Roman Polanski Case

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

but the man hasn't been charged for a crime he admitted to.

He was charged. With a number of crimes. He plead to a single charge of sex with a minor (and has never admitted to "rape") as part of a plea bargain (the prosecution didn't want to put the victim on the stand and if they went with a rape charge he would have plead not guilty so she would be forced to testify). He spent 42 days in prison, during which he underwent psyche evaluations (was supposed to be 90).

The reason he fled is quite complicated but it basically comes down to the fact that the presiding Judge was a bit of a loony and committed all sorts of misconduct during the trial. He also told his buddies that he was going to send Polanski away for life before he was due to be sentenced - the maximum sentence for his charge was 50 years in prison. Also, he was to be deported after serving his sentence.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

...
Does having sex with a 13 year old automatically define you as a paedophile? No.

Note the terms preference and prepubertal. You can be a paedophile yet never act on it. Like wise, you can have sex with a minor and not be a paedophile.

Originally Posted by Roman Polanski, 1979

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... f--ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f-- young girls. Juries want to f-- young girls. Everyone wants to f-- young girls!"

[Zuhaib]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

From what I know, Polanski had admitted his guilt and his lawyer struck a deal with the judge in return, that all but one accusations (sex with an underaged girl) would be abandoned, which would have meant that he wouldn't have to go to prison.

Such deals, I understand, are rather normal.

But then some hot shot prosecutor, who wasn't even involved in the case, wanted to "spice it up" a bit and gave the impression that he convinced the judge to not honor the deal.

And that is when Polanski panicked and fled.

So yes, he forced a 13-year-old into sex, who he might have believed to be older. It was at a Hollywood party in Jack Nicholson's house, for crying out loud! Nevertheless he has done wrong. But his victim publically forgave him a long time ago and she leads a normal family life nowadays. I bet she wants the case to be rested, too, and not go through it all again. Because Polanski's lawyers will pull her into the courtroom.

In my eyes this is just a case of bureaucracy gone awry. That and the very shady circumstances of how he was arrested now -- and not earlier -- worry me. Hell, he even has a house in Switzerland, where he stayed regularly in recent years. How come he wasn't arrested earlier?

Yes, he should be punished for what he did. But the circumstances of how it is handled now, are very ominous. Putting him to trial now, seems not to be a matter of justice anymore, but just about revenge.

I also believe he is treated differently, than a normal person would be treated. If he wasn't a celebrity, he would still be free. And I guess that's the main point for those who defend him. There are talks about treating him equally to a normal person to justify his arrest -- while at the same time he just isn't treated like a normal person.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. I just despise the bigottery. Because his case and the fact that he fled from the USA have been known for 30 years. No one ever protested against him, no one ever asked for boycotting his movies, the whole world celebrated his genius as a director and he was awarded with an Oscar not so long ago.

Those who are crying for justice now, are simply hypocrites.

While the timing of it can be questioned, their is a lot of factors needed for the US to go ahead and bring the back to the US. Most importantly that the help of the country he is staying or visiting. More then likely the Swiss this time where more then willing to comply with the US request to have him be sent the US. And while the timing might be a bit "odd" it does not mean the US and the state of CA has any less reason not to follow thru.

Also he will not stand trial again for the rape, because, he has already pleaded guilty to it. He will be tried for failure to appear and all crimes relating to him fleeing his arrest, but the case of rape in the eye of CA has already come to a close. He was awaiting sentencing when he ran so that is the only step left.

As for your idea that had he been some regular joe he would be free is totally false. It was only because of his wealth and money that allowed him to run in the first place. After the plea deal he was allowed to travel, and, was given a very relaxed deal of having to first be psychiatric evaluation and not be sent to jail right away. And regular person convited of such a crime would not have recived such a nice deal.
And the fact he fled to Europe and was able to stay out of the US reach takes a lot of money in the first place. Some regular joe might go on the run and try to get to the Mexico boarder but I doubt many are going to be able to make it to France.
I was unaware of his case till now, I dont follow Hollywood much and I dont care if some Hollywood group gave him an award for his move it does not make what he did, the rape and fleeing, any more right.

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

A lot of misinformation and pedo hysteria and we're not even one page in.

The doco was pretty informative, Roman Polanski; Wanted and Desired. I recommend it.

What he did was wrong, yes, I think we can all agree on that.

Did he have a legit reason to flee? I believe so, and so did the Mormon prosecutor.

Does having sex with a 13 year old automatically define you as a paedophile? No.



