[Reuters]Roman Polanski arrested in Switzerland 31 years after fleeing trial

No one here is arguing that child rape is A-OK. What I am saying is that the trial of Polanski for that crime was terribly, terribly flawed, as both the prosecutor in the case and defense attorneys have said publicly. I don't think that it's such a difficult thing to grasp both concepts at once.

Child rape = bad.
Judges who lie / break the law while sentencing child rapists = also bad.

It would be helpful to rent Wanted & Desired, for a fuller portrayal of the various flaws in the case.

Absent that,
NY Times: "Film Cited in Request to Dismiss Polanski Case"

 

He has the ability to appeal and use his lawyers to demonstrate that in court. Instead he fled the country. The legal system has means to address issues in which a judge was in error or broke with procedure.

I don't think he should get off the hook for this, he should go through the process.

That said, I have read that the woman who was raped doesn't want a trial and wants it to be over as the trial and publicity is causing more pain to her than the original crime.

If this is the case, then I think it should be dropped. Not because of anything but respect for the victim and letting her move on with her life.

 

One thing I would like to point out is that I find it interesting that prosecution of statutory rape is not barred by a statute of limitation in that state. E.g. in Germany, 10 years after the victim's 18th birthday, Polanski would no longer be prosecuted (only murder is never barred by a statute of limitation here).

All the other stuff aside, I think it needs to be taken into account (at least for determining the severity of the sanction to be imposed) that what happened happened over 30 years ago and the victim has in the meantime forgiven the guy.

Also, I do think it makes a difference whether it was "just" statutory rape (bad enough) or actual forcible rape. I understand that a 13-year old cannot give valid consent, but again, it seems to make a difference to me when determining the sanction.

 

So.
At this point in this argument.

The Pro-Polanski squad have these two points
1. He should get off because it was so long ago
2. He should get off because he had a hard life
3. He should get off because the little girl was a druggie slut
4. He should get off because the judge was a smuck

does that about sum it up?

Rocket River
Lessons to be learn from this.
1. Run from the law long enough . . . you will be forgiven
2. Hardlife Excuses anything
3. It is ok to do a crime. . .as long as the vicitim is a bad person or at least smearable
4. Always investigate then judge for smuckiness

 

so . . if i give her a roofie .. .that is better
I think folx on this whole consent thing
seem to be rather dismissive of the fact she was on a drug
and alcohol . . .

Rocket River

 

exactly? there's no debate on this topic, even if you want to try to argue that she could give consent she was on freakin drugs that he gave her.

 

I wanted to address this plea bargain angle. Someone please correct me where I'm wrong, but this is how I understand it. The prosecutor and defense attorney work out a deal where the defendant will plead guilty to one set of charges and, in exchange, the prosecutor will drop other charges brought by the State and will recommend a certain punishment to the court. The court is under no obligation to follow the recommendation of the prosecution in sentencing, and everyone knows there is a danger in copping a plea that the court will not follow the recommendation. At least, however, the court cannot pass a sentence on charges the prosecution has dropped.

With that understanding, it is a bit too glib to say that the judge "reneged" on the deal. He was not in the negotiation of the deal and is not obligated to honor it. It was a sweetheart deal anyway; perhaps if they had negotiated a more meaningful punishment, the judge would have been more inclined to honor it. Speaking to the judge's concern for PR, how would it have looked for him to give the famous director time-served for such a lewd crime? Everyone would accuse him of giving preferential treatment, and they would have been right. As for the life sentence, we don't know what punishment he would have handed down, because he wasn't given the opportunity.

Finally, on fairness in the courts, defendants are ground up in the justice system every day. They are lied to by law enforcement, tricked by prosecutors, left vulnerable by useless public defenders, and run afoul of ******* judges on power-trips. It sucks, but that's our system. If Jose the petty drug-pusher can have his life destroyed by the whims of the justice system, why can't Roman Polanski?

 

No.

1. No.

2. No.

3. No. This is a terrible aspect of rape trials ("blame the victim"), but had it gone to trial the defense would likely have brought up the girl's independently verified past sexual history and drug use, to refute the charges that Polanski forced the drugs on her and to refute her version of events. This is unseemly, perhaps, but not surprising, and entirely necessary in an adversarial judicial system. The victim's story appears convincing, and is likely the truth. Though, the prosecutor obviously either did not fully trust the girl's version of events, or he did not believe he could satisfactorily prove them to a jury, so he decided to accept the plea bargain only on the age-related aspect of the crime.

