Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland at U.S. request

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Any adult who molests a child, even just once, should be put to death. Period.

Ever considered moving to Iran?

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
For what offense or reason?

To save the life of someone you would otherwise have murdered.

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Having a different opinion than yours?

Of course not. As I said, I've no interest in killing anyone. Only in the position of either allowing a murder or stopping it would I ever resort to taking someone else's life.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Any adult who molests a child, even just once, should be put to death. Period.

Ever considered moving to Iran?

Nope. But, I might be convinced to visit Iran if you'll let me slaughter their ruling mullahs and Achmedinachode while I'm there.

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
For what offense or reason?

To save the life of someone you would otherwise have murdered.

My opinions murder people? weird...

I also do not consider The Death Penalty murder.

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Having a different opinion than yours?

Of course not. As I said, I've no interest in killing anyone. Only in the position of either allowing a murder or stopping it would I ever resort to taking someone else's life.

I never said that -I- would murder every proven pedophile, only that they should be put to death.

I guess that it's a good thing I'm not involved in the judicial or correctional systems, eh?

Hug any pedophiles today? :roll:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
No "mixed feelings" here. He drugged and raped a 13-year old girl.

Bullets are cheap and efficient.

kill him.

He should just face the legal system. If he gets off on a strict sense, then that's fine. We shouldn't be calling for a caste system and demean women as most Polanski supporters here have done.

Fortunately he's been apprehended and now we truly see who are the caste system supporters here.

 

[Fear No Evil]

This should help.

Should be an official government video. Maybe a new Pedophile Czar would help?

 

[LunarRay]

Shira,

Actually, I think the biggest problem for Polanski is the flight charge. Even if he could get the original charge dismissed (arguing that the guilty pleas was based on a very specific plea-bargain, and a fair trial based on a retracted guilty plea isn't possible anymore), he still faces the separate felony charge of fleeing sentencing while free on bond. Even assuming the misconduct of the judge and the threat of a 50-year sentence are considered mitigating by a (new) sentencing judge, it's hard to believe he wouldn't get a sentence of least a year or two.

I think alot hinges on whether his illegal flight terminated the plea agreement. Meaning to me that the court could impose what ever sentence was available in '77. The misconduct of the Lawyer and Judge has been now denied but still an open issue. The behavior of the judge is questionable but not defacto misconduct in my opinion. The 2nd circuit has two issues to decide. The first being dismissal for misconduct and the other failing dismissal an order to change venue to a court that does not require Polanski to be present to sentence. No idea what county that may be, if one exists.
Swiss court can wait to decide the extradition issue pending the 2nd's decision on dismissal and the venue bit. That will take some time, I think. They, the Swiss, would be hard pressed to refuse bail because the extradition part, if they have to decide that, could take quite some time as well... They can pull him back to Switzerland from any EEC country with little problem.
I'm pretty sure they can consider the Mal-justice of Polanski initially and the potential for a longer sentence now (if my opening statement is true) in their extradition decision along with the girl's request to drop along with what ever other factors might be relevant.

I think the plea bargain was wrong for the crime but that aside, I think it is wrong to pursue a dead issue. Dead cuz he served the time in accordance with the plea that produced the conviction notwithstanding the judge has the power hardly ever used to amend the sentence to reflect unknown issues at the time the plea was entered into... I believe that is true, anyhow.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira
[ ... ]

Suppose a truly innocent person is found guilty by a legitimate first-world legal system, and the person knows that there is no chance of vindicating himself (maybe it was a case of mistaken identity, and the jury was convinced). And the sentence faced by the person is substantial. Does that person have a "duty" to abide by the verdict and serve his time (or, say, accept the death penalty). OR, is it ethical for such a person to flee?

It can't be both ethical and criminal. Since it IS criminal...

Hardly a soul who has been convicted by a jury would consider justice has been served. Their premise was that they were innocent.
However, to plead guilty and to do so to comply with the best interests of the victim in concert with the prosecution creates a contract of sorts... an act for a promise. To renege on that contract assuming all else being equal produces a condition where the illegal flight is excusable but not ethical, imo. The contract or Plea in this case has to be revisited since the promise has been broken. But the key to it all is: Did Polanski know and we know his lawyer knew - he was in chambers and thus fled knowing this. What other reason could there have been to flee...
As an aside, Polanski could not willy nilly enter the US being convicted of a Sex crime. He'd need a visa with special authorization due to his conviction. So to suggest he just saunter back is plagued with the reality of that condition.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[LunarRay]

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.

I wonder if the Swiss would consider the fugitive aspect to be moot given he did serve the proscribed plea sentence that garnered the guilty plea?
His age? That Poland and France both want him released on bail? That he owns that castle in Switzerland where he lived for over 10 yrs. That he is unlikely to be able to secret himself any where to avoid detection if he fails to surrender if he is asked to? That his mother was a victim of the death camps?
I think there is alot going for him in all of this. It IS judicial and politics should not enter into it.. but they do.

I agree that it is a rare occurrence to let one out on bail but I do see why they could in his case.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I agree that it is a rare occurrence to let one out on bail but I do see why they could in his case.

Um, a convinced child molester on the run for 30+ years, dream on...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I agree that it is a rare occurrence to let one out on bail but I do see why they could in his case.

Um, a convinced child molester on the run for 30+ years, dream on...

Hence my opening comment. [I wonder if the Swiss would consider the fugitive aspect to be moot given he did serve the proscribed plea sentence that garnered the guilty plea?]