Note the terms preference and prepubertal. You can be a paedophile yet never act on it. Like wise, you can have sex with a minor and not be a paedophile.

What legit reason did he have to flee? Does that mean if anyone is someone fearful of what a judge might do they should flee that country? We would have total chaos in the legal system if that was the case. Had he have a problem with the judge, he had many rights within the US legal system to challenge his actions. But he took the easy way out, using his money and fame to hide in Europe.

Also his crime was more then paedophile but of forced rape. He drugged the girl and against her wishes sodomized her. You can debate the legality of a 13 year old girl having sex with a 44 year old man, but, he himself felt that he could not get away from the rape charge and decided to plead out to it.
Like I said, this is a man that had every resource available to him during his trial and was given breaks any normal man would never get, yet he decided to take the easy way out. He should now pay for his crimes.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Zuhaib

What legit reason did he have to flee? Does that mean if anyone is someone fearful of what a judge might do they should flee that country? We would have total chaos in the legal system if that was the case. Had he have a problem with the judge, he had many rights within the US legal system to challenge his actions. But he took the easy way out, using his money and fame to hide in Europe.

Also his crime was more then paedophile but of forced rape. He drugged the girl and against her wishes sodomized her. You can debate the legality of a 13 year old girl having sex with a 44 year old man, but, he himself felt that he could not get away from the rape charge and decided to plead out to it.
Like I said, this is a man that had every resource available to him during his trial and was given breaks any normal man would never get, yet he decided to take the easy way out. He should now pay for his crimes.

It has all been explained above, man. Read it

[Steve Levin]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

If he forced a 13 year old into sex he should be charged for it. If he forced anyone into having sex regardless of their age he should be charged for it.

This has become a common misconception that he was only "wanted" for the act.

He actually pled guilty and fled before being sentenced. He is not a suspect, or a "person of interest" or even "under indictment" -- he is a convicted criminal.

And even if the judge's sentence was unfair, he would have had the resources to appeal the sentence while he was in prison, and get it reduced to something "reasonable" (giving him the benefit of the doubt here). If Polanski thought he would not serve jail time then I don't think he was being reasonable.

My personal belief is that he just decided at the end he couldn't stand the idea of spending time in prison at all, so he ran.

And I believe that now he should be returned to the US and sentenced to the maximum possible sentence as he has demonstrated his contempt for the legal system. Then let him appeal from prison -- given his original flight, it is clear that he is a flight risk that cannot be managed through any amount of bail.

Steve

[Doctor Blade]

He knew what he was doing. End of Discussion. Bring him back and send him back to jail.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, let's get our forks and torches, march to the prison he is held in and demand his release, so we can lynch him

[Zuhaib]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

It has all been explained above, man. Read it

I dont see any half decent explanation, just excuses. The half best was some saying the judge was crazy, and if that was the case he would have just appealed.

Both Steve and I have said the same thing, he was convicted of a crime that he admitted to in court and before he was to server the time in jail for it he ran. He did not use any of the legal protections available to him, and now he will pay for it.

Dont understand why people find it so upsetting that the guy might actually have to go to jail for a crime he admitted too, and stand trial for another he committed. But see this as a lynch mob

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Zuhaib

But see this as a lynch mob

A lynch mob that's 30 years late. Do you really not see the hypocrisy?

[Zuhaib]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

A lynch mob that's 30 years late. Do you really not see the hypocrisy?

Nope.

Europe has no problem when the US deports Nazi prison guard so they can face prosecution by the ICC. Some might say, wrongly, that after 50 years its too late.

[nist7]

A little more about the circumstances surrounding his flee:

Some articles note that Polanski wants the charges against him dropped because the judge engaged in misconduct. What's that about?

In 1977, Polanski agreed to plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. The presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband, was to decide Polanski's sentence after reviewing a report from the Probation Department and holding a hearing with attorneys for each side. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation.

According to a recent documentary, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Wells, who was not involved in the case, intervened with Rittenband. Wells thought Polanski was being cavalier about the charges against him and should serve time for his misdeed. (Wells showed the judge photographs of Polanski partying in Munich with his arms around two young women who Wells claimed were underage.) Rittenband seemed to be convinced and suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported. At that time, Polanski fled.

While Wells was not himself an attorney of record in the case, he was a lawyer for one of the parties—the state of California. The California Code of Judicial Ethics (PDF) forbids judges to engage in ex parte communications—discussions where only one side is represented.

