• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Roman Polanski's bid to drop sex case delayed

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
only in america would a child rapist get a standing ovation....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccQaW99vOkI
Click to expand...

Umm no he's a virtual hero in Europe. Particularly in France. Most people there view what he did either as not rape or as consenual. It fits with the looser European views of sexuality. And there is some evidence that the victim in this case was something of a nympho from what I've seen. Add the fact that he was as American embracing european culture and you have one hero.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: senseamp
We got more than enough prisoners to pay for here in CA already, do we really need to go all the way out to Switzerland to get some new ones?
BTW, if Polanski is in CA prison and gets movie royalties, does he have to pay CA taxes on those? Is he considered CA resident? Then it may make some sense.
Click to expand...



what if someone drugged your 13 y/o daughter and then raped her. would you just excuse him because the prison system is burdened?
Click to expand...

May be not, but this is not her father vs Roman Polanski, this is people of CA vs Roman Polanski, and I don't see what the state interest is in bringing this guy back from Europe if he is no danger to the people of California, and the victim doesn't even want him in jail, especially when we are letting people out of jail who are real danger to the community, because of overcrowding.
 
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
only in america would a child rapist get a standing ovation....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccQaW99vOkI
Click to expand...

Umm no he's a virtual hero in Europe. Particularly in France. Most people there view what he did either as not rape or as consenual. It fits with the looser European views of sexuality. And there is some evidence that the victim in this case was something of a nympho from what I've seen. Add the fact that he was as American embracing european culture and you have one hero.
Click to expand...

not virtual, he's got honored positions in french academies or somethin. very real. anyways they don't seem to be worried that he's going to molest their children😛
 
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: torpid

I know the term. I was being sarcastic.

It does apply because he has already been tried and a plea agreement was reached. 90 day psych evaluation. The reason he fled the country is that the highly unethical judge, despite the plea agreement and partial sentence completed, was going to impose another sentence on top of the one reached through a plea in order to save face. Even the prosecutor has admitted this was going to happen.

Double jeopardy does not only apply to being acquitted. It also applies to being convicted. You cannot be tried and convicted twice for the same crime. The only possible "retrial" would be for the sentencing.

Should there be another trial and another sentence beyond the one agreed to, he would be tried again after being convected, and a possible second punishment enacted. Both are forms of double jeopardy.

Even redoing the sentencing would likely be immediately struck down on appeal since there is clear evidence that the judge had agreed to a plea and begun executing the sentence.
Click to expand...

He fled the country thus his plea deal is out the window. His conviction still stands. So it doesn't matter what the judge "might" have done because he didn't do it and Polanski fled. If you don't want to go to FPMITAP don't rape children.
Click to expand...

But the judge reneged on the plea deal that was agreed to by all parties. So it's OK for a judge to spit in the face of the judicial system?
Click to expand...


You know nothing about the judicial system do you? Judges have the final say over plea deals. You could work out a sweet plea deal with the DA and the judge can deny it. Judges set the sentance, the DA just ask for what they want.
 
Last I checked, he had not served his time in jail, and he hasn't yet been punished for fleeing. If there are allegations of judicial misconduct, he can have his defense lawyers argue that in court to try and win a retrial.

Bottom line, he's guilty of the crime, whether the victim wants to pursue it or not. He needs to rot in jail.... permanently.
 
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Last I checked, he had not served his time in jail, and he hasn't yet been punished for fleeing. If there are allegations of judicial misconduct, he can have his defense lawyers argue that in court to try and win a retrial.

Bottom line, he's guilty of the crime, whether the victim wants to pursue it or not. He needs to rot in jail.... permanently.
Click to expand...

Thats the funny thing. At a retrail they could bring the full charges back. So even the charge he pled to was a sweet deal. I am sure his lawyers have already told him this so his best option was to pled guilty and serve his time. But instead he ran and now his only hope is he can get out of the swiss jail and flee again to the child rapist loving country known as France.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
only in america would a child rapist get a standing ovation....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccQaW99vOkI
Click to expand...

Umm no he's a virtual hero in Europe. Particularly in France. Most people there view what he did either as not rape or as consenual. It fits with the looser European views of sexuality. And there is some evidence that the victim in this case was something of a nympho from what I've seen. Add the fact that he was as American embracing european culture and you have one hero.
Click to expand...

not virtual, he's got honored positions in french academies or somethin. very real. anyways they don't seem to be worried that he's going to molest their children😛
Click to expand...

I think our view of the word 'molest' and their views are... oceans apart. So to speak.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
I can't believe there are people here actually defending a child rapist. Ok maybe I can.
Click to expand...

in the other thread there was a few blaming the girl..
 
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: JD50
I can't believe there are people here actually defending a child rapist. Ok maybe I can.
Click to expand...

in the other thread there was a few blaming the girl..
Click to expand...

