swiss judge allows child rapist to go free.

[surfsatwerk]

More resources are being used to protect him than pursue him. Protecting this guy after all these years is a waste and most likely motivated by bigoted supremacist attitudes not some noble desire for justice.

The DA found out he was going for a film festival and acted. It seems like an efficient and great use of resources. It was quite minimal. He was apprehended right off the airplane.

3 decades and there was never an opportunity until recently? Somebody wanted to look good and decided this old man would be his ticket.

Except now he's free again. Maybe next time they'll wait until he's dead and arrest the coffin.

 

[woolfe9999]

Polanski should be extradited and prosecuted because that is the law. He did not serve his time. He was ordered to serve 90 days in pscyh for an evaluation and then to appear for sentencing. He was released from psych after 42 days, then he left the country. The psych eval was not his sentence.

Shira makes a good point about Polanski maybe not expecting a fair trial from the Judge. Yet the law says you must appear for sentencing. Perhaps he is entitled to the original plea bargained terms, and should now only be sentenced to a year or two for skipping out. That is a matter for a judge to decide.

Sentencing for statutory rape was pretty light back in 1970's California. Today no one would get off with that sort of plea bagain. But that is really a side issue. The primary issue here is that he broke the law by leaving the country.

- wolf

 

[Vette73]

3 decades and there was never an opportunity until recently? Somebody wanted to look good and decided this old man would be his ticket.

Except now he's free again. Maybe next time they'll wait until he's dead and arrest the coffin.

They did go after him at first. But people in office, DA, change so they have to go after the bigger fish. He stayed low key long enouhg to not show up on their radar.

In this case he put it on himself when the "film" came out pointing the DA as pushing somethig they should not. He woke the sleeping lion up by poking it with a stick and laughing at them. Of course the DA will now come after him. If not someone will run against him and say "The DA is weak on people that rape 13 year olds..."

If you drug and rape a 13 year old and get away with it; don;t bring the issue up and paint yourself as somebody that has been wronged and say they can;t touch you.

 

[Kirby]

72 years old...I doubt he will do it again....

Are you willing to bet your ass on it? Take a few quaaludes and offer to spend the night with him. D:

 

[Kirby]

And judges are obligated to perform their duties free of political considerations. As has been widely reported, Polanski's judge allowed his re-election fears to lead him to renege on the terms of the plea bargain he'd previously agreed to.

That being the case, Polanski would have been within his rights to rescind his guilty plea, but it is highly questionable whether he could have received a fair trial at that point. In other words, Polanski's ability to successfully defend himself was severely compromised by the actions of the judge.

Naturally, your concept of "justice" extends only to the obligations of the government, and you seem unable to fathom that "justice" also means not using the system to screw over defendants.

That may very well be the case, but you don't just GTFO because you think you won't receive a fair trial.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I don't get why people care so much about this. Do I think he should face the justice system? Yes. But honestly nothing could affect me less than this mediocre film director's fate. The desire to see him locked away seems to be mostly schadenfreude.

 

[werepossum]

Polanski should be extradited and prosecuted because that is the law. He did not serve his time. He was ordered to serve 90 days in pscyh for an evaluation and then to appear for sentencing. He was released from psych after 42 days, then he left the country. The psych eval was not his sentence.

Shira makes a good point about Polanski maybe not expecting a fair trial from the Judge. Yet the law says you must appear for sentencing. Perhaps he is entitled to the original plea bargained terms, and should now only be sentenced to a year or two for skipping out. That is a matter for a judge to decide.

Sentencing for statutory rape was pretty light back in 1970's California. Today no one would get off with that sort of plea bagain. But that is really a side issue. The primary issue here is that he broke the law by leaving the country.

- wolf

That was my understanding as well, although I've not gone back to look it up. But a judge is not obligated to follow a prosecutor's plea bargain and might well throw the book at him. I generally lean toward the position that justice delayed should be harsher though.

Probably though the best solution from everyone's standpoint is that he continue to be a wanted felon and remain unable to re-enter the USA.

 

[classy]

That was my understanding as well, although I've not gone back to look it up. But a judge is not obligated to follow a prosecutor's plea bargain and might well throw the book at him. I generally lean toward the position that justice delayed should be harsher though.

Probably though the best solution from everyone's standpoint is that he continue to be a wanted felon and remain unable to re-enter the USA.

