Roman Polanski Finally Arrested for 1977 Rape of Minor

[Drifterwood]

What the fuck is wrong with California law enforcement? It's shit like this, attempting to get a conviction by any means possible, ethical or unethical, legal or illegal, that got OJ acquitted and it's obvious. Polanski will have excellent lawyers and they will use this to beat that former DA over the head until his brains spill on the floor. Christ, what a moron!

I agree. If the system is in disrepute, how can you consciously deport someone to be judged by it? I said this on page one.

I would also find it extremely unimpressive that it has taken 30 years to get him. What chance Bin Laden?

 

[2322]

He wasn't the prosecutor for the case, nor was he in any way attached to it. He was just a guy working in the DA's office at the time.

The matter he lied about was his supposedly recommending the judge issue a more stringent sentence after Polanksi had already pleaded guilty, something the judge was well within his rights to do in any case. IOW, this has no bearing on the case at all, even if it were true.

Even after a deal was made? Wouldn't Polanski be within his rights to rescind his plea and demand a trial?

 

[HazelGod]

Even after a deal was made? Wouldn't Polanski be within his rights to rescind his plea and demand a trial?

Simple answer: no.

Accepting a plea agreement with a prosecutor is a total act of faith on the part of the accused. The defendant enters the plea (usually guilty or nolo contendere) and in most cases, judges will accept the recommendation of the DA and adjudicate accordingly.

That said, judges are NOT bound by the terms of any deal and may reject it wholly or partially or modify it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law...i.e. he cannot sentence the defendant to a longer term than the maximum allowed by statute for the offense being admitted to.

Once Polanski entered his guilty plea, he was a convicted felon and truly at the mercy of the court vis-a-vis his sentence. Fleeing the country for any reason at that point was a criminal act unto itself.

 

[B_cigarbabe]

being a puritan has nothing to do with it.

condemning a 40 something guy plying a 13 year old girl with booze and drugs then knowingly having sex with her, is hardly being puritanical...

we are not talking about him having an affair here. or just having some deviant sex.

at what point does being "sooooooooo" puritanical change in to actually enforcing laws against having sex with people age 13 and under?
Here in the states the laws are quite different for those who have money as you surely know Flashy.
Personally I think that's wrong but "it is what it is".:frown1:
Why continue to persecute this man 40 years after the fact when the complainant has already said she won't pursue or testify?

if you would like to tell me tomorrow, that some 40 something year old guy, was in a hot tub with your 13 year old daughter, and he gave her champagne and powerful narcotic pills, together, then had oral, vaginal and anal sex with her, would you taking issue with that be "puritanical" or a legitimate concern?
If it was any concern at all it should have been with the "stage mother" who allowed her to be with Polanski for an "interview" ie "modeling shoot" alone. Why would you do that to your very young child?
For some gain on both their parts perhaps?
But maybe it was just the "status quo" for children trying to get into the "business" and perhaps set up by his or her mothers?

there is a difference between being puritanical, and having laws to protect very *CLEARLY* underage children...and yes, you are a child, when you are 13.
I don't believe we had the laws that would apply now in place then did we? Certainly they weren't as stringent as they are now which is not to say he should'nt have been punished then, but hey, they{courts} made a deal and reneged on it when there was a public outcry!
I call no fair!
C.B.:saevil:

 

[SilverTrain]

Simple answer: no.

Accepting a plea agreement with a prosecutor is a total act of faith on the part of the accused. The defendant enters the plea (usually guilty or nolo contendere) and in most cases, judges will accept the recommendation of the DA and adjudicate accordingly.

That said, judges are NOT bound by the terms of any deal and may reject it wholly or partially or modify it as they see fit, within the bounds of the law...i.e. he cannot sentence the defendant to a longer term than the maximum allowed by statute for the offense being admitted to.

Once Polanski entered his guilty plea, he was a convicted felon and truly at the mercy of the court vis-a-vis his sentence. Fleeing the country for any reason at that point was a criminal act unto itself.

I would add that in some jurisdictions, the plea agreement is conferenced by the defendant, the D.A. and the judge, so that the defendant would know what his/her sentence would be before accepting the deal and entering the plea. I don't know if they do this in California. In any event, it's highly unlikely they did it back when this happened.

 

[faceking]

Even after a deal was made? Wouldn't Polanski be within his rights to rescind his plea and demand a trial?

I believe so.

But he must now also be brought up on charges for fleeing, and not appearing again.

 

[nudeyorker]

After reading this I changed my mind. Extradite his ass and put it in jail.
Polanski promised $500K to rape victim in '93 settlement - CNN.com

 

[HazelGod]

And the Swiss authorities have denied the USA's extradition request, citing our government's unwillingness to provide access to "confidential" testimony from the original prosecutor.

Apparently, fame and money really are all you need...as of today, Polanski the pedophile is a free man.

 

[dreamer20]

And the Swiss authorities have denied the USA's extradition request, citing our government's unwillingness to provide access to "confidential" testimony from the original prosecutor.

Apparently, fame and money really are all you need...as of today, Polanski the pedophile is a free man.

He's not a "pedophile" as pedophilia by definition involves sex with pre-pubescent children. Attraction to young, sexually mature adolescents is biologically normal and referred to as ephebilia. A generation ago the ages of consent in different U.S. states varied from 12-18 years of age.