Yea I saw that but did not replay as I know I would be banned for a long time from here if i wrote what i was thinking to the ass's that blamed a 13 year old girl for getting drugged then raped. :|
 
Originally posted by: between
it was 30 years ago - who cares. not even the victim, apparently.
he hasn't re-offended and is now basically an upstanding, productive member of society. time to move on, people.
Click to expand...

Uhh no. He was convicted and then fled the country to avoid jail time. You don't 'move on' when somebody does that. The fact that this was a man who drugged and anally raped a 13-year old girl twice just makes the whole fleeing justice thing worse.
 
Originally posted by: between
it was 30 years ago - who cares. not even the victim, apparently.
he hasn't re-offended and is now basically an upstanding, productive member of society. time to move on, people.
Click to expand...

while i feel sorry for the victim. Every time this comes up the story is told and it seems with more details.

BUT the guy was convicted and fleed. he needs to pay for that. the courts can't move on after that.

sad part is this asshole is going to get at most a year if that in prison. Then he will be the hollywood darling and everyone will want to do a movie with him. After makeing this poor womens life hell for 30 years now.

 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: torpid

I know the term. I was being sarcastic.

It does apply because he has already been tried and a plea agreement was reached. 90 day psych evaluation. The reason he fled the country is that the highly unethical judge, despite the plea agreement and partial sentence completed, was going to impose another sentence on top of the one reached through a plea in order to save face. Even the prosecutor has admitted this was going to happen.

Double jeopardy does not only apply to being acquitted. It also applies to being convicted. You cannot be tried and convicted twice for the same crime. The only possible "retrial" would be for the sentencing.

Should there be another trial and another sentence beyond the one agreed to, he would be tried again after being convected, and a possible second punishment enacted. Both are forms of double jeopardy.

Even redoing the sentencing would likely be immediately struck down on appeal since there is clear evidence that the judge had agreed to a plea and begun executing the sentence.
Click to expand...

He fled the country thus his plea deal is out the window. His conviction still stands. So it doesn't matter what the judge "might" have done because he didn't do it and Polanski fled. If you don't want to go to FPMITAP don't rape children.
Click to expand...

But the judge reneged on the plea deal that was agreed to by all parties. So it's OK for a judge to spit in the face of the judicial system?
Click to expand...


You know nothing about the judicial system do you? Judges have the final say over plea deals. You could work out a sweet plea deal with the DA and the judge can deny it. Judges set the sentance, the DA just ask for what they want.
Click to expand...

I understand that that's the risk you take when pleading guilty. However...

You know nothing about this case, do you?

From CHUD

and

"Are you aware judge Rittenband asked a reporter what sentence he should give Polanski? That's illegal. He also told a man at the Hillcrest Country Club that he was going to put Polanski away for the rest of his life, when he'd already agreed to a 90 day sentence at Chino. The judge also told both attorney's handling the case, the prosecutor and the defense attorney how they were to argue their sides of the case, which had never happened before, and is extremely unprofessional. Basically the judge was a loose canon and had broken the law himself...Polanski got wind of all this and left the country.

Polanski was not treated within the bounds of justice."


A shocker for the American legal system.

I'm not saying what Roman did was good. Hell no, he's scum for doing that to the 13 year old girl. Two things, though:

One, Polanski survived the Holocaust and had his 8-month pregnant wife murdered in the most popular and sensational case of the 60's. He's not all there. Plus, the culture of Hollywood in the 70's would shock each and every one of you here. This in no way shape or form excuses him, but it gives you an idea of his mindset (I mean, this happened at Jack Nicholson's house. You think Polanski was the only person guilty of something like this?) and how things were.

Second, he fessed up, stood up for himself, was ready to take his punishment (and had spent 42 days in Chino for psychiatric evaluation). A 90-day stint in Chino was agreed to, but Roman eventually realized he was going to get fucked by a crooked judge. He fled, just like anyone here with a brain would.

Here's another quick read:
There is nothing inevitable about catching a famous person who has not been in hiding after 31 years. Indeed, he didn?t just riskily or mistakenly show up in Switzerland, he owned a house there. They didn?t catch him, because they weren?t looking for him.

Check out that documentary if you haven't. Interesting stuff.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: between
it was 30 years ago - who cares. not even the victim, apparently.
he hasn't re-offended and is now basically an upstanding, productive member of society. time to move on, people.
Click to expand...

Uhh no. He was convicted and then fled the country to avoid jail time. You don't 'move on' when somebody does that. The fact that this was a man who drugged and anally raped a 13-year old girl twice just makes the whole fleeing justice thing worse.
Click to expand...

This. If he hadn't been convicted it would be one thing, but I imagine the reason why he's going to get the book thrown at him hard is the fact that he fled between being found guilty and sentencing.

