View Poll Results: Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, but only if he gets the plea bargain again.

    6 14.29%
  • Yes, without the plea bargain as the court sees fit.

    24 57.14%
  • No, it's too late for all of this now.

    4 9.52%
  • No, he paid the victim compensation, so it's over.

    8 19.05%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59

Thread: Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160

    Should Roman Polanksi return to face court for rape?

    Hello all,

    Here is the simple Wiki summary of the facts to avoid bias on either side of the issue:

    In 1977, Polanski was arrested in Los Angeles and pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", a 13-year-old girl (he was 44 years old at the time).[8] Released after a 42-day psychiatric evaluation, Polanski fled to France, has had a U.S. arrest warrant outstanding since 1978,[9] and an international arrest warrant since 2005.[10] Polanski for many years avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him, such as the United Kingdom, and traveled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland. As a French citizen, he was protected in France by the country's limited extradition with the U.S.[11] On September 26, 2009, he was arrested, at the request of U.S. authorities, by Swiss police, on arrival at Zürich Airport while trying to enter Switzerland[10] to pick up a lifetime achievement "Golden Icon Award" from the Zurich Film Festival.[12][13]


    The sticking point seems to be that there was a plea bargain for a 42 day sentence the original judge seemed to be going to renege ( go back ) on. So Polanski fled the country to avoid a harsher sentence he thought was coming.

    The question: should Roman Polanski return to face the court system?

    Hmmmm,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-30-2009 at 08:52 PM.

  2. #2
    the question is,
    what is he facing if he comes back with no deal?
    how long in jail?

    of course,he will have top $$$ lawyers finding ways to get him free.
    instead of wasting his money on lawyers,
    he should come back with a new deal and pay a huge "get out of jail free" fine to california.

    As far as I know,
    he has kept his nose clean since he fled.
    the victim was paid off nicely.
    make a deal so both sides,polanski and the los angeles DA,
    can both agree that the original judge was a moron and that polanski is a pedophile,
    and then throw him back out of the USA,never to return.
    then see if other countries like England and Canada will let him visit as a convicted sex offender.
    Last edited by Morris Wanchuk; 09-30-2009 at 12:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
    the question is, what is he facing if he comes back with no deal? how long in jail?
    Who knows? No one else who runs away gets to know what they will face when they are finally captured. He should face the same justice as anyone else.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    No, the victim herself is not interested in testifying. she has moved on with her life. Making her testify will only rip open old scars and make her suffer all over again. If she were still suffering over the incident, that would be a different story. ...and that is two cents worth.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by naughtylady View Post
    No, the victim herself is not interested in testifying. she has moved on with her life. Making her testify will only rip open old scars and make her suffer all over again. If she were still suffering over the incident, that would be a different story. ...and that is two cents worth.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    Wasn't he convicted and was just awaiting sentencing? If so the victim would not have to testify I don't think.....unless a victim impact statement is mandatory - which seems hard to believe.

  6. #6
    The trial has already taken place, he is just going back to serve time. If he gets off then the justice system will fall apart. It will seem that well known or rich people can get off criminal charges when the average shmo has to serve hard time.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Jones View Post
    The trial has already taken place, he is just going back to serve time. If he gets off then the justice system will fall apart. It will seem that well known or rich people can get off criminal charges when the average shmo has to serve hard time.
    Well I'm not sure that's true. If he was an average shmo do you really think that they would have set up this operation with the Swiss police after 32 years and spend all the money on extradition. I actually think it works in reverse now.

  8. #8
    Merlot, the wiki summary you posted leaves out a lot of important information such as the following, also from Wikipedia:

    Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported toChino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. All parties expected Polanski to get only probation at the subsequent sentencing hearing, but after an alleged conversation with LA Deputy District Attorney David Wells, the judge "suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send the director to prison and order him deported". In response to the threat of imprisonment, Polanski fled the United States.
    You will notice in the section I highlited that he left the US and returned to serve out his plea agreement. This shows good faith on his part and it was only after he was informed of the judge going back on the agreement that he fled.