There is no question that Rittenband violated the ethics code. The question of whether his conversations with Wells are sufficient grounds for dismissal of the charges against Polanski is an open question. There is very little law on the subject to guide the judge who's now presiding over the case. Outright dismissal is an exceedingly rare remedy for ex parte communications, especially when the communications came after the plea agreement was reached. It's far more common for the plea agreement to stand, with a new judge brought in to preside over the sentencing. The original judge could also face sanctions. (Judge Rittenband is deceased, so there's a good chance the unethical contacts will have no impact.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2229853/

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

Did he have a legit reason to flee? I believe so, and so did the Mormon prosecutor.

Ok, so even back in 1977, it was clear that this "over zealous" prosecutor (mind you, this "over zealous prosecutor" didn't think probation for a few months is justice for the rape of a 13 year old, and I would think most people would agree to that as well) and the Judge violated legal ethics code. BUT, of course the way in which that prosecutor handled his opinion was unethical. And so now the Judge is unethically influenced and this spooked Polanski real bad and he fled the country to avoid any jail time.

Now is that ethical violation enough to dismiss/overturn his convictions? (which by the way have already been plea bargained down by quite a bit)

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

The reason he fled is quite complicated but it basically comes down to the fact that the presiding Judge was a bit of a loony and committed all sorts of misconduct during the trial. He also told his buddies that he was going to send Polanski away for life before he was due to be sentenced - the maximum sentence for his charge was 50 years in prison. Also, he was to be deported after serving his sentence.

I don't think it's complciated. He had connections, money, and he didn't want to spend any significant amount of time in jail so he fled after being spooked by a judge who nevertheless did violate legal ethics code. The fact is that he didn't go through the legal and proper channels to fight the ethically-challenged Judge and he simply fled and so securing his complete freedom from jail/justice.

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

This has become a common misconception that he was only "wanted" for the act.

He actually pled guilty and fled before being sentenced. He is not a suspect, or a "person of interest" or even "under indictment" -- he is a convicted criminal.

And even if the judge's sentence was unfair, he would have had the resources to appeal the sentence while he was in prison, and get it reduced to something "reasonable" (giving him the benefit of the doubt here). If Polanski thought he would not serve jail time then I don't think he was being reasonable.

My personal belief is that he just decided at the end he couldn't stand the idea of spending time in prison at all, so he ran.

And I believe that now he should be returned to the US and sentenced to the maximum possible sentence as he has demonstrated his contempt for the legal system. Then let him appeal from prison -- given his original flight, it is clear that he is a flight risk that cannot be managed through any amount of bail.

Steve

Agreed.

A lynch mob that's 30 years late. Do you really not see the hypocrisy?

30 years late. Exactly. And why is it 30 years late? Because the scumbag was on the run for 30 fucking years. Had he channeled his fear through his powerful legal team (which was very powerful at negoitating a very good plea bargain) he might not have to do that much time in the slammer (which is fucking disgusting, but what can you do). But he obviously realizes how despicable his behavior was and knew that he deserved much harsher punishment then what they were originally going to give to him and then when he learned that he was actually getting some justice he just up and left.

So the reason we're lynching him this late in the game is because Polanski ran and thus brought this upon himself. Otherwise we would just all lynch the U.S. criminal justice system for letting the wealthy and connected get a slap on the wrist for such a horrible crime whereas a normal guy would've been locked up quickly for a very long time.

Oh and by the way, I wasn't alive in 1977. And I don't scour the court record archives everyday to look for those criminals who are still on the run and haven't been served justice. Polanski is famous, somehow this came back to haunt him and has now global attention, and some of us are asking for a little justice that was never served and suddenly we're a lynch mob:

[efoolution]

Originally Posted by AiR

What MacG said.

yeah, he talked sense for once there

I don´t really care what went on at the trial or how they tried to mess with him on a deal or whatever ... he raped a 13 year old girl. More than once. That might have been 32 years ago (my age ) ... but he´s been convicted, and has been on the run since then.
Lock him up, let him out when the sentence is over. The coward should have faced the consequences of his actions long ago.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by efoolution

yeah, he talked sense for once there

Thanks

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by tigger

You think that quote proves he's a paedophile?

Originally Posted by Zuhaib

Also his crime was more then paedophile but of forced rape. He drugged the girl and against her wishes sodomized her. You can debate the legality of a 13 year old girl having sex with a 44 year old man, but, he himself felt that he could not get away from the rape charge and decided to plead out to it.

