very different decision (the aggressive track), and likely would face no jail time at all.

Given the acknowledged misconduct of the presiding judge in the actual case, and given that we CANNOT possibly know would have happened if Polanski had followed a different route if the system has played straight with him (informing him from the start, for example, that the judge would be free to pronounce a long sentence even with a plea bargain), I think the ethics of his fleeing the country is very much subject to debate.

Ah, I understand. Just because a single judge has possibly misled you, then that means you can abandon the whole legal system.

I've got a crazy idea. He could have, you know, properly and legally faced his alleged crime. Instead, he decided to forgo the ENTIRE legal process and run away.

Apparently the rule of law doesn't matter if you get tired of it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Ah, I understand.

I'd be surprised if you understood the difference between your head and your ass, as I get the impression there likely isn't much of any to be found.

 

[Michael]

kylebisme


"I think the ethics of his fleeing the country is very much subject to debate."

You do realize that the act of having sex with a 13 year old even if she was 100% consenting and really really wanted to was a crime for him? A crime he admitted to. that isn't what happened as the girl in question didn't consent (skipping the legal fact that she could not legally consent).

This also happened in the USA to a man who had money and influence to fight the system if he wanted to.

Instead, he raped a child and then fled the punishment.

What is there to debate?

Michael

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Michael
kylebisme

"I think the ethics of his fleeing the country is very much subject to debate."
...

What is there to debate?

As you can't keep who said what stright, even when it is in black and white on this very page, I doubt there would be any sense in debating you.

 

[conehead433]

He should come back to the US and face the music. Spending the rest of his life in jail would probably be justice, regardless of what his victim thinks.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

People here have a truly bizarre sense of the law. Do you really think that people should be free to run away and disregard the legal system just because they don't like what may happen to them?

Actually, I think the answer to your question is less clear-cut than you seem to think:

Suppose I'm about to make a decision as to whether aggressively fight a charge or plead guilty.

To aggressively fight the charge might mean dragging this young girl through the gutter to "prove" that she was blameworthy and/or that the facts are not as she has presented them. I realize that if I follow this route, I have a good chance of winning, but at the cost of really making this young girl's life miserable and of bringing down unpredictable bad publicity on myself.

Alternatively, the prosecutor represents that there's a guaranteed "softer" route, where I can serve a small sentence, avoid attacking the girl, and - with the court records sealed - keep the matter completely secret. The judge indicates he'll go along with this.

So, the second alternative sounds very attractive. I plead guilty to the lesser charge. I go to jail for the 42-day evaluation period, and there's an agreed-upon minor sentence of 60 days (or whatever) to follow.

Unfortunately, as the date for the follow-up sentencing approaches, word leaks out that the judge has changed his mind, and will pronounce a much longer sentence. "But he can't do that!" you and your attorney cry. And the prosecuting attorney shrugs his shoulders and says, "I didn't think so, either, but apparently he can."

So, you've been MISLED by the court system. If you'd been CORRECTLY informed, you would have made a very different decision (the aggressive track), and likely would face no jail time at all.

Given the acknowledged misconduct of the presiding judge in the actual case, and given that we CANNOT possibly know would have happened if Polanski had followed a different route if the system has played straight with him (informing him from the start, for example, that the judge would be free to pronounce a long sentence even with a plea bargain), I think the ethics of his fleeing the country is very much subject to debate.

Ah, I understand. Just because a single judge has possibly misled you, then that means you can abandon the whole legal system.

I've got a crazy idea. He could have, you know, properly and legally faced his alleged crime. Instead, he decided to forgo the ENTIRE legal process and run away.

Apparently the rule of law doesn't matter if you get tired of it.

Of course, if the law doesn't serve you, it doesn't really make too much sense to follow it. Results>>Process. If the law said he should be executed it's pretty easy to see why he should escape. And he did, he was smart enough to atleast do that, though not smart enough to judge that he could get away with raping the girl.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: AAjax
Selective enforcement is the cornerstone of corruption.

:thumbsup:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: conehead433
He should come back to the US and face the music. Spending the rest of his life in jail would probably be justice, regardless of what his victim thinks.

As long as you pay for it.