    Now we hear from the victim:

    In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."
    The bottom line is that if the judge had stuck to the plea bargain, this would have all been over in 1978. Polanski would have been able to go on with his life and the girl involved could have lived her life in peace and total anonymity. But because of one judge committing judicial misconduct by discussing the case with someone he shouldn't have and allowing that person to influence his decision, according to reports of what happened, we are at the point we are at today.

    It seems to me that people aren't looking for justice as much as they are looking for revenge.
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160

    Just announced on CNN: There was no judicial misconduct.

    Hello all,

    Just announced on CNN, the prosecutor in the Polanski rape case has just said he lied about the conversation with the judge that had created the point of misconduct and there was NO JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT at all. According to CNN legal analysts the HBO interview in which the prosecutor says he lied about the misconduct is not admissible in court because it was not under oath and cannot be used by Polanski's lawyers. But as legal testimony or not, the admission by the prosecutor removes any argument by Polanski's lawyers that he will not be treated fairly in the U.S. courts and increases the likelihood of extradition back to the U.S.

    So boys, if you based your point on the reneging of the plea deal being due to judicial misconduct that argument has been eliminated, if the new admission is true. Considering such an admission would put the prosecutor in a very bad position ethically it's seems like quite a risk to say it for nothing or if it's not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Techman View Post
    You will notice in the section I highlited that he left the US and returned to serve out his plea agreement. This shows good faith on his part and it was only after he was informed of the judge going back on the agreement that he fled.
    Okay Techman,

    That's fine. It does look honorable to return to court to serve time. However, that was when it was most favorable to him, and his honorable status ended as soon as he chose to run. Now that the prosecutor says he lied about the conversation with the judge, it looks much more like there was no misconduct and the judge just didn't want to accept the plea agreement, which he is entitled to do.

    Federal Rules for Plea Agreement:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule11.htm

    (3) Judicial Consideration of a Plea Agreement.

    (A) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.

    (B) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court must advise the defendant that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.

    (4) Accepting a Plea Agreement.

    If the court accepts the plea agreement, it must inform the defendant that to the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the agreed disposition will be included in the judgment.

    (5) Rejecting a Plea Agreement.

    If the court rejects a plea agreement containing provisions of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court must do the following on the record and in open court (or, for good cause, in camera):

    (A) inform the parties that the court rejects the plea agreement;

    (B) advise the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea; and

    (C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.

    Cheers,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-30-2009 at 08:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Who did he lie to, Merlot? If he lied to Polanski and his lawyer causing him to flee then the prosecutor is the one who is to blame for everything. I can't really comment on this until I know the details about who he lied to and exactly what he lied about.
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  11. #11
    1. David Wells was NOT a prosecutor in the Polanski case. He had nothing to do with the case at all. But he admitted that he had ex parte communications with judge Rittenband and tried to influence him.

    2. Last January, Wells told The Times that he regretted making the statements but never said they were untrue.

    3. Now he said he lied. So he's either confused or a lier or both.

    4. Wells statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case.

    5. All parties involved, the Polanski defense team, Geimer's attorney AND the prosecution
    called Rittenband's conduct of the case "frivolous, contradictory, erratic, and profoundly injudicious".

    "Rittenband was so frivolous and uncertain that he sought and followed advice from a cub reporter, his two girlfriends, and his bailiff."

    So no, the judicial misconduct argument has not been eliminated. And perhaps all this outrage over Polanski should be directed at the US legal system, for messing up and making a circus of every high profile celebrity trial they get involved with, and at law enforcement for waiting 30+ years to arrest Polanski. They are the ones who should be blamed for deriliction of duty, and for trivializing the rape of a 13 y/o girl.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    1. David Wells was NOT a prosecutor in the Polanski case. He had nothing to do with the case at all. But he admitted that he had ex parte communications with judge Rittenband and tried to influence him.