If it was just speculation/there hadn't been a trial I doubt there would be a prosecution or this effort. It's the fact that he was found guilty and then he ran.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Isn't Roman Polanski the director guy who seduced a drunk 13 year old during a party at Jack Nicholson's house back in the 70's?

What was a 13 year old doing drinking at Jack Nicholson's house anyway?
Click to expand...

Hi Nik, welcome to this thread, I hope you enjoy your stay here. 😕
 
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: torpid

I know the term. I was being sarcastic.

It does apply because he has already been tried and a plea agreement was reached. 90 day psych evaluation. The reason he fled the country is that the highly unethical judge, despite the plea agreement and partial sentence completed, was going to impose another sentence on top of the one reached through a plea in order to save face. Even the prosecutor has admitted this was going to happen.

Double jeopardy does not only apply to being acquitted. It also applies to being convicted. You cannot be tried and convicted twice for the same crime. The only possible "retrial" would be for the sentencing.

Should there be another trial and another sentence beyond the one agreed to, he would be tried again after being convected, and a possible second punishment enacted. Both are forms of double jeopardy.

Even redoing the sentencing would likely be immediately struck down on appeal since there is clear evidence that the judge had agreed to a plea and begun executing the sentence.
Click to expand...

He fled the country thus his plea deal is out the window. His conviction still stands. So it doesn't matter what the judge "might" have done because he didn't do it and Polanski fled. If you don't want to go to FPMITAP don't rape children.
Click to expand...

But the judge reneged on the plea deal that was agreed to by all parties. So it's OK for a judge to spit in the face of the judicial system?
Click to expand...


You know nothing about the judicial system do you? Judges have the final say over plea deals. You could work out a sweet plea deal with the DA and the judge can deny it. Judges set the sentance, the DA just ask for what they want.
Click to expand...

I understand that that's the risk you take when pleading guilty. However...

You know nothing about this case, do you?

From CHUD

and

"Are you aware judge Rittenband asked a reporter what sentence he should give Polanski? That's illegal. He also told a man at the Hillcrest Country Club that he was going to put Polanski away for the rest of his life, when he'd already agreed to a 90 day sentence at Chino. The judge also told both attorney's handling the case, the prosecutor and the defense attorney how they were to argue their sides of the case, which had never happened before, and is extremely unprofessional. Basically the judge was a loose canon and had broken the law himself...Polanski got wind of all this and left the country.

Polanski was not treated within the bounds of justice."


A shocker for the American legal system.

I'm not saying what Roman did was good. Hell no, he's scum for doing that to the 13 year old girl. Two things, though:

One, Polanski survived the Holocaust and had his 8-month pregnant wife murdered in the most popular and sensational case of the 60's. He's not all there. Plus, the culture of Hollywood in the 70's would shock each and every one of you here. This in no way shape or form excuses him, but it gives you an idea of his mindset (I mean, this happened at Jack Nicholson's house. You think Polanski was the only person guilty of something like this?) and how things were.

Second, he fessed up, stood up for himself, was ready to take his punishment (and had spent 42 days in Chino for psychiatric evaluation). A 90-day stint in Chino was agreed to, but Roman eventually realized he was going to get fucked by a crooked judge. He fled, just like anyone here with a brain would.

Here's another quick read:
There is nothing inevitable about catching a famous person who has not been in hiding after 31 years. Indeed, he didn?t just riskily or mistakenly show up in Switzerland, he owned a house there. They didn?t catch him, because they weren?t looking for him.

Check out that documentary if you haven't. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...


AGAIN you know nothing of the legal system. He is more then welcome to bring this up and have the plea thrown out. But what he was allowed to plea to was a sweet heart deal. The 90days is not final until the judge enters it into the record.

So how about instead of watching a biased story, learn how the judical system really works. When you do you will see he be an idiot to try and get the plea he got thrown out.
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: torpid

I know the term. I was being sarcastic.

It does apply because he has already been tried and a plea agreement was reached. 90 day psych evaluation. The reason he fled the country is that the highly unethical judge, despite the plea agreement and partial sentence completed, was going to impose another sentence on top of the one reached through a plea in order to save face. Even the prosecutor has admitted this was going to happen.

Double jeopardy does not only apply to being acquitted. It also applies to being convicted. You cannot be tried and convicted twice for the same crime. The only possible "retrial" would be for the sentencing.

Should there be another trial and another sentence beyond the one agreed to, he would be tried again after being convected, and a possible second punishment enacted. Both are forms of double jeopardy.

Even redoing the sentencing would likely be immediately struck down on appeal since there is clear evidence that the judge had agreed to a plea and begun executing the sentence.
Click to expand...

He fled the country thus his plea deal is out the window. His conviction still stands. So it doesn't matter what the judge "might" have done because he didn't do it and Polanski fled. If you don't want to go to FPMITAP don't rape children.
Click to expand...