Polanski agreed to plead guilty to one charge instead of 6 and probation was recommended. Instead the judge sentenced him to 90 days in a pysch ward. The judge was then considering on further possible jail time and voluntary deportation. Based on the charge, he could have gotten up to one year in jail, but probation was being recommended. But Polansky split before going before the judge again. So 90 was his sentence actually at the bare minimum, but the prosecutors had agreed to probation.

 

[boomerang]

OK now let's rerun this thread with one change. Replace Polanski with "Catholic Priest".

 

[soundforbjt]

OK now let's rerun this thread with one change. Replace Polanski with "Catholic Priest".

You read my mind. Where's the outrage about the priests getting off mostly scott-free?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You read my mind. Where's the outrage about the priests getting off mostly scott-free?

Ummm....wtf have you been smoking? There is plenty of outrage when pedo priest are let go or given a slap on the wrist. I have no pitty whatsoever for child rapists period, regardless of age, occupation, religion, race, etc...

Of course this doesn't change the fact that we are not dealing with a pedo priest but instead with a pedo director who the darling of Hollywood.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ummm....wtf have you been smoking? There is plenty of outrage when pedo priest are let go or given a slap on the wrist. I have no pitty whatsoever for child rapists period, regardless of age, occupation, religion, race, etc...

Of course this doesn't change the fact that we are not dealing with a pedo priest but instead with a pedo director who the darling of Hollywood.

Where's the outrage? Seriously, if I missed the thread, I'd like a link. Nevermind, search is my friend....

 

[boomerang]

You read my mind. Where's the outrage about the priests getting off mostly scott-free?

That's not exactly the angle I was shooting for.

I'll just throw it out there. Hollywood types get to walk. But the anti-religion zealots would be salivating at a scenario such as I laid out.

Just pointing out some hypocrisy. Of course I've ruined the fun now. I'm not exactly sure I would have gotten any bites though.

 

[between]

...

 

[werepossum]

it's probably not reasonable to characterise him as a mediocre director. he's won academy awards, and received critical acclaim from critics according to wikipedia.

For me, Rosemary's Baby gets him a get out of jail free card, regardless of what he's done in the past or might do in the future.

I cannot imagine anything much more scary than this idea, that the law should apply in different ways (or not at all) to some people.

Classy, here's the summation of the grand jury testimony from The Smoking Gun: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
There are links to the actual testimony.

MARCH 11--It's been 26 years since Roman Polanski's arrest for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl, but the director's Oscar nomination and the success of his film "The Pianist" has again focused attention on the March 1977 crime that prompted his French exile.

Polanski, 69, will not discuss the case and his victim, Samantha Geimer, now 39, has recently said that the sex assault should not color his chances with Academy Award voters. But that, of course, does not lessen the severity of the crime, which is graphically detailed in the following grand jury testimony, which was quietly unsealed four months ago by L.A. Superior Court Judge David Wesley.

Two weeks after Polanski plied her with Champagne and a Quaalude, Samantha Gailey appeared before an L.A. grand jury and recalled Polanski's predatory behavior in a Mulholland Canyon home owned by Jack Nicholson.

The teenager's troubling--and contemporaneous--account of her abuse at Polanski's hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, "Take off your underwear" and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn't wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey's testimony, wrapped his hands around the child's waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson's home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he "keep away." According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later "started to have intercourse with me." At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of him."

Following his indictment on various sex charges, Polanski agreed to a plea deal that spared him prison time (he had spent about 45 days in jail during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation). But when it seemed that a Superior Court judge might not honor the deal--and sentence Polanski to prison--the director fled the country.

Note the age - 13. This 43 year-old man set up a 13 year-old child for a glamour photoshoot, then turned it into a topless shoot, then turned it into a nude shoot, then screwed her, including anally, after feeding her champagne and a Quaalude. He put himself into a position of power over her, offered her what she most wanted in the world, and then instead used this situation to rape her. Note that there was no Vogue article - this was simply a ploy to fuck a child.

The judge ordered Polanski to a 90 day psychiatric evaluation prior to sentencing - that is NOT his sentence, no matter how his lawyers wish to spin it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080224102629/http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Polanski_Roman.html

The prosecutors in my opinion were almost criminally lenient in recommending probation for a 43 year-old man who drugs, intoxicates, and fucks a 13 year-old child, and there is an excellent chance that the judge would have sentenced him to prison time. But this was pre-Internet and pre-talk radio, so the prosecutors stood little risk of being held accountable. That so many people here defend this man - especially excusing him because he directed a movie for Christ's sake - amazes and dismays me.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

it's probably not reasonable to characterise him as a mediocre director. he's won academy awards, and received critical acclaim from critics according to wikipedia.