    2. Last January, Wells told The Times that he regretted making the statements but never said they were untrue.

    3. Now he said he lied. So he's either confused or a lier or both.

    4. Wells statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case.

    5. All parties involved, the Polanski defense team, Geimer's attorney AND the prosecution
    called Rittenband's conduct of the case "frivolous, contradictory, erratic, and profoundly injudicious".

    "Rittenband was so frivolous and uncertain that he sought and followed advice from a cub reporter, his two girlfriends, and his bailiff."

    So no, the judicial misconduct argument has not been eliminated. And perhaps all this outrage over Polanski should be directed at the US legal system, for messing up and making a circus of every high profile celebrity trial they get involved with, and at law enforcement for waiting 30+ years to arrest Polanski. They are the ones who should be blamed for deriliction of duty, and for trivializing the rape of a 13 y/o girl.

    Hello JB,

    Thanks for the clarification. I had to write down a blurb of news quickly and I may have misunderstood who Wells was. However, despite using some better identification facts some of this is your opinion only.

    While whatever went on in the legal or judicial procedural process seems to have been questionable, blaming this mess on the legal system is misplaced.

    Remember two things that are the fulcrums of all of this:

    1. NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS!

    2. DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS!

    The worst parts of this case start with Polanski. His rape of a 13 year old is the case. His running kept this an issue for him, the court, the public, and especially the victim he also continues to victimize by running for 32 years.

    BTW! The Polanski case reminds me of an old adage that says something about jail/prison being for the poor. Is it justice that a wealthy and famous person can buy off the crime while those without money who commit the same crime do the time behind bars?????

    Cheers,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-30-2009 at 09:03 PM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlot View Post
    While whatever went on in the legal or judicial procedural process seems to have been questionable, blaming this mess on the legal system is misplaced.
    NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS! As in don't be a celebrity and rape someone cause we'll screw up your trial! Really?. The US justice system screwed up and then let him go. I can't fathom how this blame is misplaced.

    DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS! He's been at large for 30+ years, because of the above ineptitude, and suddenly someone wakes up from their stupor and goes "hmmmm maybe we should actually make an effort to get him!". That's pathetic and the blame is warranted.

    And how is he victimizing the victim when she forgave him, repeatedly asked for the charges to be dropped, and repeatedly argued that she was feeling victimized by the US justice system.

    In 1997, after Geimer forgave Polanski, an LA judge offered to drop all charges against him if he showed up in court in the US. The only condition: that the entire proceedings be televised. Polanski declined to be part of that circus.

    BTW! The Polanski case reminds me of an old adage that says something about jail/prison being for the poor. Is it justice that a wealthy and famous person can buy off the crime while those without money who commit the same crime do the time behind bars?????
    Perhaps, but 30+ years later, the old adage works backwards, i.e. if this wasn't a wealthy famous person, nobody would give a shit.
    Last edited by JustBob; 09-30-2009 at 09:20 PM.

  14. #14
    ...and especially the victim he also continues to victimize by running for 32 years.
    Merlot, why is it that even the victim herself doesn't blame Polanski for the situation and actually blames the justice system but you insist on putting all the blame solely on Polanski's shoulders? He hasn't been victimizing her for over 30 years, the justice system has by continually recounting the intimate details of the case in the press.

    They have had numerous chances over the years to have Polanski arrested in Switzerland but have never bothered to do so. Why now all of a sudden? Why bring this all back up in the press and once again subject the woman to all the details of the case again?

    Do I blame Polanski for the original rape, of course. Do I blame him for running when it looked that he was going to be made an example of, against the deal that was set and eventually deported? No, I don't. If you are going to get deported and never permitted to return after going to prison anyways, well you might as well skip the prison part and just leave on your own.