But the judge reneged on the plea deal that was agreed to by all parties. So it's OK for a judge to spit in the face of the judicial system?
Click to expand...


You know nothing about the judicial system do you? Judges have the final say over plea deals. You could work out a sweet plea deal with the DA and the judge can deny it. Judges set the sentance, the DA just ask for what they want.
Click to expand...

I understand that that's the risk you take when pleading guilty. However...

You know nothing about this case, do you?

From CHUD

and

"Are you aware judge Rittenband asked a reporter what sentence he should give Polanski? That's illegal. He also told a man at the Hillcrest Country Club that he was going to put Polanski away for the rest of his life, when he'd already agreed to a 90 day sentence at Chino. The judge also told both attorney's handling the case, the prosecutor and the defense attorney how they were to argue their sides of the case, which had never happened before, and is extremely unprofessional. Basically the judge was a loose canon and had broken the law himself...Polanski got wind of all this and left the country.

Polanski was not treated within the bounds of justice."


A shocker for the American legal system.

I'm not saying what Roman did was good. Hell no, he's scum for doing that to the 13 year old girl. Two things, though:

One, Polanski survived the Holocaust and had his 8-month pregnant wife murdered in the most popular and sensational case of the 60's. He's not all there. Plus, the culture of Hollywood in the 70's would shock each and every one of you here. This in no way shape or form excuses him, but it gives you an idea of his mindset (I mean, this happened at Jack Nicholson's house. You think Polanski was the only person guilty of something like this?) and how things were.

Second, he fessed up, stood up for himself, was ready to take his punishment (and had spent 42 days in Chino for psychiatric evaluation). A 90-day stint in Chino was agreed to, but Roman eventually realized he was going to get fucked by a crooked judge. He fled, just like anyone here with a brain would.

Here's another quick read:
There is nothing inevitable about catching a famous person who has not been in hiding after 31 years. Indeed, he didn?t just riskily or mistakenly show up in Switzerland, he owned a house there. They didn?t catch him, because they weren?t looking for him.

Check out that documentary if you haven't. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...


AGAIN you know nothing of the legal system. He is more then welcome to bring this up and have the plea thrown out. But what he was allowed to plea to was a sweet heart deal. The 90days is not final until the judge enters it into the record.

So how about instead of watching a biased story, learn how the judical system really works. When you do you will see he be an idiot to try and get the plea he got thrown out.
Click to expand...

According to your nonsensical ramblings above, neither do you. Seriously, I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to say (and your grammar and spelling help tremendously). Who's trying to get the plea deal thrown out? Roman? Why would he do that? My point was that the JUDGE was CROOKED. He abused his position and JUSTICE (the whole point of our JUDICIAL system) would NOT have been served.
 
Sounds like Polanski's lawyers provoked the LA District Attorney's office into arresting him.

Roman Polanski?s attorneys may have helped provoke his arrest by complaining to an appellate court this summer that Los Angeles prosecutors had never made any real effort to arrest the filmmaker in his three decades as a fugitive, two sources familiar with the case told The Times.

The accusation that the Los Angeles County district attorney?s office was not serious about extraditing Polanski was a small part of two July court filings by the director?s attorneys. But it caught the attention of prosecutors and led to his capture in Switzerland on Saturday, the sources said.

Polanski, 76, was taken into custody at the airport in Zurich, where he was scheduled to headline the city?s film festival. Details of his appearance were widely available on the Internet. Variety also reported his planned attendance in August, the month after Polanski?s attorneys had filed two separate documents with the 2nd District of the state Court of Appeal asking for a dismissal of the 32-year-old child sex case against the filmmaker.

In both, the lawyers alleged that the district attorney?s office in effect benefited from Polanski?s absence, because as long as he remained a fugitive, officials could avoid answering allegations of prosecutorial and judicial wrongdoing in the original handling of the case.

?The district attorney?s office, in the 30 years since Mr. Polanski left the jurisdiction, has not once sought to have him extradited. If it had, there would have been a hearing regarding misconduct in this case,? wrote the attorneys, Chad Hummel, Douglas Dalton and Bart Dalton, in a July 7 filing.

Twenty days later, they filed a second document and raised the issue again in a footnote. ?Combined with the fact that no effort has been made to extradite Mr. Polanski, the intent here is clear: invoke a physical absence which they caused and deliberately perpetuate in order to preserve the unconstitutional status quo and never address the misconduct head on,? the lawyers wrote.

The allegations prompted the district attorney?s office to look for an opportunity to seize Polanski, and his appearance in Switzerland, which has an extradition treaty with the U.S., provided such a chance, said the sources, who spoke to The Times on the condition that they not be named because it was an ongoing investigation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top