Perhaps, but rape and paedophilia are two separate things. He never plead guilty to or was convicted of rape (by force) but he did have sex with a minor. That does not automatically define you as a paedophile.

Not sure what you mean in the second part, he did "get away" from the rape charge - by refusing to plead guilty to rape the charge was dropped (the prosecution didn't want to force the victim to take the stand).

Originally Posted by Zuhaib

What legit reason did he have to flee? Does that mean if anyone is someone fearful of what a judge might do they should flee that country? We would have total chaos in the legal system if that was the case. Had he have a problem with the judge, he had many rights within the US legal system to challenge his actions. But he took the easy way out, using his money and fame to hide in Europe.

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

And even if the judge's sentence was unfair, he would have had the resources to appeal the sentence while he was in prison, and get it reduced to something "reasonable" (giving him the benefit of the doubt here). If Polanski thought he would not serve jail time then I don't think he was being reasonable.

My personal belief is that he just decided at the end he couldn't stand the idea of spending time in prison at all, so he ran.

He did spend time in prison, yes just 42 days, which was supposed to be 90 but for some reason they released him early. Let's not get into a discussion about whether that was sufficient, the point was he did the time that was asked of him and was expecting probation as agreed on in the plea bargain.

The Judge then decided to disregard the plea bargain, threatened to send him away for life - he had the power to send him away for 50 years - and deport him involuntarily. And you're worried about chaos in the legal system? This is the same Judge who took sentencing advice from a reporter, took bookings for courtroom seats from friends and told lawyers on both sides what to say during the trial.

And everyone's comeback to that is, well he could always appeal.

Originally Posted by nist7

Ok, so even back in 1977, it was clear that this "over zealous" prosecutor (mind you, this "over zealous prosecutor" didn't think probation for a few months is justice for the rape of a 13 year old, and I would think most people would agree to that as well) and the Judge violated legal ethics code. BUT, of course the way in which that prosecutor handled his opinion was unethical. And so now the Judge is unethically influenced and this spooked Polanski real bad and he fled the country to avoid any jail time.

I don't think it's complciated.

Wrong prosecutor. I was talking about the prosecutor who actually tried the case.



Again, I'm not defending what he did, not even saying he was right to flee. All I'm saying is, sex with a minor does not equal paedophilia and that I can understand his decision to flee.

[Jakain]

Definitely should be made an example of; this guy made millions and capitalized on Americans all the while being a fugitive at large. He made a mockery of the legal system and deserves justice.

Running away from the law is just a bad move, period.

[MacGuffin]

Well, he definitely learned to know the USA from its worst sides. I can understand he fled. If I had to endure what he had to there, I would avoid that country for the rest of my life.

Not excusing what he did but I can understand why he didn't trust in the judicial system and fled.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

Well, he definitely learned to know the USA from its worst sides. I can understand he fled. If I had to endure what he had to there, I would avoid that country for the rest of my life.

Not excusing what he did but I can understand why he didn't trust in the judicial system and fled.

Yeah, being punished for crimes committed and unable to get off based on fame alone, how god awful a place this is. Better to find a country that has no laws against raping 13 year olds, beyond probation and a slap on the wrist.

I find it disgusting that he would get off so easily in the first place, but celebrities are known for getting off easy. No wonder he got spooked by the possibility of having to serve his time. But as far as I'm concerned, he fled on paranoia alone. And that's not a good enough excuse, imo.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by TomCat

Yeah, being punished for crimes committed and unable to get off based on fame alone, how god awful a place this is. Better to find a country that has no laws against raping 13 year olds, beyond probation and a slap on the wrist.

I think he was referring to the murder of his pregnant wife and subsequent treatment by the media, blaming him/them and their lifestyle for what happened, some claiming the murderers were friends etc.

[TomCat]

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

I think he was referring to the murder of his pregnant wife and subsequent treatment by the media, blaming him/them and their lifestyle for what happened, some claiming the murderers were friends etc.

Well, that's part of being a celebrity. Media scrutiny, paparazzi, and everything else.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by TomCat

Well, that's part of being a celebrity. Media scrutiny, paparazzi, and everything else.

Thanks. I suppose not everyone here is familiar with the murder of Polanski's highly pregnant wife Sharon Tate by the Manson gang.

Originally Posted by TomCat

Well, that's part of being a celebrity. Media scrutiny, paparazzi, and everything else.

Does "everysthing else" include getting your pregnant wife slashed by a bunch of maniacs of the kind that only seem to live in America?