4. Actually, yes. Polanski had what should have been a binding agreement to let him off with time served and possibly probation, in exchange for pleading guilty to the unlawful sex (statutory rape) charge. This was light, true, but in keeping with others convicted of similar offenses, and in keeping with what was recommended when he was evaluated. The judge, however, became concerned with how public perception would reflect upon him, and reneged on the deal. (In doing so, the judge behaved illegally.) So, by fleeing the States, Polanski wasn't fleeing abstract notions of what we consider justice, he was fleeing the already agreed-upon zero additional prison time and, at most, a period of probation. Or, more precisely, he was fleeing a corrupt judge who was unwilling to honor what was had already been worked out in accordance with the law. Staying to fight the case, arguing that the presiding judge was corrupt, was for Polanski potentially a suicide pact.

I don't agree with his decision to flee, but I find it highly understandable. So, apparently in reviewing Polanski's case, did the French government. By his logic, he had submitted to the demands of the system, and had been promised time served and at worst possible probation for his crime. At the last minute, after he'd already agreed to plead guilty based on that punishment outcome, Polanski was told by his lawyer that he could no longer trust the judge to carry through on that punishment. So he, a foreigner in a foreign land, was supposed to trust that, months/years of prison time later, the judges on the appellate court would not be equally corrupt? He took off, figuring he'd already served his prison time owed.

From a Slate "Explainer":

Perhaps I am blinded by my admiration for Polanski's art, separated from Polanski's life. He deserved punishment, without question. But I do not believe Polanski, given the provable facts of the case, should have spent the rest of his life in jail. And if he was supposed to spend a sizable chunk of his remaining life in jail, he should have done so having been given a fair hearing, a chance to fight the case in front of a jury, not because a corrupt judge tricked him, wanted to get a more favorable headline to fit onto one page of the judge's media scrapbook. If anyone could redeem himself after spending time in prison, if anyone had anything to offer to the rest of society after he got out, one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century certainly could.

Do you really think that sentiment should be distilled into: "Judge was a smuck [sic]?"

I believe you are strictly correct. However, in this case the judge (if memory serves) had already approved the sentence going forward, behind closed doors, leading to Polanski's guilty plea. As you can see from the above excerpt, the judge behaved unethically / illegally in changing his mind, by allowing a different prosecutor to come in and sweet talk him out of the deal.

You have a point. But just because Jose is also treated unfairly, Polanski should be as well, and willingly submit to same? The difference, I guess, is that ultimately Polanski could afford a plane ticket out of town.

 

I am not a lawyer or anything but I've had to stand before a judge with a plea bargain. Juan Valdez has it right as far as I know. The Judge will ask you if you you are entering a plea of guilt. Then he asks you if you are doing so because of any promises made by the prosecution, which they cannot...or something like that. Whenever you make the deal with the prosecutor, even he/she will tell you that the Judge may not honor the deal. The Judge did something illegal???

I got to say Im surprised there are people here trying to diminish what the guy did. He drugged and raped a 13 year old. I really wish the victim wanted too see justice served, far too many times these scum go unpunished.

 

Where is anyone doing that?

How is pointing out that the courts badly mismanaged his legal case in any way diminishing Polanski's crime?

 

Because he made Chinatown and rosemary's baby

Rocket River

 

Not quite. But, for me as a third party, looking at the cases of Polanski and Jose, where one says "I will not submit to this injustice!" and flees, and the other stays because he has to, I cannot sympathize with the man who flees. If there is to be injustice, it should at least be fairly distributed. I would have had a much different (and higher) opinion of Polanski if he stayed to fight injustice and try to improve the court system for himself and Jose.

Also, I think it'd be fairer to say the judge acted unethically, instead of illegally. The judge could be legally reproached for his decision-making. I don't think the decision itself could be legally reproached.

 

Aghast:

You've repeatedly said that the 'light' sentence was 'in keeping with others convicted of similar crimes.' Really? I find that hard to believe. 40 days for a 40+ YO man having sex with a 13 YO.

You've also stated he was facing life behind bars. But from the Slate article it says jail and deportation. Regardless....his crime was alleged to have taken place in the US, and his trial was scheduled for the US. If the judge's improprieties were serious enough, his lawyers should have raised that at the trial or appeal.

Instead, he chose to skip bail. I suppose you'd say he released himself on his own recognisance. But since he chose to do that (which isn't really a legitimate option ) he faced arrest on that charge alone if he stepped foot in the US or in countries with which the US has extradition treaties. And that's what happened here.

So try him now. If 40 days is the going rate -- then, I suppose, this time a less corrupt judge will set him free with time served. Maybe tack on some probation for the whole AWOL thing. Because -- you know -- he made some great movies and all.