Thus sex with a 15 year old would be legal in one jurisdiction, but illegal in another jurisdiction. Currently U.S.A. ages of consent range between 16-18 years of age:

Age Of Consensual Sex | LIVESTRONG.COM


I agree with the Swiss - It's ridiculous for the U.S. to continue to persecute Polanski as he had been confined and released according to the dictate of the presiding judge in 1978. As the judge's subsequent misconduct was also considered the extradition request was denied.

Polanski free, Swiss reject US extradition request - Yahoo! News

 

[EboniGoddess]

He's a sick fucking bastard! He tried to get a U.S. judge to give him his sentence without being present. The judge said No and he got an attitude. WTF! If you weren't here for the sentence then would you come after getting the sentence? No!

First there was the 13 y.o. and then a few other former child actors came forward I believe. What grown ass man in his right mind would like a 13 y.o. in a sexual manner. GTFOH! It's amazing to me how people defend him. He was found guilty and so justice must be served. If he feels as though he was done wrong then perhaps he should have his lawyers agrue for a new trial but if that does not suceed then he has to face his sentence. Why should the rich be able to leave the country and avoid jail time? The average citizen can't do this. It's unfair.

 

[dreamer20]

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

^^Re: this matter and the documentary of the case:

Polanksi's plea deal required his incarceration for 90 days, including a psychiatric evaluation, after which he was to be freed. But because Polanski was released after 42 days, the court received negative publicity for treating him leniently. In reaction to the public's umbrage the presiding judge subsequently decided Polanski must have a stiffer sentence imposed upon him. The judge and prosecutor met to collude together in this regard and their collusion violated the terms of Polanski's plea bargain. Before their desire was enacted in the courtroom Polanski was informed that the court would renege on the plea deal and he fled the U.S.A.
Polanksi's lawyer filed that the case be dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct...

 

[HazelGod]

Thus sex with a 15 year old would be legal in one jurisdiction, but illegal in another jurisdiction. Currently U.S.A. ages of consent range between 16-18 years of age:

Sexual coercion through the use of alcohol and prescription drugs is illegal regardless of age...not to mention the administration of such drugs without a medical license.

I echo Rommette's sentiments here: how you people can defend this scumbag is beyond my ken. Were it your teenage daughter involved, I have the suspicion you might be singing a different tune altogether.

 

[Drifterwood]

I echo Rommette's sentiments here: how you people can defend this scumbag is beyond my ken. Were it your teenage daughter involved, I have the suspicion you might be singing a different tune altogether.

Easy, because it is not the same to defend someone's crime as to see that the judicial process in this case was completely fucked up. It's not about his crime.

 

[HazelGod]

Easy, because it is not the same to defend someone's crime as to see that the judicial process in this case was completely fucked up. It's not about his crime.

Oh, really? Re-read the first paragraph of this post, then tell me that again.

 

[Drifterwood]

You'll have to be more specific, HG. What I am reading is that Polanski made a plea bargain which then went in his favour. The Judge and the Prosecutor looked like asses, so secretly and in breach of the plea bargain, tried to re-sentence him.

Do they want him back to serve another 48 days, to be re-tried, what? The Swiss have made a decision based upon the legal system, not Polanski's crime.

I vote with my feet on Polanski, I'll have nothing to do with anything he does, and those who laud him should be ashamed, but from my seat, your system fucked up. I mean what the fuck is going on with a plea bargain for a miserable 90 day sentence in the first place for rape of a child?

 

[HazelGod]

You'll have to be more specific, HG.

No problem. I quoted your assertion that this [defense of Polanski] is not about his crime (emphasis mine). I entreated you to review the following passage again, bearing in mind the girl he drugged and sodomized was 13 years old at the time:

He's not a "pedophile" as pedophilia by definition involves sex with pre-pubescent children. Attraction to young, sexually mature adolescents is biologically normal and referred to as ephebilia. A generation ago the ages of consent in different U.S. states varied from 12-18 years of age.

That reads very clearly to me as a defense of his crime itself, not an indictment of the criminal justice system that prosecuted him.

What I am reading is that Polanski made a plea bargain which then went in his favour. The Judge and the Prosecutor looked like asses, so secretly and in breach of the plea bargain, tried to re-sentence him.

If that was the case, it likely would have violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy...in any case, his proper course of action should have been to let his legal team handle the appeal. Instead, he chose to commit another crime in fleeing the court's jurisdiction before being declared a free man.

from my seat, your system fucked up. I mean what the fuck is going on with a plea bargain for a miserable 90 day sentence in the first place for rape of a child?

No argument from me here. Just another link in the long chain of money and influence raising a despicable criminal above accountability here in the US justice system.

 

[Drifterwood]

No problem. I quoted your assertion that this [defense of Polanski] is not about his crime (emphasis mine). I entreated you to review the following passage again, bearing in mind the girl he drugged and sodomized was 13 years old at the time:




That reads very clearly to me as a defense of his crime itself, not an indictment of the criminal justice system that prosecuted him.

OK - I was talking about the decision of the Swiss, not Dreamer's point.

I am not sure that you can so easily advise that he should have stayed. He is/was a foreigner and all sorts of illogical things were happening in the system. Anyway, that is all water under the bridge, I find the Swiss decision perfectly rational.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Geez Laweez, 33 yrs to catch up with the guy and charge him? I hope they can make it stick.