I'm looking at the facts in this case. I think he can make a reasonable argument to have bail.
Part of me wants him to be kept locked up - the part that sees the initial plea as being a mockery and the other part wants him on bail because it WAS a plea agreement that got reneged on...
Either way, I have no horse in this race although the fairness and treatment devoid of non relevant factors entices me to the event.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think there is absolutely nothing to be achieved by acting on this old charge except the notion that justice has not been served. I can't escape the feeling, regardless of ameliorating facts, that 42 days for child molestation isn't justice and folk won't let go because of that. It appalls me there was any place in the world this guy could flee.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I'm looking at the facts in this case.

The facts of the case:

1.) He pled guilty
2.) He ran before sentencing
3.) He avoided doing anything/traveling in a manner that would put him at risk of extradition
4.) The Swiss arrested him on an outstanding felony warrant
5.) The Swiss have not in recent memory granted bond/bail to anyone under similar circumstances

What's going to happen:
1.) Roman & his lawyers will fuck around and make it take forever for him to get extradited.
2.) Public opinion is 70% against the man at this point and its going to get worse
3.) Roman will just cave & allow extradition once he realizes the Swiss won't allow him to bond out
4.) The LA DA is going to have a field day with him. The guy is on his 3rd & likely last term, and I suspect going to really enjoy having Roman's scalp hanging off his belt when this is all over.
5.) I literally can't wait till he hits the CA prison system, you wouldn't believe the freak show the inmates are.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

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.

You have been defending this pedophile for 15 pages now. Maybe if you stopped watching so much porn you wouldn't be so desensitized to the situation.

The sick bastard ran from his prison sentence and is now being brought to justice. I do not see whats left to argue about.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Nope. But, I might be convinced to visit Iran if you'll let me slaughter their ruling mullahs and Achmedinachode while I'm there.

I don't have a problem with that as long as you lay off the civilians and keep my tax dollars out of it

Originally posted by: kylebisme
My opinions murder people? weird...

No, but if you aren't willing to pull the trigger yourself, your opinion on such matters means squat.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I also do not consider The Death Penalty murder.

You apparently don't consider our laws when you advocate the death penalty either, as what you are suggesting is murder under our laws, and under my understanding of morality too.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Hug any pedophiles today?

Never have. Stroke yourself a bit much?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
The sick bastard ran from his prison sentence and is now being brought to justice. I do not see whats left to argue about.

Tell me, if he is such a sick bastard, why did both court appointed psychologists suggest otherwise and recommend probation?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The facts of the case:

Rather the facts which support your argument, absent many others previously stated here.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The facts of the case:

Rather the facts which support your argument, absent many others previously stated here.

pot? meet kettle.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
The sick bastard ran from his prison sentence and is now being brought to justice. I do not see whats left to argue about.

Tell me, if he is such a sick bastard, why did both court appointed psychologists suggest otherwise and recommend probation?

Because he's rich and famous?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'm looking at the facts in this case. I think he can make a reasonable argument to have bail.

If you think that, you can't be looking at the facts. Bail is a promise to appear. He's been avoiding appearing for over 30 years and there would be no reason to believe that he wouldn't just pick up and go to some other non-extraditable country to finish out his life.

it WAS a plea agreement that got reneged on...

This argument really bothers me; a plea agreement between lawyers is not binding on a judge. All plea bargains are subject to approval of the court and nothing is binding until the judge lowers the gavel. The idea that a plea agreement is an inviolable perogative of the defendant is misguided. Judges ignore plea agreements (and in some cases jury verdicts) quite frequently. Polansky's recourse was to submit to a trial and appeal if he was not satisfied with the result.

There are thousands of people in prisons across the country who a) got a worse deal that they were expecting out of a deal and/or who fled the jurisdiction while awaiting sentencing and ended up getting worse punishment as a result. The main difference between those folks and Polansky is that he had enough money to flee the country and continue with his life. I just don't see how anyone could think that he is somehow entitled to better treatment that meted out to the average lawbreaker.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The facts of the case:

Rather the facts which support your argument, absent many others previously stated here.

LOL, let's put a bit of a wager on it shall we?

$100 paypal says he gets extradited & serves time, and that the Swiss won't allow bail/bond.

I'll bet one of the mods will be our bag man for the bet.

Just to clarify, I'll lose if any of the 3 happen:

1.) The Swiss allow bail
2.) He's not extradited
3.) He serves no time in California for any charge

(of course, your lunatic bs won't allow you to accept, because it's all a massive conspiracy against POOR ROMAN, LEAVE HIM ALONE1111!!!!!ONE

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The facts of the case:

Rather the facts which support your argument, absent many others previously stated here.

pot? meet kettle.

You must be delusional. I've stated many facts which incriminate Polanski here, as I don't shy away from the facts in any situation, and I certainly don't make summaries claiming "the facts in the case" while only listing one side of the those I've seen.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
$100 paypal says he gets extradited & serves time, and that the Swiss won't allow bail/bond.

I made no claim to the contrary, have no interest in speculating on such matters, and am at a loss as to how you deluded yourself into believing otherwise.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The facts of the case:

Rather the facts which support your argument, absent many others previously stated here.

pot? meet kettle.

You must be delusional. I've stated many facts which incriminate Polanski here, as I don't shy away from the facts in any situation, and I certainly don't make summaries claiming "the facts in the case" while only listing one side of the those I've seen.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
$100 paypal says he gets extradited & serves time, and that the Swiss won't allow bail/bond.

I made no claim to the contrary, have no interest in speculating on such matters, and am at a loss as to how you deluded yourself into believing otherwise.

Your continued posting in this thread?

Just like I thought, all hat and no horse. STFU and go troll some board where people live in your crazy land BS.

 

[kylebisme]

You are the lunatic who ignored my dispute with your comment to challenge me on a claim I never made, and yet you think you have some place to call me a troll. That is rich in comedy.