I don't give a shit what those pretentious academy faggots gave him, his movies are mediocre at best.

 

[shira]

I don't give a shit what those pretentious academy faggots gave him, his movies are mediocre at best.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion as to whether Polanski is or is not a good director. But be aware that there are more objective evaluations that place Polanski as one of the top directors of all time. For example:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top200directors.htm

The methodology used in assembling that list was quite exhaustive - it's not just one person's opinion.

 

[Sclamoz]

That's not exactly the angle I was shooting for.

I'll just throw it out there. Hollywood types get to walk. But the anti-religion zealots would be salivating at a scenario such as I laid out.

Just pointing out some hypocrisy. Of course I've ruined the fun now. I'm not exactly sure I would have gotten any bites though.

You really think this one case is comparable to the catholic church shielding and enabling countless pedos over decades?

How about we talk about the outrage being spewed towards Swiss and Europeans in this thread because they didn't extradite someone to the US and compare that to the outrage (not) shown when the US does the same?

 

[between]

...

 

[boomerang]

You really think this one case is comparable to the catholic church shielding and enabling countless pedos over decades?

No

Sorry you didn't get it but I won't explain it again.

 

[classy]

I cannot imagine anything much more scary than this idea, that the law should apply in different ways (or not at all) to some people.

Classy, here's the summation of the grand jury testimony from The Smoking Gun: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
There are links to the actual testimony.

I am not in any way condoning what this man did. But the facts are he pleaded guilty to one charge to avoid the 5 others. The prosecution suggested he recieve probation, but the judge sentenced him instead to 90 days in a psych ward. The most he could have recieved was 1 year in jail. Thats it. And the judge said he was going to ask him to leave, but he left anyway. The woman does not want this to continue. At the age of 13 she did not have the right to decide if he should be punished or not.

But now that she is in her 40s and has moved on with her life and doesn't want this to be pursued any further, that should be respected. Everyday women decide the fates of men who do these things. Kobe Bryants accuser left him off the hook and Big Ben, god who knows whats in the mind of that pyscho. Outside of some publicity for a prosecutor, no one gains a damn thing from this continuing. If the woman wanted him to be continued to be pursued I would have a different opinion. I would also assume he has compensated this woman well too.

Rapists are pigs and he raped a child. But in light of all things, this needs to be let go.

 

[xj0hnx]

At the age of 13 she did not have the right to decide if he should be punished or not.

At the age of 13 he had no right to dope her up and rape her, she, even at 40 doesn't have a say in if he is punished or not.

 

[classy]

At the age of 13 he had no right to dope her up and rape her, she, even at 40 doesn't have a say in if he is punished or not.

No one is arguing his guilt or innonence or the how heinous his rape was. The question is after 30 years and given the maximum he could have recieved was 1 year, lets also not forget the prosecution was recommending probation, whether this should still be pursued? And based on the how the victim, now a woman, feels about this to me should be the guiding factor. If she doesn't want to relive it after 30 years then I back her. And unfortunately you are dead wrong, rape victims determine the fate of rapist everyday.

 

[xj0hnx]

And unfortunately you are dead wrong, rape victims determine the fate of rapist everyday.

By not testifying out of fear, or shame, not because they have a say in the legal system and it's punishments.

 

[Vette73]

I am not in any way condoning what this man did. But the facts are he pleaded guilty to one charge to avoid the 5 others. The prosecution suggested he recieve probation, but the judge sentenced him instead to 90 days in a psych ward. The most he could have recieved was 1 year in jail. Thats it. And the judge said he was going to ask him to leave, but he left anyway. The woman does not want this to continue. At the age of 13 she did not have the right to decide if he should be punished or not.

But now that she is in her 40s and has moved on with her life and doesn't want this to be pursued any further, that should be respected. Everyday women decide the fates of men who do these things. Kobe Bryants accuser left him off the hook and Big Ben, god who knows whats in the mind of that pyscho. Outside of some publicity for a prosecutor, no one gains a damn thing from this continuing. If the woman wanted him to be continued to be pursued I would have a different opinion. I would also assume he has compensated this woman well too.

Rapists are pigs and he raped a child. But in light of all things, this needs to be let go.

Facepalm...


He was never sentenced. There was a plea agreement and the judge sent him to be evaluated. He never plead out, was never sentenced, etc… ALL the charges still stand since he fled. So by fleeing he has only increased his time and when he gets caught will pay even more.