 

Read post #97 :http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4777840&postcount=97.
There are two others that I cant believe, especially the one where.. "maybe she felt guilty so she lied" Really?!? Maybe she was drugged and raped. Maybe she just dreamt it. Cmon!!

Also, maybe Im missing it, how the courts mismanage his case? Could you also elaborate on how the Judge was "not acting within the law" What did the Judge do? He was supposed to give Polanski time served, what did he do instead?

 

The documentary and Aghast's contention is that since the judge met with a California DA, without Polanski's lawyers present, and that even though that DA was not involved in the Polanski case, as he did represent California, the judge therefore met with one side without the other present.

This DA, unrelated to the case, was apparently appalled that Polanski was seen laughing and drinking with young girls while his trial was going on. In essence, had the judge asked Polanski "KID...Have you rehabilitated yourself?" this DA felt Polanski would have had to answer "NO" and he may have influenced the judge to reach the same conclusion. Thus leading to the judge not honouring the original plea.

 

You're right; clearly, once he fled, the die was cast.

An interesting perspective, from the victim's 2003 op-ed, LA Times -- "Judge the Movie, Not the Man"
[rquoter]Judge the Movie, Not the Man
Roman Polanski's 25-year-old crimes should not damage his chances for an Oscar, his victim says.

By Samantha Geimer

February 23, 2003

I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.

It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy. Those may sound like kindergarten words, but that's the way it feels to me. It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart.

We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal.

Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since.

Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. But it was also 25 years ago -- 26 years next month. And, honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison.

[...]

And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind.

I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim?

If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy. I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence.

My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell, and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since.

Today, I am very happy with my life. I have three sons and a husband. I live in a beautiful place and I enjoy my work. What more could I ask for? No one needs to worry about me.

The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.[/rquoter]

Either it's Stockholm Syndrome, a result of whatever financial settlement they agreed to, her genuine feelings, or some combination of the above.

 

The maybe isn't out of the question just like Poloski could have premeditated it also. Some people lie out of shame. For example, the mother dropped her off alone with a 40 year old man in the 1970s where the casting couch was probably very prevalent. Say the mother found out what the girl did and the girl to not look bad in front of her mother says she didn't do it consensually. Yes I know that a 13 year old girl and a 40 year old man is disgusting and legally wrong but also as far as I know she willingly took the drug too. Does taking the drug mean you deserve to be raped ... of course not. But not knowing everything about the case, I at least I don't take her side or his side of events completely at face value like its gospel. He did say after all that he didn't pre-meditate it but I have a feeling he expected sex out of the scheduled meeting (casting couch).

Edit: On a side note, the mother is even sicker. I find it hard to believe that the mother wouldn't know what would happen with the hollywood casting couch and all. At least she should have known better.

 

There is a difference between pointing out what would have been brought up in a trial and agreeing with that tactic. The girl's past sexual history and drug use would have been brought up by the defense in a trial, in an effort to discredit her story of being plied with drugs by Polanski. If memory serves, Polanski's contention was that they both found the champagne & drugs at Nicholson's house, he never took drugs, and she of her own volition took some. Doubtless, had it gone to trial the defense would have pointed out that, as a model posing for Vogue, she had a motive to seduce Polanski to further her modeling or acting career. That doesn't mean I believe that's true, but clearly the prosecutor realized he would have a hard time proving the victim's version of events to a jury, and so agreed to the plea bargain.

I don't think "maybe she felt guilty so she lied" is directed at me; if so, it is a misreading, or I have poorly conveyed my meaning. Again, I find the victim's version of events to be likely, convincing. That said, Polanski was never tried before a jury based upon her version of events; he only pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor.

In addition to the unethical dealings with the third party district attorney, both the defense counsel and the lead prosecutor in the case have come forward, and on the record, detailed how the judge would repeatedly gather them in chambers to decide key issues (if memory serves, this was during pretrial motions), then would force them to go back out in front of the court and deliver a show trial. Each side would argue according to the virtual script given to them by the judge, and they would go through this farce, knowing that the judge had already decided the issues at hand. It was all for the benefit of the press. The judge was known as corrupt, womanizing. If memory serves, he specifically sought out all the cases that had anything to do with Hollywood celebrities (divorce proceedings, traffic tickets, etc.), just so that he could get his name in the paper.

What was most convincing about the documentary Wanted & Desired is that, again, they interviewed the prosecutor in the case, and he corroborated all of Polanski's lawyers' charges of the judge's venality / ethical corruption. Mind you, the prosecutor had nothing to gain from doing so, but did so out of duty, because he felt the judge behaved improperly / Polanski was given an unfair hearing.