    As I wrote in an earlier post, there's a lot of blame to go around here and not all of it belongs on Polanski's shoulders.
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Visiting Planet Earth
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    NO RAPE, NO LEGAL MESS! As in don't be a celebrity and rape someone cause we'll screw up your trial! Really?. The US justice system screwed up and then let him go. I can't fathom how this blame is misplaced.
    Are you saying the rape itself is not the problem, it's that the guilty celebrity rapist is worth too much publicity. Poor celebrities. All that fame and wealth and they can't get a fair trial. Should I suggest a new legal code stating that celebrities get a free pass on crime because trial would get too much publicity. Oooops, we should add high profile cases like the "Son of Sam" because there is also massive publicity in such cases even though the killer wasn't a celebrity previously. Oooops again, child kidnappings, corporate scams, terrorist plots also get way too much publicity. Maybe it's easier to outline who should be tried. Poor Timothy McVeigh. If only he hadn't killed so many in such a big way he might have gotten a fair trial and be having a beer today. But don't worry. OJ won...for a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    DON'T RUN, DON'T CONTINUE THE MESS! He's been at large for 30+ years, because of the above ineptitude, and suddenly someone wakes up from their stupor and goes "hmmmm maybe we should actually make an effort to get him!". That's pathetic and the blame is warranted.
    Are you saying the rules are if you don't catch a rapist quickly the legal system is to blame, not his running to where he can't be extradited. Cool!

    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    And how is he victimizing the victim when she forgave him, repeatedly asked for the charges to be dropped, and repeatedly argued that she was feeling victimized by the US justice system.
    Well surprise, the victim doesn't want to go through all of this again after Polanski dodged the court for 32 years. She doesn't want the publicity after she got on with her life. Isn't that surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    In 1997, after Geimer forgave Polanski, an LA judge offered to drop all charges against him if he showed up in court in the US. The only condition: that the entire proceedings be televised. Polanski declined to be part of that circus.
    .
    You are saying the victim forgave him, the LA Judge offered to drop charges, what he wanted in the beginning, then, and now, and he still refused to show. Well hell, now I understand his reluctance to be exposed as the rapist he is on television, especially when so many already knew all about him. Obviously refusing to accept that offer shows he's a poor victim no one will give a break to. And you dare blame the court for continuing this and victimizing the victim when he passed on his best opportunity to end all of this 12 years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
    Perhaps, but 30+ years later, the old adage works backwards, i.e. if this wasn't a wealthy famous person, nobody would give a shit.
    Your implication here in my case is nonsense. I have known about Polanski for many years and feel the same way now as before this new round. I don't care if you believe that, but if you insist on making the same sort of presumption to speak for how I think then you have no credibility or honor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Techman View Post
    Merlot, why is it that even the victim herself doesn't blame Polanski for the situation and actually blames the justice system but you insist on putting all the blame solely on Polanski's shoulders? He hasn't been victimizing her for over 30 years, the justice system has by continually recounting the intimate details of the case in the press.
    Where did I say all? But where does this whole thing start? Did the prosecutor rape? Did the judge rape? Did the jury rape? Does any of this happen if Polanski used his wealth to get his rocks off with an ADULT escort when he could probably afford dozens with the money he probably paid to escape jail or prison for this crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Techman View Post
    Do I blame Polanski for the original rape, of course. Do I blame him for running when it looked that he was going to be made an example of, against the deal that was set and eventually deported? No, I don't. If you are going to get deported and never permitted to return after going to prison anyways, well you might as well skip the prison part and just leave on your own.
    But didn't our friend JustBob just point out that all of this would have been over in 1997 in exactly the way Polanski wanted, "Scott Free" if he had just decided to show up. He was given the opportunity to have it exactly as he wanted and be free of any worries about being hunted by the law and he said: "NO!" And you still blame the court for continuing this mess.

    ish,

    Merlot
    Last edited by Merlot; 09-30-2009 at 10:33 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •